Overview of the Human Rights Situation in the East and Horn of Africa November 2012 – March 2013

Report submitted to the 53^rd Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR)

Banjul, The Gambia, April 2013

The East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Network welcomes the opportunity offered by the 53rd Ordinary Session of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) to highlight some of the current human rights issues in the East and Horn of Africa region for the period of November 2012 to March 2013. This report was prepared with the assistance of reports and information received by the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project (the secretariat of the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Network) from our members and partners from the sub-region.

The past six months has been a period of transition in the East and Horn of Africa sub-region. The general elections in Kenya on 4^th March were observed by accredited national, regional and international observers to be largely peaceful. The new president, Uhuru Kenyatta, was sworn in on 9^th April, following two separate petitions at the Supreme Court of Kenya by the runner-up, Raila Odinga, and also by a coalition of Civil Society Organizations who called for the nullification of the election on the basis that the electoral process was marred by irregularities. The unanimous decision of the Supreme Court however concluded that the presidential elections were conducted in a free, fair, transparent and credible manner.

Both Kenyatta and the deputy president William Ruto are undergoing trial at the International Criminal Court, and have stated that they will continue to cooperate with the court while continuing to run the country. However, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Fatou Bensouda, has expressed concerned about ICC witnesses being bribed and intimidated, leading to the withdrawal of charges in the case against Kenyatta’s co-accused, Francis Muthaura.

With far less coverage, Djibouti also held elections on 22nd February for its legislative assembly. Election observers from the African Union, the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Conference and IGAD declared that the elections were transparent and acceptable, although opposition parties claimed numerous irregularities and intimidation. At least six protestors were killed in demonstrations against the election results that turned violent and a number of opposition figures were arrested.

Somalia continues to face serious human rights challenges as the State goes through a transition process following elections last year. Such challenges include sexual and gender based violence, the vulnerability and lack of adequate provisions for IDPs, and weaknesses in the justice system. Exercising freedom of expression is still a dangerous endeavour with 18 journalists killed in Somalia in 2012, with at least three more already killed in the first three months of this year. Despite ratifying the Charter in 1985, Somalia has never submitted a periodic report. EHAHRDP would like to encourage more engagement between Somalia and the Commission going forward.

EHAHRDP is also concerned by the entrenched situation of mass human rights violations in the context of the current conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states in Sudan that has been ongoing since mid-2011. The Sudanese army and government-affiliated militia are responsible for serious and massive abuses against civilians in both states, such as indiscriminate bombings, forced displacement, destruction of grain and water sources that are critical to the survival of the population, arbitrary detention, and sexual violence against women and girls. Such abuses may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity and are creating a humanitarian crisis. It is urgent that the Commission take all actions within its power to hold those responsible to account.

EHAHRDP remains deeply concerned about continuing serious human rights violations in Eritrea, including extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detention, and forced national service for indefinite periods, coupled with the State’s lack of cooperation with regional and international human rights mechanisms. Ten years ago the Commission issued decisions on two communications regarding detained journalists and government officials, yet Eritrea continues to hold them incommunicado. Many are thought to have died in detention. We call on the Commission to take firm action to protect Eritrean citizens from further human rights abuse.

It is positive to note that South Sudan signed the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on 24^th January 2013. The State should proceed promptly to its ratification and implementation. Rwanda should also be commended on its decision to allow individuals and NGOs to directly access the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, by depositing its declaration under the protocol in January.

In every country in the sub-region EHAHRDP has reported on harassment, intimidation, arrests, detention, attacks or killings of journalists during this period. They are on the front lines of human rights protection and as such both more at risk and more in need of protection themselves. The release of journalist Hassan Ruvakuki in Burundi after intense campaigning by civil society and fellow journalists was welcomed, but others remain in detention, including in Rwanda and Ethiopia. Human rights defenders more generally continued to face threats and attacks in recent months, with key organisations closed down in Sudan, for example.

Acts of reprisal or intimidation against individuals or groups on account of their engagement with this Commission have continued to be reported. Such attacks should be recognized as an attack on the Commission itself and we encourage the Commission to respond accordingly.

Recommendations:

In light of the updates and observations contained in this report, the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project offers the following recommendations for actions by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights:

Continue to monitor the situation of human rights defenders and to establish a reporting mechanism to gather information and follow up on cases of reprisals against human rights defenders who cooperate with the Commission and its special mechanisms;

• Call on member States to ensure the protection of HRDs, notably by observing the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other human rights treaties to which most of these countries are signatory;

• Call for an end to all practices, notably legal restrictions, which threaten the fundamental rights contained in the Charter, in particular the freedom of expression, and work of human rights defenders;

• Carry out a Commission of Inquiry into violations of the Charter and international humanitarian law in the regions of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile in Sudan;

• Take all necessary measures to follow up on decisions taken by the Commission on communications that remain unimplemented, so that victims’ may receive a remedy for the violations of their rights as contained in the Charter, especially requests for provisional measures;

• Recognise that the rights contained in the African Charter apply to all people without discrimination on any grounds, including sexual orientation and gender identity;

• Promote international criminal investigations into serious human rights violations committed in the region, where domestic remedies have failed;

• Encourage all members of the African Union to ratify and implement the provisions of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Good Governance;

• Encourage full engagement with the ACHPR by States in the sub-region, especially those in transition periods, such as Somalia and South Sudan, including by urging states to invite visits from the Commission and to submit periodic reports;

• Call on member States to deposit the declaration under article 34 (6) of the protocol of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights to allow individuals and NGOs to directly submit their cases to the court;

• Encourage the African Union to endorse the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists or a similar plan.

To read the full report, click here: EHAHRDP report to ACHPR 53rd session November 2012 – March 2013

Extreme right-wing groups to converge on Munich on Hitler's birthday, today

Groups consisting of young Germans from across the country are set to hold a conference in the city on Hitler's birthday tomorrow

Adolf Hitler

This Saturday will mark the gathering of a coalition of German right-wing groups which will hold what they are calling a “regional conference” in Munich. The extreme right-wing Danubia fraternity has also been invited to attend the event that is set to take place on Adolf Hitler's birthday. The Nazi leader was born on April 20th, 1889.

The meeting, scheduled to be held in Munich's Old Town, is apparently just one in a series planned by the Dachverband Deutsche Burschenschaft, the umbrella organisation of German student fraternities. The organisation has already been a source of protests in German cities of Kassel and Heidelberg, and one conference in Freiburg was cancelled.

According to a spokesman, the organiser of the series is Bruno Burchart, a member of a Viennese fraternity called Olympia that has close ties with Danubia. In 2005, Olympia invited British Holocaust denier David Irving to be a guest speaker.

The conference have been billed as "continuing education seminars to teach young people about issues such as democracy.” Suddeutsche Zeitung says that no information was available about the exact program of Saturday’s event or those expected to attend. The group maintains that it is only by coincidence that the meeting is taking place on the day of Hitler’s birthday, and in the German city most closely associated with the Nazi leader.

A year ago, a Danubia member is said to have stated in a student newspaper that on of their conference speakers had complained that "Nazi history, women, foreigners and the Vaterland” had become taboo subjects in Germany and stated that resisting this "dictatorship of speech" was a “duty.”

German intelligence services have recently said that among Danubia’s active members were "individuals with current or former links to right-wing extremists“ and that activists from the Munich Neo-Nazi scene had been known to participate in Danubia events.

Munich police said there has so far been no indication that protests were planned.

Shocking BBC bias as EU summit gets underway

Don't listen to the BBC

 This isn't funny. It's a disgrace to the licence fee payer and a disgrace to basic journalistic standards

David Cameron

When David Cameron's aides were preparing for Thursday's European summit it would have been logical to take a look at what the press was saying.

Across the traditional media they would have found a plurality of views reflecting the broad concerns that British people routinely express when the question of EU membership takes centre stage.
Not if they'd consulted the BBC.

If you open up the BBC website you'll find a prominent article entitled: "Viewpoints: How experts see UK role in EU". It all sounds very promising; just the sort of thing a political advisor would be looking for. Except that when it comes to the EU and so many other subjects as well these days, even the most basic standards of impartiality have been thrown out of the window.

The piece consults no less than seven "experts", every single one of whom is opposed to British euroscepticism and in one form or another encourages Britain to remain a robust member of the EU.

It's not funny. It violates every rule of journalistic objectivity in the book. And it's an insult to British licence fee payers who have a right to expect an even handed approach to all issues, but especially one so central to the UK's vital national interests.

It starts off with the appalling Martin Schultz, the German President of the European Parliament.

"The UK should remain part of the EU, but at the same time, the UK should not preach to other EU member states from the sidelines without being fully engaged in the process," he tells us arrogantly.

But while he doesn't want Britain giving its views on what other states should do, he has absolutely no problem preaching at Britain:

"UK membership is in the British and European interest. The single market benefits the British economy hugely and the EU remains by far the biggest destination for UK trade, accounting for almost 50% of total exports."

Next up is French MP Herve Mariton helpfully telling the British government not to consult the public:

"Playing with the idea of a referendum is dangerous - many people think they can speak about it, but what might happen is that the UK gets out without people realising what is happening, without all the consequences being totally analysed."

Then we get a nice little slap in the face from Emma Bonino, vice-president of the Italian Senate:

"The UK is not the only EU country to strive for referendums on Europe or for powers to be repatriated from Brussels. It is certainly the most vocal and, by far, the most obstinate - to the point at times of being in complete denial of its national interests."

Objective observer number four is Ulf Sverdrup, head of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. His role in the BBC's propaganda exercise is to head off any talk of Britain emulating the Norway model for a relationship with Brussels.

He does a fine job:

"The fundamental logic of the Norwegian model - not wanting to lose the benefits of dealing with Europe, but also knowing that a majority of the electorate is against formal EU membership - might at first sight seem enticing for many in Britain.

"But the Norwegian model, shared with Iceland and Liechtenstein, is complex and costly, as well as problematic in terms of democracy and national interest."

Then comes Conservative Belgian MEP, Derk-Jan Eppink. Coming to the point, he says bluntly: "Leaving the EU would not be good for the EU or the UK. "

The penultimate offering is from Hugo Brady, Irish research fellow at the pro-EU Centre for European Reform. His message is that Britain would be letting the side down for Ireland if we decided to leave:

"The Irish are very uncomfortable with UK talk of leaving. The euro is irreversible for us and it would be complicated to join a looser trading relationship with the UK."

And rounding it all off is a view from Central and Eastern Europe with Radek Sikorski, Poland's foreign minister. His lecture is based on the following underlying ideas:

"It would be much better if British politicians made a patriotic, British argument about the usefulness of the EU to Britain, because I believe your interests, your trade patterns but also your political interests, lie in Europe, and we can achieve much more together."

And there we have it. Not a single analyst or representative offering the view that Britain might do well either out of the EU altogether or with a radically reformed relationship.

We think that this is unacceptable. If you agree, contact the BBC and tell them so, while also passing on this article to your local MP.

 

Follow The Commentator on Twitter and Like Us On Facebook

Read more on: eu budget, european summit, bbc bias, Peter Sissons BBC bias, is the bbc biased, euro zombies, exports to the EU, uk polling on EU, european question, EU lobbying, European Union, european union budget, John Redwood and the european union, david cameron, and David Cameron and the EU

Press and public denied access to documents in Bradley Manning case

In the press release below, the Center for Constitutional Rights (contact: press@ccrjustice.org) announces that the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has dealt yet another blow to press and public access to basic documents in Bradley Manning’s case. The rejection comes mere days after a military spokesperson warned that the media center at Ft. Meade, which streams live video to reporters of Manning’s proceedings, is a “privilege, not a right.”

By the Center for Constitutional Rights. April 17, 2013.

CCR lawyer Shayana Kadidal. Photo credit: The Ithacan (click for source)

New York – Today, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) rejected claims in a lawsuit by the Center for Constitutional Rights challenging government secrecy around the court martial of Pfc. Bradley Manning. The suit, bought on behalf of a group of journalists, asked the court to ensure members of the press and public have access to court documents and transcripts in the case and challenged the fact that important legal matters in the pre-trial proceedings have been argued and decided in secret. The court rejected the claims on the grounds that military appellate courts lack jurisdiction to address the scope of public access until a trial is over and the sentence has been issued. The decision was 3-to-2, issued over two vigorous dissents.

“Today’s decision flies in the face of decades of First Amendment rulings in the federal courts that hold that openness affects outcome – that the accuracy of court proceedings depends on their being open,” said Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Attorney Shayana Kadidal, who argued the case. “Bradley Manning’s trial will now take place under conditions where journalists and the public will be unable as a practical matter to follow what is going on in the courtroom. That ensures that any verdict will be fundamentally unfair, and will generate needless appeals afterwards if he is convicted.”

The majority’s decision ensures that no appellate military court will be able to review a decision of a trial judge denying public access to proceedings until after the proceedings are over. As a result, a military trial judge could exclude the public from being present in the courtroom – in violation of existing military law – and there would be no place for members of the public to appeal that decision within the military court system.

The dissenting judges wrote that this decision “leaves collateral appeal to [civilian] courts as the sole mechanism to vindicate the right to a public trial … beyond the initial good judgment of the military judge. This is unworkable and cannot reflect congressional design or presidential intent.”

Today’s ruling is likely to also apply to proceedings in the upcoming court-martial trials of accused Ft. Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan and of Staff Sgt. Robert Bates, who is accused of massacring civilians in Afghanistan.

Plaintiffs in the case, in addition to the Center for Constitutional Rights, are journalists Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman,Democracy Now!, Jeremy Scahill, The Nation magazine, Julian Assange, Kevin Gosztola, and Chase Madar.

Attorneys are considering options for appeal to the civilian federal courts. Bradley Manning’s trial is scheduled to start June 3, 2013.

For more information, visit CCR’s case page.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

Guardian writer says new BBC news chief will have to "leave behind pro-Israel" views

So The Guardian, or at least its writers, believe that you can't be balanced and in favour of the Jewish state?

James Harding was appointed BBC director of news this week

 by Media Hawk

knew that when James Harding was appointed BBC director of news this week, the Guardian would have something to say about it.

You see, the former Times editor is Jewish, and he has professed that he is a supporter of the Jewish state. He once told an audience, “I am pro-Israel” and that in reporting on the Middle East, “I haven’t found it too hard” because “The Times has been pro-Israel for a long time. I try and be as simple as this… write the news without prejudice.”

Harding also stressed the need for balanced journalism, something I feel is overtly lacking at the BBC. He stated, “We say we’re pro-Israel but we’re also pro the Palestinian state… the question a journalist should always ask himself is are you making the case before opinion is dressed up as reportage?”

Well now Harding has to deal with a BBC that has scarcely landed in the centre on the Middle East conflict, as our reporting shows. But he was also (too) fair to the Beeb. He has stated, “I think that it is not a pro-Israel newsroom – it has taken some management to set a balance.... I don’t think its coverage is as aggressively biased as the Jewish community thinks.” A new report shows that 79 percent of Jews in Britain think the BBC is biased against Israel.

Now, I'm no member of the Jewish community, and I can smell the bias a million miles off, but what really struck me is that the Guardian writer, Lisa O'Carroll, thinks that Harding cannot be pro-Israel in his outlook (and pro-Palestinian state, by his words) and "balanced". Presumably, by her standards, you can only be "balanced" if you're apathetic, or even anti-Israel? She writes:

"Harding, who is Jewish, will also have to leave behind the pro-Israeli line of the Times. In a debate at the Jewish Community Centre For London in 2011, Harding said "I am pro-Israel" and that in reporting on the Middle East, "I haven't found it too hard" because "the Times has been pro-Israel for a long time". However, he also stressed the need for balanced news reporting and said he was also in favour of a Palestinian state."

Well, we'll be watching to see just how Harding takes on the institutionalised bias at the BBC. He doesn't have to forgo his appreciation for the Jewish state to be balanced. He just has to be a decent, open-minded and fair arbiter on such matters. But I'm hardly surprised that Guardian writers cannot separate the idea of being in favour of something and not being flagrantly and blindly biased towards it. After all, this is the newspaper that continues to print terrorist propaganda.

In the interest of "balance", of course...

Google chairman, WikiLeaks founder secretly met in 2011

Assange tells Google Chief, "I don't use e-mail"

Eric Schmidt met with the WikiLeaks founder for five hours in 2011 for material for a book expected to be released next week

The diminishing Wikileaks group, famed for its large-scale official documents disclosures, has this week released a transcript of a meeting between its figurehead, Julian Assange, and the chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt.

The meeting is reported to have taken place in 2011 and apparently lasted a whopping five hours, wherein Assange and Schmidt discussed WikiLeaks' inner workings and Assange's role in developing the technology behind it. Assange said the genesis of the site was in response to what he saw as a "crippled" information distribution system.

The meeting was also attended by Jared Cohen, who was an advisor to former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Cohen has been working with Schmidt on a book called "The New Digital World" due to be released next Tuesday.

At the time of the meeting, Assange was under house arrest in Norfolk, England, with Vaughan Smith, the founder of the Frontline Club. Assange remains in the U.K. today, holed up in Ecuador's London embassy although Britain has approved his extradition to Sweden related to sexual assault allegations.

Topics ranged light-hearted discussions over the concept of Bitcoin, Schmidt's bad experiences with Delta Air Lines, and Assange's endless stream of "crazed" female visitors, but Schmidt also queried why WikiLeaks publishes more information on Western democracies than more oppressive regimes, asking "Why are you not getting enormous numbers of anonymous USB drives about the bad documents in African countries that are run by these evil dictator types?" Assange replied, "we have gotten some decent African stuff," but makes the point that a lot of these countries don't use English for government business or "are not as networked."

Schmidt also broached the subject of WikiLeaks' alleged threat to national security, asking for Assange's version, "which obviously we are sympathetic to."

During another exchange Assange volunteers, "We wouldn't mind a leak from Google, which would be, I think probably all the Patriot Act requests."

"The answer is that the laws are quite clear about Google and the U.S.," Schmidt responds. "We couldn't do it. It would be illegal.

Near the end of the transcript, Schmidt asks Assange how he is able to communicate with Wikileaks' staff. Assange went on to say that he tends to meet people in person.

"I mean I assume you can do email and all that, no?" Schmidt asks.

"I don't use email," Assange responds.

"Why not, because it's...?" Schmidt asks.

"Too dangerous," Assange said. "And encrypted email is possibly even worse, because it is such a flag for end point attacks ... but we do have encrypting phones. Unfortunately they don't work in all countries, but the SMSs work in all countries."

The release of the transcript is timed to coincide with the launch of Cohen and Schmidt's new book, The New Digital Age, which is released in a few days time.

Transcript of secret meeting between Julian Assange and Google CEO Eric Schmidt

Friday April 19, 2013

On the 23 of June, 2011 a secret five hour meeting took place between WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, who was under house arrest in rural UK at the time, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

Also in attendance was Jared Cohen, a former Secretary of State advisor to Hillary Clinton and Lisa Shields of the Council for Foreign Relations.

Schmidt and Cohen requested the meeting, they said, to discuss ideas for "The New Digital World", their forthcoming book to be published on April 23, 2013.

We provide here a verbatim transcript of the majority of the meeting; a close reading, particularly of the latter half, is revealing.

[beginning of tape]

***

Read The Full Transcript in the original link:

http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt?nocache

Training for Combat Earns Army Superior Unit Award

By Sgt. Courtney A. Selig, First Army Division East Public Affairs

Spc. Charles D. Nethercutt, of Florence, S.C., receives pointers from Sgt. 1st Class Keambiroiro Edwards, 2-307th Field Artillery Battalion, 157th Infantry Brigade, First Army Division East during the 100-600 meter M110 rifle range, Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind.

First Army mobilizes, trains, validates, deploys and demobilizes Reserve Component units in support of worldwide contingency operations such as Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, New Dawn, the Horn of Africa, Kosovo Forces, and others.

“Over the last several years, First Army has successfully mobilized more than 5,000 units and more than 260,000 Soldiers world-wide,” said Col. Timothy Newsome, chief of operations, First Army Division East.

For these momentous efforts, First Army was recently awarded the Army Superior Unit award, acknowledging their outstanding meritorious service from June 1, 2008 through September 30, 2011.

“The leadership of First Army, our cadre of expert trainer/mentors, and our civilians stationed at our five Mobilization Force Generation Installations have done an exceptional job of preparing the Soldiers of our National Guard and Army Reserve formations for combat and non-combat deployments,” said Newsome a native of Homerville, Ga. “Their collective efforts and the results they have produced over the years are quite frankly something that we’re all proud of and something that parents across our nation appreciate as their sons and daughters prepare to go into harm’s way to do our nation’s bidding.”

First Army not only provides trained and ready Army Reserve and National Guard Forces to combatant commanders around the world, trainers also ensure Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marine Reserve units are prepared for worldwide deployments.

“I believe the most important aspect of this award is that it serves as an acknowledgement of that very passion that drives us to do what we do on a daily basis on behalf of our fellow warriors and their families. We, in First Army, see our priority responsibility as ensuring these Soldiers are provided every skill set and every tool necessary to successfully accomplish their mission and return home safely to our great nation,” explained Newsome.

With its mission to mobilize Servicemembers, First Army has developed two subordinate multi-component headquarters. First Army Division East is headquartered at Fort Meade, Maryland and supports the eastern United States and First Army Division West is headquartered at Fort Hood, Texas and supports the western United States. The headquarters of First Army is located at Rock Island, Ill.

“The significance of the Army Superior Unit Award is that it recognizes not only Headquarters, First Army, but also its subordinate units, for ensuring that these units were ready to accomplish their missions,” said Master Sgt. Eric Padron, human resources senior enlisted advisor, First Army Division East.

The multi-component division is comprised of nearly 6,000 Active Duty, Reserve Component, National Guard Soldiers, and civilians – all working to man, equip, train, and deploy U.S. Army and sister service Reserve Component forces for deployments around the world.

“This contribution has left a profound impact on Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, New Dawn, and other contingency operations,” said Newsome. “First Army as a whole has significantly contributed not only to our nation’s defense, but also to maintaining the readiness of our Operational Reserve as a part of the Total Army Force.”

First Army Division East is responsible for providing training and readiness oversight and mobilization operations for an area of responsibility spanning 27 states and territories east of the Mississippi River. First Army's Division West conducts training readiness oversight and mobilization of designated active and reserve component forces in the western area of responsibility in order to provide trained and ready forces to regional combatant commanders.

“First Army’s mission is unique compared to most units,” said 1st Sgt. Joseph Smith, first sergeant for First Army Division East. “Our job is to provide each deploying unit with the most up-to-date information, ensuring a successful mission.”

As a whole, First Army conducts battle focused, tough, realistic training to provide equipped and ready Soldiers, leaders, and units.

“The Soldiers and civilians of First Army are understandably passionate about the training and preparation of our fellow citizens and see it as an operation that begins with the unit’s arrival at the mobilization center and ends only upon their safe return from combat and successful demobilization,” said Newsome.

First Army’s trainer/mentors not only prepare Reserve Component Forces for deployments, they also deploy. Over the past year alone, several hundred First Army Soldiers have deployed as members of security forces advisor assistant teams and in support of the NATO Trainer Mentor Team mission in Afghanistan.

“Each one of our trainer/mentors is an expert,” said Smith, a Rapid Rivers, Mich., native. “These noncommissioned officers and commissioned officers have the ability to lead and teach our armed forces efficiently about the most difficult situations they may encounter downrange.”

Padron, a native of Tampa, Fla., recently redeployed from a deployment to Afghanistan as part of the NATO-TMT. He said this award was significant to him because he was personally part of the mobilization, training, validation, deployment and demobilization during that deployment.

“It was a successful event from start to finish,” said Padron. “I was able to see first-hand how the training brigade prepared our team for movement. They did an excellent job, and it's great to know that I'm part of a unit that really cares for the readiness of Soldiers.”
 
ADDITIONAL PHOTOS:

Sgt. 1st Class John Young, Trainer / Mentor, 4th Cavalry Brigade, First Army Division East, explains the practical exercise portion of the Combat Lifesaver Course to the Provincial Reconstruction Team 13-17 medical personnel, Navy Lt. Laura Cargill, Physicians Assistant, and Petty Officer 2nd Class Aot Mariur, Hospital Corpsman, at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind. The medical personnel of PRT 13-17 provide additional support and training during the CLS course. (U.S. Army photo by Maj. Penny Zamora)

Soldiers of the 201st Regional Support Group, Georgia National Guard, conduct reflexive fire training under the attentive eyes of 1-335th Infantry Regiment, 205th Infantry Brigade, First Army Division East cadre at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, Ind. (U.S. Army photos by Staff Sgt. Reginald Graddy)