Responding to “immense security challenges,” the Kenyan government announced in an official statement on Friday that it will no longer be able to host the over half a million people living in the country’s two refugee camps and dispersed throughout its cities.

“The Government of Kenya has been forced by circumstances to reconsider the whole issue of hosting refugees and the process of repatriation… hosting of refugees has come to an end,” Kenya’s National Police Service issued in a Twitter post on Friday.

As of March 2015, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), Kenya’s two official camps–Dadaab in the east and Kakuma in the northwest–housed 584, 989 refugees. Fleeing civil war, political persecution, and drought in places like Somalia (where 72 percent of refugees hail from), South Sudan (16 percent) and Ethiopia (5 percent), some of the refugees have created a home for themselves in Kenya’s camps, especially the oldest and largest one in Dadaab, near the country’s arid eastern border with Somalia. Over a quarter million people have established lives in Dadaab, most of whom were displaced by war in Somalia when they were children and have since made a home in the “tent city.”

The Kenyan government has been pushing to close the camps for a few years. Last April, the government voiced intentions of shutting down the Dadaab camp, citing security concerns. And though the UNHCR, which runs the camp, agreed to assist Somalian refugees (which comprise the vast majority of Dadaab’s displaced peoples) who volunteered to return home, the organization opposed forced repatriation.

The sprawl of the displaced: One of Dadaab’s five camps. Over a quarter of a million refugees, namely Somalians, call this home. [Image courtesy of United Nations Photo]

Last spring’s announcement followed an attack at Garissa University, where a group of gunmen loyal to al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda linked, Somali-based terrorist group, shot and killed 147 students. Kenya has been mired in a conflict with the Islamic terrorist group for nearly a decade. Al-Shabaab has been committing acts of terror on Kenyan soil for years, killing soldiers and civilians alike, and it is the primary security threat the government referred to in its decision to close the refugee camps.

Following the Garissa attacks, the government alleged al-Shabaab had infiltrated Dadaab and used it to plot and launch attacks. In March, Kenyan newspaper The Star reported an al-Shabaab gun smuggler was caught at Dadaab, with not much more concrete evidence to support the government’s claims.

But the latest announcement seemingly came out of nowhere, following no mass casualty event or obvious security concern.

“I think it’s legitimate to believe that Kenya is issuing the threat as a means to leverage more resources from international donors,” said Mark Yarnell, Senior Advocate at Refugees International in an interview with Law Street Media.

Refugees from the nations that surround it seek a life free from war, drought and political persecution in Kenya. [Image courtesy of greenravine via Flickr]

Pointing out that Kenya’s security concerns certainly are real and legitimate, Yarnell, who has spent time in the field in East and Central Africa, predicted the latest threat by the Kenyan government is meant to extract more resources from the international community to deal with its conflict with al-Shabaab, more as a leverage tool than a step toward abolishing camps and rounding up refugees “at the barrel of a gun.”

“[The camps] are quite entrenched in the country, with their own market systems and infrastructure,” he said, likening the demolition of the two camps to essentially wiping out two cities. “You have people who were born in the camp and kids of people who were born in the camp and all they know is Dadaab or Kakuma.”

He pointed to a recent communiqué from the African Union on the Dadaab camp as the validation the Kenyan government needs to show the rest of the world it is in solidarity with a larger institution to do something in regards to the camps and maintaining Kenya’s security. In the communiqué, the AU Peace and Security Council acknowledged the “legitimate security concerns” facing Kenya, the threat of Dadaab to the security of Kenya, and the need to accelerate the process of repatriating Somali refugees who volunteer to do so.

It also called on international partners, “particularly the United Nations” to “extend necessary financial, logistical and technical support” to the Somalian government, and “to increase funding to Somalia, Kenya, UNHCR and other humanitarian agencies.”

If the Kenyan government follows through with its latest proclamation, hundreds of thousands of refugees will suffer, wandering, with nowhere to settle but the homes they were forced to abandon. Some left those homes decades ago.

That’s not to say Kenya’s refugee camps are perfect, permanent homes. Flooding, disease and malnutrition have wrecked havoc on Dadaab in the past, and according to UNHCR, there were eleven epidemics reported in 2012 alone.

Despite the imperfect conditions of Dadaab and Kakuma, UNHCR expressed “profound concern” over the latest announcement from the Kenyan government in an official statement released on Monday:

In today’s global context of some 60 million people forcibly displaced, it is more important than ever that international asylum obligations prevail and are properly supported. In light of this, and because of the potentially devastating consequences for hundreds of thousands of people that premature ending of refugee hosting would have, UNHCR is calling on the Government of Kenya to reconsider its decision and to avoid taking any action that might be at odds with its international obligations towards people needing sanctuary from danger and persecution. 

Under the leadership of President Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya would be breaking international law if it went forward with these plans, for which there are various legal statutes assuring the protection of refugees by the host nation. The primary right afforded to refugees worldwide is a promise of non-refoulement, or return to a place where their life and freedoms would be threatened.

“It would be such an egregious violation of basic refugee rights and their own constitution,” Yarnell said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kenyan Government Signals Shutdown of Refugee Camps appeared first on Law Street.

On November 13, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body for international athletics events (track and field, marathons, etc.) announced it was provisionally banning the Russian Federation from international events, effective immediately. The ban will prevent Russian athletes from competing in any competitions, including the 2016 Rio Olympics, stops Russia from hosting any IAAF-sanctioned events, and calls for lifetime bans for five athletes and five coaches.

Russia has been given the opportunity to prove that its athletics programs and drug-testing procedures have been reformed in order to have the ban removed in time for the 2016 Olympics. However, the scandal continues to cast a long shadow over international athletics, calling into question the results of prior competitions (such as the 2012 London Olympics) and raises suspicions of other countries’ athletics programs. Read on to see the allegations against the Russian Federation, the concern of institutionalized doping programs in other countries, and where Russia and athletics as an international endeavor can go from here.

The Secrets of Doping and the WADA Independent Commission Report

In December 2014, the German television channel ARD released a documentary featuring journalist Hajo Seppelt titled “Top-Secret Doping: How Russia Makes its Winners.” The documentary alleged collusion between the Russian Anti-Doping Agency, the Russian Athletics Federation, and the Russian national laboratory. Most troubling is that all of these organizations are funded by the federal government, suggesting their awareness of the cheating, which caused the documentary to declare the cheating “state-sponsored.” The documentary was based around allegations from Russian whistleblowers Vitaly Stepanov, a former Russian Doping Control Officer, and Yuliya Stepanova, a world-class 800-meter runner. The hour-long documentary provided the names of several athletes, coaches, other officials, and a doctor who used or provided banned substances.

The documentary provided the spark for what turned into a media firestorm and a debate about doping in international swimming was inadvertently started. Sports officials the world over began reconsidering their punishments and procedures to deal with doping in their own sports. Athletes accused in the documentary had to worry about potentially forfeiting medals and other prizes. As would be expected, Russian officials decried the film and whistleblowers, calling into question the legality of their recordings.

The documentary rocked the athletics world and triggered an independent investigation from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). The agency established an independent commission with the mandate to investigate “serious allegations of doping practices, corrupt practices in doping sample collection and results management, corruption and related ineffective administration of anti-doping processes.”

On November 9, the independent commission (IC) released its final report concluding:

The IC has identified systemic failures within the IAAF and Russia that prevent or diminish the possibility of an effective anti-doping program, to the extent that neither ARAF, RUSADA, nor the Russian Federation can be considered Code-compliant… the IC has recommended that the IAAF suspend ARAF.

The report found that Russian athletics had a “deeply rooted culture of cheating,” exploited athletes for financial gain, confirmed the widespread use of banned substances by actively competing Russian athletes, confirmed the involvement of coaches, doctors, and laboratory personnel, and found evidence of corruption and bribery in the IAAF.

Finally, the report concludes that it would be naive to assume that athletics is the only Russian sport affected by the state-sponsored doping program. The commission offered no conclusive opinion on other sports in Russia but stated that while no written evidence currently implicates the Russian government, such an extensive cheating program would not have been possible without some level of government approval.

On November 13, the IAAF announced it had voted 22-1 in favor of suspending Russian athletics from international events. Russia’s IAAF council member was allowed to participate in the vote.

Additional Allegations

Currently, the allegations against specific athletes are unproven. Two of the five athletes facing lifetime bans have said they will pursue legal action. Specific allegations against Russia’s anti-doping agency (RUSADA) and All-Russia Athletic Federation (ARAF) include the tampering or destruction of at least 1,400 test samples, giving advance notice to athletes before drug tests, and intentionally scheduling tests immediately before athletes began doping regiments. Russian athletes are currently banned from competition and the country is no longer eligible to host the scheduled 2016 World Race Walking Cup or the 2016 World Junior Championships, both of which were to be held in Russia.

The independent commission’s report also criticized the way drug testing was handled leading up to and during the 2012 London Olympics, alleging that testing failures sabotaged those games. Russia came in second in the medal count behind the United States in 2012. This has also started whispers that the United States and other large countries ought to be investigated regarding athletic doping.

Midway through 2015, ARD, the German television channel, released a follow-up documentary titled “The Secrets of Doping: The Shadowy World of Athletics.” Both ARD and The Sunday Times acquired access to the test results of 5,000 athletes between 2001 and 2012. In addition to providing evidence that further implicates Russia, the documentary turned its attention to Kenya. In the last three years, 33 Kenyan athletes have failed drug tests, some escaping penalties and still managing to compete when they should be facing bans. WADA has suggested that Kenya could soon face a four-year ban for the myriad of problems with its drug-testing program.

Russian Response to the Suspension

Key figures on the Russian side have sent mixed messages since the WADA released its report and IAAF handed down its ban. While most Russian officials have pledged to cooperate with IAAF and WADA to ensure the program is reinstated in time for the Olympics, several have criticized the report and its findings. The director of the Russian anti-doping Agency denounced the report. According to current officials, the management of the ARAF was changed in the spring of 2015, meaning the current heads of the federation aren’t responsible for the faults found in the report. However, it should be noted that according to the second ARD documentary, ARAF has a history of keeping removed coaches and doctors around to provide athletes with performance-enhancing drugs while not officially being a part of ARAF.

What’s Next?

While the threat of suspension looms large for countries like Kenya, a full ban on international athletics competition is the reality for Russia. WADA has removed their endorsement of the Moscow lab that was identified as being the primary culprit for sample tampering. From top to bottom, the process of preventing doping in Russian athletics will receive oversight from WADA personnel. Additionally, an IAAF team will begin work next year to see if Russia can be readmitted to the international community of athletics. At least two of the five athletes facing lifetime bans are planning to appeal.

The IAAF has also faced some criticism for its investigation. The question has been raised of how much geopolitical issues may play in major sporting federations like the IAAF and FIFA, which has been going through its own highly-publicized scandal. Former IAAF officials have also been implicated in the WADA report though details have yet to be released due to the nature of the legal proceedings.

Based on the data on athlete drug tests from 2001-2012 acquired by ARD and the Sunday Times, an estimated one-third of medals in endurance events were won by athletes with suspicious test results. One in seven of those athletes named have tests that suggest doping or some other abnormality. Ten medals from the London games were won by athletes with suspicious results. From 2001-2012, 80 percent of Russia’s medals have been won by athletes with suspicious test results and 18 of Kenya’s medals were given to athletes with suspicious test results.

Conclusion

The world of international athletics is facing a full-blown crisis rivaling that of FIFA’s. The disturbing trend of suspicious tests from Russian and Kenyan athletes appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Most alarming is the evidence of state-sponsorship of doping in the case of Russia. While Russia is working to become compliant with standards set by WADA and the IAAF in time for the 2016 summer Olympics, it is entirely possible that one of the foremost powers in global athletics may not send a team to Rio. Meanwhile, the IAAF has its own problems that it must sort through in order to secure the integrity of a sport that has been much maligned in the past year. There has always been suspicion of drugs and cheating in athletics, but the WADA report and ARD documentaries put hard evidence in the spotlight.

Resources

Primary

WADA: The Independent Commission Report #1 Final Report

IAAF: Provisionally Suspends Russian Member Federation ARAF

Additional

BBC: Athletics Doping: Russia Provisionally Suspended by IAAF

BBC: Athletics Doping Scandal: Russian Runners say they are Innocent

BBC: Athletics doping: Wada Commission Wants Russia Ban

BBC: Leaked IAAF Doping files: Wada ‘Very Alarmed’ by Allegations

BBC: Lord Coe Role in Eugene 2021 Worlds Decision Questioned

al Jazeera: Two Kenyans Suspended for Doping at World Championships

al Jazeera: Russia Reacts After ‘Systematic Doping’ Accusations

CNN: Russia Could be Banned from 2016 Olympics after Doping Report

The Guardian: Russian Athletics Chief ‘Prepared to Resign’ as Olympic Ban Risk Grows

The Guardian: IAAF Confirms Investigation into Allegations of Kenya Doping Cover-up

Hajo Seppelt/ARD: The Secrets of Doping: how Russia Makes its Winners

Hajo Seppelt/ARD: The Secrets of Doping: the Shadowy World of Athletics

RT: Russia’s IAAF Expulsion about Geopolitics and Prelude to War – Not Doping – Tony Gosling on RT

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post State-Sponsored Doping in International Athletics appeared first on Law Street.

Matthew Durham’s trial just began last week; he has been accused of sexual misconduct with children while volunteering at an orphanage in Kenya. The 20-year-old Oklahoma native has pleaded not guilty to 17 charges, including aggravated sexual abuse and engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places. He faces life in prison if convicted. But these disturbing allegations against Durham raise many questions about the ethics of American volunteerism.

Durham has been accused of engaging in sexual acts with children between April and June of 2014 while working as a volunteer at the Upendo Children’s Home in Nairobi, Kenya, which specializes in assisting neglected children. Durham began volunteering for the orphanage in 2012. According to court records, officials claim Durham raped boys and girls between the ages of six and nine.

The jury was selected last Tuesday, and opening statements began on Wednesday. The prosecutor, Robert D. Gifford II, began his attack in a particularly disturbing manner, reading Durham’s hand-written confessions which included, “I would take her to the bathroom at night and would hold her down and rape her.” Quoting another that pertained to a boy at the Upendo Children’s Home in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi, Gifford read: “at night I took him to the bathroom and had him perform oral sex on me.”

A court affidavit lists samples of Durham’s hand written and signed confessions of the alleged acts. They go into some detail of what sexual acts occurred. But when faced with these confessions, Durham now claims that he only confessed to the crimes because he was under duress. 

In fact, defense attorney Stephen Jones is arguing that the offenses never happened. During his opening statement he stated, “there is no demon, there are no multiple personalities, there are no crimes. That is the defense, it didn’t happen.” Jones claims that Durham was was coerced into confessing by orphanage officials who kept Durham in isolation and confiscated his passport.

“He’s in fear for his life,” Jones said. He described Durham as “an emotionally vulnerable teenager” who was struggling with his “sexual identity and development” as a devout Christian. Jones claims that when the orphanage learned of the allegations, they didn’t initially notify police, medical officials, or the U.S. Embassy. Others who lived in the Upendo home claimed to have never witnessed any wrongdoing.

But the manager and children’s care taker of the orphanage, Josphine Wambugu, made a number of allegations including that she witnessed Durham sleeping in one of the girls’ dormitory on June 12, 2014. Wambugu also claims to have questioned some of the girls about whether misconduct occurred, and several claimed to have had “bad manners” with Durham, a Kenyan phrase for sexual relations. Wambugu testified that when she confronted Durham, “He say: ‘Yes, I did it! Yes, I did it!'” She also claims that Durham told a group of Upendo officials that he had struggled with child pornography and homosexuality.

Whether or not Jones’ strategy of denying the incidents ever occurred will be successful will be up to the jury. But either way, this case creates some questions about the practice of sending young American students to volunteer abroad. It’s an incredibly common practice–there are so many alternative spring breaks, international volunteer abroad programs, and international service learning projects that provide options for students to volunteer. Both the programs that send students abroad and the organizations that accept them need to implement measures to make sure that the volunteers are properly supervised and vetted. Hopefully answers to some of those questions will arise out of this heartbreaking and disturbing trial. 

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Matthew Durham Trial: American Volunteerism at its Worst appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday April 2, a number of gunmen burst into a college in Garissa, Kenya. These attackers proceeded to separate the sleeping students into groups. They then executed 147 people, leaving a trail of carnage for the world to see. Carried out by Al Shabab, the attack targeting Kenyan Christians was another in a series of skirmishes between the group and Kenyan citizens. Read on to learn about the roots of conflict, what Al Shabab is, why the attack occurred, and considerations for the Kenyan people moving forward.

 A Brief Look at Kenyan History

Prior to contact from outside groups, modern day Kenya was home to several different indigenous tribes. However, this way of life began to change with the incursions first of Arabs and later Christian Europeans. These groups brought two different religions, Islam and Christianity, which would create lasting divisions and serve as a root cause for friction in the present day.

Islam

Islam reached Kenya first as a result of trade with Arab merchants, but also stemmed from the Oman Sultanate whose power emanated from Zanzibar, an island off the coast of Kenya. Not surprisingly then, along the coast many Kenyans became Muslims. Presently about 11 percent of the population of Kenya is Muslim. Today the Muslim population remains centered along the coast and in the north, along the border with Somalia.

Christianity

Christianity arrived much later, in the nineteenth century. British colonization led to the rise of Christianity in Kenya. Starting with its land grabs, the Christian faith accompanied every expansion of the British presence in Kenya, culminating in its colonial status. Along with British officials, missionaries also worked to spread the faith throughout the country. Despite these efforts, Christianity was still second to the traditional beliefs of Kenya. Even for those who accepted Christianity, for many it took the form of a blend of traditional practices and the Christian faith. However, following independence, the new ruling elite adopted Christianity and thus made it the de facto religion of the nation. Today, approximately 82 percent of the population of Kenya is some form of Christian. The accompanying video explains the settling of Kenya, the arrivals of Arab and European colonists, and Kenya’s arrival at independence:

 Kenya and Somalia

While the situation within Kenya is complex, matters are also complicated with its neighbors, especially with the nation to the north, Somalia. The attack in Garissa came after continued Kenyan intervention into Somalia, dating back to 2011. The incursion was triggered by a raid into Kenya by the terror group Al Shabab.

Al Shabab

The group claiming responsibility for the attack in Garissa is a Somali-based Islamist extremist group known as Al Shabab, which means “the youth” in Arabic. The Al-Qaeda linked group was the youth movement of the Union of Islamic Courts which controlled Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, until it was ousted by Ethiopian forces in 2006. While the group has lost control over major areas, including Mogadishu and the port city Kismayo, it still maintains a grip over a large swath of territory within Somalia, despite continued efforts of African Union troops. Within the territory under its control, Al Shabab practices an extremist form of Islam.

The attack on Garissa carried out by A Shabab was unquestionably grisly, however it was not the first. Rather, it was one in a long series of escalating assaults against Kenya. Prior to the attack on the university, one of the worst terrorist attacks in Kenya was also courtesy of Al Shabab. That attack occurred at a shopping mall in Nairobi, the capital of Kenya, and left 68 people dead. There are many other incidents of gun or grenade attacks carried out by the group. One of the chilling hallmarks of these attacks is Al Shabab forcing people to correctly recite specific passages of the Koran in order to separate the Christians from Muslims. Although Kenya recently invaded Somalia to confront the group, these attacks precipitated that invasion, which begs the question, why is Al Shabab targeting Kenya?  The video below explains what Al Shabab is and its goals in Kenya:

Kenyan Intervention

Al Shabab seemingly initiated the mass killings in part because of Kenya’s invasion of Somalia as well as how Kenya deals with its Muslim minority population. Kenya began a direct military intervention into Somalia in 2011 along with fellow African nations to root out Al Shabab, whose kidnappings and killings Kenya claimed hurt the country economically. However, there has been a history of raids from Al Shabab into Kenya, so many experts attributed the invasion to Kenya’s increased militarization, courtesy of growing military assistance packages from the United States. Additionally, Kenya had also previously trained and armed a militia group to serve as a buffer between itself and Al Shabab in the northern border region.

Aside from direct military conflict with Al Shabab, another reason for the attack was how Kenya treats its own Muslim population. Muslims make up around 11 percent of the population of Kenya and are based mostly in the northern and coastal regions that border Somalia. This area has historically been marginalized, resulting in a lack of services, jobs, and representation in the government. It has also been the recipient of anger from Kenyan armed forces for attacks on Kenyan territory. In 1984 for example, over 1000 people were murdered by Kenyan troops in Wagalla, located in the predominately Muslim north, in an attempt to end clan conflict.

Current Situation in Kenya

So what’s next for Kenya following this massacre? On April 6, just four days after the deadly attack on the university in Garissa, Kenya launched airstrikes on suspected Al Shabab militants. While officials say the strikes were already planned and were not a direct result of the Garissa carnage, the timing is questionable. However, some are questioning what exactly Kenya hopes to achieve with the strikes, other than killing a few insurgents. As Al Shabab is already reeling from attacks in Somalia, critics worry that it would appear wiser to try to better incorporate the Muslim population in Kenya and thus eliminate the recruiting ground for the terrorist group there. As Hunter S. Thompson immortally once said, “kill the body and the head will die.”

Nevertheless, despite whatever path Kenya takes, the attacks by Al Shabab appear to point to a larger trend conflict in the area–the overall struggle taking place in central and northern Africa and the Middle East, between states and extremist groups. These efforts are spearheaded historically by Al Qaeda, but more recently by ISIS in Iraq and Syria and Boko Haram in Nigeria. The question going forward then, is what links these groups may have to aiding Al Shabab?

Al Shabab has already begun working, at least in minor ways, with Boko Haram. In fact the two groups have communicated since 2011 about bombing plans and other tactics. Even the situation in the two countries are similar–Nigeria is plagued by a Islamic extremist group representing a northern region populated by Muslims who feel oppressed and marginalized by the existing governments. Continued and increased cooperation between the terror groups have many worried about even worse attacks than the Garissa massacre, if underlying problems within Kenya are not addressed and the Al Shabab is not successfully countered.

 Conclusion

Kenya currently faces a difficult road, but not necessarily a unique one. Kenya is now embroiled in a seemingly endless conflict with a prominent non-state actor, Al Shabab. Kenya may need to unite its own people more closely, and not just through airstrikes. This sentiment seemed to be shared by Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta in an address to the nation on Easter Sunday, in which he called for national unity and defended Islam as a religion of peace. The issue now, is whether Kenya can abide by Kenyatta’s words and unite to defeat the terror that has infiltrated it.

Resources

Foreign Relations: Why Kenya Invaded Somalia

CNN: 147 Dead, Islamist Gunmen Killed After Attack at Kenyan College

Index Mundi: Kenya’s Demographic Profile

BBC News: Who are Somalia’s Al Shabab?

Al Jazeera: Why Al Shabab has Gained a Foothold in Kenya

CNN: Kenya Airstrikes on Al Shabaab Targets Unrelated to Garissa Attacks, Source Says

Good Reads: Quotes

DW: Islamist Terror Groups in Africa and the Middle East

Horseed Media: Somalia Al Shabab Leaders in Squabble over Joining IS

NBC News: Missing Nigeria School Girls

Think Progress: Deadly University Attack Hangs Over Kenya’s Easter Sunday

Danish Institute for International Studies: Political Islam in Kenya

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Garissa Massacre: Al Shabab’s Role in Kenya appeared first on Law Street.

A new video supposedly released by the militant Islamist group al-Shabaab has mall-goers in the United States, Canada, and U.K. on alert.

In the six-minute video, a disguised member of the Somali terror group affiliated with al-Qaeda called for attacks on the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, West Edmonton Mall in Canada, and the Oxford Street shopping area in London. Most sources have taken down the video, but you can see a still from it in the tweet below.

Mall of America increases security after al-Shabaab threat: http://t.co/pWu6sX374y – @PierreTABC pic.twitter.com/y1bwB7J3e1

— ABC News (@ABC) February 23, 2015

This is the same organization that claimed responsibility for the horrific four-day-long attack on Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, that killed at least 67 civilians in 2013. The speaker in the video allegedly celebrates this attack, showing graphic images while accusing Kenyan troops in Somalia of committing abuses against Somali Muslims. He also claims al-Shabaab was responsible for the Friday attack on a hotel in Somalia’s capital.

Using Westgate as a warning for other malls, an image of the Mall of America is shown in the video alongside its GPS coordinates, sparking a swift response from mall officials. They have already begun to beef up security and are asking shoppers to stay vigilant telling CNN:

We take any potential threat seriously and respond appropriately. We have implemented extra security precautions; some may be noticeable to guests, and others won’t be.

In light of the Westgate attack, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI should be taking this video seriously. However, they initially downplayed the threat, releasing a joint statement Sunday saying that they were not “aware of any specific, credible plot against the Mall of America or any other domestic commercial shopping center.” They went on to say in the statement:

In recent months, the FBI and DHS have worked closely with our state and local public safety counterparts and members of the private sector, to include mall owners and operators, to prevent and mitigate these types of threats.

DHS Chief Jeh Johnson appeared on several Sunday news shows to address questions on the potential terror threat and reassure the American public that it’s “still ok to shop.” With each of his messages on vigilance, he ended with explaining why now, more than ever, DHS needs its $40 billion funding approved before the February 27 deadline. If gridlocked lawmakers fail to agree in the next three days, the department will be left with no funding while hundreds of thousands of employees are forced to report to work without pay. Congress’ unwillingness to agree is the same kind of embarrassing display that led to the 16-day-long federal government shutdown in October 2013.

So far, no mall attacks have been reported since the release of the video, but shoppers are still being urged to be careful and keep an eye out for suspicious behavior. Unfortunately, judging the legitimacy of terror threats sent through videos has become even harder when some, like those from ISIS, prove to be far too real.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mall of America Threatened in Al-Shabaab Terrorist Video appeared first on Law Street.

A 19-year-old Oklahoma teen named Matthew Durham has admitted to raping and molesting young girls and boys on a missionary trip to Kenya. Durham was volunteering with a group called Upendo and living with the children at the time of the assaults.

Why does this kind of story not surprise me? Maybe because White people have been going to the African continent for decades claiming to help, while actually causing serious harm. Whether they’re enslaving us, stealing our natural resources, or claiming our land; White people have a knack for hurting the people of Africa.

Durham was arrested last Thursday at his parents’ home in Edmond, Oklahoma after he fled Kenya due to the allegations, according to the Daily Mail. The founder of Upendo, Eunice Menja, told the FBI that Durham admitted to raping between four and ten children, including one who is HIV-positive, between April and June of this year.

According to KTLA 5, this was the fourth time Durham had visited Nairobi with Upendo, which was designed to help neglected Kenyan children. The organization’s vision statement reads, “One child at a time — while we envision a community with no more child poverty, no more child abuse but every child with each basic need met.” Oh the irony, oh the hypocrisy, it’s too much I can’t handle it.

Now it’s hard to completely blame Upendo. How were they to know that Durham was secretly into little children? But the one question that arose when I read this story was why was he allowed to sleep in the same place as these kids in the first place? He was there to help the kids, not to have a slumber party. So for that Upendo, I believe you failed.

But Durham’s lawyer doesn’t seem to think so. Stephen Jones, the lawyer who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, says that Menja forced a false confession from the teenage boy with “psychological voodoo.”

Yeah, we’ll see how that holds up in court.

Jones went on to say, “I don’t think Hollywood could make up what happened at this so-called orphanage. We’re on the ground in Kenya now. We’re finding out a lot about these people. This place is right on the outskirts of Nairobi. It’s like some cult over there.”

Whether or not this “so-called orphanage” is a legitimate foundation is not the issue here. Multiple children have come forward and said that Durham touched them in inappropriate places or made them watch as he touched other kids in inappropriate places. Now whether or not you believe in voodoo is up to you, but the fact that multiple children have come forward and spoken on Durham’s behavior has to mean something, and while I get that it is your job to defend your client Mr. Jones, it seems to me like you are grasping at air.

Obviously, most of the blame falls on Durham. Even if you are exploring your sexuality you have absolutely no right to explore it with children. Mr. Durham, don’t you think that these kids have already been through enough in their short lives? Don’t you think the daily hardship that these kids have to endure is already taxing enough without you forcing yourself on them? Don’t you think that these four to ten year olds deserved to grow up just a tad bit more before they were introduced to the complicated world of sex? No. You didn’t think Mr. Durham, and for that you deserve to spend a considerable amount of time in prison to do just that.

Mic Drop

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Geraint Rowland via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Africa Gets Screwed Over Once Again by the White Man appeared first on Law Street.

The International Criminal Court has been pursuing a case against Uhuru Kenyatta, the current President of Kenya since the violent events of the 2008 Presidential Elections. The ICC prosecutor recently called for a delay in the proceedings because of insufficient evidence to try Kenyatta.

This case does not resemble a dismissed case in an American court, though. The complicated history of the defendant, Kenyatta, and the International Criminal Court, both come into play in a tale that seems to get more complicated by the day.

During the 2007-2008 Kenyan elections, the incumbent, Mwai Kibaki was running against a challenger, Raila Odinga. Kibaki won, but Odinga supporters alleged that the Kibaki campaign rigged the elections. After the results were announced, violence broke out, mostly along ethnic lines that matched up with the ethnic groups from which Kibaki and Odinga came. It is estimated that 1,200 people were killed and about half a million displaced from their homes.

The Odinga side continued to accuse Kibaki and his supporters of election manipulation, but the Kibaki side accused the Odinga supporters of inciting ethnic violence.

Kenya attempted to conduct their own investigation, but it was unsuccessful and not fruitful. So in 2011, the ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, took matters into his own hands. He indicted six people–Deputy Prime Minister Uhuru Kenyatta, Industrialisation Minister Henry Kosgey, Education Minister William Ruto, Cabinet Secretary Francis Muthaura, radio executive Joshua Arap Sang, and former police commissioner Mohammed Hussein Al for Crimes Against Humanity.

Kenya, of course, did not want to go along with the indictment of some of its top officials, and attempted to remove itself from the Rome Statute that allows the prosecutor to press charges. However, when that move was ultimately unsuccessful, those officials did show up in court for preliminary hearings and attempted to cooperate fully with the Hague-based ICC.

The case was further complicated by the election of Uhuru Kenyatta to the position of the Kenyan Presidency earlier this year. This week, his case took another turn when the current ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, asked for a three month delay from the set start date of February 5th, to look for more evidence. She claims that she had to drop two of her key witnesses because they were offering false testimony or refusal to testify, and now needs more time to follow up with others.

Whether or not she will be able to proceed when that three months elapses will depend on whether she is able to gather enough evidence. She claims that Kenya has not provided sufficient evidence, and stated, “it is necessary to exhaust this line of inquiry – hitherto blocked by the [government] – to determine whether the existing witness testimony regarding the accused’s alleged funding of the [electoral violence] can be corroborated by documentary evidence”.

The whole mess with the Kenyan election trials has led to another debate, this time about the ICC’s actions as a whole. Since the court was founded 11 years ago, there have been eight cases before the ICC. All eight have been from Africa.

African leaders are now arguing that the ICC is discriminatory. The African Union is claiming that justice does not appear to be applied fairly around the world, because the atrocities committed in Afghanistan, Syria, and Colombia have occurred without a word from the ICC.

However, it’s important to note that there are a few different ways cases can make it to the ICC. One of those is self-referral, and of the eight African cases, five came to the ICC in such a manner.

The ICC has always been a contentious topic–the Rome Statute that authorizes it hasn’t even been ratified by the US or Russia, for fear of potential future cases. The ICC has been a grand experiment in international justice; born out of the Nuremberg Trials and special courts set up for the crimes committed in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and others. And so far, the ICC has had some successes and some failures. But if they can’t work around the Kenyatta issue, the ICC may end up a failed experiment.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [ViktorDobal via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICC’s Case Against Kenyan President Delayed appeared first on Law Street.

When is a line more than just a connection between two points? A line, a border, can limit the encroachment of and define a culture, language, religion, and laws. It can also be blurred, changing constantly, like that of India and Pakistan, or Israel and Palestine. When playing jump-rope with those lines, what laws apply?

Making recent global headlines is the story of the White Widow, Samantha Lewthwaite — the British born and raised converted Muslim woman who’s now-dead husband was involved in London’s 7/7 jihad attacks. Although initially condemning her husband’s actions, she seems to have joined his cause. She forged a Somali passport under the name Natalie Webb, and crossed African borders, seamlessly entering Kenya. Now, she is a major suspect in a Nairobi mall bombing, and has been given a Red Notice by INTERPOL. The Red Notice means that the 190 member countries of INTERPOL, an international police organization, are participating in manhunt for her. For her search, other methods Kenya could have taken would have been to reach out to INTERPOL’s close alliance, the United Nation, work in solitude with Kenya’s own national security, or extend for help to independent Kenyan alliances rather than the large coalition, INTERPOL.

From one conservative extremist Muslim, to one liberal extremist, different people with radically different views, are found in similar situations— they are both being sought by authorities. Acclaimed author Salmaan Rushdie, as a result of his unapproved writings about Islam, had a fatwa placed upon him by the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1989. A fatwa, unlike the a notice by INTERPOL, is less tied with the government and more with the religion. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie is a religious order commanding the Muslim population worldwide to do an action. In the case of Salman Rushdie, the action was to kill the author.

A more domestic situation that deals with this issue is the anecdote of Edward Snowden. After receiving treason charges in America, Snowden was granted limited asylum in Russia, tarnishing the relationship between the two nations. A stemming problem is the extradition of Edward Snowden. By avoiding America, he was able to avoid his prosecution. Like America, Kenya anxiously awaits the return of the potential criminal, using the Red Notice to catalyze the extradition process.

All of these cases echo the same question about borders that was posed by the Dred Scott Case in 1857: Do the laws of a land no longer extend to you once you step over the line? Is it the responsibility of nations to carry out the jurisdiction of the native ruling county?

[cfr.org] [ Interpol.int]

—

Featured image courtesy of [hjl via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post The Thin Line appeared first on Law Street.