Donald Trump's controversial travel ban has faced a fierce examination by the judges who will decide if it should be reinstated.
The hearing in San Francisco is the greatest legal challenge yet to the move to temporarily suspend the nation's refugee programme and immigration from seven mostly-Muslim countries.
A panel of three appeal court justices heard arguments from the Trump administration's Department of Justice and opponents of his Executive Order. They are expected to rule later in the week.
It followed a White House appeal against a restraining order imposed by a judge last week which has forced the government to temporarily lift the travel ban. It had caused chaos at airports in the US around the world when it was imposed.
Lawyers for both sides addressed the court by telephone during the hour-long session at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The administration asked the court to restore Mr Trump's order as, they say, he alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States.
Trump: Americans support travel ban
But Judge Michelle Friedland asked whether the government had any evidence connecting the seven affected nations to terrorism.
August Flentje, counsel for the US government, cited a number of Somalis in the US who he claimed had links to the terrorist group al Shabaab.
Judge Richard Clifton asked the lawyer for Washington state and Minnesota, which are challenging the ban, what evidence he had that it was motivated by religion when "the vast majority of Muslims would not be affected".
Noah Purcell responded that Trump's public statements on the campaign trail, calling for a ban on Muslims entering the US, showed discrimination.
The states opposing the ban argue that it is unconstitutional and have been supported by a string of former government officials and dozens of major tech firms. They say the ban has impacted business and divided families.
Whatever the court decides, the case is likely to end up at the US Supreme Court. The ban itself was originally intended to last for just 90 days.
Earlier, Mr Trump said he was willing to go all the way to the highest court in the land.
"It could. We'll see. Hopefully it doesn't have to. It's common sense. You know, some things are law and I'm in favour of that and some things are common sense. This is common sense."
His new head of Homeland Security had also taken responsibility for the troubled roll-out of the ban.
In a hearing on Capitol Hill, John Kelly said: "In retrospect, I should have - this is all on me, by the way - I should have delayed it (roll-out of travel ban), so that I could talk to members of Congress, particularly the leadership of committees like this to prepare them for what was coming."
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
MPs will get deal-or-no-deal vote on Brexit before agreement goes to European Parliament
MPs and peers will be able to vote on whether to accept a final Brexit deal or walk away from the agreement prior to it going before the European Parliament.
But they will not be able to shape the terms of the deal or send the Prime Minister back to Brussels to get more concessions.
The move - a verbal assurance and not a clause that will be written into the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - was welcomed by shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer.
But a number of MPs said that a "take-it-or-leave-it" vote was not "meaningful" and offered no real choice.
And they were aware that refusing to back a final deal struck by Theresa May would leave the UK turning to WTO rules on tariffs.
Former shadow chancellor Chris Leslie put forward an amendment requiring Parliamentary approval for any deal to be written into the bill.
The Labour backbencher's clause was defeated by 326 votes to 293, a majority of 33, but seven Tory MPs voted against the Government - Ken Clarke, Bob Neill, Andrew Tyrie, Claire Perry, Anna Soubry, Antoinette Sandbach and Heidi Allen.
Six Labour MPs voted with the Government.
But as the Conservatives' working majority is just 16, if the Tory rebellion grows this could cause headaches for Downing Street further down the line in the Brexit process.
:: What does the Brexit trigger bill say?
An SNP clause stating that if Parliament voted against the Government's deal the UK would stay in the EU on "existing terms" was defeated 336-88.
Sky sources understand that a group of Tory rebels led by former attorney general Dominic Grieve wrote a note for Downing Street to consider ahead of Tuesday morning's Cabinet meeting.
In it they threatened to vote in favour of Mr Leslie's cross-party amendment on a final deal vote - unless the Prime Minister could give reassurance to MPs that they would have their say on the EU exit agreement.
Mrs May is expected by the end of next month to trigger Article 50, when official negotiations can then begin with Brussels over leaving the EU. The talks are due to last two years.
She has promised to walk away from the EU with nothing, rather than accept a poor offer.
Meanwhile in Scotland, MSPs have voted 90-34 against UK legislation to take Britain out of the EU.
The Supreme Court has already ruled the British Government does not have to consult the devolved administrations before it starts the formal Brexit process.
But they will not be able to shape the terms of the deal or send the Prime Minister back to Brussels to get more concessions.
The move - a verbal assurance and not a clause that will be written into the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill - was welcomed by shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer.
But a number of MPs said that a "take-it-or-leave-it" vote was not "meaningful" and offered no real choice.
And they were aware that refusing to back a final deal struck by Theresa May would leave the UK turning to WTO rules on tariffs.
Former shadow chancellor Chris Leslie put forward an amendment requiring Parliamentary approval for any deal to be written into the bill.
The Labour backbencher's clause was defeated by 326 votes to 293, a majority of 33, but seven Tory MPs voted against the Government - Ken Clarke, Bob Neill, Andrew Tyrie, Claire Perry, Anna Soubry, Antoinette Sandbach and Heidi Allen.
Six Labour MPs voted with the Government.
But as the Conservatives' working majority is just 16, if the Tory rebellion grows this could cause headaches for Downing Street further down the line in the Brexit process.
:: What does the Brexit trigger bill say?
An SNP clause stating that if Parliament voted against the Government's deal the UK would stay in the EU on "existing terms" was defeated 336-88.
Sky sources understand that a group of Tory rebels led by former attorney general Dominic Grieve wrote a note for Downing Street to consider ahead of Tuesday morning's Cabinet meeting.
In it they threatened to vote in favour of Mr Leslie's cross-party amendment on a final deal vote - unless the Prime Minister could give reassurance to MPs that they would have their say on the EU exit agreement.
Mrs May is expected by the end of next month to trigger Article 50, when official negotiations can then begin with Brussels over leaving the EU. The talks are due to last two years.
She has promised to walk away from the EU with nothing, rather than accept a poor offer.
Meanwhile in Scotland, MSPs have voted 90-34 against UK legislation to take Britain out of the EU.
The Supreme Court has already ruled the British Government does not have to consult the devolved administrations before it starts the formal Brexit process.
Chinese judge slams Trump as a 'public enemy of the rule of law'
A top Chinese judge has branded Donald Trump an "enemy of the rule of law" for his disparaging remarks about a US federal judge who suspended his travel ban.
In a personal attack on James Robart on Saturday, the US President described him as a "so-called judge" in a series of ill-tempered tweets.
He also accused the Seattle judge of opening "up our country to potential terrorists" with his "ridiculous" decision to halt the order that temporarily blocked all refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.
In a blog post, dated Sunday, Judge He Fan who serves at the Supreme People's Court of China, blasted Mr Trump for "insulting" Mr Robart.
He wrote that under the American system's separation of powers, a president who is dealt a judicial defeat should bear the loss silently, rather than lash out at the judge in question.
He said Mr Trump had set a poor example and lost respect for having "led the way in insulting a judge, with the Vice President and his political party swarming to his defence (and) in a country known as the most democratic and most respectful of the rule of law".
"The president who would curse a judge and the thug who would kill a judge are both public enemies of the rule of law," he wrote, referencing the recent murder of a retired judge in southern China.
"Who cares that you control the armed forces and have nuclear weapons at your disposal. Your dignity has been swept away and you are no different than a scoundrel," he added.
The US Department of Justice is challenging Mr Robart's ruling and wants the immigration restrictions reinstated.
The President's decree, signed on 27 January, barred entry for 120 days for any refugees awaiting resettlement.
Citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were also banned for 90 days.
A US federal appeals court will later announce whether it has decided to uphold Mr Robart's judgment - or reinstate the immigration restrictions.
Government lawyers insist Mr Trump's executive order is a "lawful exercise" and that the President has clear authority to "suspend the entry of any class of aliens" in the name of national security.
They have also criticised Washington and Minnesota, the two states which launched the legal challenge against the executive order, for asking courts to "take the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national security judgment made by the President himself".
Three judges, randomly selected at the California-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, have been hearing the case.
If either side is unhappy with the outcome, a showdown in the Supreme Court may follow.
Lawyers representing Washington and Minnesota have warned that resuming the travel ban would "unleash chaos again" - separating families and leaving university students stranded.
Their case has been buoyed by 10 former US officials - including secretaries of state and CIA directors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents - who filed a declaration in the case arguing that the travel ban served no national security purposes.
A coalition led by some of the world's biggest tech firms is also taking on the ban, with Elon Musk's Tesla and SpaceX the latest to add their names to a list of 30 companies including Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter.
It comes as the President has accused the media of deliberately minimising coverage of the threat posed by Islamic State.
A list of 78 terror attacks has been released by the White House, with the administration claiming "most" of them did not get sufficient media attention.
The Paris attacks of November 2015 and the San Bernardino shootings of December 2015, both of which received widespread attention and in-depth reporting, are among the events on the list.
In a personal attack on James Robart on Saturday, the US President described him as a "so-called judge" in a series of ill-tempered tweets.
He also accused the Seattle judge of opening "up our country to potential terrorists" with his "ridiculous" decision to halt the order that temporarily blocked all refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.
In a blog post, dated Sunday, Judge He Fan who serves at the Supreme People's Court of China, blasted Mr Trump for "insulting" Mr Robart.
He wrote that under the American system's separation of powers, a president who is dealt a judicial defeat should bear the loss silently, rather than lash out at the judge in question.
He said Mr Trump had set a poor example and lost respect for having "led the way in insulting a judge, with the Vice President and his political party swarming to his defence (and) in a country known as the most democratic and most respectful of the rule of law".
"The president who would curse a judge and the thug who would kill a judge are both public enemies of the rule of law," he wrote, referencing the recent murder of a retired judge in southern China.
"Who cares that you control the armed forces and have nuclear weapons at your disposal. Your dignity has been swept away and you are no different than a scoundrel," he added.
The US Department of Justice is challenging Mr Robart's ruling and wants the immigration restrictions reinstated.
The President's decree, signed on 27 January, barred entry for 120 days for any refugees awaiting resettlement.
Citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were also banned for 90 days.
A US federal appeals court will later announce whether it has decided to uphold Mr Robart's judgment - or reinstate the immigration restrictions.
Government lawyers insist Mr Trump's executive order is a "lawful exercise" and that the President has clear authority to "suspend the entry of any class of aliens" in the name of national security.
They have also criticised Washington and Minnesota, the two states which launched the legal challenge against the executive order, for asking courts to "take the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national security judgment made by the President himself".
Three judges, randomly selected at the California-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, have been hearing the case.
If either side is unhappy with the outcome, a showdown in the Supreme Court may follow.
Lawyers representing Washington and Minnesota have warned that resuming the travel ban would "unleash chaos again" - separating families and leaving university students stranded.
Their case has been buoyed by 10 former US officials - including secretaries of state and CIA directors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents - who filed a declaration in the case arguing that the travel ban served no national security purposes.
A coalition led by some of the world's biggest tech firms is also taking on the ban, with Elon Musk's Tesla and SpaceX the latest to add their names to a list of 30 companies including Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter.
It comes as the President has accused the media of deliberately minimising coverage of the threat posed by Islamic State.
A list of 78 terror attacks has been released by the White House, with the administration claiming "most" of them did not get sufficient media attention.
The Paris attacks of November 2015 and the San Bernardino shootings of December 2015, both of which received widespread attention and in-depth reporting, are among the events on the list.
Kanye West appears to have u-turn on support for Donald Trump
Kanye West appears to have deleted tweets about a meeting with Donald Trump last year, with reports suggesting he is unhappy with the US President's actions since taking office.
West had emerged as one of Mr Trump's biggest celebrity supporters, and met the then President-elect at Trump Tower on 13 December.
After the talks, the rapper tweeted that he felt it "important to have a direct line of communication with our future President if we truly want change".
But this post and others about the meeting, during which he had planned to discuss "bullying, supporting teachers, modernising curriculums and violence in Chicago", were missing from his account on Monday.
It is not clear why the tweets have now been deleted, and West's representatives did not return requests for comment, the Reuters news agency said.
Celebrity website TMZ, quoting an unidentified source, said West deleted the tweets because he is unhappy about Mr Trump's actions since he was sworn in on 20 January.
These include a ban on travellers to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim nations.
Mr Trump has also said he will "send in the Feds" to "fix the horrible 'carnage' going on" in Chicago, where West was raised, due to high crime rates.
"Kanye's decision to remove the tweets were all his," TMZ wrote. "The 'Muslim ban' and other actions were the catalyst for his decision."
West, 39, was one of Trump's most high-profile supporters during the 2016 election campaign.
He made headlines in November when he was booed at a concert for declaring his support for Mr Trump, although he said he had not voted in the election.
West had emerged as one of Mr Trump's biggest celebrity supporters, and met the then President-elect at Trump Tower on 13 December.
After the talks, the rapper tweeted that he felt it "important to have a direct line of communication with our future President if we truly want change".
But this post and others about the meeting, during which he had planned to discuss "bullying, supporting teachers, modernising curriculums and violence in Chicago", were missing from his account on Monday.
It is not clear why the tweets have now been deleted, and West's representatives did not return requests for comment, the Reuters news agency said.
Celebrity website TMZ, quoting an unidentified source, said West deleted the tweets because he is unhappy about Mr Trump's actions since he was sworn in on 20 January.
These include a ban on travellers to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim nations.
Mr Trump has also said he will "send in the Feds" to "fix the horrible 'carnage' going on" in Chicago, where West was raised, due to high crime rates.
"Kanye's decision to remove the tweets were all his," TMZ wrote. "The 'Muslim ban' and other actions were the catalyst for his decision."
West, 39, was one of Trump's most high-profile supporters during the 2016 election campaign.
He made headlines in November when he was booed at a concert for declaring his support for Mr Trump, although he said he had not voted in the election.
Male contraceptive and vasectomy gel tested successfully on monkeys
A male contraceptive gel has been successfully tested in monkeys, bringing the prospect of an alternative form of birth control for humans one step closer.
Vasalgel is injected into the two vas deferens tubes that carry sperm out of the testicles, and creates a blockage.
It has also been designed to provide a reversible alternative to vasectomy.
A study in rabbits last year showed the contraceptive gel, which is not classified as a pharmaceutical product, can be removed by flushing the duct with baking soda solution.
In the new trial, the gel, made by the non-profit Parsemus Foundation in Berkeley, California, prevented any conceptions occurring in a test group of 16 rhesus monkeys.
Clinical trials on humans are expected to begin next year.
:: Male contraceptive jab 96% effective in trial... and increases libido
Lead scientist Dr Catherine VandeVoort, from the California National Primate Research Centre, said: "Vasalgel shows real promise as an alternative to vasectomy.
"Importantly, we show that the method of Vasalgel placement is safe and produced fewer complications than usually occur with a vasectomy.
"Although it is possible to reverse a vasectomy, it is a technically challenging procedure and patients often have very low rates of fertility following reversal."
One of the treated monkeys showed signs of sperm granuloma, a hard build-up of sperm in the vas deferens - a non-serious complication that affects around 60% of men undergoing a vasectomy, researchers said..
Professor Adam Balen, chairman of the British Fertility Society, said: "If free of side effects then this novel approach has the potential for great promise as a male contraceptive.
"It is essential to know that the reversibility remains, irrespective of the duration of use."
Allan Pacey, professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, said the idea of trying to replace the traditional method of vasectomy with a gel is not a new one, but added: "We haven't seen much progress in developing the idea in recent years, so this study is a useful step in the right direction."
Vasalgel is injected into the two vas deferens tubes that carry sperm out of the testicles, and creates a blockage.
It has also been designed to provide a reversible alternative to vasectomy.
A study in rabbits last year showed the contraceptive gel, which is not classified as a pharmaceutical product, can be removed by flushing the duct with baking soda solution.
In the new trial, the gel, made by the non-profit Parsemus Foundation in Berkeley, California, prevented any conceptions occurring in a test group of 16 rhesus monkeys.
Clinical trials on humans are expected to begin next year.
:: Male contraceptive jab 96% effective in trial... and increases libido
Lead scientist Dr Catherine VandeVoort, from the California National Primate Research Centre, said: "Vasalgel shows real promise as an alternative to vasectomy.
"Importantly, we show that the method of Vasalgel placement is safe and produced fewer complications than usually occur with a vasectomy.
"Although it is possible to reverse a vasectomy, it is a technically challenging procedure and patients often have very low rates of fertility following reversal."
One of the treated monkeys showed signs of sperm granuloma, a hard build-up of sperm in the vas deferens - a non-serious complication that affects around 60% of men undergoing a vasectomy, researchers said..
Professor Adam Balen, chairman of the British Fertility Society, said: "If free of side effects then this novel approach has the potential for great promise as a male contraceptive.
"It is essential to know that the reversibility remains, irrespective of the duration of use."
Allan Pacey, professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, said the idea of trying to replace the traditional method of vasectomy with a gel is not a new one, but added: "We haven't seen much progress in developing the idea in recent years, so this study is a useful step in the right direction."
Speaker John Bercow criticised over 'wholly inappropriate' Donald Trump rebuke
Commons Speaker John Bercow has been caught up in controversy after saying Donald Trump should not be allowed to address Parliament during his state visit.
Mr Bercow's attack in the House was applauded by MPs who oppose the US President, but critics have hit out at his intervention.
Conservative MP James Duddridge told Sky News it was "most bizarre", adding: "It is wholly inappropriate for the Speaker of the House to enter the fray on this issue."
Communities Secretary Sajid Javid told Sky News Mr Bercow "likes to speak his mind", but stressed he "doesn't speak for the Government".
Asked for the Prime Minister's reaction to the comments, her spokesman said: "What John Bercow suggests to Parliament is a matter for Parliament.
"What I will set out is our position which is we've extended this invitation to the president and we look forward to receiving him later this year."
When asked if Theresa May agreed with Mr Bercow's characterisation of Mr Trump as a racist and a sexist, the spokesman said: "In terms of these issues on comments that the president has made in the past, I think the PM herself has addressed that and I can point you to the words that she has used in the past."
Addressing MPs on Monday, Mr Bercow cited Mr Trump's controversial travel ban as one of the reasons for his opposition to inviting the President to Westminster.
Chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Crispin Blunt said it was the Speaker's duty to remain neutral.
He said: "He has no idea whether he will be speaking for a majority of the House of Commons, and this is why speakers do not express their opinion.
"That's the entire point, otherwise they can't remain neutral and above the political fray."
Iraqi-born Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi, who criticised Mr Trump's travel ban after learning he could be caught up in it, told the BBC the Speaker should "think about" his position and explain his remarks.
Former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg told Sky's All Out Politics he could understand why Mr Bercow had "reacted to this pressure from the Government" with his "unconventional" statement.
The Liberal Democrat's Europe spokesman claimed Mrs May was "pushing" for a state visit in a "premature, rushed and demeaning way", and warned the PM to be "much more cautious and tentative".
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was among those to back Mr Bercow, writing on Twitter: "Well said John Bercow. We must stand up for our country's values. Trump's state visit should not go ahead."
Mr Javid made reference to the controversy in the Commons later, quipping he had hoped his housing White Paper would be dominating the headlines, "but it seems someone else has beaten me to it".
Mr Bercow responded: "Let me just gently say to the Rt Hon Gentleman I did make my statement to the House first."
Only a select few world statesmen and women have been granted the honour of addressing the Commons and the Lords in Westminster Hall.
Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton spoke in the Royal Gallery, a room in Parliament often used for state receptions, while other leaders have had to address Parliament from the Queen's Robing Room in the Lords.
Mr Bercow's attack in the House was applauded by MPs who oppose the US President, but critics have hit out at his intervention.
Conservative MP James Duddridge told Sky News it was "most bizarre", adding: "It is wholly inappropriate for the Speaker of the House to enter the fray on this issue."
Communities Secretary Sajid Javid told Sky News Mr Bercow "likes to speak his mind", but stressed he "doesn't speak for the Government".
Asked for the Prime Minister's reaction to the comments, her spokesman said: "What John Bercow suggests to Parliament is a matter for Parliament.
"What I will set out is our position which is we've extended this invitation to the president and we look forward to receiving him later this year."
When asked if Theresa May agreed with Mr Bercow's characterisation of Mr Trump as a racist and a sexist, the spokesman said: "In terms of these issues on comments that the president has made in the past, I think the PM herself has addressed that and I can point you to the words that she has used in the past."
Addressing MPs on Monday, Mr Bercow cited Mr Trump's controversial travel ban as one of the reasons for his opposition to inviting the President to Westminster.
Chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Crispin Blunt said it was the Speaker's duty to remain neutral.
He said: "He has no idea whether he will be speaking for a majority of the House of Commons, and this is why speakers do not express their opinion.
"That's the entire point, otherwise they can't remain neutral and above the political fray."
Iraqi-born Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi, who criticised Mr Trump's travel ban after learning he could be caught up in it, told the BBC the Speaker should "think about" his position and explain his remarks.
Former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg told Sky's All Out Politics he could understand why Mr Bercow had "reacted to this pressure from the Government" with his "unconventional" statement.
The Liberal Democrat's Europe spokesman claimed Mrs May was "pushing" for a state visit in a "premature, rushed and demeaning way", and warned the PM to be "much more cautious and tentative".
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was among those to back Mr Bercow, writing on Twitter: "Well said John Bercow. We must stand up for our country's values. Trump's state visit should not go ahead."
Mr Javid made reference to the controversy in the Commons later, quipping he had hoped his housing White Paper would be dominating the headlines, "but it seems someone else has beaten me to it".
Mr Bercow responded: "Let me just gently say to the Rt Hon Gentleman I did make my statement to the House first."
Only a select few world statesmen and women have been granted the honour of addressing the Commons and the Lords in Westminster Hall.
Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton spoke in the Royal Gallery, a room in Parliament often used for state receptions, while other leaders have had to address Parliament from the Queen's Robing Room in the Lords.
Monday, February 6, 2017
Syrian officials guilty of 'mass hangings' at jail, report claims
The Syrian government has executed up to 13,000 prisoners in mass hangings at a prison near Damascus since 2011, Amnesty International says.
A report by the human rights group also claims systematic torture has been carried out at the military jail, which is referred to by detainees as "the slaughterhouse".
Some inmates were allegedly executed after a "sham trial" lasting no more than a couple of minutes - and the killings were often authorised by senior Syrian officials, including deputies of President Bashar al Assad.
Amnesty's most recent figures suggest an average of 20 to 50 people were hanged every week at the Saydnaya prison between 2011 and 2015 - but many thousands more may have been executed since then.
The organisation has described the executions as a war crime, and is calling for a UN investigation.
Its report said: "The victims are overwhelmingly civilians who are thought to oppose the government. Many other detainees have been killed after being repeatedly tortured and systematically deprived of food, water, medicine and medical care."
Lynn Maalouf, deputy director for research at Amnesty's office in Beirut, added: "The horrors depicted in this report reveal a hidden, monstrous campaign, authorised at the highest levels of the Syrian government, aimed at crushing any form of dissent within the Syrian population."
The report said executions were often carried out in secret. Those killed were buried at mass graves outside the capital, but families were never informed of their fate.
Amnesty interviewed more than 30 ex-inmates at the prison and dozens of other officials and experts, including former guards and judges.
A report by the human rights group also claims systematic torture has been carried out at the military jail, which is referred to by detainees as "the slaughterhouse".
Some inmates were allegedly executed after a "sham trial" lasting no more than a couple of minutes - and the killings were often authorised by senior Syrian officials, including deputies of President Bashar al Assad.
Amnesty's most recent figures suggest an average of 20 to 50 people were hanged every week at the Saydnaya prison between 2011 and 2015 - but many thousands more may have been executed since then.
The organisation has described the executions as a war crime, and is calling for a UN investigation.
Its report said: "The victims are overwhelmingly civilians who are thought to oppose the government. Many other detainees have been killed after being repeatedly tortured and systematically deprived of food, water, medicine and medical care."
Lynn Maalouf, deputy director for research at Amnesty's office in Beirut, added: "The horrors depicted in this report reveal a hidden, monstrous campaign, authorised at the highest levels of the Syrian government, aimed at crushing any form of dissent within the Syrian population."
The report said executions were often carried out in secret. Those killed were buried at mass graves outside the capital, but families were never informed of their fate.
Amnesty interviewed more than 30 ex-inmates at the prison and dozens of other officials and experts, including former guards and judges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)