According to a 2007 poll, Americans define human rights as the rights to equal opportunity, freedom from discrimination, a fair criminal justice system, and freedom from torture or abuse by law enforcement. Despite the current political wrangling over how to reform it, a majority of Americans even believe that access to health care is a human right.
There was a time when America’s leaders echoed those sentiments. President Franklin D. Roosevelt embraced them when he told Congress, “Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere.” And in 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Civil Rights Act, forming the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission was intended to conduct critical reviews of social needs and public policy – in essence, to be the conscience of the nation. Regardless of circumstances or leadership, the body was to operate as an independent voice for the broad range of civil rights issues facing the country.
Human Rights activists from more than 25 countries gathered in Washington last week for a meeting designed to mobilize greater support for those struggling to advance respect for basic freedoms in fragile new democracies and repressive authoritarian states. They had a packed agenda, including a meeting with President Obama and senior National Security Council staff at the White House.
Vice President Joe Biden hit the nail on the head when he said Dick Cheney cannot change history and that his recent rhetoric is misinforming Americans. The former Vice President's hypocrisy was clear last weekend when he criticized of the Obama Administration's handling of alleged Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. It's time to set the record straight.
It must be a strange feeling for many of the participants in the 2010 Washington Human Rights Summit to be coming to the capital of the United States where the government seems unable to decide whether upholding the rule of law and respecting human rights is a good idea or not. The summit participants are representatives of human rights movements that have struggled for decades, often at great personal cost, to end torture, detention without charge or trial and unfair trials in their own countries. What are they to make of a country where Congress is threatening to withhold funding for efforts to close the Guantanamo detention center, or where the former Vice-President goes on national television and proudly boasts of his role in authorizing torture?
Julius Kaggwa, a Ugandan human rights activist campaigning against the anti-homosexuality bill recently introduced in Uganda, analyzes the effects for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) community in today's Huffington Post.
Earlier this week, the Associated Press reported that a boat carrying 62 Haitians was intercepted by the Royal Bahamas Defense Forces. The Prime Minister for the Bahamas said that its passengers will be returned directly back to Haiti, and a U.S. Coast Guard spokesman stated that U.S. ships would be available to repatriate the Haitians if needed.
Tonight, in his State of the Union Speech, President Obama said, "Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future - for America and the world." While his administration has made progress over the past year toward realigning our national security policy with our laws and values, additional steps must be taken to reform U.S. detention policy. The following are steps the Administration should take to put last night's words into practice:
Close Guantanamo
The Obama administration continues to hold 198 men in prolonged detention without charge at Guantanamo and it will not meet the one year deadline it set for closing the detention facility. Further steps need to be taken to ensure prompt closure of Guantanamo and to bring the number of Guantánamo detainees held without charge down to zero. These steps include:
•Bring Guantánamo prisoners suspected of crimes to justice in federal civilian courts. On November 13, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would prosecute five Guantánamo detainees suspected of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks in federal courts of New York. These suspects and other detainees for whom there is sufficient admissible evidence that they have committed crimes should be promptly transferred for prosecution before federal civilian courts.
•Abandon the flawed military commissions. The military commissions, revamped for the third time in 2009, continue to fail to achieve justice or provide due process and have resulted in only three convictions in over seven years. This process should be abandoned in favor of the proven federal criminal justice system that has convicted over 145 terrorism suspects since the 9/11 attacks.
•Increase efforts to repatriate & transfer Guantánamo detainees to third countries. The Obama administration must intensify efforts to repatriate detainees not suspected of crimes or otherwise cleared for release and to find homes in third countries for detainees that cannot be repatriated for fear of persecution or torture.
The Administration must work closely with Yemeni officials to address current security concerns and to minimize potential risk before reinstating transfers there. With all transfers the administration can and should take steps to mitigate risk by focusing on expanding risk assessment efforts, monitoring, and other security programs, including allotting sufficient resources to successfully reintegrate former detainees into society.
Prevent Torture and Promote Humane Treatment
•Ensure that all detention and interrogations continue be governed by a clear standard of humane treatment. Very little has been made public about the standards that will govern the High Value Interrogation Group (HIG) established pursuant to the recommendations of the Special Interagency Task Force on Lawful Interrogation. The administration must ensure that the HIG has the clear guidance it needs to conduct its interrogations effectively and humanely and must make clear that cruel and coercive interrogation techniques, such as sleep and sensory deprivation and extreme isolation, are off the table. Apart from interrogation, conditions of detention must also be humane, and in compliance with applicable provisions of the Geneva Conventions.
•Provide the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) with access to all armed conflict and security detainees. Holding prisoners incommunicado increases the risk of torture and abusive detention and interrogation practices. The administration should ensure that the ICRC has prompt notice of all detentions and timely access to all prisoners in U.S. custody in Afghanistan and to all Guantanamo detainees that remain in U.S. custody, wherever that may be, including those that will face prosecution in U.S. federal courts.
•Provide all U.S. interrogators with the tools they need to fulfill their responsibilities legally and effectively. Ensure that U.S. interrogators have the education, training, and support, they need to conduct lawful and effective interrogations. This should include resources for research and professional developments as well as a review of existing interrogation protocols-such as those in Appendix M of the Army's field manual on interrogation-that have questionable utility and are particularly vulnerable to abuse.
Ensure Accountability for Past and Future Abuses
•Hold perpetrators to account for crimes of torture and prisoner abuse. Attorney General Holder announced in August that he was launching a preliminary review into the whether federal laws were violated in connection with overseas interrogations. This review needs to be expanded to examine the architects of the system of prison abuse, not only those who implemented it or engaged in conduct beyond the bounds of unlawful guidance and orders.
•Make public the results of Justice Department investigation of the role of government lawyers in authorizing torture and other abuse. In 2005 the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility began investigating the role of key lawyers from the Office of Legal Counsel in authorizing cruel interrogations. In mid-November 2009 Attorney General Holder told the Senate that the report was finally completed, in the last stages of review, and would be issued by the end of the month. It is far past time for the results of this investigation to be made public.
•Establish a nonpartisan commission of inquiry. It is not enough to put an end to unlawful practices. To ensure avoiding their repetition, they must also be thoroughly renounced. A nonpartisan commission should be established to ensure the U.S. government learns from past mistakes and effectively prevents future abuse. Such a review is needed to identify the systematic failures that lead to widespread prisoner abuse and to evaluate the impact of those policies on U.S. national security.
•Provide victims of torture and other abuse with access to remedies. The United States government has a legal obligation to provide victims of torture and other human rights abuses with access to enforceable remedies. The administration should cease attempting to block victims of torture, lesser forms of abuse, and arbitrary detention from having their day in court through invocation of doctrines such as the state secrets privilege and immunities that violate international law.
•Promptly investigate and prosecute all instances of arbitrary detention and detainee mistreatment by military and civilian personnel, including private contractors. Changes in policy are necessary but insufficient to ensure lawful detention. Detention policies and practices must be transparent. Where violations of the law are suspected, prompt investigation must ensue and individuals reasonably suspected of violations must be held accountable.
In the case of private contractors, a mandatory code of conduct should be established to ensure compliance with the law. Authorities must ensure that legal mechanisms are in place to hold contractors and their employees accountable for abuses. Where contract personnel violate the code of conduct and the law, prompt and transparent investigations leading to civil and criminal accountability, where warranted, must follow.
From podiums around the globe, President Obama has eloquently articulated his commitment to advancing human rights and securing global peace and prosperity by protecting the inherent rights and dignity of all people. On his second day in office, he put his words into action as he unequivocally renounced torture and set about the symbolically important task of closing the Guantanamo detention center. The world welcomed these important steps and the Obama Administration began its efforts to restore America's status as an international human rights leader.
Even so, one year later, human rights conditions in many parts of the world are deteriorating, including in a number countries that are viewed as important strategic partners of the United States. For example, in Russia, the North Caucasus threatens to explode and human rights defenders continue to be murdered with impunity. China is sentencing prominent dissidents to jail terms and extending its Great Internet Firewall. On Iran, even if rhetorical restraint by the U.S. may have been prudent, it left beleaguered Iranians struggling for their basic rights worried about American commitment to that cause. In other global problem areas like Africa and the Middle East, there is still no clearly stated U.S. human rights agenda.
What can the President and his administration do to arrest this disturbing global trend? Here are four things that the President could say in his State of the Union Address that would demonstrate how his Administration intends to advance human rights and democracy around the world:
The President should send an unequivocal message that human rights promotion will be raised consistently in bi-lateral relationships with key strategic partners with human rights problems, including China, Pakistan, Russia, Colombia and Egypt. He should reiterate that he will assess his Administration's strategy on the basis of concrete progress and results that are achieved in these and other places confronting human rights challenges.
The President should state clearly that he stands behind human rights and democracy advocates when they are threatened or attacked by governments and others who want to silence and put them out of business. He should direct administration officials at all levels to support change from within societies by doing the same. He should state the importance of freedom on the Internet and his intention to stand with technology companies that defend free expression and privacy.
The President should articulate a commitment to create opportunities for human rights advocates by providing financial and other support to non-governmental organizations and regional institutions in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. This support would empower multilateral efforts to advance rights at the regional level. The President should also direct his aid agencies to develop and implement a long-term strategy to strengthen regional human rights institutions, while ensuring that U.S. security and other assistance is not facilitating human rights abuses.
The President should demonstrate his resolve to advance reform at the UN Human Rights Council by upgrading the U.S. diplomatic presence in Geneva and adding cooperation at the Human Rights Council to the mix of bi-lateral issues raised with all allies, especially those in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
Promoting human rights and democracy around the world is challenging; it requires patience, sustained attention and consistency in the face of pushback and hostility. In today's interconnected world, America's national security and the peace of the world is fundamentally interwoven with the advancement of human rights and democracy everywhere. This does not mean that the United States has an obligation to create fully-functioning democracies everywhere - Afghanistan is not Switzerland, and will not become so in the term of this administration. Nonetheless, human rights promotion is central to a more stable Afghanistan; just as it is to a less threatening Iran or North Korea; or to a Middle East and Africa that creates hope for their people.
Tonight, as President Obama stands behind yet another podium and speaks to the world, he has an opportunity to advance the understanding that, amidst the many challenge we face at home, the well-being of Americans is inextricably tied up with the progress of freedom abroad. He should use this opportunity to reiterate the message that advancing human rights remains a cornerstone of his Administration's foreign policy and that America will not tolerate the silencing of dissidents through oppression and violence. He must not remain silent about these important issues. The world is listening.
A new book from a former political speech writer for President George Bush makes a number of wild claims in an effort to "correct the record" about the CIA enhanced interrogation program that featured the use of such "techniques" as waterboarding and slamming detainees heads into walls. The book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack, by Mark Thiessen, hit book stores today. An excerpt which ran on The National Review web site calls the CIA interrogators who used these abusive techniques the "real Jack Bauers" but explains that their work was nowhere near as violent as the interrogation scenes depicted on the hit FOX TV program.
"Is it ever 'the right time' to pass immigration reform and a path to legalization?" asks Maribel Hastings at New America Media. The short answer? Yes. Our national economic situation dictates that we are smart about the resources available to us all. It's also a moral imperative to adjust our laws to protect the most vulnerable of us.
Hastings runs through the complications, campaign promises, and opportunities facing the Obama administration in regards to immigration reform. While acknowledging the nature of our government as "a complex organism," Hastings nonetheless signs off with a warning: There are many awaiting action today, people "who voted for Democrats with the expectation that they would make comprehensive immigration reform a reality."
This year is primed for immigration reform. Activists worldwide are pushing for a "record number of ratifications" to The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Their Families (ICRMW), as Oneworld.net reports. The ICRMW was adopted by the United Nations in 1990, and "sets standards for humane working and living conditions for migrants." To date, 42 countries have are signatory to the ICRMW and 15 more have taken "preliminary steps to approve the convention." While the U.S. debates reform, protecting and supporting migrants should be at the front of the list.
The Washington Independent looks back at 2009, a year in which immigration was never center stage, and yet it managed to impact every other major issue on the table, from health care reform to the economy. Daphne Eviatar profiles five individuals who shaped the immigration debate for good or bad in 2009. Characters such as the infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, and commentator Lou Dobbs, formerly of CNN are included in the list, but admirable women like Dr. Dora Schriro also made the cut. Dr. Schriro's reports on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention system led directly to "a major commitment" to overhaul it.
In the light of policy and compacts, it is important to remember that there is a dark and often violent side to the immigration reform debate. Luis Ramirez was beaten to death by multiple local youth in Shanendoah, PA. The local police worked to obscure the facts of the murder and thwart justice, but their complicity and hand in the judicial process has been uncovered, as RaceWire reports.
Former Shenandoah mayor Thomas O'Neill's description of the police department reads, essentially, as a gang felled by hubris: "If they want to help somebody, they will, If they want to hurt somebody, they'll hurt them. There's nothing they could do that they couldn't get away with. That's what they thought."
Another incident that exposes the inadequacy of current immigration laws can be found in the case of Haitian community activist Jean Montrevil, who now faces deportation, as Democracy Now! reports. Montrevil is a working father of four, married to an American woman, a "longtime community leader," is very involved with local immigrants rights groups and checks in with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regularly and voluntarily. During one such check in Montrevil was detained and marked for deportation.
ICE is removing a tax-paying and productive member of society for a 20 year-old drug conviction for which Montrevil did his time-11 years in prison. There is no chance of a legal appeal, though ICE has the power to defer the deportation. If it isn't halted, Montrevil's wife Jani will be left alone with their four children. Before 1996 immigration reforms passed by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton, a judge would have had discretion to consider the effect of such a deportation on the children.
Melissa del Bosque reports for the Texas Observer on the violent fallout from Mexican President Felipe Calderón's continued drug war "on the Mexican side of the [U.S.-Mexico] border." del Bosque notes a disturbing trend: A growing number of uninvolved people in the proximity of State- or cartel-initiated violence in Mexico are being impacted by the violence. This is an important balance to mind, as law and State forces are designed to help the populace thrive. Various sources place the death toll in Mexico between 9,000 and 13,000.
We conclude this week's Diaspora with a big shout out to Wiretap, which is closing its doors. Wiretap was a well-written, vibrant, and relevant collection of writing by younger people. Their writing on immigration was original, provocative, and useful. We wish them well. You will be missed!
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Diaspora for a complete list of articles on immigration issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, and health care issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Pulse. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Back when it was just about telling gays they couldn't get married and publicly humiliating them, Rick Warren never bothered to disavow this news report from the Kampala Monitor:
Dr [Rick] Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said.
But then, horror, elected officials in Uganda took him a little too seriously about the not tolerating people "at all" and were planning on outright killing them. I don't see where that's out of line with not tolerating them at all, and it didn't seem like Warren did for a while, either. But now, not only has he written a sternly worded letter on the matter, he says this on his homepage:
Did you say that homosexuality is not a human right?
Absolutely not. What I said in an interview in Uganda was that there is no civil right to gay marriage guaranteed by the United States Constitution. All Americans, and I believe all people, are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," as spoken by the United States Declaration of Independence.
Fascinating clarification and long, long after the fact. Also, is there much of a difference between human rights and inalienable rights? I guess that's an exercise for the reader.
In the past week the Obama administration has taken steps to clarify and disseminate its policy with respect to the promotion of human rights and democracy. Following on the heels of an administration that liked to define the purpose of U.S. foreign policy as expanding freedom around the world and ending tyranny, the Obama administration has looked for a different approach and a different vocabulary to describe the place of human rights promotion in the foreign policy mix.
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
And what I wonder when people who claim to be faithful Christians, claim to follow a God of Love, support laws that sound like something out of the Inquisition, is ... Where in your version of the Kingdom of God are the piles of murder victims you created to get there? Where, in that Kingdom, are the unrepentant murderers?
I mean, Christians are supposed to be Christ-like. That's the claim. Jesus did not come to the planet, according to any version of the Bible, commanding his followers to hate, to be spiteful, to be cruel, to foment murder. He didn't seek out people whose sexuality he may not have agreed with to expose, humiliate or hold them out for general ridicule. Jesus dined with prostitutes and tax collectors, reserving the public ridicule for the moneychangers, the usurers and self-righteous jerks in love with praying ostentatiously in public, and even then he didn't call for them to be killed.
Christians, followers of Christ, were supposed to be mild, to turn the other cheek, to make their lives examples of peace in action. Jesus said the only two commandments a person needed to follow were to love God with their whole heart and love their brothers as themselves.
Which means that, by Jesus' own definitions, Rick Warren and his Family of bigots are sinners, filthy damn perverts, even.
Today, Human Rights Day, serves as an opportunity to tell key audiences why the United States should consider dignity, fairness, and human rights in domestic policy decisions. Several national debates loom in which these values should be central, namely health care and immigration. At the same time, state-level budget crises pose threats to the fulfillment and protection of human rights at the local level.
As we think about the best way to use Human Rights Day in our communications work, recent public opinion research done by our organization offers some insight into public thinking about human rights generally, and its intersection with a range of social justice issues. Our recent released Human Rights Toolkit builds on this research to provide messaging guidelines and recommendations about human rights, treaties and conventions, health care, due process, immigration, racial profiling and criminal justice for young offenders.
On December 1-2, foreign ministers and other officials from the 56 states of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) - a conflict prevention organization bringing together states from North America, Europe, and the former Soviet Union - met in Athens, Greece for the annual ministerial meeting. A Decision on "Combating Hate Crime" was one of a dozen or so decisions adopted by ministers on issues related to security, democratization, and human rights.
All signs pointed to the release of Carmelo Agamez Berrio, a well known Colombian human rights activist, who has been unjustly detained for almost a year in Sucre. He had been appointed a new prosecutor and senior Colombian justice officials had raised concerns about due process rights violations in his case. However, in a surprising twist last week, the 28th antiterrorism prosecutor in Bogota issued a resolution formally bringing to trial the specious investigation against Agamez.
More than seven years after U.S. forces picked up a 15-year-old boy in a remote Afghan town and accused him of throwing a grenade at a U.S. soldier, the U.S. government appears to be on the verge of deciding where to give him his day in court.
The words "due process" might not ignite our sense of national pride in the same way as words like "liberty," "justice," or "equality," but they should. And the promise of due process -- that every person, when faced with threats to their life, liberty, or property, will have a chance to have their side meaningfully heard and considered -- has never stood on shakier ground.
In the most recent issue of the New Yorker, investigative reporter David Grann methodically lays out the facts leading up to the 2004 Texas execution of Cameron Todd Willingham -- a man who was convicted of arson murder for a fire that killed his three young children. Later evidence and analysis by a series of national experts showed that the fire had been an accident and, in fact, no crime had occurred.
It's tempting to blame Willingham's wrongful death on an isolated cast of characters.
Willingham's defense attorneys at trial were convinced that he was guilty, which doubtlessly affected, in one way or another, the zealousness of their representation.
The local fire investigators were so cocksure of their scientifically-untested abilities to discern arson from accident that they comfortably stated under oath that Willingham had intentionally set the fire to "kill [his] little girls."
And even though the 15 members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles were each provided the report of a nationally-recognized fire and explosives expert, who had reviewed the evidence and concluded that the fire was likely caused by faulty electrical wiring or a space heater, it is not certain that any of them read it. They chose not to call a hearing to consider the new evidence and each of them voted to deny Willingham's petition for clemency.
But these failings of bias, ego, and energy, while shockingly egregious in effect, are unfortunately not exceptional.
This week, the Obama Administration announced plans to overhaul the way it detains and processes people accused of immigration violations. The plans include a much-needed decision to close the notorious T. Don Hutto detention facility, where families with children have been held under deplorable conditions, often behind razor wire. Congratulations to our frequent partners, the ACLU, Grassroots Leadership, Breakthrough, the Rights Working Group, and others who helped make this happen.
At the same time, many of the Administration's plans for immigrant due process and detention are unannounced or in formation. And it is possible that some troubling policies adopted during the Bush Administration may be retained. Advocates and allies have an important role to play in building public support and advocating for public policy that upholds the human right to due process, ensures fair treatment for everyone in our justice system, and fixes our broken immigration system instead of needlessly incarcerating families and individuals.
If you've been following my occasional blogs arguing for a more robust vision for health care reform, often titled "When Insurance Isn't Enough," you know that I start from a values-based framework, the idea that the opportunity to reach our highest attainable standard of health is a right inherent to our dignity as human beings. And then I usually go on to highlight an aspect of health care that isn't getting the sort of coverage or discussion that it should be, given the almost myopic focus on cost-cutting and insurance coverage; in the past, I've highlighted preventative care, healthy infrastructure like walkable communities, care coordination, and enabling services. Today, I'd like to take a step back and think about one of the keystones of the current push for reform: the idea of "universal" health care.
Literally, "universal" means "applicable everywhere or in all cases." The question is, what do the various actors in the health care reform debate mean when they use the word "universal"? President Obama has said that "universal" health care is one of his primary goals for any reform, as have many Congressional leaders and public interest advocates. Do they actually mean "universal," or is this an appropriate time to reference that oft-quoted scene from the Princess Bride, where after having dealt with Vizzini calling every occurence "inconceivable" all night long, Inigo Montoya remarks, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
