Justice Has No Boundaries: The Positive Significance of the U.S. "Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act" in Keeping Crimes Within Limits

For a long time, leaders in autocratic governments could abuse their power at will and get away with murder. However, the arm of the law will bring them back into the reach of justice. In recent years, the United States government has promulgated a series of laws that effectively frighten those that carry out persecution of innocent people when these perpetrators come to the United States, they are charged with breaking moral and legal laws as set forth by the civilised world. This article briefly reviews the relevant bills that protect human rights under the U.S. legal system.

The United States of America regards freedom and human rights as its basic founding principles and passed the "Alien Torts Claims Act" (ATCA) as early as 1789. This act provides non-American citizens the right to seek compensation in U. S. Federal Court, no matter where the offence occurred, from those responsible for the following offences: Torture, Extra Judicial Killing, Forced Labour, Rape and Genocide.

Initially, the ATCA was mainly used to punish pirates and slave dealers. Since the 1980's, human rights activists have utilised the ATCA to prosecute violations of human rights by non-American citizens in other countries.

In 1984, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals made a historically significant ruling in the case of "Filartiga v. Pena-Irala." Both the accuser and defendant in this case were citizens of Paraguay. The accuser was seeking political protection in the United States, and the defendant entered the U.S. on a travel visa. The plaintiff accused the defendant, who was a police officer in Paraguay at the time, of torturing the accuser and his family members and causing death. The Court ultimately decided that the accuser should be awarded 10 million dollars plus interest in compensation.

The significance of the "Filartiga v. Pena-Irala" case is not about how much compensation the victim was awarded. This landmark decision established a judicial precedent in the civilised world any perpetrator who seriously violates human rights will finally be legally liable.

Since the "Filartiga v. Pena-Irala" suit, many foreign dictators who live in the U.S. or visit the U.S. have been forced into the defendant's seat by the ATCA because of their acts of persecution against victims outside the US. Defendants have included Ferdinand Marcos, the former president of the Philippines, and senior officials and military officers from Guatemala, Indonesia, Argentina, Ethiopia, and El Salvador.

At times, American politicians have become anxious about the possibility of the American government getting involved in all sorts of diplomatic disputes, because the wide application of the ATCA permits American courts to rule foreign officials guilty. America, a society that responsibly safeguards human rights, its Constitution, and people's dignity, eventually chose to overlook diplomatic considerations and economic benefits. In 1991, the United States Congress took a stand, stating, "continuing to safeguard basic human rights in the world is more important than worrying that other nations may implement retaliatory prosecution against American officials." The former President George Bush also confirmed when he signed the "Torture Victims Protection Act" (TVPA), "These potential dangers, however, do not concern the fundamental goals that this legislation seeks to advance. In this new era, in which countries throughout the world are turning to democratic institutions and the rule of law, we must maintain and strengthen our commitment to ensuring that human rights are respected everywhere." (See "President George Bush's Statement on Signing the Torture Victim Protection Law of 1991.")

Without a doubt, the enforcement of the TVPA further promotes the maintenance of human rights in regions outside the U.S. Following the spread of the application of the ATCA and the TVPA, in recent years some multinational corporations have even begun to acknowledge their legal responsibilities because some of their investments are in countries that are not commended for their human rights records.

One such case occurred in 1997, when Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) undertook the construction of a petroleum pipeline in Burma. Unocal paid funds to the Burmese government for providing labour and security measures. In the process of constructing the pipeline, the Burmese army and police in charge of the project implemented a series of atrocities against local residents, including forcing them to move, forced labour, rape, torture and murder. The victims sued Unocal in the U.S. for violations of human rights by the Burmese government and for gaining profits from forced labour and forcing the local people to relocate. Prior to the court's ruling, the plaintiff and defendant both reached a conciliatory agreement. The case of Unocal fully demonstrates those parties that did not directly participate in the persecution may also bear relevant legal responsibility due to economic connections with the perpetrators.

Besides Unocal, the petroleum giant of America, Exxon Mobil was also accused of violations of human rights in its dealings with the Indonesian Security Department, because the Indonesian soldiers who guarded the company's natural gas field there engaged the crimes of murder, torture and rape.

In recent years, the ATCA and TVPA have played a more and more vital role in protecting human rights, the labourer, and the environment.

In the cases that involve China and Falun Gong, which is being persecuted by Jiang Zemin's Chinese Communist Party regime, the ATCA and TVPA have played a positive guiding role. Since July 2001, American Falun Gong practitioners have brought litigation against many visiting Chinese Communist Party officials, quoting the ATCA and TVPA. Moreover, the former Chinese President Jiang Zemin received a litigation statement from the Northern Illinois Federal District Court on October 22nd, 2002, the first day of his visit to America. These lawsuits have become a model for invoking the law, delivering a message of hope to the oppressed and encouraging people to continuously strive for justice.

On June 29th, 2004, the American Supreme Court once again confirmed the validity of the ATCA. The judges ruled, "The abuser is the enemy of human beings, just like pirates and slave dealers, and must take civil responsibility".

Although America has established legislation and practises for safeguarding international human rights, the ATCA and TVPA do have their limitations. In particular, they emphasise nailing down the civil responsibility of the abuser and granting compensation to the victim but do not enforce the provisions of the American Immigration Law about the status of the abuser. (The "International Freedom of Religion Act 1998" provides for any foreign official in serious violation of religious freedom within 24 months, he or she and their family members are prohibited from entering American boundaries. But the application of this law is limited only to violations of religious freedom.)

Speaking from this angle, the "Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act" that President George W. Bush signed on December 17th, 2004, is more significant in setting a precedent. The newly promulgated bill permits the American Ministry of Justice to trace foreigners who commit crimes of war, torture, genocide, and the persecution of religious faith, as well as other violations of human rights. The bill demands that the American Immigration Authority limit the entry of these foreigners or deport them. Furthermore, the Department of Justice and the Office of Special Investigations that was established in 1979 can still take legal action to naturalise naturalised American citizens.

The effectiveness of the "Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act" means that American society has achieved in-depth mutual recognition of the judicial application of human rights cases. Perhaps the American courts will become even more active in dealing with foreign governments and the officials that carry out persecution overseas.

Earlier, incomplete statistics from the Chinese Communist Party have indicated that nearly 200,000 party officials, their spouses, and direct relatives have settled in the U.S. Obviously, those CCP officials and their relatives who have persecuted or are persecuting other people may all face punishment in the free world because of the "Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act."

Just as a philosopher said, "The appraisal of a civilisation should be decided not only by its achievements in science and technology, or by the degree of prosperity of a nation, but by the manifestation of its quality of humanitarianism, as well as its respect of the law." From an historical aspect, the "Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act" is not merely a domestic law of the United States but has influence on international society and international relationships. Speaking of China, it will make the central government aware of the international human rights standard, intimidate the CCP officials, and assist in finally preventing egregious atrocities under the current regime, certainly a positive significance in improving the human rights situation in China.

Extracts from US laws:

Provision 212th (a) (3) (D) of the American Immigration and Nationality Laws, INA [8 U.S.C.A. 1182]: Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible. The definition of the totalitarian party should be extended to its embranchment or derived organisations.

lien Tort Claims Act, ATCA [28 U.S.C. 1350]: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.
Torture Victims Protection Act, TVPA [28 U.S.C.1350]: An individual who, under actual or apparent authority, or colour of law, of any foreign nation:

(1) Subjects an individual to torture shall, in a civil action, be liable for damages to that individual; or
(2) subjects an individual to extra-judicial killing shall, in a civil action, be liable for damages to the individual's legal representative, or to any person who may be a claimant in an action for wrongful death.

Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act 6 (a) (1)
According to this law, the Attorney General shall establish within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice an Office of Special Investigations with the authority to detect and investigate, and, where appropriate, to take legal action to naturalise any alien described in section 212 (a) (3) (E).

This article is originally from http://www.laogai.org/news2/newsdetail.php?id=451