Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Israel snubs German foreign minister in row over human rights talks

Benjamin Netanyahu cancels talks with Sigmar Gabriel after German foreign minister vows to meet Israeli rights groups
German foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel (left) with Israel’s president, Reuven Rivlin, in Jerusalem on Tuesday. Photograph: Sebastian Scheiner/AP

 in Jerusalem-Tuesday 25 April 2017
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has abruptly cancelled a meeting with the visiting German foreign minister, Sigmar Gabriel, in a high-profile diplomatic row over the German minister’s plan to meet two Israeli rights groups.
Netanyahu’s snub came after he issued an ultimatum to Gabriel to cancel meetings with military whistleblower group Breaking the Silence and human rights group B’Tselem.
Gabriel had responded by saying it would be “regrettable” if the meeting were cancelled and indicated his intention to go ahead with them. In comments to the German TV channel ZDF, he said it would be “inconceivable” for the German minister to cancel a meeting with the Israeli leader if the latter chose to meet figures critical of the German government.
“You never get the full picture of any state in the world if you just meet with figures in government ministries,” he told the channel.
A statement from the Israeli prime minister’s office said: “Netanyahu’s policy is not to meet foreign visitors who, on diplomatic trips to Israel, meet with groups that slander IDF [Israel Defence Forces] soldiers as war criminals.
“Diplomats are welcome to meet with representatives of civil society but Prime Minister Netanyahu will not meet with those who lend legitimacy to organisations that call for the criminalisation of Israeli soldiers. Our relations with Germany are very important and they will not be affected by this.”
Breaking the Silence is a group of former Israeli soldiers opposed to the country’s continued occupation of the West Bank. Israeli leaders oppose the group’s work, citing the anonymity of the claims and its efforts to reach foreign audiences.
The row is unusual in that Israel and Germany generally have excellent diplomatic relations. Gabriel was shunned last year in Tehran by Iran’s parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani, after he said that Berlin could have friendly relations with Tehran if Iran recognised Israel.
It comes, however, amid a campaign by Netanyahu’s government to target groups it claims are critical of Israel.
The spat follows Netanyahu’s demand to Theresa May during an official visit to London that the British government cease funding Breaking the Silence, despite the fact it is not a recipient of direct British aid.
Justifying the Israeli move, an Israeli official said that Netanyahu’s position remained the same. “It’s a choice between Breaking the Silence and the prime minister,” said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was discussing a diplomatic matter.
Such disputes have arisen in the past between visiting foreign officials and Israel’s government. In February, Israel reprimanded the Belgian ambassador after the country’s prime minister, Charles Michel, met B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence during a visit to Israel.
However, there was no public rebuke from the government when the British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, met anti-settlement NGO Peace Now during a visit in March.
Netanyahu and his ministers have become increasingly preoccupied with Breaking the Silence. The group has been the principal target of a new funding law in the Knesset and there have been attempts to ban it from holding events in Israeli schools and public buildings.
Earlier this month, however, two former heads of Israel’s Shin Bet domestic intelligence agency publicly defended the group’s right to speak out.
The news came as Palestinian leaders said on Tuesday that Britain had rejected their request for an apology for the Balfour Declaration, a 1917 letter that helped pave the way for the creation of the state of Israel, and they would pursue international court action unless London backtracked.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, called for the apology in an address to the UN general assembly in September, but Britain plans to hold celebrations along with Israeli officials to mark the November centenary of the declaration.
“The answer came in a written letter to the (Palestinian) foreign ministry that the apology is refused,” Manuel Hassassian, the Palestinian ambassador to Britain, told Voice of Palestine Radio on Tuesday.

When they call you 'Negro': Egypt’s Sudanese are prisoners of racism

Sudanese law student Louis Ajok sits in his home in the Cairo suburb of Maadi (MEE/ Mohamed Mahmoud)--Marko Deng, south Sudanese priest and principal poses for a portrait in his office in Ain Shams district in Cairo ((MEE/ Mohamed Mahmoud)
Mohamed Mahmoud's picture
Mohamed Mahmoud-Friday 21 April 2017

One of the classrooms in the Sudanese children education centre in Ain Shams district in Cairo (MEE/ Mohamed Mahmoud)--Marko Deng, principal of the Sudanese children education centre in Ain Shams, monitors surveillance footage of the school in his office (MEE/ Mohamed Mahmoud)--Egypt's forward Abdallah Said (L) vies for the ball against Cameroon's midfielder Arnaud Sutchuin-Djoum during the 2017 Africa Cup of Nations on 5 February 2017 (AFP)
CAIRO - “You are dogs, animals, [you’re not even] human,” Emad Hamdy, an Egyptian shop owner yelled out as he stormed into an education centre for Sudanese children in the Ain Shams district north of Cairo, according to the centre's principal, Marko Deng. 
Deng recalled the dreadful February day that his Sudanese friend and volunteer teacher, 50-year-old Gabriel Tut, was killed at the hands of Hamdy, simply for the colour of his skin, according to his colleagues.
'I lost my friend only because of his colour. The killer wants no black people in Egypt'
- Marko Deng, school principal
"I lost my friend only because of his colour. The killer wants no black people in Egypt," Deng said.
Deng didn't witness the incident himself, but he reviewed the crime on the education centre's surveillance footage, which was later submitted to the authorities.
"Gabriel replied to [Hamdy's] insult saying: we are human," 39-year-old Deng said. The argument escalated and Hamdy shouted at Tut saying: "You won't go home today."
Hamdy was convinced to leave the school's premises with the help of a neighbour, but he returned carrying a metal rod. As Tut was walking out of the education centre, Hamdy beat him on the head with the metal rod before he fled the scene. 
“The street was full of [Tut's] blood. We carried him to the hospital, but he died before we arrived there,” Deng said. "[Gabriel] was a good man, full of love. Everyone loved him whether they were Sudanese or not. He was a better man than me."
Tut left behind his wife and two boys. They had moved from Sudan to Egypt in 2005.
Deng said that Hamdy harassed the school's staff and students and insulted them on a daily basis because they are "Sudanese and black," adding that he used to regularly unleash his dogs on the children at the end of the school day. 
'[Gabriel] was a good man, full of love. Everyone loved him whether they were Sudanese or not'
- Marko Deng, school principal
The day of the incident, the school's gate was left open so Hamdy took the opportunity to enter the centre's premises and harass the staff and the children.
“The incident is a natural result of the daily racism against all dark-skinned people in Egypt,” Deng said.
The perpetrator was arrested the same day. He is accused of murder and is now under pre-trial detention. Hamdy admitted his crime and did not show any sign of remorse while he was being detained, according to Deng. 
Out of fear for their safety or any sort of reprisal, shortly after the incident Tut’s family left the district of Ain Shams and has refused to speak to media ever since. 
The Sudanese children education centre that is affiliated with UNICEF was founded in the Ain Shams district in 2007. The district hosts thousands of Africans who have been living in Egypt as registered refugees, and Deng has first-hand experience of the racism they face.

'Brothers from one continent'

In addition to being a principal, Deng is also a south Sudanese priest and a member of the Sudanese Anglican Church of Egypt. When civil war broke out in his native land, he fled to Egypt in the year 2000. 
'Some people are prisoners to a racist culture that is inherited from one generation to another'
- Abdel Latif Farouk, political researcher and specialist in African affairs
“Other countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Congo were close to me... but we decided to come to Egypt as we love it,” he said.
However, the love he has for the country could not shield them from racism. 
“Some children stop us [on the street] and say you have darkened the country or you are monkeys,” he said.
When speaking of the refugee situation, Deng expressed sadness about how Africans are not welcome like other nationalities such as Syrians or other “white” refugees.
“I do not know why some people don't consider us brothers from one continent; why they tell us you have plagued the country, while on the other hand, they welcome the Syrians and help them,” he added.
'I do not know why some people don't consider us brothers from one continent; why they tell us you have plagued the country, while on the other hand, they welcome the Syrians and help them'
- Marko Deng, school principal
Since the war in Syria broke out in 2011, Egypt has become host to 100,000 Syrian refugees, according to estimates by Sudan’s commission of refugees.
An official in the interior ministry, who preferred to remain anonymous because he was not permitted to talk to the media, told MEE that “Egypt is committed to protecting and securing all its guests whatever their nationalities are.”
“We will take all legal procedures against whoever commits any violations against our guests,” he firmly added.
According to the spokesperson of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), as of February 2017, Egypt is home to 202,209 refugees and asylum seekers.
These figures include 82,055 sub-Saharan Africans of which 34,671 are Sudanese, Tariq Argaz, UNHCR spokesman, told MEE.
According to Argaz, there have been complaints from the Sudanese and Ethiopian communities where they have been victims of verbal insults, but he referred to them as “individual practices [and] not systematic ones”.
On the other hand, Abdel Latif Farouk, a political researcher who specialises in African affairs, said incidents such as these are to be blamed on the “the legacy of racism some people live with”.
“Some people are prisoners to a racist culture that is inherited from one generation to another. We will get rid of this only with better education and awareness,” Farouk added.

‘They were all laughing at our pain’

Yet there have been more brutal instances of violence. Back in March, Sudanese law student Louis Ajok faced a vicious dog attack that left him emotionally and physically scarred.
“We were screaming in pain, asking for help from bystanders but nobody cared,” Ajok told MEE, in his house in the Cairo suburb of Maadi.
There was a consensus of laughter among the crowd as they watched the attack unfold. “They all laughed at our pain and suffering,” he added.
'The whole street, about 30 people, were watching us crying from the dogs and begging for help, but no one did us justice or saved us'
- Louis Ajok, Sudanese law student
Ajok has been studying law at Cairo University for three years and lives with four other fellow Sudanese students. Though he had experienced racist slurs and ridicule in the past, what happened to him on 24 March was something he had never expected.
In recalling the events of the day, he explained that he and four of his friends had been watching a football game in a cafe in Maadi. They spotted five youths who were playing with at least two dogs. According to Ajok, one of them had control over the dogs that were tied to chain leashes. 
“They started insulting us saying, 'Sons of dirt [and] sons of a bitch,' and then the guy decided to let the dog run towards us,” he said, while revealing the bite marks on his thigh.
“The whole street, about 30 people, were watching us crying from the dogs and begging for help, but no one did us justice or saved us," he added.
Ajok said he was used to being insulted and called 'zingy' in Arabic, which translates into 'negro'.
“Sometimes the microbus driver would call us negroes, or even refuse to give us a ride; a lady once threw a diaper at me,” he said.
'Sometimes the microbus driver would call us negroes, or even refuse to give us a ride'
- Louis Ajok, law student
During the Africa Cup of Nations in February, Ajok said his life turned into a nightmare, due to the fact that the Egyptian team was competing against an African one.
“People consider us Africans in general, it doesn’t matter if we are Sudanese when they lose to Ghanaians. We are all black,” he said.
Ajok managed to avoid confrontation when Egypt lost the final to Cameroon with a score of 1/2. 
“When we approached the end of the match with Egypt behind Cameroon with one goal, we decided to leave [the cafe],” he said.
“People around us were staring [angrily] at us with every goal [Egypt] missed,” he added.

‘We are Arabs not Africans’

When Egypt was under the rule of late president Gamal Abdel Nasser, Africa was at the heart of Egyptian diplomacy. Sudan specifically was under joint British-Egyptian rule from 1899 until it gained its independence in 1956.
In 1963, Egypt was a founding member of the Organisation of African Unity, which later evolved to become the African Union.
With the passage of time, however, its affiliation with Africa dwindled and the way Egyptians perceived themselves changed as a result.
'We [Egyptians] are Arabs. I don’t know anything about Africa'
Mahmoud, high school student
Back in Maadi, 16-year-old high school student Mahmoud, who preferred to not reveal his last name, sees himself as an Arab.
“We [Egyptians] are Arabs. I don’t know anything about Africa,” he said.
He casually referred to his African neighbours with the "black faces" as “negroes,” as two African women crossed the road near his school, amid the approval of fellow students standing with him.

India: Mamata’s reputation does not match that one of an allied leader

It is a million-dollar question in Indian politics that is it possible to make an ally of Mamata Banerjee?

by Swadesh Roy writing from Kolkata-
( April 25, 2017, Kolkata, Sri Lanka Guardian) West Bengal, the eastern state of India, is known to people of the world as the old capital city of Calcutta of British India. The city has lost its past glory, but still the people of Calcutta love to call it the `city of joy’. In the British regime, Calcutta was the center of Indian politics, but now like the change of the spelling of Calcutta to Kolkata, its political position has too been changed. In the “all Indian politics”, Kolkata now matters less than previously.
The present and most important politician of West Bengal, the Chief Minister of the state, Mamata Banerjee, is the most popular leader in West Bengal. Though she had lost some stakes in the elite and the intellectual middle class of Kolkata. However, the journalists of Kolkata still think that it did not affect her popular electoral vote, but some people say that Modi is taking stakes in the poor people. For the poor men of Kolkata and dwellers of West Bengal, Mamata is still their “Didi” (older sister). However, it is also a matter of mystery for any political analyst and even normal thinkers of how Mamata defeated a strong Left Front through an election and has already ruined the Left Front of West Bengal; but again why is she afraid of the BJP? Before she came to the power for the second time, most of the political analysts and the newspapers of India forecasted that she would take power through the election but at best would get a thin majority. Whereas the poor people of this poor state of India, the admirer of Didi; has given her power through a landslide victory in the last election.
Before coming to power, in the era of Left Front, she had anti investment prospects in industry- the so called populist, and is an agricultural or land-loving leader. From history it can be said that-as an ethnic character, Bengali is never pro-industrialist and pro-business rather they love agriculture and government jobs. In early twenties, the world- renowned scientist of Bengal- Mr. P.C Roy found out this characteristic of the Bengalis. He had tried to make Bengali pro-industrialist and pro-business, but then again in general Bengalis are not pro-business.
In British India’s Kolkata (then the spelling was Calcutta) which was the capital of British India from 1757 to 1911. So, it was the industrial and mercantile hub. After changing the capital to Delhi, business was reduced here. After the departure of British, there was a rapid downfall and now it is one of the poorest states of India. A huge number of people of West Bengal say that it is a backlash of the Left rule because it was a regime of anti-capital. In the last stage of the Left regime, the Left government tried to boost up capital; but then it was too late and also Mamata made a barricade. Now it is proved that it was her political strategy because she understood that the then time left front was losing their feet every day, the Indian National Congress became some district based political party in West Bengal. And then the Bharatio Janata Party (BJP) was still not any factor in West Bengal. So she calculated that it was her time . Her calculation was correct; by the agitation politics she became successful. She overwhelmed the Left Front in the general elections; got a huge majority and ended the 35 years left rule in West Bengal.
Now the scenario is changing in West Bengal day by day, and after ruining the Left Front and Congress, BJP now has started to get some stakes in West Bengal. Some people are thinking that it will not a big threat for Mamata’s Trinomul Congress, but some are thinking that the Modi magic can work here by any means. At present the main threat for Mamata is some corruption cases, like the Narada Chit fund case and others. Some of her party leaders are in Jail. Mamata has taken it as a political challenge, that is why by creating a pressure on Narendra Modi; she is trying to make allies of regional parties against BJP. This is why she boycotted the meeting of the all Chief Ministers with Narendra Modi on 23; before that she met Naveen Patnaik -the Chief Minister of Odisha on 19 April. In that meeting, Mamata told that BJP is dividing the country in the name of Hindu-Muslim religion. They are dividing the country using Hinduism against Muslim. She gave that speech as her political strategy, she was afraid of this division. She is thinking that if the BJP becomes successful to make this division in West Bengal, it can blow up for her in next election. This division can be the Modi magic in west Bengal like UP (Uttar Prodesh), but some of the journalists say that Bengal is not an UP so it will not be easy in West Bengal. But they also admit that the people’s mental demography is changing in West Bengal. Religion is taking more stakes in the life of common people.
On the other hand, it is a million-dollar question in Indian politics that is it possible to make an ally of Mamata Banerjee? Coalition or ally politics is tougher politics than a one party politics. Besides, Mamata is a leader of a one man party, so she is more of an autocrat than a democrat. Even in the issue of the Teesta river water sharing with Bangladesh, the way she has been behaving since the era of Monmohan Singh is not the behavior of a democratic leader. She refused to go to Dhaka with Monmohan Singh at the last moment. Was this an approach of a democratic leader? In Second week of April, she went to Delhi and proposed a proposal which was not rational whereas a democratic leader should be rational. In several times, in her life, she joined many allies and left with a manner that was not correct, so her reputation does not go with that much height which can make an ally.

Swadesh Roy, Executive Editor, the daily Janakantha, Dhaka, Bangladesh, he is a highest state award winning journalist. Can be reached at swadeshroy@gmail.com

Judge blocks Trump 'sanctuary city' funding threat order

Judge blocks Trump 'sanctuary city' funding threat order

25 Apr, 2017

A US judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities, dealing another legal blow to the administration's immigration priorities.

The ruling from US District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said Trump's January 25 order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.

The Trump administration suffered an earlier defeat in the courts when two federal judges suspended executive orders restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries. The government has appealed those decisions.

Representatives for the US Justice Department and the White House were not immediately available for comment on the sanctuary ruling.

Sanctuary cities generally offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Santa Clara County, which includes the city of San Jose and several smaller Silicon Valley communities, sued in February, saying Trump's plan to withhold federal funds was unconstitutional. San Francisco filed a similar lawsuit.

Santa Clara County receives about $1.7 billion in federal and federally dependent funds annually, about 35 percent of its total revenues. The county argued it was owed millions of dollars of federal funding every day and that its budgetary planning process had been thrown into disarray by the order.

The Justice Department said the counties had taken an overly broad interpretation of the president's order, which would affect only Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security funds, a fraction of the grant money received by the counties.

In his ruling, Orrick said the language of the order made it clear it sought to withhold funds beyond law enforcement.

“And if there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments,” Orrick wrote.

The judge cited comments from Trump calling the order “a weapon” to use against jurisdictions that disagree with his immigration policies.

“Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves,” Orrick wrote.

Dave Cortese, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, said in a statement: “The politics of fear emanating from the Trump White House has just suffered a major setback.”
DETAILS: Jurisdictions must prove compliance with immigration law before they can be eligible for  grants http://on.rt.com/874f pic.twitter.com/zttAXSwmb5
MORE: DOJ to 'claw back' grants from ; they must be brought 'in sync' w/ fed policy - AG http://on.rt.com/874f  pic.twitter.com/TTs4x7SdqA
View image on Twitter
 
There is no clear definition of "sanctuary city" in federal law, but Justice Department lawyer Chad Readler told the judge that the executive order would only apply to three programs administered by the DOJ or the Department of Homeland Security, "a very narrow range of funding," Readler told the judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Readler reportedly said that San Francisco doesn't currently receive funds from those programs, but that Santa Clara County receives about $1 million.

READ MORE: California one step closer to 'sanctuary state' despite threats from Trump admin

San Francisco and Santa Clara County argued their case based on the doctrine of anti-commandeering, a principle recognized by the US Supreme Court in the 1997 gun control case Printz v. United States. In that case, a conservative sheriff sued the government, and won, arguing he was not required to enforce federal gun background checks.

GOP Watchdog: Mike Flynn Likely Broke Law Over Russian Payments

GOP Watchdog: Mike Flynn Likely Broke Law Over Russian Payments

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn likely violated the law when he failed to disclose that he had received payments from Russia, two top lawmakers said on Tuesday.

No automatic alt text available.BY ELIAS GROLL-APRIL 25, 2017

Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Reps. Jason Chaffetz (R.-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, and Elijah Cummings (D.-Md.), the ranking member, said that they had reviewed an application submitted by the retired general in January 2016 to renew his security clearance — and found that Flynn had failed to describe a recent trip to Moscow paid for by Kremlin broadcaster RT.

“As a former military officer you simply cannot take money from Russia, Turkey, or anybody else,” Chaffetz said. “It was inappropriate, and there are repercussions for the violation of law.”

Chaffetz’s statement represents the latest headache for the White House, which keeps trying to move beyond persistent questions about President Donald Trump and his associates’ ties to Russia. And coming as it does from the Republican chairman, the latest broadside against the disgraced former national security advisor will be harder for the White House to bat away as a partisan attack.

During the Obama years, Chaffetz emerged as one of the administration’s fiercest critics and used his perch atop the oversight panel to pursue a variety of politically-charged investigations, including the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Chaffetz and Cummings said that they had discovered no evidence to indicate that Flynn sought permission for his Moscow trip from the correct authorities. According to Chaffetz, Flynn needed the permission of the secretary of state and the secretary of the army to travel to Russia and be paid for work there. Flynn has claimed he informed the Defense Intelligence Agency, which he led until his firing in 2014, prior to traveling to Russia.

Amid two congressional investigations and a sprawling FBI investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, Chaffetz and Cummings had asked the White House to hand over any documents that shed light on Flynn’s contacts with foreign nationals. On Tuesday, Cummings revealed that the White House had denied the request last week.

Flynn was forced to step down less a month into the job, after it was revealed that he had lied to administration officials about conversations he held with the Russian ambassador to the United States. After he left the White House, he retroactively registered as a lobbyist for Turkey, work he was getting paid for while advising Trump during the 2016 campaign.

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Arkansas executed two inmates on April 24 in back-to-back lethal injections, which marks the country's first double execution in 17 years. (Reuters)

By Mark Berman April 25 at 10:59 AM

Arkansas on Monday night executed two inmates in back-to-back lethal injections, carrying out the country’s first double execution since 2000.

The executions came after Arkansas, pushing back on legal challenges, executed an inmate last week, the state’s first lethal injection in more than a decade. As part of a hurried pace that authorities say is propelled by an expiring drug, Arkansas officials returned to the execution chamber four days after that lethal injection to carry out two more death sentences.

The second execution Monday night was briefly delayed by a federal judge so she could consider claims that the first lethal injection may have been botched, but she lifted that stay shortly before 9:30 p.m. local time. The second inmate was pronounced dead about an hour later, according to the Associated Press, which had a reporter witness it.

These lethal injections marked the first back-to-back executions in the United States since Texas carried out two death sentences in one night nearly two decades ago. Arkansas was also the first state to make such an attempt since a widely publicized botch in Oklahoma in 2014.

Arkansas hoped this month to resume executions by carrying out eight death sentences in 11 days, an unprecedented schedule that has been thwarted by court orders blocking half of those lethal injections. Even after some lethal injections were stayed, officials shifted their focus to carrying out the remaining executions on the schedule.

Jack H. Jones Jr. and Marcel W. Williams, both of whom were on Arkansas death row since being convicted of brutal murders two decades ago, unsuccessfully sought to delay their lethal injections set for Monday night at a state prison southeast of Little Rock.

Both appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected their requests Monday afternoon and evening. Jones was executed first. Williams was scheduled to follow not long after, but his lethal injection was postponed while his lawyers argued in federal court that Jones’s execution was botched, something state officials denied. Both men had said they had medical issues that could complicate the executions, which involve injections of three drugs.

The Supreme Court first denied Jones’s request for a stay about an hour before the executions were set to begin at 7 p.m. Monday in Arkansas. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who is assigned cases from the federal circuit covering Arkansas, referred the request to the full court, which denied it without explanation; Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only member of the court to register a dissent.

Jones was pronounced dead at 7:20 p.m., 14 minutes after his lethal injection got underway, according to the Associated Press, which had a reporter serve as a media witness. He delivered a last statement expressing remorse.

Williams’s appeal was still pending when Jones’s execution ended, but not long after, the justices denied the stay request. Again, no explanation was given and Sotomayor was the only justice to note a dissent.
While the Supreme Court’s decision to reject Williams’s requests seemingly meant that the second execution could proceed as planned, it was pushed further into the night after a federal judge issued a temporary stay.

U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker issued the order indefinitely delaying Williams’s execution after his attorneys filed a motion asked for a stay, arguing that Jones’s “execution appeared to be torturous and inhumane.” Baker later issued an order denying the request and lifting her stay after a hearing was held.

In the motion, Williams’s attorneys, noting that he shared medical issues with Jones, said corrections staff struggled to insert a central line into Jones’s neck. The attorneys said that corrections officials did not wait five minutes, as required by the execution policy, after the injection began to check and make sure Jones was unconscious after the sedative was administered. They also alleged that Jones was still “moving his lips and gulping for air” after five minutes had elapsed.

One media witness says Jones’s “lips did move, but only very briefly at the very start of the process.”

According to the Associated Press, its reporter who witnessed Jones’s execution said that the inmate moved his lips briefly after the sedative was first administered and noted that officials put a tongue depressor in his mouth intermittently during the first few minutes. The AP reporter also said Jones’s chest stopped moving two minutes after they checked his consciousness.

Under the Arkansas lethal-injection protocol, state officials must check to make sure inmates are unconscious at least five minutes after the sedative is injected. If they remain conscious, officials are then directed to inject a second dose of the sedative.

Williams’s attorneys say in their filing that he did not agree to have a central line inserted, and warned that their client’s execution could be “even more torturous” than Jones’s.

State officials filed a short response pushing back on these assertions about the IV and the execution, calling them “inaccurate” and “utterly baseless.”

“The claim that Jones was moving his lips and gulping for air is unsupported by press accounts or the accounts of other witnesses,” the Arkansas response stated. “The drugs were administered to Jones at 7:06 p.m. and he was pronounced dead at 7:20 p.m. There was no constitutional violation in Jones’ execution.”

After Baker lifted her stay, Williams’s execution proceeded, and he was pronounced dead at 10:33 p.m. after a 17-minute lethal injection, the Associated Press reported.

Williams is the ninth inmate executed in the United States so far this year. With three executions in four days, Arkansas has carried out a third of the lethal injections nationwide in 2017.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R), who scheduled the lethal injections and did not issue a statement following the execution last week, issued statements late Monday saying that “the rule of law was upheld” and “justice has prevailed.”

In a statement after Jones’s execution, Hutchinson said that the “victim’s family has waited patiently for justice” for two decades. After Williams’s execution, Hutchinson thanked the victim’s family for their patience and said “in this case our laws ended in justice.”

Washington Post reporter Mark Berman explains why Arkansas scheduled eight executions in 11 days. (McKenna Ewen/The Washington Post)

The lethal injections in Arkansas were planned as part of a schedule that would have been without parallel in modern capital punishment. Hutchinson set eight executions to occur in pairs — back-to-back on four nights spread out over this week and last — and while most executions occur with little public notice, the timetable in Arkansas drew unusual attention and some criticism.

Attorneys for the inmates filed a volley of appeals seeking to delay the executions, while two dozen former corrections officials wrote a letter to Hutchinson asking him to reconsider the schedule. They warned that the schedule was “needlessly exacerbating the strain and stress placed on” the people carrying it out and saying the timetable could “increase the chance of an error occurring.”

Arkansas officials defended this schedule as necessary because their stock of midazolam, a common sedative that has provoked controversy after some executions and is one of three products used in the state’s executions, expires at the end of April. Due to an ongoing shortage of lethal injection drugs,

Arkansas authorities say they are not sure if more can be obtained. Leslie Rutledge (R), the state’s attorney general, pledged to fight attempts to delay the remaining executions, saying that “families have waited far too long to see justice.” 

Two hearses, one following the other, with the bodies of Jack Jones and Marcel Williams, just left the Cummins Unit. 
As the execution dates approached, both sides engaged in a multifaceted legal battle, with death-row inmates and Arkansas officials appealing to state and federal courts. Drug companies also weighed in, unsuccessfully asking judges to prevent the state from using their products, which at least one company suggested was obtained through dishonest means.

Death-row inmates in Arkansas also appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a group, but those requests have been rebuffed, most recently Monday, when the high court denied a request to rehear a case from Arkansas inmates that the justices had already denied. No explanations were given, though Justice Sotomayor said she would have granted the petitions in that case.

The lethal injections on Monday come just four days after Arkansas resumed executions, carrying out the death sentence for Ledell Lee after the Supreme Court declined stay requests.

Last week, the Arkansas Supreme Court blocked the first two executions on the schedule, and another execution planned for the same night as Lee’s was stayed. Another execution is planned for Thursday night, while a second originally set that night was stayed this month by a federal judge.

While two executions per night had been the original plan in Arkansas, Jones and Williams appear to be the only two inmates who will actually be put to death on the same night this month.

Jones, 52, was sentenced to death in 1996 for raping and killing Mary Phillips. According to court records, Jones stalked and killed Phillips, a bookkeeper, and before killing her, he beat her 11-year-old daughter so severely that police thought she was dead when they got to the scene.
Jones’s attorneys have argued in court that he has medical conditions that could result in the Arkansas execution method causing him severe pain, according to court records. In a filing, his attorneys said Jones has diabetes, hypertension and several other conditions that cause him to be on medication that could bring intense or painful suffering because of a possible tolerance to the sedative used in the lethal injection.

State officials argue that Jones’s challenge involves “guesswork” about the sedative and “is no different than the many lethal-injection challenges” he has filed before. Baker, the federal judge, denied that motion Friday, saying Jones’s case did not show “a significant possibility” that the lethal injection process could cause that pain and suffering.

After Jones was executed, Rutledge, the attorney general, released a statement saying she hoped this helped Phillips’s family.

“This evening, Lacey Phillips Manor and Darla Phillips Jones have seen justice for the brutal rape and murder of their mother, Mary Phillips,” Rutledge said in a statement. After detailing the case, Rutledge added: “The Phillips family has waited far too long to see justice carried out, and I pray they find peace tonight.”
Williams, 46, was sentenced to death in 1997 for abducting, robbing, raping and killing Stacy Errickson, who was 22 and was living at the Little Rock Air Force Base while her husband was serving overseas. 

Arkansas officials, in court filings opposing a stay in his case, said he forced her at gunpoint to take cash from ATMs before raping, beating and strangling her.

Attorneys for Williams have argued in court filings that he had poor counsel during his trial in both his guilt and penalty phases, which they said meant he was sentenced to death despite the jury not hearing any mitigating evidence arguing against the death penalty.

In another filing, they pointed to health issues, saying he weighs 400 pounds and suffers from several medical maladies that meant the planned lethal injection “was more likely to maim than kill him.” His attorneys argued for stays on both counts, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit rejected both requests on Friday.

Rutledge said she felt the execution provided justice for Errickson’s family and friends.

“I hope that tonight’s lawful execution brings much-needed peace to all of Stacy’s loved ones, particularly her now-adult children Brittany and Bryan,” she said in a statement.

The Arkansas Supreme Court rejected stay requests from both men. The 8th Circuit, which had denied an appeal filed by the eight inmates facing execution that challenged the Arkansas method of execution, also denied another challenge Friday that was filed by some of the inmates — including Williams, but not Jones — and focused on the state’s clemency procedures.

The double execution was the country’s first since August 2000. Texas was in the midst of carrying out 40 death sentences that year, the most for any state in a single year since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, according to the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center. (Executions nationwide have fallen since that time, and last year, 20 death sentences were carried out nationwide.)

Before the double execution in 2000, the first inmate’s last words were an admonition against racism targeting black people, according to records kept by Texas corrections officials. He then said, “Let’s do it.” The second inmate apologized to his victim and his family before saying, “I am ready. I love you all.”
Arkansas is not the first state to plan a double execution since then. Perhaps the most highly publicized botched lethal injection in recent memory occurred the last time a state tried carrying out two executions in one night.

In 2014, Oklahoma authorities attempted to execute Clayton Lockett, a convicted murderer, in the first of two lethal injections planned that night. They bungled the process: Lockett writhed and grimaced on the gurney, prompting the execution to be called off, and he died 43 minutes after it began. (The second execution scheduled for that night was delayed; when it was carried out months later, Oklahoma officials used the wrong lethal injection drug. The state has yet to resume executions.)

Officials in Oklahoma later blamed that bungled execution on a misplaced IV. In a state review, officials involved in the process said the back-to-back scheduling added to the stress they felt.

This story, first published at 4:58 p.m. on Monday, has been updated repeatedly with news from Arkansas.