Amnesty International Group 22 Pasadena/Caltech News
Volume XII Number 1, January 2004

UPCOMING EVENTS

Thursday, January 22, 7:30 PM. Monthly Meeting 414 S. Holliston, Caltech Y
Lounge. Help us plan future actions on the Patriot Act, Just Earth campaign,
death penalty and more.

Tuesday, Feburary 10, 7:30 PM. Letter-writing Meeting at the Athenaeum.
Corner of California & Hill. This informal gathering is a great way for
newcomers to get acquainted with Amnesty!

Sunday, February 15, 6:30 PM. Rights Readers Human Rights Book Discussion
Group. Vroman's Book Bookstore, 695 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena.  This month
we discuss Bel Canto, by Ann Patchett. (More info below.)


COORDINATOR'S CORNER

Hello everyone and Happy New Year!  I hope that everyone had a restful and
fun holiday.  Robert and I went to Corvallis, Oregon for a week to spend
Christmas with his family.  We had a pleasant time relaxing and left just
before the big snowstorm hit! When we got back, my sister from Dallas
visited and then my cousin from Baltimore last weekend!

Group 22 members Joyce, Lucas, Yuny and son, Veronica, Paul, Barbara, Kathy
and Robert marched in the Doo-Dah Parade Nov 23 along with old friends Larry
Romans, Brent, Tracy Gore! and others from the west-side area groups.
Thanks to the high school students from Eagle Rock and Torrance, and their
teachers, who volunteered, and to Judy Redding, who did the
attention-getting posters of the POCs.  Last but not least, Veronica did a
great job of organizing the skit from beginning to end!  A good time was had
by all!

As you know, our Tibetan POC Nwang Pekar was released and we are thinking of
getting another POC. Come to one of our monthly meetings and give your input
on this and other issues we will be working on (the 4th Thursday).

Bill Schultz, the Executive Director of AIUSA, has written a new book titled
"Tainted Legacy:  The Decline of Human Rights after Sept 11th". We will be
discussing his book this Sunday, Jan 18, at Vromans.  See upcoming events
section.  I've almost finished reading it-it is very interesting and
informative.

The US prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been in the news lately as the
Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case dealing with them in the spring.  At
issue is whether the prisoners are entitled to a hearing to assert their
innocence.  The Court will also decide if US Citizens can be imprisoned by
the military and held without charges if the President says they are
"unlawful enemy combatants".  AI has a website:
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ guantanamobay-index-eng
  with info on
Guantanamo and there is an action to send to President Bush.

Hoping to see you at one of our meetings soon

Take care,

Kathy  aigp22@caltech.edu


CALIFORNIA DEATH PENALTY
Kevin Cooper to be executed February 10

Please contact Gov. Schwarzennegger as soon as possible!  This is the first
time he'll be hearing from us on this issue, so we really need everyone's
voice!

Kevin Cooper (m), black, aged 45, is scheduled to be executed in California
on 10 February 2004. He was sentenced to death in 1985 for a quadruple
murder committed in 1983. He maintains his innocence of the murders.

On 4 June 1983, Douglas and Peggy Ryen and their 10-year-old daughter
Jessica, together with 11-year-old Christopher Hughes, all white, were
hacked to death in the Ryen home in Chino Hills, outside Los Angeles. Joshua
Ryen, aged eight, was wounded in the attack, but survived. The victims
sustained multiple injuries - at least three weapons were used: a knife, a
hatchet and an ice pick. The brutality of the crime led to intense pressure
on the authorities to resolve the case.

Kevin Cooper was arrested several weeks after the murder. He had escaped
from a minimum security prison on 2 June and had hidden in an empty house
near the Ryens' residence for two nights before the crime. He became the
focus of public hatred. Outside the venue of his preliminary hearing, people
hung an effigy of a monkey in a noose with a sign reading ''Hang the
Nigger!!'' At the time of the trial, jurors were confronted by graffiti
declaring ''Die Kevin Cooper'' and ''Kevin Cooper Must Be Hanged''.

Following the arrest, the police focussed on Cooper as the sole suspect to
the exclusion of other possible leads, according to his clemency petition.
At first the authorities had theorized that more than one assailant was
involved, given the scale of the violence and the number of weapons used.
This theory was consistent with the account of a witness who said that he
had seen a car like the Ryens' leaving the area at high speed on the night
of the crime. He said it was being driven by a young white male. A second
witness thought she saw the silhouette of three or four other people in the
car. The theory of multiple assailants also tied with initial statements by
the only survivor, Joshua Ryen, that there had been three white or Latino
attackers. After seeing a picture of Kevin Cooper on television, the boy
said: ''That was not the person that did it''. However, after substantial
contact with the police and exposure to the media spotlight on Cooper, he
said he could not remember details of the crime.

Two days after the murders, a local woman, Diane Roper, found a pair of
bloody overalls belonging to her then-boyfriend Lee Furrows, who had himself
been convicted of a knife murder. Believing that the evidence might be
linked to the Chino Hills murders, she turned the overalls over to the
police. However, without testing them, the police destroyed them on the day
of Cooper's preliminary hearing. Later the authorities learned that a
prisoner, Kenneth Koon, had allegedly confessed to a cellmate that he and
two other men had carried out the murders. Koon allegedly said that after
the murders he had gone to his girlfriend's house and changed his overalls.
Kevin Cooper's jury heard no evidence about either the confession or the
overalls. In 2002 a federal judge dissented against his colleagues' refusal
to consider the issue: ''Kevin Cooper may be executed without any court
considering the question of colorable [plausible] evidence that another
individual, Kenneth Koon, confessed to the murders''. The trial judge was
critical of the police handling of the crime scene evidence, and suggested
that he himself could have done a better job. According to Cooper's current
lawyers, there are also questions surrounding the evidence that did link
Cooper to the crime. Among the massive amounts of blood at the crime scene
was found a single spot from someone other than the victims.

Initial testing on this blood spot was inconclusive, but after Cooper's
arrest he gave blood and the criminologist testified that Kevin Cooper's
blood matched that from the blood spot. No independent verification was
possible because the blood spot was allegedly used up by the testing.
Cigarette butts found in the stolen car were linked to Kevin Cooper. An
initial, detailed inspection of the car had not revealed these particular
butts, despite revealing other small items from the same location. A police
search of the house where Cooper had hidden prior to the murders had
reportedly revealed cigarette butts, but these were never logged as
evidence, raising suspicion that they later became the evidence allegedly
found in the car.

A T-shirt found near the crime scene had spots of blood on it. At the time,
testing did not reveal this to be consistent with Kevin Cooper's blood. He
claimed not to have seen the shirt before, and it was not prison issue, nor
did it come from the house where he had been hiding. Diane Roper has stated
that she had purchased such a shirt for Lee Furrows and that he was wearing
it on the night of the crime. Kevin Cooper sought DNA testing of the
T-shirt. The testing was carried out, and the blood was shown to be
Cooper's, although testing of the sweat was inconclusive.

He is now seeking testing to see if there was a laboratory preservative in
the blood spot (as was found in a Texas capital case in 2000, see
http://web.amnesty.org/

library/index/ENGAMR510142000).  This would indicate that it was blood taken
from Cooper after arrest and was therefore planted after the crime. The
state is resisting such testing. Kevin Cooper's lawyers have also been
unsuccessful in their attempt to have DNA testing of blondish and brown
hairs (i.e. not Cooper's) which the murder victims were reportedly
clutching.

Kevin Cooper's trial lawyer did little preparation for the sentencing phase,
resulting in a bare 15-minute presentation which provided the jury with
almost none of the available mitigating evidence, including Cooper's
difficult background and a brain injury that he sustained as a child.
Despite this, the jurors struggled for five days on the question of
sentence. Two jurors commented to the media that the prosecution had
''barely enough evidence'', and that Cooper would not have been convicted
''if there had been one less piece of evidence''. On death row, Kevin Cooper
has been a model prisoner with an exemplary disciplinary record. He has
committed himself to further education, art and writing.

Amnesty International opposes all executions regardless of the seriousness
of the crime or the culpability of the condemned. Since the USA resumed
judicial killing in 1977, there have been 891 executions, 10 of them in
California. During this time, more than 100 prisoners have been released
from US death rows on the grounds of innocence. Others have had their death
sentences commuted by governors because of residual doubt over their guilt.
The UN Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the
Death Penalty prohibit the execution of those about whose guilt there is
room for any doubt. The death penalty carries the ever-present risk of
irrevocable error.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in
your own words:

-explaining that you are not seeking to excuse the crime or the suffering it
caused;

-expressing concern about the reliability of Kevin Cooper's conviction, as
raised in his clemency petition, using any of the above information, noting
that the jury did not hear crucial evidence;

-expressing concern that the jury also never heard available mitigating
evidence, and yet still had struggled to pass a death sentence, apparently
due to residual doubt about his guilt;

-noting the mounting evidence of errors in capital cases, and that several
prisoners have had their death sentences commuted by governors because of
doubts over their guilt;

-noting Kevin Cooper has been a model prisoner;

-calling on the governor to grant clemency in the interest of justice and
the reputation of California;

-urging that, at the very least, the governor grant a reprieve to allow
further DNA and other testing.

APPEALS TO:

'

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax:  1 916-445-4633
Email: governor@governor.ca.gov
Salutation:       Dear Governor

'

LETTER COUNT

Urgent Action                       17
Congo Crisis Response                6
Campaign Against Discrimination      4
Death Penalty                       14
Total                               41
Want to add your letters to the total? Get in touch with lwkamp@sbcglobal.net

STATE OF THE UNION
Urge Bush to Choose Human Rights

On September 20, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation and declared: "We
are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live
by them." As the President prepares the Administration's accomplishments in
his State of the Union address it falls on ordinary individuals to soberly
assess the state of liberty in the Union. We the people must speak out
against the indefinite suspension of unalienable rights.

Please urge President Bush to refrain from curtailing fundamental human
rights! Call the White House Comment Line (202) 456-1111: Talking points--

-Please protect the fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution
and Declaration of Independence, as well as in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and in international human rights and humanitarian law and
treaties.'

-Policies that deny fundamental rights and coddle repressive regimes
endanger our safety and the safety of millions of individuals around the
world.'

-Protecting human rights is the best way to gain long-term stability and
security.'

Sample Letter:'

Dear Mr. President,

On September 20, 2001, you addressed the nation and declared: "We are in a
fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them."
Increasingly, I am concerned that those very principles are under threat. I
urge you to protect the fundamental rights enshrined in the U.S.
Constitution and Declaration of Independence, as well as in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and in international human rights and
humanitarian law and treaties.

I am concerned about the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without
access to a lawyer and I am concerned that hundreds of men and boys in
Guantanamo are apparently denied the most basic rights guaranteed under
international human rights law. I am alarmed by reports that agents of the
United States are allegedly engaging in the torture and ill-treatment of
individuals detained in the "war on terror". The United States is the focus
of numerous reports alleging use of ill-treatment and even torture against
detainees in military facilities abroad and in prisons at home.

Basic civil liberties at home are under threat. The balance of power has
shifted to the executive branch, and the checks of the judiciary and
legislature are greatly diminished. At the same time as we are limiting our
freedoms at home, policies of the U.S. government are reaching out to
repressive regimes.

Protecting human rights is the best way to gain long-term stability and
security. I urge you to reverse laws and policies that have weakened human
rights in the past year. You were right Mr. President, our first
responsibility is to live by our principles.

The President will soon stand before Congress and address the nation in the
annual tradition known as the State of the Union, fulfilling his obligation
to the U.S. Constitution requiring him to brief Congress periodically. This
comes at a time when many are concerned about the Bush administration's
policies and their effect on both Constitutional guarantees and fundamental
human rights. The President will undoubtedly speak of the state of security
in the nation and of the success of our security forces abroad, of missions
accomplished and missions yet to be completed, and of issues of justice for
those responsible for terrorist and torturous acts. The United States and
all governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens against
terrorism and human rights abuses. One of the best ways to accomplish this
important task in the near and longterm is to uphold, promote, and defend
human rights principles. As the President reports on the "war on terror,"
many of us are asking whether U.S. policies are promoting human rights and
whether they are just and contributing to a more secure world.

While the President speaks of the liberation of the Iraqi people from the
oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, U.S. courts are preparing to decide
whether to uphold or defeat the Bush administration policies that hold US
citizens indefinitely without charge or access to a lawyer, and that hold
hundreds of men and boys in Guantanamo Bay without legal status, denied
basic protections guaranteed under international human rights laws. Is this
justice and does it build a more secure world?

The President will highlight the capture of Saddam Hussein as an end to a
long era of torture, executions, and severe repression in Iraq. At the same
time the President denounces torture, the United States is the focus of
numerous reports alleging use of ill-treatment and even torture against
detainees in military facilities abroad and in prisons at home. Also in the
name of the "war on terror," the United States has sent and deported
individuals to countries where they were tortured, including the case of one
Canadian who was detained at a U.S. airport, forcibly deported to Jordan and
then sent to Syria where he was tortured before finally being released and
allowed to return to his family in Canada. Is this justice and does it build
a more secure world?

The United States has rolled back fundamental protections afforded in the US
Constitution and enshrined in international human rights law and treaties,
and it is continuing this trend. Building on the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress
has widely expanded the types of businesses that the FBI can serve national
security letters to, gathering information without requiring even
perfunctory review and approval by a judge. Congress has introduced the
CLEAR Act and the VICTORY Act, furthering a trend of diminishing
restrictions on law enforcement's ability to monitor and detain citizens and
non-citizens, and increasing the concentration of power in the Executive
branch without appropriate safeguards. Is this justice and does it build a
more secure world?'

The President will highlight his plans to provide temporary amnesty to
millions of illegal immigrants, without mentioning the severely
discriminatory policies of racially profiling individuals of Middle Eastern,
Muslim, and South Asian background, subjecting many to longterm detention,
denying them access to lawyers, and deporting others who have lived in and
contributed to this country with their families for years. Is this justice
and does it build a more secure world?

The U.S. is among only a handful of nations that still execute juvenile
offenders and is responsible for 19 of the 34 juvenile offender executions
in the world since 1990. Four juvenile offenders were executed in the United
States between 2002 and 2003 -- in the rest of the world, China was the only
other government known to have executed one juvenile offender. Virtually
every country in the world has eliminated the death penalty for juvenile
offenders and more than half the nations of the world have abolished the
death penalty altogether. In the face of growing recognition of the flaws in
capital punishment, the U.S. has released from death row 112 people since
1973 due to evidence of their wrongful conviction. Many endured decades of
wrongful imprisonment, and others even less fortunate were executed though
there is strong evidence now that they may have been innocent. Is this
justice and does it build a more secure world?

Pressing demands for security in the context of the "war on terror" means a
proliferation of security assistance to countries that are new allies,
despite their extremely poor human rights records. It also means that the
range of new security technologies is developing rapidly, often without
regulation. And it means that the Department of Commerce is continuing to
license the export and sale of electronic shock equipment and other devices
that can be used to torture prisoners, suspects, protestors and dissidents --
some of this equipment is authorized to go to countries cited by Department
of State for their records of committing torture. Is this justice and does
it build a more secure world?

Many have argued that the undoing of valued liberties is a small price to
pay in the name of security. However, countries can and have protected
themselves without sacrificing the fundamental principles of justice and
human dignity that are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and international
human rights law and treaties. As this country pauses to reflect on the
State of the Union that was 2003, we must assess whether the U.S. will
continue on the path of trading liberty for security or if we are going to
be a nation of leaders who will work within the community of nations to
uphold fundamental human rights in both word and deed.

Urge President Bush to refrain from curtailing fundamental human rights!
Call the White House Comment Line (202) 456-1111


RIGHTS READERS
Human Rights Book Discussion Group
Vroman's Bookstore
695 E. Colorado Boulevard, Pasadena
Sunday, February 15, 6:30 PM
'
Bel Canto

by Ann Patchett

Somewhere in South America, at the home of the country's vice president, a
lavish party is being held in honor of Mr. Hosokawa, a powerful Japanese
businessman. Roxanne Coss, opera's most revered soprano, has mesmerized the
international guests with her singing. It is a perfect evening -- until a
band of gun-wielding terrorists breaks in through the air-conditioning vents
and takes the entire party hostage. But what begins as a panicked,
life-threatening scenario slowly evolves into something quite different, as
terrorists and hostages forge unexpected bonds and people from different
countries and continents become compatriots.  Friendship, compassion, and
the chance for great love lead the characters to forget the real danger that
has been set in motion and cannot be stopped.


DISCRIMINATION CAMPAIGN
Oppose the CLEAR Act

Amnesty International opposes the proposed "Clear Law Enforcement for
Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003" (H.R. 2671), also known as the CLEAR
Act. The CLEAR Act encourages police officers to enforce civilian
immigration law. It is likely to further disenfranchise already vulnerable
immigrants. Victims of domestic violence and hate crimes, for example, could
be too frightened to come forward for fear of detention or deportation,
depriving vulnerable communities of police protection. It also may result in
racial and ethnic profiling. Although the bill targets immigrants who are
out of status or perhaps were never in status, it is likely to result in the
harassment of documented immigrants and US citizens who appear to be from
another country.'

Call your Representative [(202)224-3121] and urge her/him to oppose the
proposed CLEAR Act or send a Citizen Letter.

Amnesty International strongly opposes the proposed "Clear Law Enforcement
for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003" (H.R. 2671), also known as the CLEAR
Act. As the United States government acts to enhance security and prevent
terrorist attacks, it must also commit to protecting the human rights and
civil liberties of citizens and non-citizens alike. Not only could the CLEAR
Act prevent or discourage many in the United States from exercising basic
rights to due process, it may also deter many from volunteering information
to law enforcement officials that could potentially help avert terrorist
acts or human rights abuse.

Having local police officers enforce federal civil immigration laws in
essence criminalizes civil infractions. As a result, individuals who may be
at fault for an immigration or other minor civil infraction could in fact be
detained in facilities with convicted felons. In addition, the CLEAR Act
appears to extend immunity to law enforcement officers and agencies for any
violation of civil law that does not rise to the level of criminal
infraction.'

The CLEAR Act creates an atmosphere of fear and distrust among immigrant
populations that could prevent utilization of and cooperation with local and
state police. By encouraging police officers to enforce civilian immigration
law, the CLEAR Act may result in racial and ethnic profiling. Although the
bill targets immigrants who are out of status or perhaps were never in
status, it is likely to result in the harassment or intimidation of
documented immigrants and US citizens who appear to be from another country..
The CLEAR Act may in fact place both immigrants and citizens at risk.
Specifically, the CLEAR Act:

-Extends authority to state and local police forces to enforce civil
immigration law, allowing them to investigate, apprehend, detain and deport
undocumented immigrants. This authority could create a hostile relationship
between law enforcement and immigrant communities, leading to a general
reluctance for immigrants regardless of status to cooperate with police as
witnesses or even the victims of crime. Victims of domestic violence and
hate crimes, for example, could be too frightened to come forward for fear
of detention or deportation, depriving vulnerable communities of police
protection.'

-Assigns new tasks to police for enforcing complicated and evolving
immigration laws without providing adequate training; this is likely to lead
to racial and ethnic profiling which could result in violations of human
rights and civil liberties of immigrants and people perceived to be
immigrants.'

-Treats violators of civil immigration laws as criminals, allowing law
enforcement to designate a federal, state or local prison or jail, or even
privately owned correctional facilities, to detain immigrants with hardened
felons.'

-Amnesty International recommends that Congress oppose the CLEAR Act and
ensure that any legislation intending to enforce existing immigration laws
protects fundamental human rights and civil liberties, in accordance with
the US constitution and international laws and treaties.

You could base your letter on the sample below:

Representative ________________
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative:

I oppose the proposed "Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act
of 2003" (H.R. 2671), also known as the CLEAR Act. This legislation extends
authority to state and local police officers to enforce civil immigration
law. It could discourage the exercise of basic rights to due process and
deter many from providing information to law enforcement officers that could
help avert terrorist acts or human rights abuse.

Although, the bill targets immigrants who are out of status or perhaps were
never in status, it is likely to result in the harassment or intimidation of
documented immigrants and US citizens who speak with an accent or appear to
be from another country. In addition, victims of domestic violence and hate
crimes could be too frightened to come forward for fear of detention or
deportation, depriving vulnerable communities of police protection.

As the United States government acts to enhance security and prevent
terrorist attacks, Congress should ensure laws continue to protect
fundamental human rights and civil liberties, in accordance with the US
constitution and international treaties. Thank you for your attention and I
look forward to your response.

Sincerely,       YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS

Editor's Last Word:
Read us on line: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~aigp22
Martha Ter Maat, 626-281-4039 / rightsreaders@yahoo.com



Amnesty International's mission is to undertake  research and action focused
on preventing and ending grave abuses of the  rights to physical and mental
integrity, freedom of conscience and  expression, and freedom from
discrimination, within the context of its work  to promote all human rights..