House Votes to Expand Hate Crimes Definition - NYTimes.com

Image via Wikipedia

By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON — The House voted Thursday to expand the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s sexual orientation, a step that would extend new protection to lesbian, gay and transgender people.

Democrats hailed the vote of 281 to 146, which brought the measure to the brink of becoming law, as the culmination of a long push to curb violent expressions of bias like the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student.

“Left unchecked, crimes of this kind threaten to ruin the very fabric of America,” said Representative Susan A. Davis, Democrat of California, a leading supporter of the legislation.

Under current federal law, hate crimes that fall under federal jurisdiction are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin.

The new measure would broaden the definition to include those committed because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. It was approved by the House right before a weekend when gay rights will be a focus in Washington, with a march to the Capitol and a speech by President Obama to the Human Rights Campaign.

Republicans criticized the legislation, saying violent attacks were already illegal regardless of motive. They said the measure was an effort to create a class of “thought crimes” whose prosecution would require ascribing motivation to the attacker.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, called the legislation radical social policy.

“The idea that we’re going to pass a law that’s going to add further charges to someone based on what they may have been thinking, I think is wrong,” Mr. Boehner said.

Republicans were also furious that the measure was attached to an essential $681 billion military policy bill, and accused Democrats of legislative blackmail.

Even some Republican members of the usually collegial House Armed Services Committee who helped write the broader legislation, which authorizes military pay, weapons programs and other necessities for the armed forces, opposed the bill in the end, solely because of the hate crimes provision.

“We believe this is a poison pill, poisonous enough that we refuse to be blackmailed into voting for a piece of social agenda that has no place in this bill,” said Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, a senior Republican member of the committee.

On the final vote, 237 Democrats were joined by 44 Republicans in support of the bill; 131 Republicans and 15 Democrats opposed it. The Democratic opponents were a mix of conservatives who were against the hate crimes provision and liberals opposed to Pentagon provisions.

The military bill has yet to be approved by the Senate. But the hate crimes provision has solid support there, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the overall bill outweighed his own objections to including the hate crimes measure.

Mr. Obama supports the hate crimes provision, though the White House has raised objections to elements of the bill related to military acquisitions. If signed into law, the hate crimes legislation would reflect the ability of Democrats to enact difficult measures with their increased majorities in Congress and a Democrat in the White House.

“Elections have consequences,” Mr. McCain said.

Similar hate crime provisions have passed the House and the Senate in previous years but have never been able to clear their final hurdles. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that it was fitting that Congress was acting now, since next Monday is the 11th anniversary of Matthew Shepard’s killing. The hate crimes part of the bill is named for Mr. Shepard and James Byrd Jr., a black man killed in a race-based attack in Texas the same year.

The hate crimes legislation would give the federal government authority to prosecute violent crimes of antigay bias when local authorities failed to act. It would also allocate $5 million a year to the Justice Department to provide assistance to local communities in investigating hate crimes, a process that can sometimes strain police resources. And it would allow the department to assist in the inquiry and local prosecution if requested.

“The problem of crimes motivated by bias,” the measure says, “is sufficiently serious, widespread and interstate in nature as to warrant federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions and Indian tribes.”

Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who heads the Armed Services Committee, said that the Federal Bureau of Investigation recorded reports of more than 77,000 hate crimes from 1998 through 2007 and that crimes based on sexual orientation were on an upward trend.

“The hate crimes act will hopefully deter people from being targeted for violent attacks because of the color of their skin or their religion, their disability, their gender or their sexual orientation, regardless of where the crime takes place,” he said.

But Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 House Republican, said the measure could inhibit freedom of speech and deter religious leaders from discussing their views on homosexuality for fear that those publicly expressed views might be linked to later assaults.

“It is just simply wrong,” Mr. Pence said, “to use a bill designed to support our troops to reverse the very freedoms for which they fight.”

Democrats, however, noted that the bill would specifically bar prosecution based on an individual’s expression of “racial, religious, political or other beliefs.” It also states that nothing in the measure should be “construed to diminish any rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

MPs pass juvenile abuse statutes - The Phnom Penh Post

Image via Wikipedia

PARLIAMENTARIANS voted unanimously Wednesday to approve articles of the Kingdom’s draft Penal Code that would criminalise negligence and abuse of children, breaking from several days of heated partisan debate over other aspects of the proposed legislation.

Articles 337 and 338 in Chapter 5 of the new code state that parents or guardians who damage the health of their children aged under 15 years could face prison sentences of two to five years and fines of 4 million to 10 million riels (US$958 to $2,395).

In more serious cases, when juveniles die of starvation or other causes, prison sentences may stretch to 15 years.

Hy Sophea, a secretary of state at the Ministry of Justice who addressed the National Assembly on the Penal Code on behalf of the government, explained that the penalty for death due to starvation will only apply in the case of parents who have the ability to provide for their children but do not.

“If a person is simply too poor to provide for their children, that is not a violation of the law,” he said.

Cheam Yeap, a lawmaker from the ruling Cambodian People’s Party, said that an important aspect of implementing the new Penal Code will be educating Cambodian citizens about the new provisions relating to child abuse and other offenses.

“Cambodia is still a developing country, but raising awareness about the criminal code needs to be a high priority for government institutions, parliamentarians and civil-society groups,” he said.

Mu Sochua, a lawmaker from the opposition Sam Rainsy Party, said that she supported the articles passed Wednesday because they will bolster the rights of vulnerable children, though she added that dire levels of poverty remain a threat to child welfare in Cambodia.

“We are happy to pass a law that pressures parents to take responsibility for their children, but children in Cambodia still face many other problems,” she said.

“Many are victims of child labour, trafficking, exploitation and poverty, and we estimate that 50 percent of juveniles quit school before they reach grade nine.”

Samleang Seila, the executive director of Action Pour Les Enfants, a child-rights group, said that he had not yet seen the newly passed articles, but he said that he worried about the lack of protections for civil-society groups who work on behalf of abused children.

“So far, there has not been any law that has authorised shelters and legal guardians to represent children,” he said, noting that shelters currently have no power to keep abused children when families ask for their return.

Thun Saray, president of the local rights group Adhoc, was more optimistic about the newly approved articles, though he emphasised the need for local authorities to follow through on the law’s provisions.

“I think it’s a good idea to imprison people who abuse young children, but we remain concerned about the ability of law enforcement to enforce these provisions,” he said.

ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY JAMES O’TOOLE

Obama Calls for Repeal of Defense of Marriage Act

By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 18, 2009

The Obama administration distanced itself Monday from legal arguments it had made earlier this summer, taking pains to remove and renounce language that had outraged advocates in the gay community in a case that centers on the constitutionality of a same-sex marriage law.

In a filing by the Justice Department, administration lawyers made it clear for the first time in court that the president thinks the 13-year-old Defense of Marriage Act, which denies benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and allows states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states, discriminates against gays and should be repealed.

A lawsuit challenging the law, which is proceeding in a district court in California, became a touchstone this summer after leaders of the Human Rights Campaign and other prominent advocacy groups for gay men and lesbians complained to the White House about its slow pace in dealing with marriage, adoption, insurance and other hot-button issues important to the gay community.

Under decades of bipartisan tradition, the Justice Department is obliged to defend statutes passed by Congress, regardless of the political imperatives of the president. But gay activists registered their pique after government lawyers filed a brief in June that included language that appeared to equate same-sex marriage with incest and pedophilia. In another passage, the lawyers wrote that heterosexual marriage is "the traditional and universally recognized form."

Neither argument appears in a follow-up brief the Justice Department filed Monday. Senior trial counsel W. Scott Simpson embraced findings by researchers and prominent medical groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association, in saying "that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents."

And, in an unusual turn, Obama issued a statement Monday affirming that he would continue to seek repeal of the law, which has been upheld by federal judges in Florida and Washington state. The president said that he would "examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) couples under existing law."

Government lawyers continued to assert that the law passes constitutional muster, but they pointed to narrow grounds in seeking dismissal of the California case, Smelt v. United States. "The Justice Department cannot pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one Administration's policy preferences," department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.

Prominent gay rights advocates expressed satisfaction with the Justice Department's action Monday, as they turned up the heat on the White House to work with allies in Congress to overturn the 1996 law. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called on the president anew to take a "leadership role" in repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.

"It is not enough to disavow this discriminatory law, and then wait for Congress or the courts to act," Solmonese said. "While they contend that it is the DOJ's duty to defend an act of Congress, we contend that it is the Administration's duty to defend every citizen from discrimination."

Robert Raben, a Justice Department official in the 1990s who owns a Washington lobbying firm, said that the administration had "obviously heard deep concern" from advocates who expressed indignation at the initial court filing.

"Between the Department of Justice and the White House, they did the best they could possibly do," Raben said in an interview. "It's their job to defend statutes, even lousy ones. The issue now becomes, let's get down to repealing DOMA."

The Obama administration, managing a busy and complicated legislative agenda, has not begun working with Congress to repeal the act, congressional and White House sources said. Dissatisfaction in the gay and lesbian community peaked in June, when some donors canceled plans to attend a Democratic National Committee fundraiser.

That month, Obama signed a memorandum that gives same-sex partners of federal employees access to long-term-care insurance benefits and allows civil servants to use sick leave to care for ailing domestic partners and children.

At a Washington conference in June, White House Staff Secretary Lisa Brown and vice presidential chief of staff Ronald Klain acknowledged dissatisfaction among the president's gay supporters.

"There's no question . . . that there were some cites in there that should not have been" in the earlier filing, Brown said at the American Constitution Society's annual conference, noting that this was her personal opinion. "The administration is trying hard; it's moving slowly," Brown said at the time.

Staff writer Scott Wilson contributed to this report.

Trade Group Asks Oil Companies to Recruit Employees for ‘Citizen' Rallies

By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 16, 2009

A petroleum industry trade group is asking oil companies to recruit employees and retirees to attend rallies attacking climate-change legislation, an approach to grass-roots politics that resembles strategies used recently by some opponents of health-care reform.

In a memo this month, American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard detailed plans for "Energy Citizen" rallies to be held in 20 states during the final two weeks of Congress's August recess. Gerard wrote that the intent was to put a "human face on the impacts of unsound energy policy," including a climate-change bill passed by the House in June.

"Please indicate to your company leadership your strong support for employee participation in the rallies," Gerard wrote in the memo, saying that contractors and suppliers should also be recruited.

Environmental groups on Saturday criticized the rallies, which they described as manufactured events intended to pass as organic assemblies of concerned citizens. Greenpeace activists said they saw parallels to the health-care debate, where opponents of reform -- including some organizations that receive heavy funding from industry groups and individuals -- have organized efforts to shout down lawmakers at "town hall" meetings.

"It's the most powerful among us, masquerading as grass-roots outrage to stifle debate on global warming," Michael Crocker, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said of the oil group's plans. "These are manufactured concerns, and the people who get involved in this are paid to put on this theater."

The memo, obtained by Greenpeace, was first reported on by the Financial Times Saturday.

Kert Davies, another official with Greenpeace, said the group opposes the climate bill, too, deeming it too lenient on polluters.

In a telephone interview, Gerard defended the meetings as events of education and discussion. He said they are designed to be standalone rallies, not efforts to pack lawmakers' scheduled meetings.

"There's a lot of folks out there that would like to suggest that anybody that doesn't agree with their views somehow doesn't play by the rules. We disagree strongly with that," Gerard said. His group says the bill passed by the House would cost millions of jobs and burden the U.S. economy with higher energy costs.

This skirmishing over the memo shows how hot the debate on climate-change legislation has become, even with health care dominating the Hill. Last week, the Center for Public Integrity found that 1,150 firms and advocacy groups were lobbying over climate- change legislation.

The House bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, measured against 2005 levels, by 2020. It would also require polluters to buy "allowances" for each ton of emissions and allow them to exceed their allotted share of pollution only by buying more allowances.

Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they will use the House bill as a model for their version of the legislation.

The oil industry seems divided on the issue. Shell Oil and BP America, both members of the American Petroleum Institute, are also members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has supported a "cap and trade" approach. Spokesmen for both companies said yesterday they would not participate in the "Energy Citizen" rallies.

And former vice president Al Gore's group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, is part of an effort to hold rallies attended by people who have -- or would like to have -- jobs in the renewable-energy sector. Their economic prospects might improve if a climate bill passes.

Alice McKeon, a spokeswoman for the group, said she did not think attendees were being recruited through their employers, in the way the oil group aims to do.

"They're reaching out to the businesses directly and getting their people involved in it, as employees, and that's not something that we've used as a tactic," she said.

Iraqi Journalists Protesting in Baghdad Say the Government Is Trying to Censor Them

By SAM DAGHER

BAGHDAD — Nearly 100 Iraqi journalists, news media workers and their supporters protested in Baghdad on Friday against what they said was a growing push by the country’s governing Shiite political parties to muzzle them.

“No, no to muzzling!” they shouted as they marched down Mutanabi Street. “Yes, yes to freedom!”

The government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has sought to censor certain publications and books, block Web sites it deems offensive and pass a new media law that would clamp down on journalists in the name of protecting them.

The proposed law, which was sent to Parliament last month, offers government grants to journalists and their families if they are disabled or killed because of “a terror act.” According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 167 Iraqi reporters and media support workers were killed in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2008. But the bill also defines what the government considers “moral” and sound journalistic practices.

Zuhair al-Jezairy, editor in chief of the Aswat Al Iraq news agency, who was in attendance, said that while the journalists’ grievances were legitimate, their message was diluted by the fact that most of them still viewed the government as their patron. “There are journalists who expect guns, land and salaries from the government,” he said.

Mr. Jezairy said that many Iraqi journalists — employed by outlets owned by the government, political parties and even neighboring countries with agendas in Iraq — had been turned into tools in the political struggle. There were abundant signs of this at the demonstration itself, which seemed to have as much to do with a recent spat over a bank robbery as with press freedom.

Sheik Jalaleddin al-Saghir, a Shiite cleric and member of Parliament from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq Party, lashed out last week at news media reports that he said insinuated that his party was behind the robbery, in which eight billion dinars, or $7 million, was stolen and eight people were killed. He said many of the journalists were members of Saddam Hussein’s banned Baath Party and promised to punish the offenders.

Among those leading Friday’s protest were two Shiite politicians who are rivals of Mr. Saghir’s. As the event got under way, word spread that the journalists who organized it were in the camp of the interior minister, Jawad al-Bolani, who has ambitions of becoming the next prime minister. And the event was boycotted by the Iraqi journalists’ union, which was promised plots of land for its members earlier this year by Mr. Maliki.

One journalist in particular, Ahmed Abdul-Hussein, was the target of much of Sheik Saghir’s wrath. In a recent Op-Ed article in the state-owned newspaper Al-Sabah, which is loyal to Mr. Maliki, Mr. Abdul-Hussein wrote that “we know, that they know, that we know” that the party that stole the money was going to use it to bribe people in the national elections next year. He offered no proof and did not name the party.

“How many blankets can you buy with eight billion dinars?” he wrote. Sheik Saghir took that as a reference to his party, which distributed blankets and electric heaters to voters during the provincial elections last January.

Malaysia: Drop Sedition Charges Against Parliamentarian

Repeal Sedition Act, Used as Political Weapon

August 10, 2009

(New York) - Malaysia's attorney general should immediately drop politically motivated sedition charges against Karpal Singh, a prominent lawyer and opposition member of parliament, Human Rights Watch said today. His trial is to begin on August 12, 2009. Human Rights Watch also urged the government to repeal without delay the colonial-era Sedition Act 1948, long used selectively against the government's political opponents.

On March 17, the government charged Karpal, national chairman of the opposition Democratic Action Party, under Section 4 (1)(b) of the Sedition Act. He is accused of using "seditious words" in a February 6 comment to journalists that the legality of a decision to return control of Perak's state government to Malaysia's ruling coalition could be questioned in court. Karpal has pleaded not guilty and is free on bail. If found guilty, Karpal faces up to three years in prison or a fine of up to RM5,000 [US$1,400] or both. As of April, 45 prosecution witnesses were due to take the stand.

"These sedition charges against Karpal are utterly baseless," said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Right Watch. "This is just an excuse to remove a powerful political opponent."

Perak was one of five states won, albeit by a razor-thin majority, by opposition candidates who worked in concert to defeat the ruling National Front (Barisan Nasional or BN) coalition in the March 2008 national elections. After several Perak assembly members crossed over to join the BN in January and February 2009, BN regained a majority. Rather than dissolve the state assembly and call for new elections, Sultan Azlan Shah decided in favor of BN, prompting Karpal's call for a court hearing. Suits related to the legitimacy of the newly constituted assembly are still in contention.

This is the second time Karpal has been charged under the Sedition Act. During his 2001 defense of Anwar Ibrahim against corruption charges in 2001, Karpal stated that Anwar's failing health in detention was "due to a high-level conspiracy to poison him with arsenic." The police charged Karpal with sedition, though then-Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail later withdrew the charges.

The Sedition Act defines "seditious tendency" as, "a tendency to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any ruler or against any government ... to raise discontent or disaffection among the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong [the Malaysian monarch] or of the ruler of any state ... (or) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by" certain articles in the Federal Constitution.

Article 181 of the constitution provides that no ruler may be charged in his official capacity in a court of law. Karpal did not suggest that charges should be brought against the sultan but suggested that his decision was subject to judicial review. The Sedition Act states that it is not seditious to "show that any ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures."

BN, which has ruled Malaysia since independence, relies on the Sedition Act as well as the Internal Security Act to repress free expression and assembly to silence and punish its critics.

Human Rights Watch urges that such laws be repealed or reviewed to conform to international standards.

"It's a fallacy to suggest Malaysia needs laws that violate basic rights in order to maintain a peaceful and harmonious society," said Pearson. "Malaysians have time and again proven themselves capable of exercising the basic democratic rights to which they are entitled. It's time their government listened."

Iraq's Maliki Seeks Tighter Media Grip

By CHARLES LEVINSON

BAGHDAD -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has proposed a series of laws that lawmakers, Western officials and nongovernmental organizations say could curb democratic freedoms in Iraq.

If successful, the push would tighten government control over political parties, NGOs and the media, aiding Mr. Maliki's efforts to centralize authority over the country as the U.S. role in Iraq dwindles.

"Maliki is using all his political power to push through constitutional changes that will centralize power in his hands under the umbrella of security," said Julia Pataki, an adviser to Iraq's parliament working for the U.S. State Department-funded Institute for International Law and Human Rights. "These laws show Maliki appears to have a well-defined strategy and vision for Iraq, but they send mixed messages about just how democratic that vision is."

The prime minister's office says many of the new laws are necessary to confront security challenges and to minimize the influence of Iraq's neighbors.

Reuters

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, right, with President Jalal Talabani, visited Kurdish leaders on Aug. 2 to address renewed territorial conflicts.

In a reminder of just how daunting those security challenges remain, a series of bombs targeting Shiite worshippers killed at least 36 people in Mosul and Baghdad on Friday.

The bombings, which hit a Shiite mosque in Mosul and several minibuses ferrying Shiite pilgrims back to the capital Baghdad, appeared to be the latest attempt by insurgents to rekindle the sectarian warfare that shook the country in 2006 and 2007.

"We are fully committed to making Iraq a free and democratic country," an aide to Mr. Maliki said. "But we also face some of the most extraordinary security threats of any country in the world and have to be prepared to confront these threats on every level."

Mr. Maliki and his allies in government have submitted the proposed laws to parliament. Many of the bills are unlikely to be passed by the stalemated legislature before national elections in January. Mr. Maliki has a lot of political jockeying to do if he hopes to muster adequate support for them within parliament.

The bills include a proposal to give official legal status and expanded powers to a controversial body called the State Ministry for National Security, creating a "political crimes directorate" to monitor political parties and nongovernmental organizations, among other things, according to a draft of the law reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Maliki established the ministry in 2005 -- in what U.S. officials complained was an effort to circumvent the authority of the U.S.-backed Iraqi intelligence chief. But parliament stripped the ministry of its funding this year, saying Iraq's constitution doesn't allow such a body.

The aide to Mr. Maliki said the ministry has had a number of significant security achievements, including preventing assassination attempts against senior officials.

The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad declined to comment on Mr. Maliki's proposals.

Another proposed law would give the government extraordinary control over Iraqi NGOs, such as requiring government approval of every donation and project, and every new office opened.

The law was drawn up by the Minister for Civil Society Thamer al-Zubaidi, a close Maliki ally and member of the prime minister's Islamic Dawa Party. A spokesman for Mr. Zubaidi says the legislation is intended to fight rampant corruption among Iraq's 6,000 registered NGOs.

Hundreds of Iraqi NGOs are fictitious or surreptitiously funded by terrorist organizations, foreign governments or corrupt politicians, the spokesman said.

NGO leaders say they fear the government will also use the law to quash the activities of groups critical of the government, or pursuing agendas, such as women's rights, that some powerful Islamist parties oppose.

Critics say the draft ignores recommendations from a two-year project by the United Nations, Iraqi lawmakers and civil society leaders to frame new legislation on the issue.

"So many articles in this law go against what it means to have a free civil society, against the fundamental principles of liberty, and even against our own constitution," says Kurdish lawmaker Alaa Talibani, who heads the NGO committee in parliament and was part of the project.

Another draft law before parliament would put hefty restrictions on the media, requiring all journalists to be licensed by a quasigovernmental body that would also have final say over all hiring of journalists by domestic media organizations.

The proposed law also would restrict the use of anonymous sources and forbid the publication of articles that "compromise the security and stability of the country."

Mr. Maliki's office said in a statement that the government is committed to protecting press freedoms in Iraq and said the law is aimed at protecting journalists from violence.

Mr. Maliki also asked the Ministry of Communications to start blocking pornographic Web sites in Iraq, the first such restriction on the Internet here, raising alarms among free-speech advocates.

"We are afraid that once the government starts blocking Web sites to protect the morality of society, or taking other small steps to restrict democratic liberties, it is sure to soon include others," said Saad Eskander, the director of Iraq's National Archives and Library.

Write to Charles Levinson at charles.levinson@wsj.com

Attacks on Homeless Bring Push on Hate Crime Laws

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON — With economic troubles pushing more people onto the streets in the last few years, law enforcement officials and researchers are seeing a surge in unprovoked attacks against the homeless, and a number of states are considering legislation to treat such assaults as hate crimes.

This October, Maryland will become the first state to expand its hate-crime law to add stiffer penalties for attacks on the homeless.

At least five other states are pondering similar steps, the District of Columbia approved such a measure this week, and a like bill was introduced last week in Congress.

A report due out this weekend from the National Coalition for the Homeless documents a rise in violence over the last decade, with at least 880 unprovoked attacks against the homeless at the hands of nonhomeless people, including 244 fatalities. An advance copy was provided to The New York Times.

Sometimes, researchers say, one homeless person attacks another in turf battles or other disputes. But more often, they say, the assailants are outsiders: men or in most cases teenage boys who punch, kick, shoot or set afire people living on the streets, frequently killing them, simply for the sport of it, their victims all but invisible to society.

“A lot of what we see are thrill offenders,” said Brian Levin, a criminologist who runs the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino.

Only Thursday, two homeless men in Hollywood were stabbed to death and a third was wounded in a three-hour spree of separate daylight attacks. The police arrested a 54-year-old local man who they said appeared to have made homeless people his random targets.

Isaac Brekken for The New York Times

Matt O’Brien, who advocates on behalf of the homeless, touring the flood channels. Flash floods may endanger those who stay there, he says, but at least they are safe from violence.

Researchers say a combustible mix of factors has added fuel to the problem. Rising unemployment and foreclosures continue to push people into the streets, with some estimates now putting the nationwide number of homeless above one million.

And in cities like Las Vegas, public crackdowns on encampments for the homeless and cutbacks in social services have frequently made street people more visible as targets for would-be assailants.

Further, in the last several years the Internet has seen a proliferation of “bum fight” videos, shot by young men and boys who are seen beating the homeless or who pay transients a few dollars to fight each other.

Indeed, the National Coalition for the Homeless, which works to change government policies and bring people off the streets, says in its new report that 58 percent of assailants implicated in attacks against the homeless in the last 10 years were teenagers.

Michael Stoops, the group’s executive director, said social prejudices were “dehumanizing” the homeless and condoning hostile treatment. He pointed to a blurb titled “Hunt the Homeless” in the current issue of Maxim, a popular men’s magazine. It spotlights a coming “hobo convention” in Iowa and says: “Kill one for fun. We’re 87 percent sure it’s legal.”

With victims wary of going to the police, statistics on the attacks are often incomplete. But surveys show much higher rates of assault, rape and other crimes of violence against the homeless than almost any other group, said Professor Levin, of California State, who worked on the new report.

Recognition of the problem is spurring legislative action.

“More and more, we’re hearing about homeless people being attacked for no other reason than that they’re homeless, and we’ve got to do something about it,” Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Democrat of Texas, said in an interview.

Ms. Johnson introduced a measure in the House last week to make attacks on the homeless a federal hate crime and require the F.B.I. to collect data on it. (The Senate voted last month to expand federal hate crimes to include attacks on gay and transgender victims, another frequent target.)

And in addition to the measures already approved in Maryland and the District of Columbia, proposals to add penalties for attacks on the homeless are under consideration in California, Florida, Ohio, South Carolina and Texas.

The push has lacked any organized support by major civil rights groups. In Florida, which leads the country in assaults on homeless people, groups like the Anti-Defamation League have opposed recognizing those attacks as a hate crime. Opponents argue that homelessness, unlike race or ethnicity, is not a permanent condition and that such a broadening of the law would have the effect of diluting it.

“I hear the same rhetoric all the time,” Ms. Johnson said. “They ask, ‘Why is their life more important than anyone else’s?’ ”

The coalition’s study, which relied on police and news reports but excluded crimes driven by factors like robbery, found 106 documented attacks against the homeless last year.

That was a doubling of levels seen six or seven years ago but a sharp drop from 2007, an apparent improvement that researchers are still trying to explain. The study found 27 fatalities last year, flat relative to the year before. Eight other victims were shot, nine raped and 54 beaten.

In Portland, Ore., twin brothers were charged with five unprovoked attacks against homeless people in a park. One of the victims was a man beaten with his own bike, another a woman pushed down a steep staircase.

In Cleveland, a man leaving a homeless shelter to visit his mother was “savagely beaten by a group of thugs,” the police said.

In Los Angeles, a homeless man who was a neighborhood fixture was doused in gasoline and set on fire.

In Boston, a homeless Army veteran was beaten to death as witnesses near Faneuil Hall reportedly looked on.

And in Jacksonville, N.C., a group of young men fatally stabbed a homeless man behind a shopping strip, cutting open his abdomen with a beer bottle.

In Las Vegas, home to a large population of the homeless, there were no reported killings of any of them last year, but many say hostilities have risen as the city moves to get them out of the parks and off the streets.

Some of the Las Vegas homeless resort to living in a maze of underground flood channels beneath the Strip. There they face flash floods, disease, black widows and dank, pitch-dark conditions, but some tunnel dwellers say life there is better than being harassed and threatened by assailants and the police.

“Out there, anything goes,” said Manny Lang, who has lived in the tunnels for months, recalling the stones and profanities with which a group of teenagers pelted him last winter when he slept above ground. “But in here, nothing’s going to happen to us.”

Their plight is a revealing commentary on the violence facing street people, said Matt O’Brien, a Las Vegas writer who runs an outreach group for the homeless.

“It’s hard to believe that tunnels that can fill a foot per minute with floodwater could be safer than aboveground Vegas,” Mr. O’Brien said, “but many homeless people think they are. No outsider is going to attack you down there in the dark.”

California Apologizes to Chinese Americans

By Ling Woo Liu

What's in an apology? Some expressions of remorse are commonplace — we hear them on the playground when kids smack each other on the head, or they land in your inbox after a friend forgets your birthday. It's the grand-scale apologies, it seems, that are harder to come by.

On July 17, the California legislature quietly approved a landmark bill to apologize to the state's Chinese-American community for racist laws enacted as far back as the mid–19th century Gold Rush, which attracted about 25,000 Chinese from 1849 to 1852. The laws, some of which were not repealed until the 1940s, barred Chinese from owning land or property, marrying whites, working in the public sector and testifying against whites in court. The new bill also recognizes the contributions Chinese immigrants have made to the state, particularly their work on the Transcontinental Railroad. (Check out a story about the Asian-American experience in late–20th century California.)

The apology is the latest in a wave of official acts of remorse around the globe. In 2006, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a similar apology, expressing regret to Chinese Canadians for unequal taxes imposed on them in the late 19th century. Last February, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologized to his country's Aborigines for racist laws of the past, including the forced separation of children from their parents. Five months later, the U.S. Congress formally apologized to black Americans for slavery and the later Jim Crow laws, which were not repealed until the 1960s. And most notably, in 1988 the U.S. government decided to pay $20,000 to each of the surviving 120,000 Japanese Americans imprisoned in camps during World War II. Says Donald Tamaki, a San Francisco–based attorney who helped overturn wrongful WWII-era convictions of Japanese Americans: "Part of what a humane society does is recognize past injustices and address them."

The California resolution moved quickly through the state legislature since it was first introduced in February. "It's symbolic to recognize that the state made mistakes," says assembly member Paul Fong, who co-sponsored the legislation with assembly member Kevin de Leon. "These laws reverberate to this date because racism still exists." (Read about a new Asian-American stereotype in TIME'S 1987 cover story.)

Most of the direct victims of the laws in question have already passed away. Fong's grandfather was held for two months at Angel Island, an immigration station near San Francisco that targeted and detained several hundred thousand Chinese immigrants from 1910 to 1940. Dale Ching, 88, arrived at Angel Island from China's Guangdong province in 1937 at age 16. Though his father was an American citizen, immigration authorities detained Ching for 3½ months. "My intent was to try to have a better life, better than in China," says Ching. "But at that time, they didn't want you to get ahead."

How times have changed. In the throes of huge budget cuts, California is wooing cash-flush mainland Chinese tourists to its sun-kissed coastline and world-famous theme parks. So far this year, the state's Travel and Tourism Commission has opened offices in three Chinese cities. In 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger toured China on a six-day trade mission to peddle his state's produce, technology and raw materials. China is now California's fourth largest export market, after Mexico, Canada and Japan. In 2008 California exported $10.9 billion worth of goods to China, up 40% since 2005.

With the California bill in the bag, Fong now plans to take the issue to Congress, where he will request an apology for the Chinese Exclusion Act, the only federal law ever enacted to deny immigration based exclusively on race or nationality. Passed in 1882, the law was not fully repealed until 1943, after China and the U.S. became allies in WWII. Given President Obama's decision to appoint Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary and Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, Fong says he's confident of the bill's passage. "As a person of color, President Obama would understand these issues," he says.

Fong does not plan to press for financial compensation for the surviving victims of the state and federal laws in question, despite the Japanese-American precedent. More important than individual compensation, he says, is to help educate younger generations about the mistakes of the past. That said, Fong may ask for funding to help preserve the Angel Island immigration station, dilapidated after decades of neglect. To complicate matters, the station is located within a state park that, along with several others, may be shut down to help balance California's budget shortfall.

Not long after his father helped negotiate his release, Dale Ching joined the U.S. Army and fought Japanese forces during WWII. He went on to become an electronics technician, but after retiring, he began volunteering as a docent at Angel Island in hopes of drawing more attention to that moment in history. "We've been fighting, but nobody would listen," he says. "Finally someone has said sorry."

UNDP T-L - Parliament Project Flash News #3

Please find below the weekly edition of the UNDP Parliament Project Flash News.

The newsletter focuses on the work developed by both the National Parliament and the Project during the past week. It also highlights important upcoming events.

26 June- 5 July

MPs approve Law n. 15/II establishing the Anti-Corruption Commission
On Monday, 29 June Parliament approved Law n. 15/II that establishes the Anti-Corruption Commission for Timor-Leste, following approval ‘in generality’ and a joint detailed examination (‘in specialty’) by the Standing Committee for Constitutional Affairs, Judiciary, Public Administration, and Local Government (Committee A) and the Committee for Economy, Finance and Anti-Corruption (Committee C). The final vote tally was 38 in favor, 0 against and 1 abstention. The Law provides for the the Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate cases of corruption; advise all civil service bodies on the prevention of corruption; and promote and educate the public on good governance and on how to support the fight against corruption.

Four new Government Bills admitted to Parliament and referred to Committees
On Monday, 29 June four important government bills were admitted to Parliament and referred to the competent Standing Committees for consideration.

· Government Bill n. 24/II “Lei de Base do Desporto” is the first legislative initiative in Timor Leste on sports. It defines the system, the structure and conditions for practicing sports as an important contribution to the development of youth. The bill was referred to the Committee for Youth, Sports, Labor and Professional Education (Committee H).
· Government Bill n. 25/II “Lei de Segurança Interna” (Law on Internal Security) and Government Bill n. 26/II “Lei de Segurança Nacional” (Law on National Security) put forth an integrated national security policy. They define a strategy of integrated action among the Armed Forces, Police and Civil Protection. Both bills were referred to the Committee for Foreign Affairs and Defense (Committee B).
· Government Bill n. 27/II “Lei de Defesa Nacional” (Law on National Defense) establishes and regulates the country’s security framework, as provided by the Constitution of Timor-Leste and in line with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. The bill was referred to the Committee for Foreign Affairs and Defense (Committee B).

MPs debate Law n. 13/II on Freedom Fighters
Acknowledging the importance and national impact of draft bill n. 13/II on “Alteração ao Estatuto dos Combatentes da Libertação Nacional” (Amendment to the Regime of the National Freedom Fighters), the Committee for Elimination of Poverty, Rural Development and Gender Equality(Committee E) organized a series of Public Hearings. The Clandestine Front, the Armed Front, the Ministry of Social Solidarity, the Secretary of State for Veterans and the President of the Honors’ Committee participated in the Hearings, and a separate meeting was held with the Prime Minister. Based on the Hearings, Committee E prepared a report that was presented to Parliament during an extraordinary Plenary Session on Wednesday, 24 June. The law was approved ‘in generality’ with 40 votes in favor, 0 against and 0 abstentions. It is currently being discussed ‘in specialty; at Committee level, before going back to plenary for final approval.

Grupo das Mulheres Parlamentares - GMPTL (Women’s Caucus) attends public dialogue in Dili
On Friday, 26 June, as part of a series of initiatives aimed at strengthening women’s participation in politics, two members of GMPTL, MPs Maria da Costa Exposto and Maria Terezinha Viegas, attended a public dialogue with civil society representatives and women members of Succo Councils from Dili district. The event took place at the National University of Timor Leste (UNTL), and was organized by “Caucus Feto Iha Politik”. During the public dialogue, both MPs stressed the importance of sharing information and experience among all organizations in order to advance gender equality and women’s empowerment. They also shared with the participants the various activities currently implemented by the Women’s Caucus.

Grupo das Mulheres Parlamentares - GMPTL (Women’s Caucus) approves 2010 Annual Work Plan and Budget
On Wednesday, 1 July, GMPTL discussed and approved its own annual work plan and related budget for 2010. The work of GMPTL focuses on three main objectives:
· Increasing awareness for the promotion of gender activities among all Members of Parliament;
· Increasing the public awareness on gender equality, women’s political participation and empowerment;
· Strengthening the functioning of GMPTL and getting support from all stakeholders for the creation of gender-sensitive legislation.

Visit of US House Democratic Assistance Committee (HDAC) to Timor-Leste
From 2-4 July, a delegation of from the US Congress visited Timor-Leste. The Congressmen discussed with their Timorese counterparts the fundamental roles played by legislators, the importance of information and research for the legislature, and the role of Committees in legislation and oversight. The delegation also met with the Committee for Foreign Affairs and Defense (Committee B) to discuss security sector oversight, and with the Committee for Economy, Finance and Anticorruption (Committee C) to exchange views on budget analysis.
On Saturday, the Members of Congress went on a vist to Maubisse accompanied by the President and Vice-Presidents of the National Parliament, Party Bench Leaders and the SRSG. In Maubisse, they toured a Coffee Cooperative and had a Town hall meeting with local leaders.

Workshop led by US Congressional staff
During the visit of the US delegation, US Congressional staff held a workshop on information research and legislative analysis for Parliament and UNDP Parliament Project national staff. During the workshop, they discussed with Timorese colleagues policy research methods for serving the research needs of MPs and staff, as well as how evaluate and develop analytical questions pertinent to bill drafting.

Coming up:

The Secretary General of the National Parliament, Mr. João Rui Amaral will participate in the Secretaries-General Forum of Asia-Pacific Parliaments
From 8-9 July, the Secretaries-General Forum of Asia-Pacific Parliaments will take place in Seoul, Korea, with the participation of 30 countries from the region. A key objective of the Forum is the strengthening of the parliamentary network of the Asia-pacific region, which is home to half of the world population. The forum will address the importance of the e-parliament in facilitating public access to information and in promoting individual rights amidst a new political and cultural environment. Amjad Al-Kadhi, UNDP Parliament Project ICT Advisor, who is working on the e-parliament project for the National Parliament, will accompany Mr. Amaral.

Perlukah Sistim Inteligen Timor Leste Direvisi?

Posted on July 6, 2009 by fundasaunmahein

MAHEIN NIA LIAN No.2, 6 Julho 2009.

Perlukah Sistim Inteligen Timor Leste Direvisi ?

(Tinjauan Atas UU Inteligen dan Perspektif ke Masa Depan)

Oleh: Justiano R. de Jesus*

Pada 13 Desember 2007 lalu, Dewan Menteri Pemerintah Kontitusinal IV, dibawah Perdana Menteri Kay Rala Xanana Gusmao, telah mengesahkan Undang-undang (UU) mengenai Sistim Intelligen Timor Leste. UU ini sangat penting karena menggariskan sistim politik, koordinasi, dan pelaksanaan organisasi-organisasi inteligen di negeri ini. Secara prinsipil, UU ini telah memiliki satu konsep keseluruhan mengenai mekanisme dan sistim kerja organisasi inteligen. Walaupun demikian, tak terpungkiri bahwa UU ini “terlalu disederhanakan” untuk sebuah institusi sepenting inteligen. Terlepas dari upaya keras yang telah dilakukan pemerintah, UU tersebut masih menyimpang beberapa titik lemah yang memiliki implikasi negatif atas managemen inteligen di masa mendatang.

Kelemahan UU tersebut tidak terletak pada materi hukumnya, melainkan pada deskripsi sistim inteligen yang ada didalamnya. Bila ditilik secara teliti, UU ini menyisihkan adanya kehilangan interkoneksi, definisi, kompetensi, dan lingkup strategis selain absennya beberapa institusi penting di negara ini. Lebih jauh, “kesederhanaan” UU tersebut belum sepenuhnya merefleksian kebutuhan ril keamanan nasional (national security interest) Timor Leste. Dengan kata lain, revisi pada UU ini sangat perlu karena akan mengambil peran penting pada usaha mempertahankan kedaulatan negara, memperkokoh amanat konstitusi, menjamin kemerdekaan, melindungi warga negara dan kekayaan bangsa ini dari segala bentuk ancaman.

Tentang UU inteligen Timor Leste

Sebelum menganalisis materi UU inteligen, ada baiknya kita melihat terlebih dahulu bagaimana UU tersebut dibentuk. UU inteligen ini merupakan produk yang ditinggalkan oleh pemerintahan Konstitusional I dibawah Perdana Menteri Dr. Mari Alkatiri. UU tersebut mulai digarap sebagai kebijakan Kabinet I yang menginginkan perubahan National Security Adviser (NSA) yang ditinggalkan UNTAET pada tahun 2002 dan ditransformasi menjadi Organisasi Inteligen Negara dibawah kontrol Serviço Nacional de Segurança do Estado atau SNSE pada tahun 2003. Pada awalnya, UU ini ditulis berdasarkan paduan dan kompilasi dari UU ASIO (Australian Security and Intelligent Organisation) dan SIS (Serviço Informação Secreta – Portugal). Namun dalam perkembangannya, UU ini mengalami banyak perubahan dan kesendatan akibat keterbatasan

sumber, tenaga ahli serta minimnya anggaran untuk memperlancar proyek ini. Tidak hanya itu, UU ASIO dan SIS tidak dapat direduksi mentah-mentah dalam kondisi dan kebutuhan inteligen Timor Leste yang konteks wilayahnya lebih kecil serta kompleksitas ancamannya berbeda. Meskipun demikian, proyek UU ini terus berlanjut dengan bantuan-bantuan terbatas dari SIS, ASIS (Autralian Secret Intelligent Service), RD (Research Development) badan Inteligen Malaysia, Badan Intelligen Negara (BIN) Indonesia, dan beberapa ahli hukum dan advisor inteligen. Tetapi, bantuan-bantuan tersebut sangat informal, terbatas dan tertutup.

Pada tahun 2005, draft pertama selesai dan diajukan ke Dewan Menteri Kabinet I. Namun segera, UU ini tidak disahkan karena masih mengalami beberapa perdebatan teknis. Bahkan dalam takaran politiknya, Perdana Menteri Dr. Mari Alkatiri (Kabinet I) menilai bahwa terlalu banyak “campur tangan” negara tertentu dalam bisnis inteligen Timor Leste. Persepsi ini memberi indikasi bahwa sistim inteligen kita “tidak aman” dan membahayakan sistim keamanan nasional Timor Leste ke depan. Karenanya, UU ini ditarik ulur dan dibekukan di meja dewan menteri hingga terjadinya krisis 2006.

Pasca krisis, UU ini kembali mendapat perhatian dari Perdana Menteri DR. José Manuel Ramos Horta yang memegang Pemerintahan Konstitusional II pada waktu itu. Secara inplisit, Horta menginginkan agar organisasi SNSE dapat ditempatkan dibawah pengawasan langsung Presiden Republik RDTL. Namun ide ini tidak berlanjut. Akan tetapi, Ramos Horta tetap mendukung dan memperlancar pembahasan materi UU ini di Dewan Menteri. Walaupun kabinet Horta tidak mengesahkannya, namun draft UU ini telah diselesaikan selama masa jabatannya.

UU ini kemudian menjadi salah satu prioritas Perdana Menteri Kay Rala Xanana Gusmão yang memegang Pemerintahan Konstitusional IV. Pembahasannya dipercepat dan mendapat pengesahan pada 13 Desember 2007. Nama inteligen negara yang sedianya bernama Serviço Nacional de Segurança do Estado (SNSE) dirubah menjadi Serviço Nacional da Inteligência (SNI) dalam UU tersebut. Namun kabinet Xanana tidak serta-merta mengeksekusi pelaksanaan UU tersebut. Dalam beberapa aspek, Xanana menilai kompetensi dan eksistensi organisasi inteligen (SNI, PNTL dan F-FDTL) masih jauh dari kapasitas yang diharapkan. Bahkan SNI yang menjadi “mata dan telingga” Perdana Menteri dinilai minim kemampuan, pengalaman dan sumber daya untuk menjalankan fungsi inteligen secara profesional. Namun secara struktural maupun organisasional, organ SNI tetap berfungsi termasuk inteligen PNTL dan F-FDTL.

Apa yang Perlu Direvisi ?

Pada prinsipnya, UU ini sudah memiliki beberapa dasar pegangan yang sangat baik. Salah satu diantaranya adalah penetapan Dewan Pengawas Inteligen di Parlemen (§ Art. 7,1-2). Hal ini menjadi satu penjamin bagi keberlangsungan negara demokratis dan menghindarkan organisasi inteligen dari tindakan-tindakan yang melawan konstitusi dan hukum. Lebih penting lagi, UU ini mengantisipasi “penyelewengan” kekuasaan yang mungkin dapat dilakukan oleh seorang Perdana Menteri atau pejabat negara dalam memperalat organisasi inteligen untuk tujuan politiknya. Lebih jauh, UU ini juga telah menetapkan sebuah sistim dan kerangka kerja inteligen seperti Koordinasi Inteligen Inter-kementrian, Komisi Teknik, SNI dan Dewan Pengawas Inteligen di Parlemen (§ Art. 6,1). Meski demikian, beberapa pokok dalam hukum inteligen masih “kehilangan” beberapa subtansi penting. Ada empat pokok persoalan yang dapat kita amati dalam konteks UU tersebut.

Pertama, konsep subtansial seperti definisi keamanan nasional inteligen, pola dan kebijakan strategis inteligen (analysis of global, regional and national nature), lingkup operasi-operasi inteligen, wewenang dan batasan Perdana Menteri serta koordinasi dengan beberapa organ penting pemerintah tidak dipertegas dalam UU itu. Sebaliknya, hal-hal tersebut hanya tersirat dalam kalimat pembukaan (§ preamblu). Patut digariswabahi bahwa unsur-unsur ini sangat prinsipil, maka tidak cukup hanya menuangkan garis-garis kebijakan sedemikian penting dalam pengantar UU. Justru, penegasan bagian-bagian tersebut pada bab tertentu akan meneguhkan kebijakan keamanan nasional dan mempertegas visi strategis inteligen Timor Leste secara menyeluruh. Bila bagian-bagian tersebut tidak ditekankan justru akan memberikan implikasi negatif atas interpretasi operasi inteligen di masa mendatang.

Kedua, dalam urusan Inteligen Luar Negeri tidak diperjelas kompetensi dan koordinasi SNI dan MNEC. Sebaliknya, UU tersebut secara inplisit melegalisasi SNI sebagai organ resmi dalam operasi intelligen luar negeri (§ Art 13,1) tanpa menyebut interkoneksi dengan MNEC sebagai pemegang strategi kebijakan luar negeri. Mungkin saja MNEC dikategorikan dalam koordinasi Inter-ministerial (§ Art 6,1-d). Namun mengingat fungsi dan peran MNEC yang sangat penting, maka sangat perlu untuk menegaskan secara jelas status MNEC dalam Komisi Teknik Inteligen selain instansi Imigrasi dan Bea Cukai (§ Art 12,3 a-b).

Ketiga, UU tersebut tidak menyebutkan peran Intelligen Pertahanan. Hal ini bisa dimaklumi karena saat ini Kementrian Pertahanan tidak memiliki direksi inteligen Pertahanan (sipil). Namun perlu diperjelas bahwa fungsi dasar inteligen F-FDTL adalah operasi dan taktik militer. Fokus dan Peran “J-2” (inteligen F-FDTL) tidak untuk konsumsi sipil, namun lebih pada operasi-operasi strategis militer (center of gravity). Data-data inteligen militer berorientasi pada bahaya-bahaya eksternal (defence threats) dan upaya-upaya pencegahannya (prevention manouvers). Sebaliknya di tingkat kebijakan strategis, dibutuhkan sebuah direksi sipil untuk

menganalisa dan memproduksi data inteligen untuk kebutuhan strategi kebijakan sipil termasuk pemetaan politik di tingkat kementrian pertahanan. Keduanya memiliki satu orientasi strategis yaitu pertahanan, namun berbeda dalam pola kebijakan (defence policies) dan skala militer (tactic, operation and manouver).

Keempat, secara garis besar, artikel pada UU tersebut telah menyebutkan beberapa bagian penting seperti sistim database (§ Art 15-16), kondisi akses (§ Art 17), dan kerahasian (§ Art 19). Namun urain-urain tersebut tidak mempertegas tiap artikel tersebut. Contohnya, bagaimana sistim database (data bank system) seharusnya diawasi. Atau siapa yang berhak mendapat akses (authorization access) terhadap data inteligen, siapa yang memberi wewenang dan siapa yang tidak berhak (restristic access). Tiap artikel pada UU tersebut harus dipertegas penjabarannya untuk menghindari dualisme interpretasi pada saat pelaksanaan operasi inteligen.

Beberapa ide pokok di atas adalah suatu topik urgen untuk didiskusikan. Saya menilai bahwa materi UU tersebut, termasuk beberapa babnya mesti diperjelas, ditambahkan dan dijabarkan lebih luas. Hal ini penting karena UU ini akan menjadi peletak dasar bagi sistim pelaksanaan inteligen di Timor Leste.

Revisi dan Perspektif ke Masa Depan

Krisis tahun 2006 dan insiden 11 Februari 2008 dapat menjadi sebuah indikator penting untuk menilai sistim inteligen kita. Faktanya, sistim inteligen saat ini masih rapuh dan belum memenuhi porsi maksimalnya. Minimnya prioritas koleksi, analisa (possible, probable dan reconnaissance), akurasi data dan koordinasi membuat fungsi “preventif inteligen” hilang bentuknya dalam kejadian-kejadian tersebut. Dalam beberapa opini, organisasi inteligen dituding dan dipersalahkan sebagai lembaga yang tidak mampu untuk mengantisipasi krisis 2006 dan imbasnya. Bahkan kasus 11 Februari 2008 semakin melegitimasi opini publik tersebut. Tapi tak terbantahkan bahwa rentetan krisis 2006 dan biasnya tidak sepenuhnya kesalahan inteligen.

Namun, kejadian-kejadian tersebut patut menjadi referensi penting untuk merevisi organ inteligen, termasuk hukum, strategi, kebijakan, managemen, kinerja, anggaran, sumber daya dan faktor manusia. Revisi atas semua elemen tersebut akan membuka ruang lebih luas untuk melihat celah dan kelemahan organisasi inteligen saat ini. Pada gilirannya, kita lebih mudah untuk menentukan bagaimana dan darimana revisi atas organ inteligen mesti dimulai.

Oleh karena itu, saya berpendapat bahwa, revisi terhadap organ inteligen di Timor Leste harus menjadi satu agenda strategis bagi pemerintah saat ini, terlebih SNI yang menjadi badan sentral inteligen negara. Karena itu, enam konsep berikut menjadi bagian urgensitas yang mesti dipertimbangkan secara

serius dalam pengembangan organ inteligen negara termasuk didalamnya J-2 dan SIP.

Pertama, membentuk Kabinet Khusus dibawah koordinasi dan pengawasan langsung Perdana Menteri. Kabinet ini hanya bersifat ad hoc dan bertujuan untuk merumuskan kebijakan-kebijakan, visi, misi, tujuan, hukum organik, strategi dan kerangka operasional inteligen Timor Leste sesuai dengan UU yang telah terbentuk. Kabinet ini dikoordinasi oleh SNI dan melibatkan SIP, J-2, Imigrasi, Custom, MNEC, bagian jurisdiksi dan organ lain yang berkompeten. Untuk membantu konsep-konsep teknis yang lebih kompleks, pemerintah dengan seleksi yang ketat, dapat menentukan beberapa pakar dan ahli inteligen untuk menjadi bagian dari kabinet ini dengan jangka waktu dan ToR yang ketat. Hasil kerja kabinet ini kemudian diajukan ke Perdana Menteri dan selanjtunya dibahas di Dewan Menteri. Konsultasi dengan Parlemen sangat dianjurkan sebelum disahkan sebagai kebijakan resmi pemerintah.

Kedua, Konsep Strategis Keamanan Nasional. SNI dapat mengadopsi UU Keamanan Nasional yang telah dikeluarkan oleh “Kabinet Forca 2020-Kementrian Pertahanan” sebagai pedoman dasar dalam menetapkan lingkup strategi dan operasi inteligen selain pijakan terhadap Konstitusi dan UU yang berkaitan. Ruang lingkup, target operasi, strategi inteligen dikembangkan dalam satu atau mono-konsep keamanan nasional. Hal ini penting agar visi dan kebijakan strategis menjadi satu bagian integral dalam semua institusi yang bertanggungjawab dalam bidang pertahanan dan keamanan, termasuk organisasi inteligen negara.

Ketiga, Hukum Organik. Organ seperti SNI, J-2 (F-FDTL), SIP (PNTL), dan Intelligent Networking Group perlu memiliki hukum organik. Hal ini penting untuk memastikan bahwa seluruh kerangka kerja dan koordinasi organ inteligen berjalan di atas suatu koridor hukum. Kebijakan-kebijakan, operasi (operation security), prosedur-prosdeur (intelligent requirement), sistim, teknologi (electronic warfare), managemen dan eksekusi kerja organ inteligen dilandaskan pada tatanan hukum yang jelas. Belajar dari pengalaman bahwa, organ sepenting SNI (SNSE), sejak didirikan pada tahun 2002 tidak memiliki satu hukum organik. Akibatnya, seluruh managemen organisasi tidak berkembang, tidak ada target (collection manager), minim rencana strategis serta tidak meyakinkan Perdana Menteri dalam kebijakan keamanan nasional.

Keempat, merestrukturisasi organisasi dan managemen inteligen. Disahkannya UU inteligen memberi satu dasar hukum kuat bagi tiap organ inteligen untuk merevisi kembali struktur, organisasi dan managemennya. Pemantapan organ inteligen perlu melihat kembali dua bagian penting. Bagian pertama terfokus pada revisi managemen organisasi yang meliputi: struktur, regulasi, SDM, sumber pendukung, pelatihan dan pendidikan, alokasi anggaran serta

koordinasi. Sedangkan bagian kedua memperjelas fungsi strategis yang meliputi: target dan prioritas, kebijakan strategis, metode teknis serta pola-pola operasi. Kedua bagian tersebut menjadi satu paket penting untuk mengembangkan insitutsi inteligen ke tingkat yang lebih profesional.

Kelima, Sumber Daya Manusia (SDM) atau Humint (human inteligent) menjadi hal esensil dalam organisasi inteligen. Intelligent tidak hanya berarti “pintar” namun konteks tersebut menunjuk pada kualitas lebih “seorang intel” dalam organ inteligen. Kemampuan mereka harus melewati tahap-tahap uji khusus (kemampuan intelektual, nasionalisme, loyalitas, pemahaman hukum, litsus, sejarah, idilogi bangsa, etc) dengan kemampaun lebih dalam bidang-bidangnya (hukum, ekonomi, IT, politik, hubungan internasional, keuangan, administrasi, etc). Hakekatnya, manusia (humint) adalah faktor utama dalam organisasi inteligen. Sudah semestinya, pelaku inteligen negara diseleksi secara ketat dan memiliki kemampaun ekstra dari kaum awam umumnya. Di lain sisi, para intel harus mendapat pendidikan yang layak (well-grommed) sesuai dengan bidangnya masing-masing. Persoalan saat ini, sejauhmana kemampuan humint dalam organ inteligen Timor Leste ?

Keenam, Dukungan Anggaran dan Sumber Daya. Seorang ahli direksi inteligen Mossad pernah berkata kepada Eli Cohen (Ketua Inteligen Mossad), “Kalau anda (Eli) menginginkan ikan hiu maka jangan berikan ekor sardin sebagai umpannya. Kami butuh umpan yang seimbang untuk menangkap ikan hiu!”. Analogi tersebut merujuk pada persoalan budget dan dukungan sumber daya. Arti metaforisnya menegaskan bahwa organisasi setingkat inteligen membutuhkan biaya yang memadai dan dukungan materi (imagery inteligent – imint, signal inteligent – sigint, dll) yang cukup untuk bekerja. Tanpa biaya dan fasilitas yang efektif maka operasi inteligen tidak lebih dari lembaga yang mandek.

Langkah-langkah tersebut di atas memiliki konsep urgensitas yang patut diperhitungkan. Revisi terhadap UU dan pembenahan pada organ inteligen merupakan dua hal penting. Peninjaun kembali UU inteligen untuk memastikan bahwa konsep dan prinsip-prinsip dasar UU tersebut telah mencakupi semua bidang strategis keamanan nasional. Sedangkan regenerasi pada organ dan struktur inteligen untuk memastikan bahwa institusi-instusi tersebut memiliki kemampuan yang diharapkan guna menjamin estabilitas keamanan nasional secara menyeluruh.

Meningkatnya tingkat ancaman keamanan nasional yang lebih kompleks pada dasawarsa ini (terorism, money laundry, human trafic, smuggling, international organize crimes, electronic warfare, dll) pada gilirannya menuntut kompetensi lebih dari tiap organ inteligen. Selain F-FDTL dan PNTL, eksistensi inteligen memberi porsi besar terhadap usaha melindugi kepentingan strategis keamanan

nasional. Keputusan-keputusan penting dalam organ Pertahanan Keamanan sangat tergantung juga pada kapasitas organ inteligen untuk memainkan perannya. Di tingkat operasional, F-FDTL dan PNTL menjadi pilar keamanan internal dan ekternal. Sedangkan di level strategis SNI dan organ inteligen lainnya menjadi pengawas dan penjamin pada tiap kebijakan keamanan nasional.

*Penulis menyelesaikan pendidikan pada Australian Defence College. Saat ini menjadi peneliti pada Fundasaun Mahien (FM) sebuah institusi nasional yang berkecimpung dalam bidang Pertahanan dan Keamanan nasional di Dili.

Click atu hetan relatorio kompletu iha .pdf

The War Against the 'War on Drugs'

By Sasha Abramsky

As California goes, so goes the nation.

If that old adage still holds true, then the nation may soon see a gradual backpedaling from the criminal justice policies that have led to wholesale incarceration in recent decades. For the most populous state in the union is on the verge of insolvency--partly because it didn't set aside a rainy-day fund during the boom years; partly because its voters recently rejected a series of initiatives that would have allowed a combination of tax increases, spending cuts and borrowing to help stabilize the state's finances during the downturn; partly because it has spent the past quarter-century funneling tens of billions of dollars into an out-of-control correctional system. Now, as California's politicians contemplate emergency cuts to deal with a $24 billion hole in the state budget, old certainties are crumbling.

The state with the toughest three-strikes law in the land and a prison population of more than 150,000 is facing the real possibility of having to release tens of thousands of inmates early in order to pare its $10 billion annual correctional budget. At the same time, an increasing number of the state's political figures are challenging the basic tenets of the "war on drugs," the culprit most responsible for the spike in prison populations over the past thirty years; they argue that the country's harsh drug policies are not financially viable and no longer command majority support among the voting public.

Similar stories are unfolding around the country; in Washington, federal officials are talking about drug-policy reform and, more generally, sentencing reform in a way that has not been heard in the halls of power for more than a generation.

For old-time politicians, who have spent the past three-plus decades navigating the country's roiling tough-on-crime waters, the changes are almost unfathomable. Onetime California governor and current gubernatorial hopeful Jerry Brown, for example, has spent decades trying to erase the public's memory of his liberal tenure in the 1970s, when California's prison population shrank to well below 30,000. As a part of that remodeling, he has assiduously courted the California Correctional Peace Officers' Association, the trade union representing the state's prison guards. Now, with his war chest flush with CCPOA funds, Brown won't do anything to challenge tough-on-crime orthodoxies.

Yet many newer political faces view the current moment as something of an opportunity. For Betty Yee, chair of California's Board of Equalization--the office responsible for collecting sales tax in the Golden State--the changes, especially around drug-law enforcement, can't come soon enough.

Sitting at her conference table high up in one of downtown Sacramento's few sky-rises, Yee has marijuana on her mind. Specifically, she has become an outspoken advocate for legalizing pot for residents older than 21. Her friend Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a former San Francisco city councilman, is pushing just such a bill in the State Legislature. Yee wants to levy fees on business owners applying for marijuana licenses, impose an excise tax on sellers and charge buyers a sales tax. Do it properly, and the state could reap about $1.3 billion a year, she has estimated. "Marijuana is so easily available. Why not regulate it like alcohol and tobacco?" she says, and gain additional tax revenue into the bargain?

Not so many years back, any public figure who dared to advocate such reforms would have been shunned by much of the establishment. It's a measure of how much things have changed that Yee and Ammiano's proposal is being taken seriously across the board. In fact, shortly after I met with Yee, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger--whose office declined my request for an interview for this article--announced that the state should at least consider the merits of pot legalization. He wasn't advocating it, he was careful to stress, but he did think the time was ripe to debate the issue.

"The budget is so bad now, the populism of the issue is beginning to work here in the Legislature," Ammiano says as he paces back and forth in his office, toward the bookshelves with the four martini glasses and Golden Gate Bridge bookends and then away again. On the wall near the receptionist's desk hangs a huge poster from the movie Milk. "Everyone thinks it's Cheech and Chong," he says with a laugh, describing the marijuana legalization bill. "But there's a lot of policy wonks" supporting it. "There's very conservative support from the oddest sources and locations." The GOP chair in the state, as well as Tom Campbell, a Republican gubernatorial hopeful, have indicated their support for his bill, Ammiano declares. "When it starts to cost more money than it's worth even in the eyes of the pooh-bahs, then you can accomplish something."

Over the past three decades, California has tripled the number of prisons it operates, has more than quintupled its prison population and has gone from spending $5 on higher education for every dollar it spent on corrections to a virtual dead-heat in spending. That puts it in the same boat as Michigan, Vermont, Oregon, Connecticut and Delaware--all of which, according to estimates by the Pew Charitable Trust, spend as much or more on prisons than on colleges. California is also under federal court order to implement costly improvements in the delivery of medical and mental healthcare services in prisons and to release close to a third of the prison population--about 55,000 inmates--to improve conditions for those remaining behind bars.

Schwarzenegger adamantly opposed that ruling by a three-judge panel. Now, though, in the face of fiscal calamity, he is proposing cutting the prison population by tens of thousands. Of course, he is doing that not out of concern for inmates' well-being, or out of a sense that many sentences are disproportionate to the crime, but simply because the state can no longer pay its bills. Schwarzenegger believes he can save several hundred million dollars by releasing some categories of inmates, in particular nonviolent offenders who are in the country illegally and stand to be deported upon early release.

To save money, he's also talking about firing hard-working guards (a far better, but costlier, option would be to scale back the prison system and to retrain surplus guards to work in other venues), and he's asking for close to $1 billion in cuts to vital prison drug-treatment, education and job-training services. At the same time, since this is all about shaving dollars off budgets rather than intelligent criminal justice system reform, there's no talk of investing in crucial re-entry infrastructure.

In short, it looks like California will go about a necessary scaling back of the correctional system exactly the wrong way. But however grudgingly state officials are approaching the issue, at least they recognize that the magnitude of prison spending is a problem. Down the road, when Californians start thinking beyond the crisis moment, that new understanding will shape policy responses for years to come. It will both feed off and help create a new national sentiment that being "tough on crime" isn't necessarily being smart on crime.

Tough-on-crime rhetoric, and the policies and institutions that grow from it, emerged from Nixon's Silent Majority tactics, from his recasting of politics as a series of debates around "values" rather than bread-and-butter issues. And in the same way the 2008 presidential election ended that peculiar chapter in American history, so too did it end the monotone cry that we could incarcerate our way out of deep-rooted social and economic problems. Despite a few halfhearted GOP attempts to accuse Democrats of being weak on drugs and public safety--Obama had, after all, written about his drug use during his teenage and early adult years, which, according to the old calculus, should have made him an easy target for scaremongers--neither presidential candidate played the tough-on-crime card. It was a nonissue for most voters and thus for the candidates. In fact, recent Zogby polling commissioned by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency suggests that close to eight in ten Americans favor alternatives to incarceration for low-level nonviolent offenders. Another Zogby poll, from last fall, found that just more than three-quarters of Americans felt the "war on drugs" was a failure. The sea change in public opinion holds in California too. In late March the Los Angeles Times ran a column asking readers their opinion on marijuana legalization. So far 4,927 people have replied, and 94 percent of them favor legalization. A Field Poll in April found that 56 percent of Californians favor legalizing and taxing pot.

The new atmosphere is most apparent vis-à-vis the Obama administration's move away from "war on drugs" rhetoric and toward a harm-reduction strategy. Gil Kerlikowske, the new head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, has made it clear that he prefers treatment over punishment for drug users, a preference he brings from his time as a reform-oriented police chief in Seattle. Putting money where its mouth is, the new team has increased funding for the Bush-era Second Chance Act, intended to connect released inmates with community services such as housing, family counseling and addiction treatment. Support is also growing for the creation of more drug and mental health courts across the country. Finally, there are the promises being made by drug policy leaders in Washington that state medical marijuana laws will be respected rather than trampled, as they have been for more than a decade.

A related issue involves the infamous discrepancy in sentences for crack- versus powder-cocaine crimes. Vice President Biden was one of the architects of these laws--which is why his repudiation of them in recent years has been so significant. The day after Obama's inauguration, the president's website mentioned the importance of eliminating these discrepancies--as well as of promoting needle-exchange programs and expanding the nation's embryonic network of drug courts. The House recently held hearings on the sentencing discrepancy issue.

For Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy state director of the Drug Policy Alliance in Southern California, sacrosanct legislative underpinnings of the "war on drugs" are starting to look like the Berlin Wall, "up one day and down the next"--seemingly impregnable; in reality, utterly fragile. Over the past few years, an increasing number of localities have dabbled in ways to simply walk away from the "war on drugs." Initiatives in several states and cities, including Denver; Missoula, Montana; Albany County, Oregon; and Seattle have mandated that law enforcement agencies deprioritize marijuana arrests. Several cities have begun needle-exchange programs. And states like California have passed citizens' initiatives mandating that first-time drug offenders be channeled into treatment programs in lieu of prisons.

Then there's Virginia Senator Jim Webb's legislation creating a blue-ribbon commission on criminal justice reform, with a mandate to put all questions on the table during its eighteen-month tenure--from drug law reform to the restoration of judicial discretion in sentencing, from parole reforms to different approaches to gangs, border patrol, prison architecture and the like. Webb has been pushing for systemic criminal justice reform for years; in 2009, he believes, it will acquire legs. During a telephone interview for this article, Webb said that President Obama "has personally called me on this, and he's very supportive of the idea of moving forward." Across the aisle many Republican senators, including senior figures like Lindsey Graham, have also expressed support for the idea.

The bipartisan backing for Webb's commission is partly a response to the escalating drug-and-gang crisis south of the border. There's a growing recognition in US policy and law enforcement circles that government dysfunction, phenomenal levels of street violence and the rising power of drug cartels are threatening to move from being a Latin American problem to one that destroys the integrity of the Mexican state and risks spilling over more heavily into the American Southwest. Nobody, no matter their political stripe, wants the Tijuana-ization or Juárez-ization of Phoenix or Los Angeles, of San Diego or El Paso.

"It really is a serious problem in this country," Webb argues. "The transnational gangs or syndicates are bringing a tremendous amount of drugs into this country."

To get a handle on that problem involves thinking of ways to neutralize these gangs, which inevitably leads to a discussion of partial drug decriminalization or legalization. Why? Because once the drug market is no longer confined to the shadows--once it is regulated and taxed, as alcohol was after Prohibition ended in 1933--the violence that accompanies struggles for control of that illicit market will disappear. After years of denying this truth and assuming that the country could incarcerate its way out of the drug-abuse epidemic, a number of American politicians, Webb included, are touting that seemingly paradoxical fact. Want to get really tough on crime? Well, do the smart thing: start working out ways to neutralize the drug cartels, start talking about at least limited forms of decriminalization or legalization.

It is, Webb argues, "a fair issue for this commission. Every piece of it should be fair game."

For an administration like Obama's that prides itself on thinking outside the box, systemic drug policy reform is an intriguing prospect. An increasing number of law enforcement people and judges have also decided that this is an idea worth running with.

"I've never seen so much interest," says retired Orange County superior court judge James Gray, who has been advocating marijuana legalization since the early 1990s. "My phone is ringing much more than it ever has before."

"We need to ask, Is there a more sensible approach?" argues Norm Stamper, who, like Kerlikowske, is a former chief of police of Seattle who believes the criminal justice system is broken. "And the answer is prevention and education and treatment."

After decades of being on the defensive, progressive criminal justice reformers suddenly have a receptive audience. New York, which has closed some of its prisons in the past decade, has spent the last few years unraveling the tangled web created by the 1970s-era Rockefeller drug laws. Michigan, Louisiana and several other states have also scaled back their harshest mandatory drug sentences. The State of Washington is looking at how to redefine low-end drug and property crimes as misdemeanors rather than felonies. And in Michigan, which allows a $100 theft to trigger a four-year prison sentence, legislators are pushing to make the threshold $1,000 instead, so as to reduce the number of low-end offenders pushed into long-term incarceration and hobbled for life by felony convictions.

Meanwhile, correctional system administrators in Georgia, Illinois and Arkansas have started the long, hard task of reforming their systems from within even without a new consensus emerging on the issue.

Howard Wooldridge, a retired police detective from Bath, Michigan, who advocates in DC for criminal justice system reform, says the moment is ripe for change. "I've been doing this for twelve years, and this is by far the most perfect storm."

America isn't about to abandon all of its "tough on crime" tenets. Nor should it in all instances. The three-strikes law will likely remain in place for violent offenders, as will the growing body of laws limiting where sex offenders may live. Violent crimes will probably continue to trigger longer sentences than they did before the get-tough movement. And while some inmates will qualify for early release, many sentenced to long terms at the height of the tough-on-crime years will stay in prison. But out of economic necessity and because of shifting mores, the country will likely get more selective, and smarter, about how it uses incarceration and whom it targets for long spells behind bars.

This will be especially true for drug policy--the multi-tentacled beast that's sucking most people into jails and prisons. There, profound changes are likely to develop over the next few years. And when it comes to the mentally ill, momentum continues to build around mental health courts designed to get people medical and counseling help rather than simply to shunt them off to prison. States like Pennsylvania are starting to develop parallel institutions to deal with mentally ill people who run afoul of the law. Many other states will likely follow suit in the near future. Forty years after deinstitutionalization, a new consensus is emerging that prisons became an accidental, de facto alternative to mental hospitals, and that very little good has come from that development.

"I believe that we have a compelling national interest," explains Senator Webb, referring to systemic criminal justice reform. "That's a term that is carefully chosen. This is a national commission, but it should not be limited to looking at the federal prison system. You have to look at the whole picture and then boil it down into resolvable issues."


About Sasha Abramsky
Sasha Abramsky, a freelance journalist and senior fellow at Demos, is the author, most recently, of Breadline USA: The Hidden Scandal of American Hunger and How to Fix It (PoliPoint).