LA Times - L.A. church offers migrants sanctuary

Los Angeles Times

latimes.com

L.A. church offers migrants sanctuary

Our Lady Queen of Angels joins a national effort to shield illegal immigrants and press for changes in the law.

By Louis Sahagun, Times Staff Writer
March 23, 2007

Construction crews at Our Lady Queen of Angels are putting the finishing touches on a controversial new addition to the historic downtown Los Angeles church: living quarters in which to harbor an immigrant family facing deportation.

The 188-year-old parish, also known as La Placita, is among the first churches in the nation to pledge participation in a new sanctuary movement expected to be launched in late April as a faith-based effort to help undocumented families and to press for immigration reform.

"Here, we're taking our concerns about the nation's broken immigration system to a new level," Father Richard Estrada said this week as he stood in the church's second-floor storage room, above the altar, that is being converted into housing.

"Families broken by broken laws, and churches broken by it all," Estrada said. "You hear about it happening in churches across the city."

Inspired by Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who has taken refuge at a Methodist church in Chicago since August to avoid deportation, leaders of the first sanctuary movement in 25 years are interviewing hundreds of prospective candidates for refuge and dozens of churches willing to accept the legal risks of taking them in.

Advocacy groups, including Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice-California, Interfaith Worker Justice and the New York Sanctuary Coalition, are asking each participating church, synagogue and mosque to provide refuge for one or more illegal immigrants.

To be eligible, an undocumented immigrant must be in deportation proceedings, have a good work record and have children who are U.S. citizens by birth. They must also agree to undergo training to overcome their fear of public exposure and articulate their cases at news conferences and public gatherings.

Church officials, citing immigration raids across the country that are breaking up families, say immigration law needs to be more humane. With Congress poised to restart debate on legislative reforms, they hope the sanctuary movement will focus attention on the issue.

"We'd like these families to represent the 12 million undocumented people in the United States," said the Rev. Alexia Salvatierra, executive director of Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice-California and a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

"We're choosing them for their personal stories," she said, "but we're training them in how to respond to questions about their plights."

Salvatierra said the movement is a political protest against immigration policies as well as a religious obligation recognized in biblical passages such as Leviticus 19:34: "The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the Lord your God."

Although it has no legal standing in the United States, sanctuary as a sacred right of a church is a widely held notion. Those who believe in it think that federal officers are less likely to arrest an undocumented family in a church than in a home or workplace.

To attract as much media attention as possible, the new sanctuary movement will be unveiled in simultaneous news conferences in Los Angeles and New York City.

"The churches in these cities will serve as models for others to emulate," said immigration attorney Peter A. Schey, president of the board of directors of the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law Foundation. "The long-term goal would be to have as many faith-based organizations as possible helping as many immigrant families as possible."

But critics such as Lupe Moreno said the sanctuary movement is misguided.

"They talk about preserving family unity, but illegal immigrants leave wives, husbands and children in Mexico all the time — and sometimes never see them again," said Moreno, spokeswoman for Latino Americans for Immigration Reform. "I've met lots of people who remember being abandoned by parents who left them behind in Mexico."

Sanctuary leaders acknowledged that it hasn't been easy persuading churches to declare themselves sanctuaries. The policy of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which includes a number of priests who belong to organizations supporting the sanctuary movement, is to allow individual parishes to decide whether to participate.

Some church leaders still talk about how the federal government in 1985 began to indict sanctuary workers in Tucson and Seattle for concealing and assisting illegal immigrants.

In an effort to avoid legal confrontations, immigration attorneys are advising participants in the new sanctuary movement not to hide the identity of the illegal immigrants in their care.

"The congregation is not breaking any laws as long as the family is public and they are in the legal process," Salvatierra said.

Some churches are not convinced.

"We're considering joining the sanctuary movement," said Father Richard Zanotti of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, a parish of 4,000 congregants in Sun Valley. "Our concern is over what we will have to commit to provide for any family we accept."

"We don't want to put a family in an uncomfortable situation — that goes for our congregants as well," he said. "But there's always some risk of a glitch in an immigration office or of someone coming out to bring us to court."

A new legal strategy and an emphasis on keeping undocumented families united are not the only things that set the new sanctuary movement apart from one in the 1980s organized to aid thousands of Central Americans fleeing civil wars.

"The new movement recognizes that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today are a diverse group," Schey said, "and they came here seeking familial reunification or were drawn by the demand for labor."

The sparks that ignited the new movement were immigration raids in recent months that resulted in undocumented parents being separated from their U.S.-born children, or entire families being held in detention in prison-like settings.

In Southern California, church leaders and illegal immigrant workers facing deportation began meeting after work in religious centers such as the Episcopal Cathedral Center of St. Paul in Echo Park to discuss what they could do. The often-emotional sessions were conducted around a single lighted candle and ended with prayers and singing.

It all brings back painful memories for Estrada, who 22 years ago helped organize an effort to house dozens of undocumented political refugees from Central America in Our Lady Queen of Angels, which has a long history of social activism.

"We had about 100 people sleeping and eating in the church basement," he recalled. "That was unacceptable. We're not going to do it like that this time."

Instead, "we're building a little living quarters in our church at a cost of about $1,000," he said. "It's not much money, but it will help us get our message out: We have to stop the raids."

*

---

louis.sahagun@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sanctuary23mar23,1,4008191.story?page=1&ctrack=1&cset=true

---

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

AP - U.S. launches huge show of force in Persian Gulf

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/27/africa/ME-GEN-Gulf-US-Maneuvers.php

Associated Press
March 27, 2007

U.S. launches huge show of force in Persian Gulf

ABOARD THE USS JOHN C. STENNIS IN THE GULF - The U.S.
Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of
force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
deploying two aircraft carriers and conducting
simulated aerial attacks.

The maneuvers, involving 15 U.S. warships and more
than a hundred planes, were certain to increase
tension with Iran, which has frequently condemned the
U.S. military presence off its coastline.

The exercises began only four days after Iran captured
15 British sailors and marines whom it accused of
straying into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain
and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors
were operating in Iraqi waters.

Aboard the carrier USS John C. Stennis, F/A-18 fighter
jets rocketed off the deck in one of a dozen
rapid-fire training sorties against enemy shipping and
aircraft.

"These maneuvers demonstrate our flexibility and
capability to respond to threats to maritime security
[sic]," said U.S. Navy Lt. John Perkins, 32, of
Louisville, Kentucky, as the Stennis cruised about 80
miles off the United Arab Emirates.

"They're showing we can keep the maritime environment
safe and the vital link to the global economy open."
....
A French naval strike group, led by the aircraft
carrier Charles de Gaulle, was operating
simultaneously just outside the Gulf. But the French
ships were supporting the NATO forces in Afghanistan
and not taking part in the U.S. maneuvers, Aandahl
said.

Overall, the exercises involve more than 10,000 U.S.
personnel on warships and aircraft making simulated
attacks on enemy aircraft and shipping, hunting enemy
submarines and finding mines.
....
The U.S. drills were the latest in a series of
American and Iranian war games. Iran conducted naval
maneuvers in November and April, while in October the
U.S. Navy led a Gulf training exercise aimed at
blocking nuclear smuggling.

In January, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said
the Stennis strike group was being sent to the Mideast
as a warning to Iran that it should not misjudge
America's resolve in the region.

Iran has grown increasingly assertive in the Gulf as
the U.S. military has become bogged down in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Iranian officials have publicly called on
America's Gulf Arab allies to shut down U.S. military
bases and join Iran in a regional security alliance.

Gulf Arab leaders have grown increasingly uneasy with
the aggressive U.S. stance toward Iran, believing it
could provoke an unwanted war that could bring attacks
on their own soil. But none has shown interest in an
alliance with Iran.
....
The USS Stennis strike group, with more than 6,500
sailors and marines, entered the Gulf late Monday or
early Tuesday along with the guided-missile cruiser
USS Antietam, the Navy said.

The Stennis, which had been supporting the Afghan war,
joined the strike group led by the carrier USS Dwight
D. Eisenhower, the first time two U.S. aircraft
carriers have operated in the Gulf since the U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq in 2003, Aandahl said. The Eisenhower
was operating off the coast of Somalia in January and
February.

Each carrier hosts an air wing of F/A-18 Hornet and
Superhornet fighter-bombers, EA-6B Prowler electronic
warfare aircraft, S-3 Viking anti-submarine and
refuelers, and E-2C Hawkeye airborne
command-and-control craft.

Also taking part were guided-missile destroyers USS
Anzio, USS Ramage, USS O'Kane, USS Mason, USS Preble
and USS Nitze; and minesweepers USS Scout, USS
Gladiator and USS Ardent.

===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
==============================

---

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

[HTML version]

Activists Seek Alternative Model to ‘Neo-Liberal’ Trade Pacts by Michelle Chen (bio)

Mar 19 - With two controversial trade deals awaiting ratification, Congress is taking stock of the White House’s free-trade agenda, and activists are seizing the moment to call for policies that respond to the social needs of all countries involved. Lawmakers are considering trade deals with Colombia and Peru that encapsulate some of the most contentious aspects of so-called "free trade": rules that critics say elevate corporate privilege over human rights, promote exploitation of workers, and destabilize economies. At the same time, President Bush’s power to broker such deals with minimal congressional oversight comes up for renewal later this year. Labor, environmental, and humanitarian groups are urging Congress to block the pending agreements and similar accords now under negotiation. And opponents outside government are also working to upend the ideology behind modern trade policies in both parties by articulating an alternative agenda ˜ one that treats global trade as a resource to raise living standards rather than as a vehicle for corporate profits. "Trade is not any longer the province of government elites and investors," said Gary Hubbard, a spokesperson for the United Steelworkers union. "Everyone should benefit from trade ˜ not just global corporations and governments." Public outcry over free-trade agreements is nothing new. But with a new Congress, following an election in which job security and trade were hot-button issues, advocates for "fair trade" see an opportunity to finally penetrate the political mainstream. A first step, they say, is to reform the negotiation process that has long been dominated by the White House and business interests. The Bush administration’s trade deals have been greased by "fast tracking" ˜ a special authority that enables the executive branch to broker and sign a trade agreement without direct congressional input. The deal then goes to a simple up-or-down vote; Congress cannot make amendments, and debate time is limited. Last renewed in 2002, the president’s fast-track authority will expire on July 1 ˜ unless the Democrat-controlled Congress is persuaded to restore it. Though the US Trade Representative’s Office, the agency that leads trade talks, does consult with outside "advisory committees," many of these are currently dominated by representatives of corporations like Boeing and Intel. New Rules Yvette Pena Lopes, with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said that while union advocates realize that, inevitably, "trade is going to happen," their challenge now is to "begin to lay out what must be, and what cannot be, within trade agreements." Earlier this month, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, a coalition of unions that includes the Teamsters, both issued policy statements calling for a more-transparent negotiation process to replace the current fast-track system. To check presidential power, they argued: Congress should design economic and social "readiness criteria" for deciding whether a trade deal with a country would be mutually beneficial. And lawmakers should establish stronger, binding labor and environmental standards that a country must meet before the president could finalize any deal. The organizations said trade deals should incorporate basic labor standards set by the United Nations’s International Labour Organization (ILO). These include the right to organize unions, prohibitions on child labor, protections against discrimination in employment opportunities, and the elimination of forced labor. Unions and human-rights groups say the deals now awaiting congressional approval run counter to these goals. The Peru agreement, for example, contains no explicit mandate to enforce ILO standards. It simply directs the Peruvian government to uphold its "existing labor laws" and discourages, but does not prohibit, the weakening of protections to serve commercial interests. Meanwhile, an investigation of Peru by the US State Department uncovered widespread child labor. And the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions has reported frequent suppression of union organizers by employers ˜ especially multinational companies. The labor coalitions also join other activist organizations in opposing trade policies that could restrict governments from meeting basic social needs. Controversial patent rules in the Peru and Colombia deals would expand pharmaceutical companies’ power to monopolize production of essential medicines and block lower-cost generic versions. The Health Ministry of Peru projected in 2005 that the Peru trade agreement would foreclose access to medicine for about 700,000 to 900,000 people annually in the first five years of implementation. Critics of the trade deals say corporate privilege would be further bolstered by "dispute settlement" measures, which empower companies to sue governments over policies that supposedly impinge on their market access. Under similar provisions in the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among the United States, Canada and Mexico, firms have launched legal attacks on anti-toxic-dumping regulations, protections for indigenous sacred sites, and domestic tax policies. Touting trade liberalization as part of a regional strategy to "build democratic institutions and promote socio-economic development," the US Trade Representative’s Office has contended the pending trade deals would boost jobs and investment opportunities for the United States, while promoting long-term economic growth and combating drug trafficking in Peru and Colombia. But Jessica Walker Beaumont, a trade and debt specialist with the Quaker activist group American Friends Service Committee, said current trade deals are based on "limiting the government’s ability to make choices for itself" in economic policy ˜ such as establishing public ownership of utilities, or shielding local farms from foreign competition. In an analysis of the Peru and Colombia trade agreements, the humanitarian group Oxfam International predicted the free-trade rules would displace small-scale farmers with an onslaught of imports of cheap, subsidized US crops. The group cited government data for nine primary crops in Colombia, including cotton and rice, showing that without protective import restrictions, in these sectors, the area of land farmed would shrink by one-fifth and employment would fall by over a third. Human-rights groups warn that economic destabilization of Colombia’s rural sector would deepen existing strife by driving farmers into lucrative coca production or into the ranks of warring factions. And workers’ advocates argue that enacting the Colombia deal would display the administration’s indifference to the country’s ongoing human-rights crisis. US and Colombian rights groups point to scores of documented murders of trade unionists in recent years amid a ferocious civil war. Colombian Senator Gustavo Petro, a member of the opposition party Polo Democrático Alternativo, told The NewStandard the trade deal must be renegotiated to include "new clauses that protect the labor rights of Colombian workers" as well as land-distribution policies that protect smaller farmers. "Undoubtedly," he said through an interpreter, under the current deal, "the ones who will benefit, at least in the rural places in Colombia, are the narco-traffickers." Recasting Globalization Though fair-trade issues may be generating more political buzz, a concrete alternative to the free-trade agenda has not yet materialized on Capitol Hill. More ambitious ideas have emerged on the grassroots level. One example is a far-ranging blueprint for "sustainable" international trade presented in 2002 by the Hemispheric Social Alliance, a coalition of advocacy groups across the Americas. That model envisioned trade pacts as mutual social contracts that would condition economic exchange on the promotion of global ethical standards. Rather than focusing on pushing capital across borders, governments under these agreements would commit to policies like public investment in alternative energy sources, equal labor rights for migrants, and agricultural regulations based on securing an adequate regional food supply. Stephanie Burgos, an advisor for Oxfam on trade policy, said more-comprehensive concepts of fair trade center on respect for the political and social integrity of other nations ˜ allowing economically poorer countries to "decide their own pace and level of market opening." For now, activists seeking dramatic changes in the global trade system fear congressional Democrats might ultimately continue their general support for prevailing neo-liberal trade priorities. In a speech earlier this month, Representative Sander Levin (D˜Michigan), head of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, urged reforms to current trade policies, stressing protections for US workers and labor rights. But in recent statements, Ways and Means Committee chair Charles Rangel (D˜New York) has called for Congress and the White House to "be partners in promoting trade" and announced he is working with the Trade Representative’s Office on a compromise over labor provisions in the pending agreements. Sarah Anderson, director of the Global Economy Project at the progressive think tank Institute for Policy Studies, said activists should be wary that Congress "might cut a deal in name of these fair-trade activists but not actually go as far as we would like." In focusing on labor policies in the trade deals, she said, Democratic leaders could be trying to appease unions while glossing over more-nuanced issues involving the environment or expansive powers for investors. But if broad consensus on how to restructure the global trade system has yet to emerge in Washington, some activists perceive at least a growing sense that the status quo is failing. "We’re at a turning point," said Larry Weiss of the Citizens Trade Campaign, a coalition of labor, environmental and other activist groups. "We are currently demonstrating that the old NAFTA model is dead, that no more NAFTA-style trade deals can get through Congress. But we are not yet at the point of establishing a new model."

© 2007 The NewStandard. See our reprint policy. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a donation to The NewStandard

---

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

The Austin American-Statesman - Should Sam Kambo be deported?

statesman.com

Should Sam Kambo be deported?

Government says he was part of brutal coup; friend, co-workers rally around LCRA employee and father of four who left African home in 1994.

By John Kelso and Andrea Ball
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, March 11, 2007

When Sam Kambo applied for a visa before entering the United States in 1994, the U.S. government knew that he was a leader of a group that had overthrown the government in his native Sierra Leone in a 1992 coup.

Kambo received his diplomatic visa, settled in Austin and earned bachelor's and master's degrees at the University of Texas. He started a family here and landed a job at the Lower Colorado River Authority.

Now, 13 years after he left Africa, Kambo is in jail in San Antonio, and the U.S. government is trying to send him back to Sierra Leone, accusing him of overstaying his work visa.

The government has refused to release him on bail since he was jailed in October, citing allegations of atrocities committed by the National Provisional Ruling Council government, which he helped lead in Sierra Leone, such as executing prisoners and publicly displaying the heads of slain rebels. In court documents, the government says Kambo's "presence in the United States is an affront to civilized society."

But there is no claim that Kambo had a direct, personal role in the abuses. Nor is there any explanation for why the U.S. stance on his past has changed so drastically since it let him into the country.

People in Austin who know Kambo say the guy Homeland Security is describing is not the Sam Kambo they have grown to love and respect, and they have rallied around Kambo and his family.

"If you knew the guy, you'd be a huge supporter," LCRA spokesman Robert Cullick said. "We've turned back flips over here to help him and his family. His fellow employees here have had taco sales and bake sales and created a fund at the credit union and such."

In their eyes, Kambo is the kind of immigrant you'd think this country would want: a college honors graduate, a loving father, a homeowner, a hard worker lauded by his bosses.

In a letter from jail, Kambo said he became disillusioned with the NPRC and resigned from it when he came to the United States in 1994. Media reports from Sierra Leone have suggested that Kambo left amid allegations that he had siphoned money that was supposed to be used to buy arms, charges that Kambo said Friday were "a lot of wild speculation."

Kambo, 38, went to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in San Antonio on Oct. 27 for what he thought would be a hearing to decide whether he could become a permanent U.S. resident.

Instead, he was arrested, and he's been locked up in the GEO Group private detention facility in San Antonio since.

His deportation hearing is scheduled for April 12.

Kambo's San Antonio lawyer, Simon Azar-Farr, says Kambo's situation is the kind of thing that has happened to immigrants regularly since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and he questions why the government is suddenly trying to deport his client.

"Mr. Kambo has never covered up or denied his participation in the coup, nor his membership in the NPRC," his lawyer said in court documents. "Rather, knowing full well his position in the NPRC, the United States granted Mr. Kambo a diplomatic visa in 1993, a student visa in 1996, a workers visa in 1998 and an extension of that visa in 2002."

The government won't say much about the case, except that Kambo is in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody "pending the outcome of his immigration case," according to an e-mail from agency spokeswoman Nina Pruneda.

In coup's inner circle

A document from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security says Kambo "was one of eight soldiers in the inner circle of the National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC), the military junta that seized power from President Joseph Momoh in an April 1992 coup."

The document also contends that the NPRC "took severe actions against rebels; public humiliation, summary execution of prisoners, and displays of rebel heads (and other body parts) were not uncommon."

None of the documents accuse Kambo specifically of committing atrocities.

But in its letter denying Kambo's application for citizenship, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services official wrote: "You were a high-ranking officer in this organization which is well known for its acts of torture and extra-judicial killings, and in light of your leadership role in this organization, you are fully responsible for such actions."

Corinne Dufka, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch in West Africa, wrote in an e-mail that the NPRC did "overthrow the largely corrupt government of APC President Joseph Momoh. However, they were also accused of serious abuses themselves. . . . The soldiers were undisciplined, ineffective and colluded with the rebels to loot, rob and extort from the population."

Dufka added that in December 1992, a few months after the coup, the NPRC executed several soldiers who were suspected of planning their own coup.

Guilt by association?

From jail last week, Kambo said that there were executions but that he had no part in them.

Kambo says they were ordered by the head of the NPRC, Valentine Strasser, "because we had an ongoing war, and the government that we overthrew was plotting to come back."

He said his group overthrew the government because it wasn't giving the army adequate weapons to fight rebels from neighboring Liberia.

"The government was supplying us with weapons that would not fire," he said. "This is what led to the coup."

And of the undisciplined soldiers who allegedly looted and robbed?

That was done by rebels, not NPRC members, Kambo said. "Rebels were able to capture soldiers' uniforms. This is even happening in Iraq."

Kambo calls the charges against him guilt by association. He says the reports of him siphoning money appeared in publications influenced by politicians trying to discredit the military regime he helped lead: If he had all that money, why was he working here?

Carl Schieren, an expert on Africa and manager of a U.N. program that provided U.S. college scholarships to NPRC military leaders, including Kambo, thinks Homeland Security is unfairly targeting Kambo.

He said the NPRC fought a long war with a rebel chief named Foday Sankoh, whose troops drugged children to turn them into soldiers and cut off hands and ears as a common tactic. Because of its lengthy war with rebel bands, the country became the poster child for mutilation and brutality.

In retaliation, "I think the NPRC did some things that were not very nice," Schieren said.

But Kambo?

"I personally handled the (U.N. scholarship) program of Mr. Kambo," Schieren wrote in a letter. "He was one of the most impressive students I dealt with over 30 years working with students from Africa and the Middle East. . . . He was a modest, soft-spoken young man, with a generous sense of humor."

From studies to work

Kambo began studying at UT under a diplomatic form of visa, then later applied for and received a student visa. After finishing his studies, he got a work visa for skilled professions and landed a job at a small computer chip company in Austin.

About 2 1/2 years ago, Kambo got a job with the LCRA, working in the wholesale power services division, trading in natural gas futures and options and doing analytical work. The LCRA helped find an immigration attorney to defend him.

"He's been nothing but a model employee," said his boss, Daniel Kuehn. "Very dedicated. Great family guy. Not afraid of hard work. Great initiative, all those things. Can't say enough good things about my experience with him."

Kambo and his wife, Hanaan, have four children who were born in the United States.

In 2001, Kambo applied for permanent U.S. residency.

His attorney, Azar-Farr, says the procedure usually takes three to five months. But in Kambo's case, it stretched out for five years. Finally, in October, Kambo was called in for an interview for a green card.

He had no idea what was coming.

"Total shock: When I was arrested, I was in shock," Kambo recalled. "Never in my wildest dream would I be arrested."

His wife, who went with him that day, was equally stunned.

"They invited both of us," Hanaan said. "We told the children, 'If they tell us no, we'll have to pack up and go back to Africa.' That was the worst-case scenario."

Hanaan was waiting in the hall when the Austin attorney who had gone with them to the hearing came out and asked her whether she could drive.

"I said, 'Why?' and he said, 'Your husband has been arrested.' " Hanaan said.

The legal wrangling has continued since.

In November, an immigration judge ruled that Kambo should be released on $12,500 bail. But the U.S. Department of Homeland Security filed an emergency stay on the judge's order.

On Jan. 26, after the Board of Immigration Appeals also decided that Kambo should be released on bail, Homeland Security got another stay to block his release.

"A case like this strikes me as an ugly exhibition of raw power," Azar-Farr said. "He has already had an immigration judge and a board order his release, and the government has repeatedly failed to comply with those orders."

Bail-less breadwinner

Kambo's jailing has caused emotional and financial hardships for him, his wife and children, who are scraping by with the help of friends at the LCRA and at the school that two of the children attend.

"It's been very tough, very tough," Kambo said. "But the support I'm hearing helps out a lot."

"We've never known him as anything but a positive and understanding dad," said Shelly Hohmann, principal of Caraway Elementary in the Round Rock district, where Kambo's 9-year-old girls, Shaina and Hannah, attend school.

Hohmann says the teachers there have chipped in to help the Kambos pay their bills.

"They have basically sustained our life, because we didn't have any savings," said Hanaan, a stay-at-home mom and Sierra Leone native. "My husband has this huge school loan. Thank God for all these people."

Every other week on a Saturday or a Sunday, Hanaan and the children travel from Austin to San Antonio to visit Kambo.

Hanaan says it's always emotionally wrenching: "There is no contact. There is this glass barrier. My son (Seth, 4) keeps asking, why can't he touch his dad?"

Hanaan can't understand why the government is holding her husband without bail.

"That is what's killing us; they say he's a flight risk," Hanaan said. "But where is he going to go? He has a home here; his children are here. He isn't going to leave us."

Hanaan says her husband is growing depressed in prison.

"It's prayer that's keeping him strong," she said.

If her husband is deported, she and the family will go back to Sierra Leone with him, she says. She worries that if they are forced to return, members of the former government that her husband helped overthrow will retaliate against them.

Meanwhile, some of Kambo's friends and colleagues have grown distrustful of the U.S. government.

"It's a little bit frustrating that in America, everybody gets due process, but since 9/11, I guess that's not the case," said Kuehn, Kambo's boss. "And you don't realize this until you know somebody who is in this pickle."

jkelso@statesman.com; 445-3606

------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presented by The Austin American-Statesman. 

Copyright 2001-2007 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights reserved.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/11/11kambo.html

---

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

AI: Urgent Action - Iraq: Fear of imminent execution/death penalty

AI: Urgent Action - Iraq: Fear of imminent execution/death penalty -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amnesty International

URGENT ACTION

Iraq: Fear of imminent execution/death penalty

PUBLIC AI Index: MDE 14/005/2007
09 February 2007

UA 33/07 Fear of imminent execution/death penalty


IRAQ Samar Sa’ad ‘Abdullah (f), aged about 25
Wassan Talib (f), aged 31
Zeynab Fadhil (f), aged 25
Liqa’ Qamar (f), aged 25

The four women named above have been sentenced to death, and at least one of
them is in imminent danger of execution. The president has the power to pardon
them, or commute their sentences.

Samar Sa’ad ‘Abdullah was sentenced to death by the Central Criminal Court of
Iraq (CCCI) on 15 August 2005 for the murder of her uncle, his wife and three
of their children in the al-Khudra’ district of Baghdad. She reportedly blamed
the killings on her fiancé, who, she said, had carried them out in order to rob
her uncle. Her fiancé was said to have been arrested, but Amnesty International
does not know what charges, if any, have been brought against him. Samar Sa’ad
‘Abdullah's death sentence was upheld on appeal, and she is facing imminent
execution.

In a separate case, Wassan Talib and Zeynab Fadhil were sentenced to death by
the CCCI on 31 August 2006 for the 2005 murder of several members of Iraqi
security forces in the Baghdad district of Hay al-Furat. Both women denied they
had been involved, and Zeynab Fadhil reportedly claimed that she was abroad at
the time of the killings.

Liqa’ Qamar was sentenced to death on 6 February 2006 by the CCCI, for a
kidnapping which reportedly took place in 2005. Her husband is said to have
been detained and accused of the same crime. No further details are available.

All four women are held at Baghdad's al-Kadhimiya Prison. Two have young
children with them: Zeynab Fadhil her three-year-old daughter, Liqa' Qamar her
one-year-old daughter, who was born in prison.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The interim government of Iraq reinstated the death penalty in August 2004 for
several offences, including offences against Iraq's internal security,
premeditated murder, drug trafficking and (in certain circumstances)
kidnapping. The first three executions were carried out on 1 September 2005,
and during 2006 at least 65 men and women were executed. Among them were 27
people reportedly hanged in Baghdad on 6 September, and a further 11 hanged in
the city of Arbil on 21 September. Among those executed in 2006 was former
president Saddam Hussain. So far this year at least two people are known to
have been executed: Saddam Hussain’s half-brother Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti,
and the former head of the Revolutionary Court, ‘Awad Hamad al-Bandar al-Sa’
dun. Both men were executed by hanging on 15 January. They had been sentenced
to death by the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal in connection with the killing
of 148 people from the village of al-Dujail, which had followed an attempted
assassination of Saddam Hussain in 1982.

...   © Copyright Amnesty International

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Amnesty International appeal: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140052007

---

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

Fwd: CCR - Restore Habeas Corpus! Join the fight now!!

center

for

constitutional

rights

Dear [friend of CCR], CCR needs your help to restore some of the fundamental constitutional rights that were eroded by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). Two bills introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday - the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 and the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 aim to correct some of the damage done by the Bush administration and the disastrous and reprehensible MCA. We are asking you to take a few moments and send this letter to urge your Representative to co-sponsor and support this legislation. (For more information on the MCA and the proposed legislation, click here.) The drafters of the MCA intentionally attacked some of America's most important and fundamental legal principles. The MCA: -Strips detainees of the right to habeas corpus -a fundamental right that has been enshrined in law since the 13th century -Removes the detainees from the protection of the Geneva Conventions -Allows for the use of evidence obtained through torture The movement to restore and preserve our constitutional rights must continue to be waged in the courts. CCR is continuing to press ahead with our case Al Odah v. United States and its companion case Boumediene v. Bush that both challenge the MCA on legal grounds. We need a firm ruling from the Supreme Court to ensure that these fundamental rights will be safe in the future. But we must seek a legislative solution as well to begin to achieve justice swiftly for the many who have been denied it by the MCA's provisions. While neither of these bills repair all of the damage done by the MCA, they are critical steps in the right direction. It is more important than ever that your voice is heard. Let your Representative know that you want America to respect the rule by urging supporting the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 and the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007. Sincerely, Executive Director Vince Warren

take action donate

	To unsubscribe from this list reply to this email with "unsubscribe" in the subject line
	Center for Constitutional Rights ll 666 Broadway 7th floor NY, NY 10031 ll 212-614-6464 ll www.ccr-ny.org

---

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

NY Times - Antiwar Caucus Wants to Be Heard Now

The New York Times

Antiwar Caucus Wants to Be Heard Now

By MICHAEL LUO

Published: March 4, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 2 — About a dozen members of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus gathered on a sunny day last summer on the terrace outside the Capitol for a news conference. The only problem: no reporters showed up.

The members of the group, made up entirely of House Democrats, cracked jokes among themselves before heading back inside, chalking it up as another failed attempt to get noticed.

“I had 30 press conferences where no one showed up,” said Representative Maxine Waters, a California Democrat who leads the 75-member caucus in the House.

Now, with a change in power in Congress and a new military strategy to increase the number of American troops in Iraq, the members of the group — most of them liberals — are suddenly much in demand, finding themselves at the center of the debate over the war.

Yet even with a majority of Americans opposing the war, the caucus is struggling to overcome its fringe image and is becoming increasingly frustrated by what its members say is the Democratic leadership’s unwillingness to heed their calls for decisive action to the end the war.

At the same time, though the members are united in their desire to bring American military involvement in Iraq to a speedy end, they are still debating the best way to do so. In that sense, they reflect the broader struggle among Democrats in Congress, who have been unable to coalesce around a single position on how strongly to confront President Bush over the war.

House Democratic leaders this week seemed to back away slightly from a proposal by Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, to limit Mr. Bush’s latest supplemental spending request for the war. Mr. Murtha’s proposal would have required strict readiness for troops sent to Iraq, essentially limiting the president’s ability to follow through on his plan to deploy an additional 21,500.

Mr. Murtha’s conditions were favored by caucus members, though it has come under fire from Republicans who labeled it a “slow bleed” strategy. The proposed strategy has also run into opposition from conservative House Democrats, who argue that their concerns need to be taken seriously because they helped deliver the Democratic majority in the midterm elections. The Murtha proposal, they said, would leave the party vulnerable to charges of abandoning troops.

“My concern, representing the state where we’ve got the highest percentage call-up of guard and reserve in the country, I want to make sure Congress does not do anything that hamstrings troops on the ground,” said Representative Jim Matheson, a Utah Democrat who is a member of the Blue Dogs, a coalition of party moderates and conservatives.

Democratic leaders have responded to critics by floating a new plan that would allow Mr. Bush to waive the readiness standards, a possibility that has left many of the party’s vocal left wing unhappy. About 30 members of the Out of Iraq Caucus met Thursday to plot strategy. They warned that they might vote against any supplemental bill that did not more strictly limit the president’s options, a vote that could prove embarrassing for a Democratic leadership trying to preserve a fragile majority.

“Nothing is going to happen unless we use the power of the purse,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York. “It’s time to draw a line in the sand.”

The House minority leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said Republicans would oppose any measure that “restricts the president’s ability to win the war in Iraq.”

Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California, a co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, is drafting an amendment that would allow financing only to protect American troops in Iraq pending a full withdrawal under a set timetable.

Assuming the supplemental bill is unsatisfactory to the caucus, war opponents are discussing whether to threaten to vote against it when it comes to a vote in the House floor in mid-March, unless the House leadership also permits a vote on the amendment from Ms. Lee.

Ms. Lee said her goal was to shift the discussion to a “fully funded withdrawal” from “cutting off funding.”

“There’s a distinction between cutting off funding and using the funding to begin a speedy and secure withdrawal within a specific timeframe,” she said.

Created as an offshoot of the Progressive Caucus in the summer of 2005, the Out of Iraq group began with about 50 members. Its slow climb began when Mr. Murtha, an influential lawmaker and Vietnam veteran, unveiled his first plan calling for redeployment of troops in late 2005.

“The Out of Iraq Caucus grabbed onto Murtha,” Ms. Waters said. “Don’t forget, we were considered liberals and/or progressives that did not present a real threat to the administration, or even to the leadership.”

Suddenly, though, they had Mr. Murtha’s backing. The group’s numbers have since swelled, and now include a third of the Democratic majority.

The roster includes nine House committee leaders. Also among its membership are Representative George Miller of California, a trusted confidant of Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, and Representative John B. Larson of Connecticut, the vice-chair of the Democratic Caucus and the only member of the leadership in the group.

But many members rarely attend meetings. Some of its active members are lawmakers who play easily into Republican characterizations of some Democrats as peaceniks far from the mainstream. Ms. Lee was the lone dissenting vote in Congress against the resolution authorizing the president to use force to respond to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. In 2005, she co-sponsored a bill with Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio (also a caucus member), and others to create a cabinet-level office called the Department of Peace.

With such a large tent, caucus members are hardly uniform in their views. Some are pondering whether they should simply continue to be patient. Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, who heads the influential Ways and Means Committee, said he was not sure how he would vote on the supplemental measure.

He called the war “morally wrong” and said “it goes even beyond the brutality of slavery and the lynchings.” At the same time, he said, Democratic leaders must be careful to carve out a consensus path.

Governing as a majority requires compromise, said Representative James P. Moran of Virginia, a caucus member who also sits on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. “Hopefully we don’t have to compromise too much.”

---

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.