Burma Soldier is a documentary about Myo Myint, an engineer in the Burmese Army who became a pro-democracy activist. Myint, who was eventually imprisoned for his views, articulates a story that is common among the members of the democracy movement: serving and fighting in the army, attending and speaking at rallies for democracy in Rangoon, suffering in Burmese prisons and living in the camps in Thailand. As Myo Myint discusses the motivations for his fight, he puts a personal face on Burma's struggle. His decision to become a peace activist illustrates how a hope in democracy can persist against the conflicting cultural forces in Burma.To learn more about the push for democracy in Burma, you can view the film here. Burma Soldier will also be show on May 19 and June 12 on HBO.

Over the weekend The New York Times published an editorial addressing public criticism for the paper’s inconsistent use of the word “torture” to characterize the Bush Administration’s interrogations techniques. Last week, PHR submitted a letter to the editor on this very topic:

In “The Torture Apologists,” (Editorial, May 5), The New York Times finally gets it right and calls the Bush administration’s interrogation techniques what they are — torture. This wasn’t always the case. Last year a study at Harvard found a dramatic shift in the newspaper’s reporting when the United States authorized the use of waterboarding. The study found that after the US policy shift, The Times rarely characterized waterboarding as torture, despite a long history of classifying it as such. As the newspaper of record, The Times should understand the power of words. Calling torture “tough treatment” — as Scott Shane and Charlie Savage do in their article on May 4 — is a gross understatement that makes waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation sound more like a form of stern parental discipline. As the battle over the use of torture continues, let’s at least call it by the right name.

In Saturday’s piece in The Times, Public Editor Arthur S. Brisbane says the decision was made in an effort to remain impartial on the topic:

“The Bush administration offered formal legal opinions that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” it authorized were not torture under United States law. The Times adopted the view that labeling these as “torture” in news articles could create the appearance of taking sides.”

Regardless of the Bush administration’s claims about the legality of these so-called ” techniques,” they have long been defined as torture by The Times, the United States Government, and the international community. When The Times changed their characterization of these techniques, they weren’t refusing to take sides, they were throwing the widely-accepted definition of torture out the window and bowing to the political agenda and public relations campaign waged by the Bush administration. Journalists have an ethical responsibility to report the news, without bias, to the public. An open discussion of the problem is a start, but to show real progress, The Times must change the newsroom’s characterization of torture in all future articles.

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) joined 20 other organizations and five individuals in urging the Department of Justice to refer the Administration’s use of extraordinary rendition to the Inspectors General of the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice, and any other department involved in allegations of abuse relating to extraordinary rendition. PHR and other groups called attention to the Department of Justice’s policy regarding cases that involve credible allegations of government wrongdoing but are ended because of the government’s invocation of the state secrets privilege. The policy allows the Department of Justice to refer such cases to the Inspector General of the appropriate department or agency for investigation. While the groups relayed this demand for an investigation to the Department of Justice in December 2010, they are now making their demands public following this week’s Supreme Court decision not to hear Mohamed v. Jeppesen, a case challenging extraordinary rendition that the government previously quashed using the state secrets privilege. Given the credible allegations of government wrongdoing in Mohamed v. Jeppesen and similar cases, the Department of Justice should refer the case to the Inspectors General for investigation. Such an investigation is now even more urgent now that it is clear the Jeppesen case will not come before the Supreme Court. Referring these allegations of government wrongdoing for further investigation will ensure that the government cannot invoke the state secrets privilege solely to avoid public scrutiny and will be the first step to providing greater accountability for government abuses.Read the letter: [download id=”33″]

Burmese President Thein Sein announced yesterday that “Prisoners will get amnesty on humanitarian grounds and through sympathy for their families.” He went on to specify that the “amnesty” offered by the government means:

• All death sentences will be commuted to life in prison.
• All prisoners will be given a one-year deduction?from their prison term.

No mention was made of political prisoners. The government’s action follows calls from the international community for Burma to take more steps towards democracy. Burma recently applied for the chairmanship of ASEAN and held meetings with a high-ranking UN diplomat, possible signals that the country is attempting to engage more with the international community. Following Burma’s bid for the ASEAN chairmanship, several human rights groups called for Burma to demonstrate its commitment to democracy before it is considered for the chairmanship. Last week’s diplomatic visit ended with the UN representative calling the government’s statements on democracy “very encouraging,” but the diplomat went on to call for more effective action. The amnesty offered by the Burmese government is weak and does not show any real movement towards democracy. There are more than 2,000 Burmese political prisoners in jail, some with sentences of more than 50 years. According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), Burma is still arresting political prisoners.? These political prisoners will be shown no amnesty. Aung San Suu Kyi has expressed doubts that the new government will be any different from the old Junta. So far, this seems to be true.

Today PHR’s Richard Sollom testified on Capitol Hill before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in order to highlight the Bahraini government’s recent violations of human rights amid pro-democracy protests in the island Arab kingdom. Representatives from Human Rights Watch and the Bahrain Center for Human Rights also testified about human rights violations in Bahrian. Sollom’s testimony focused on PHR’s most recent report, Do No Harm: A Call for Bahrain to End Systematic Attacks on Doctors and Patients, which provides forensic evidence of systematic and calculated attacks on physicians, medical staff, patients and unarmed civilians. Amid reports of extrajudicial killings, torture, beatings, arbitrary arrest and detentions, PHR pushed the US Government to speak out publicly on these egregious violations and to push for the immediate release of all medical personnel arrested in the crackdown. In addition to congressional testimony, PHR joined six partner organizations in a May 12 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that encouraged the United States Administration to take the lead in convening special sessions on Bahrain and Yemen at the United Nations Human Rights Council in order to establish official channels for both human rights investigations and the accountability of their abuses.

Aung San Suu Kyi has seen "no meaningful change" in the Burmese government since the elections last year, she said in a recent interview with the German news media. "I know there have been elections but the government that has taken over since the elections are the same as those who were in place before the elections … We are still waiting to see whether there has been real change," she said.

These statements have been echoed by civil society groups and human rights NGOs. Suu Kyi's comments come as the new government in Burma tries to gain more international legitimacy by engaging in meetings with a senior UN official and applying for the chairmanship ASEAN.

On the surface, the Burmese government appears to be reaching out to the international community; however, there is no indication that it will stop violating the human rights of the Burmese people. Fighting is continuing in the border areas, and over 2,000 political prisoners remain in jail.

Suu Kyi said that if Burma gets the ASEAN chairmanship, that "it will not help democracy in Burma in any way," unless conditions are attached that would promote democracy.

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) joined a coalition of organizations in calling for open review of a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The new provision, championed by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA), is a sweeping departure from the separation of powers and would give the President the authority to use military force worldwide, in any country in which suspected terrorists reside. In effect, this proposal would create war without end.Couched as a “reaffirmation” of authority to use force against groups involved in the 9/11 terror attacks, the proposal would give the President unchecked power to use military force without any geographic limitations against loosely defined groups. As PHR and other groups noted in a recent memorandum (see below) to all members and staff of the House Armed Services Committee, this new authorization for the use of military force would shift the power to declare war from Congress to the President, giving the President “the power to go to war almost anywhere, at any time, and based on the presence of suspects who do not have to pose any threat to the national security of the United States.” Tell your Representative to oppose this proposed indeterminate declaration of war. Sign the petition here.[download id=”31″]

On Friday, PHR’s Richard Sollom will testify before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission for a hearing on the current human rights situation in Bahrain. Since mid-February, reports of human rights violations in Bahrain have increased significantly as Bahraini authorities have attempted to suppress anti-government protests. The Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission works to promote, defend and advocate internationally recognized human rights norms in a nonpartisan manner, both within and outside of Congress.Last month, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) released an emergency report which documents and decries systematic human rights abuses in Bahrain. For the first time, the report, “Do No Harm: A Call for Bahrain to End Systematic Attacks on Doctors and Patients,” provided forensic evidence of attacks on physicians, medical staff, patients and unarmed civilians with the use of bird shot, physical beatings, rubber bullets, tear gas and unidentified chemical agents. Friday’s hearing will focus on human rights aspects of the Bahraini government’s response to the February protests. Specifically, the hearing will examine the targeting of medical professionals and reports of extrajudicial killings, indiscriminate shootings of unarmed peaceful protesters, torture, beatings, arbitrary and warrantless arrests and detentions, and general harassment. The hearing will take place at 10 AM on Friday, May 13, 2011 in B-318 Rayburn House Office Building. The Hearing is open to members of Congress, congressional staff, the media and the interested public.

A senior UN diplomat has arrived in Burma to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi and members of the recently-elected government. This is the first visit by a high-ranking UN official since last year’s elections, a sign that the UN appears to be engaging with Burma’s new government even though the recent changes are more democratic in form than substance. In January, PHR released a report that revealed crimes against humanity in Burma perpetrated by the junta against the people of Chin State, western Burma. Burma’s human rights abuses are well documented and many, including PHR, have called for a UN commission of inquiry (COI) into human rights abuses in Burma. The outcomes of the talks may be an early indicator of the intentions of the new government. Hopefully the UN representative will bring human rights issues to the discussion table, and this is a chance for the new government to show it is serious about human rights.