New leadership for global coalition against torture

The World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the principal global coalition of anti-torture organizations, has a new Secretary General today as Gerald Staberock succeeds Eric Sottas who had led the organization since its inception in 1985 and who is taking his retirement today.

Before joining OMCT in December 2010, Mr. Staberock led global programs at the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), including its Centre for Judges and Lawyers (CIJL) and its Global Security and Rule of Law Initiative. In this context he coordinated the most comprehensive global study on counter-terrorism and human rights (ICJ Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights). Before joining the ICJ he worked at the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) on rule of law and anti-torture projects, including on penitentiary and legal reforms in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. He concluded his judicial clerkship at the Higher Regional Court in Berlin qualifying as lawyer. He received his legal education in Bonn, Geneva and Washington DC (LLM). Mr Staberock has also written on a number of issues, including the rule of law in transition countries, counter-terrorism and human rights and the national implementation of human rights law.

“We are confident that Gerald Staberock, who has joined the OMCT nine months ago, will build on the foundation that has been laid," said Mr Yves Berthelot, OMCT President. "His legal rigour, rich experience in anti-torture and rule of law reforms in transition countries, and place at the heart of the debate on torture and counter-terrorism over the last ten years enable him to lead the organisation and to ensure its rightful place at the forefront of the fight against torture”.

“I am honoured to take up this challenge at a time when the strong and principled advocacy voice of the OMCT is more needed than ever” said Gerald Staberock, OMCT Secretary General. “The absolute prohibition of torture is challenged today through lack of respect and a pervasive culture of impunity in many parts of the world. At the same time there are opportunities not least through the transitions of the Arab spring to advance the fight against torture. This is the time to double the effort, to assist and support victims of torture, to ensure accountability and prevent torture, and to counter public complacency in the face of torture. I am looking forward to contribute to this cause together with the dedicated team in the OMCT Secretariat and in the partner organisation of the SOS Torture Network”, he added in a first comment.

Since its founding in 1997, Human Rights USA (originally called the World Organization Against Torture USA) has been a member of the SOS Torture Network, a coalition of more than 300 human rights organizations working to stop torture within their own countries. Human Rights USA's Executive Director, Theresa Harris, serves as a member of OMCT's General Assembly.

As we welcome Mr. Staberock to his new position, we gratefully applaud Mr. Sottas for his outstanding accomplishments with OMCT. The organization's achievements are the direct result of his vision, dedication and steadfast determination against torture.

U.S. Citizen Sues Web Hosting Company for Identifying Him to Thai Government

A suit was filed yesterday against Netfirms, a Canadian web hosting company incorporated in the United States, for releasing personal information to the Thai government. Netfirms’ disclosures allowed Thai officials to identify, detain, and interrogate the plaintiff, Mr. Anthony Chai, both in Thailand and on U.S. soil. These disclosures, without which Mr. Chai would have remained anonymous, resulted in the Thai government charging Mr. Chai with violating a Thai law that restricts free speech – ironically, for comments he wrote online criticizing that very law.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the World Organization for Human Rights USA and the Law Office of Snell & Wilmer, alleges that the company’s conduct violated California state law, as well as Constitutional and international human rights law. "This case lies at the intersection of privacy guarantees, freedom of expression, international human rights law and the Internet. I am honored to work with Human Rights USA on this important case," said M.C. Sungaila, Partner with Snell & Wilmer.

As set out in the complaint, Mr. Chai, owns a computer store in Long Beach, California from which he and his patrons would access and anonymously post comments on a Thai-language pro-democracy website, Manusaya.com, hosted by Netfirms. Many of the anonymous comments expressed concern with Thailand’s lese majesté laws which prohibit any negative statements about the Thai monarchy and provide for severe punishment, including imprisonment for up to fifteen years.

Mr. Chai’s privacy rights were violated when, at the request of Thai government officials, Netfirms suspended Manusaya’s account and provided Mr. Chai's IP address and e-mail address to the Thai officials without notice and without his consent. As a result of this release of Mr. Chai’s confidential personal information to Thai government officials, he was subsequently detained at the Bangkok airport, taken to the Department of Special Investigations, and interrogated about his postings on the website. After finally being released from police custody in Bangkok and returning home to California, Mr. Chai was then interrogated by Thai officials over the course of two days on U.S. soil at a hotel in Hollywood, California. Mr. Chai was later informed by Thai officials that if he returns to Thailand, he will be arrested and charged with violating lese majesté laws.

Theresa Harris, Executive Director of Human Rights USA said, “Internet companies need to take great care before releasing confidential information to investigators, especially when those requests come from foreign governments. Information is power, and these companies have the power to place a person at peril of imprisonment for the equivalent of an anonymous letter to the editor. Companies must be held accountable when they disregard the rights of the people who use their services.”

Mr. Chai's case underscores the need for internet communications corporations, no matter how big or small, to put human rights first in their business dealings. When a company provides tools for international communications as its primary service, human rights are an inherent part of the business model.

U.S. Violated Duty to Protect Woman from Domestic Violence

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has clarified the standard for assessing states’ compliance with human rights obligations. According to the Commission, states must use due diligence to protect people’s human rights, prevent human rights violations, and investigate and redress the violations that occur.

This came as part of the Commission’s decision in the case of Jessica Lanahan (formerly Gonzales) v. United States, released by the Commission today. The Commission determined that the United States had failed to meet its obligation to protect Ms. Lanahan and her daughters’ human rights under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. The Declaration lays out fundamental human rights that must be protected by members of the Organization of American States, including the right to non-discrimination and equal protection under the law, the right to life, the right to special protection for children, and the right to judicial protection.

In 1999, Ms. Lanahan’s estranged husband kidnapped their three daughters in violation of a restraining order. She repeatedly sought help from local police over a 10 hour period, but the police department failed to investigate or issue an arrest warrant for her husband. After her husband appeared at the police station, began shooting and was killed in a shoot-out with police, the bodies of her daughters were discovered in her husband’s truck. The ensuing police investigation failed to determine the time or cause of death of the girls. Ms. Lanahan sought vindication in federal court, but the Supreme Court determined that she had no constitutional right to protection and the failure of police to enforce the restraining order did not violate any constitutional provision. Ms. Lanahan then turned to the Inter-American Commission.

The Commission noted the numerous international authorities explaining that gender-based violence is a form of discrimination, and that systemic failures of governments to adequately address gender-based violence, particularly domestic violence, and to protect women from this harm not only constitute discrimination but fuel further societal discrimination and violence. The Commission stressed that all states must act with diligence to protect women and children from domestic violence, and to not only prevent arbitrary deprivations of life but also to affirmatively protect peoples’ right to life. And when acts of domestic violence do occur, a state must conduct a thorough and meaningful investigation of those violations.

According to the Commission, Ms. Lanahan’s and her daughters’ rights were violated by the police department’s failure to enforce the restraining order and the insufficient investigation into her daughters’ deaths, and by the failure of the U.S. government to investigate any aspect of these incidents.

This important decision does more than just vindicate Ms. Lanahan’s rights. It also makes clear that the U.S. must do more than merely pass laws or create nominal policies protecting human rights; those laws and policies must actually be enforced, procedures must be in place to adequately respond to people seeking protection of their rights, and failures of protection must be genuinely addressed lest they contribute to societal acceptance of human rights violations and perpetuate those very violations.

Human Rights USA welcomes this landmark decision and is proud to be among the signatories to amicus briefs supporting Ms. Lanahan’s case. Our congratulations and thanks go out to Ms. Lanahan’s attorneys at the University of Miami School of Law Human Rights Clinic, the Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Wrap-up: Bush's canceled trip to Switzerland

A few days ago, Human Rights USA was part of a loud chorus of international anti-torture advocates urging Swiss government officials to take swift action if former President Bush went through with announced plans to visit Switzerland. We are gratified that the calls for Switzerland to uphold its international obligations seem to have prompted President Bush to call off the trip. (Anyone who says international human rights law doesn't have any teeth hasn't been forced to cancel their travel plans for fear of indictment.)

The law is clear: no one, not even former heads of state, enjoys immunity from prosecution for torture. The Pinochet Precedent took that principle from theory to practice. As quoted in an article in The Guardian:

"Nobody – from those who administered the practices to those at the top of the chain of command – is under a shield of absolute immunity for the practices of secret detention, extraordinary rendition and torture," said Martin Scheinin, UN special rapporteur on human rights and professor of public international law at the European University Institute. "Legally this case is quite clear. Bush does not enjoy immunity as a former head of state, and he has command responsibility for the decisions that were taken."

How did we get to the point that a former U.S. president is not free to travel the world for fear of prosecution and protests? More importantly, how do we prevent this from happening again? Here at Human Rights USA, we believe that fully implementing the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is a good place to start. The Convention requires governments to fully investigate allegations of torture, hold perpetrators accountable, and provide redress to victims. When the U.S. government fails to uphold its obligations, other countries, like Switzerland, are obliged to step in.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, and the World Organization Against Torture all issued statements reiterating the need to investigate and prosecute those responsible for torture -- even former presidents -- even former presidents of the United States of America. Today, Human Rights Watch called on U.S. officials to prosecute, saying, "The U.S. record on accountability for detainee abuse has been abysmal. The official authorization of torture by a head of state should never go unpunished."

For more news coverage, here are links to stories in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN.

US State Department Releases UPR Report

Human Rights USA welcomes the US Government’s report on its human rights record, submitted today to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The 29-page report, prepared for the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process, provides extensive evidence of the US’s longstanding global leadership in human rights.

The self-reflection throughout the report, which documents genuine successes in advancing human rights, is to be applauded. At the same time, the report correctly identifies several areas where we, as a nation, still fall short of achieving our goals of equality, fairness, and dignity for all people.

However, the few concessions regarding the gaps between international human rights goals and US domestic policies do not go quite far enough. In sections addressing economic and social rights, for example, the report describes social services available for the most vulnerable among us – housing, health care, education, employment, food – as generosity desired by the public and thus duly enacted by elected officials. Such goodwill is an admirable American characteristic, to be sure, but it should not be confused with a rights-based framework.

As the famous saying goes, every right has a remedy. That is not the case when our government helps our fellow human beings meet their basic needs out of benevolence, rather than recognizing their right to live and work with dignity. A rights-based approach would ensure that these programs always exist, that they are designed to support everyone’s needs equally, and that they include the means for correcting inequities. The recent debate over extending unemployment benefits shows how the current system allows something as basic as one’s own home to become politicized. Can we really leave such fundamental human needs as food and shelter to political whims? President Roosevelt said one of the cornerstones of American security is Freedom from Want. The US should affirm that now by ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and protecting those rights in US law.

Remedies, enforcement, and accountability are important components of the international human rights system. Rather than turning those actions over to an international body, each nation is responsible for providing human rights protections within its own legal system. But the US still needs to take some important steps to fully implement the human rights values we share with the world. For example, the report cites the human rights treaties the US has ratified, but does not note that in most cases, the rights expressed in those treaties cannot be enforced by US courts without additional legislation. Thus many US citizens who have suffered harmful, discriminatory impacts of government-funded programs, for example, have no way to set things right if they cannot prove the government specifically intended that harm. Proof of intent is not needed under international human rights standards for discrimination; the focus is, and should be, on the damage done to the individual. Just to cite one example, residents of communities of color disproportionately impacted by preventable toxic pollution have taken their case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights after US courts denied them a remedy.

Along the same lines, paragraph 86 of the US report reads, “It takes vigilant action to prevent [torture] and to hold those who commit acts of official cruelty accountable for their wrongful acts.” Exactly where and when will those who committed and ordered torture be held accountable? The report does not answer that obvious question, nor does it resolve the ongoing concerns about trials by military commissions.

In issues like national security and immigration, where the federal government has primary responsibility, it also has the obligation to enact policies that protect human rights and provide accountability and redress for victims. But as a federal system, human rights implementation must also happen at the state and local levels. This fact becomes most obvious in the report's sections on criminal justice, particularly the description of the US death penalty. These gaps in implementation at the state and local level prevent the US from solving many human rights problems and putting our values of equality into practice. The report says little about how the federal or state governments intend to create an effective national human rights program.

In the report, the US Government says it wants to lead the world to a better future, and that it intends to provide friends and foes alike with a model of what that future looks like. To get there, the US urgently needs a national system that fully integrates our human rights obligations into federal legislation and policies and fosters involvement at the state and local levels. This system should include an implementation body such as an executive branch Interagency Working Group to serve as a focal point to ensure coordination of all federal departments and agencies. It would also need an independent, non-partisan monitoring body such as a US Commission on Civil and Human Rights, as well as effective coordination with state and local state officials, including civil and human rights agencies. (For more details about these recommendations, see the report on treaty ratification and implementation submitted to the UN earlier this year, which Human Rights USA helped write, and the Human Rights at Home Campaign, of which Human Rights USA is a member.)


“Human rights are universal, but their experience is local,” as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said, reiterating Eleanor Roosevelt. This truth is the reason for Human Rights USA’s work, including our continuing efforts to support the UPR process and make sure concerns like these reach the UN and the highest levels of the US Government. With appreciation for the progress this report represents and the accomplishments cited within it, significant work is still needed to make human rights real for everyone in the US.

Felony Torture Statute is Constitutional

Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the statute passed to implement the Convention Against Torture is constitutional. The decision upholds the jury verdict and sentence holding Charles "Chuckie" Taylor, Jr.'s accountable for torture committed when he was head of the Anti-Terrorism Unit (ATU) in Liberia.

The court's decision reads: "After thorough review, we conclude that all of Emmanuel’s convictions are constitutional. The United States validly adopted the CAT [Convention Against Torture] pursuant to the President’s Article II treaty-making authority, and it was well within Congress’s power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to criminalize both torture, as defined by the Torture Act, and conspiracy to commit torture. Furthermore, we hold that both the Torture Act and the firearm statute apply to extraterritorial conduct, and that their application in this case was proper. Finally, we conclude that Emmanuel’s trial and the resulting convictions were not rendered fundamentally unfair by any evidentiary or other procedural errors, and that his sentence is without error. Accordingly, we affirm Emmanuel’s convictions and sentence in all respects."

The full decision is available here: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200910461.pdf

Haiti: Human rights in a time of disaster

As many of us are aware, a devastating 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti on January 12, with most of the destruction occurring in the capital, Port au Prince. The death toll is estimated to be at about 200,000 people, with many people still missing, and another 1.5 million people left homeless. The search for survivors continues, as many people are believed to be trapped inside collapsed buildings, even as more quakes and aftershocks continue to beleaguer the already suffering nation.

Amidst the devastation of the earthquake, the protection of Haitians’ basic human rights should be the top priority. Natural disasters such as the Haitian earthquake may destroy infrastructure and order, but they do not alter human rights protections, which require specific protection in such precarious times. Haunting images from the streets of the capital, where thousands of Haitians are now forced to live, show people in great need of food, water, shelter, clothes, and medical supplies. Additionally, the lack of adequate law enforcement personnel in Haiti creates a serious security threat as widespread violence and looting have been reported in Port au Prince.

Because the Haitian government is currently unable to adequately address the needs of its people, the international community has assumed the government’s international obligations by providing humanitarian aid in the form of rescue teams, security troops, and supplies to protect Haitians’ rights to basic needs and security. As required by international standards of disaster relief, special attention must be given to Haitian women and children because of their vulnerability to human rights violations in such an environment. International actors must also ensure that their own activities do not further contribute to human rights violations; aid must be provided equally and indiscriminately.

After basic relief needs are met, protection of Haitians’ human rights must remain a priority. The international community must work with the Haitian government to provide rights beyond basic survival needs, such as the rights to education, health, and work, as well as other political, economic, and cultural rights. International attention must not fade when the initial surprise of the event does and the aftershocks cease. As other survivors of natural disaster will readily attest, the needs of the Haitian people will not end with provision of food, water, and shelter to the displaced persons. The international community should focus on strengthening and rebuilding the Haitian state to provide all human rights protections to its citizens.

The matter of Haitians who seek refuge in other countries, including the United States, must also be addressed. Under international law, individuals have the right not to be forcibly returned to the country they are fleeing if returning would post a threat to their life, security, or freedom. In this regard, the U.S. government has already temporarily suspended deportations to Haiti and has granted temporary protected status to Haitians currently in the U.S., allowing them to reside and work in the U.S. for an additional 18 months. Before initial relief efforts expire, however, the international community should plan how to respect the human rights of Haitian refugees.

The first independent nation in Latin America, Haiti is now widely known only as the Western hemisphere’s poorest nation. The recent earthquake is the latest in a series of hindrances to the country’s progress. To learn a bit more about Haiti, click here for a timeline of key events in Haitian history.

There are many ways for you to aid in Haitian relief efforts. A list of organizations accepting money donations can be found here. Organizations accepting these donations can be found here. For up to date information on Haiti and the relief efforts there, click here.

- By Kacey Mordecai, Legal Intern, International Justice Project

HAPPENINGS ON THE HILL: October 6, 2009 Human Rights Violators Accountability Hearing

On Tuesday, October 6, 2009, at 10 am, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law will hold its second ever hearing addressing how to hold human rights violators found in the United States accountable for their crimes. The Subcommittee will focus on important developments in this area of law, including the successful prosecution and conviction of Charles ("Chuckie") Taylor, Jr. We encourage our readers to attend the hearing or tune in via webcast for this important discussion. You can read Human Rights USA's submission to this hearing here.

ROAD TO RATIFICATION: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Today we start a new series bringing you the latest news and insights about the human rights treaties the U.S. has, and hasn't yet, ratified.

You may have heard last week that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). By signing the treaty, Ambassador Rice added the U.S. to the list of141 countries that recognize the fundamental, inherent rights of persons with disabilities. The Convention promotes, protects and ensures “the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities…” and promotes “respect for their inherent dignity.”

But signing the CRPD was important for other reasons too. As Human Rights Watch noted, this is a major policy shift. After years of scoffing at multi-lateral treaty agreements, signing onto the CRPD signals a return to U.S. engagement in international human rights issues. The State Department's official blog acknowledged this change, trumpeting that at the signing in New York, "there was palpable excitement in the air — the United States is back to fully participate on human rights issues on the international stage."

Signing the CRPD also opens the possibility that the administration may take a more holistic view of human rights than the U.S. has in the past. President Obama called the Convention the first human rights treaty of the 21st century, and for good reason. The treaty embraces a unified vision of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights as interconnected. Compare this to some of the core human rights treaties developed over the last 60 years. In the past, some of the basic concepts of human rights -- that they are indivisible and interdependent -- got lost in the Cold War. As a result, we ended up with two treaties implementing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: one on civil and political rights, another on economic, social, and cultural rights. The U.S. has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). On the other hand, the U.S. signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1977, but has never ratified it. Is the Obama Administration moving toward a more integrated approach to protecting human rights? We don't know yet, but signing onto the CRPD provides a glimmer of hope.

Signing is only the first step. Full status as a member of the treaty agreement requires ratification by the Senate. The White House has not yet indicated when the Senate might take up the CRPD, but according to Human Rights Watch, the State Department (which will send the treaty to the Senate) has the CRPD "under active review." Two other treaties that the U.S. has signed but not ratified may also come before the Senate soon: the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

For more information on these treaties, and others the U.S. has signed but not ratified, Human Rights Watch has this helpful guide. Over at IntLawGrrls, Hope Lewis wrote about the significance of joining the CRPD and about treaty ratification more generally.

Watch the Human Rights USA blog for updates on national efforts to ratify these treaties. Over the coming months, we will post details about each of the conventions, the legal implications of ratifying human rights treaties, and how the treaties play out in the courtroom when we bring legal actions to enforce the rights the treaties are intended to protect.

Connect with Us Through Social Media

Human Rights USA is on the cutting edge of human rights litigation. Get involved with our groundbreaking work:

1. Follow our blog here, or through a feed (subscribe by clicking Posts on the upper left-hand side of the page, and choosing a feed service).



2. Become our fan on Facebook,
   
   
   World Organization for Human Rights USA on Facebook
   
   
   
3. Or subscribe to our YouTube Channel. This channel is a hub of all videos which relate to our work. Selections include: videos of our attorneys speaking at human rights events, a compilation of inspirational quotes on human rights and this video of Human Rights USA attorney Piper Hendricks speaking on Al Jazeera English:
   
   
   
   

Human Rights USA Attorney Speaks at Conference on Torture and Accountability

On Friday, June 26, Human Rights USA attorney Colleen Costello spoke at the Conference on Torture and Accountability held at the Catholic University of America. The panel, "Torture in Our Backyard," featured legal experts and human rights advocates from around the country. Colleen outlined the United States' historical role in prosecuting war criminals at Nuremberg, and discussed the ways in which those trials have influenced the shape of international human rights law today -- particularly as it pertains to the punishment of war crimes.

The conference, sponsored by the Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition (TASSC), was but one of many events organized around the country in recognition of the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. TASSC is a long-time partner of Human Rights USA, and has provided invaluable assistance in our work over the years.

Attorneys from Human Rights USA recognize the value of education and advocacy, and regularly speak at conferences and other human rights-related events.

Take Another Look at International Law: Why it is Good for the United States

Human rights discourse in the United States focuses primarily on enforcing human rights abroad. However, human rights concerns are not inherently extraterritorial. Rather, it is the responsibility of every government – including the United States – to guarantee the basic human rights of every person within its territory. One way to fulfill this global responsibility is by incorporating international human rights norms – which have been agreed upon by all developed nations – into domestic jurisprudence.

According to Harold Koh, former Dean of Yale Law School who was recently confirmed to serve as the State Department's top legal advisor, "[F]ederal judges have become an increasingly critical link between the international and the domestic legal spheres... [by helping] internalize international legal norms into U.S. domestic law through a range of interpretive techniques."

However, some Americans remain skeptical that judicial recourse to international law would undermine U.S. sovereignty and harm American citizens. While some criticize Koh for using "international and foreign law to deprive Americans of our rights as American citizens," a closer look at the use of international human rights law reveals that these criticisms are ill-conceived, and reveals that the use of international human rights law is GOOD for America and its citizens.

Argument 1: Courts might prioritize international law over U.S. law and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

First, skeptics of international law, like John Bolton, Former President George W. Bush's Ambassador to the United Nations, fear that U.S. courts might put international law above the Constitution and thus undermine U.S. sovereignty. However, proponents of using international law as a guide domestically do not argue that international law should take precedence over the Constitution. Rather, proponents believe U.S. courts should (as at times they already do) look to international human rights norms when interpreting and applying the Constitution. For example, when the U.S. Supreme Court abolished the juvenile death penalty in 2005, the Court noted that "[t]he United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty.

It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom."[1] Furthermore, the Supreme Court has explicitly instructed federal courts to exercise great restraint on those rare occasions when they are asked to directly apply international human rights law, so as to not undermine State, Congressional or Presidential power within the democratic process.

Skeptics who argue that enforcing international human rights norms in U.S. courts will undermine U.S. sovereignty also overlook the facts that: (1) the United States was founded on human rights ideology (the Declaration of Independence rests on the human rights principle that 'all men are created equal'), and (2) the United States played a lofty role in developing international human rights law by encouraging other nations to internalize human rights norms.

After World War II, the United States took a leading role in developing major human rights documents when Franklin Roosevelt inspired the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the original United Nations Human Rights Commission, furthered the role of the United States on the international stage by overseeing the drafting of that crucial document. According to the scholar Louis Henkin, the human rights norms encompassed in the UDHR have become international legal norms that "are in their essence American Constitutional rights protected around the world."[2] Thus, there is no reason to fear allowing international human rights law to come full circle and fit back into the democratic American society from whence it emerged.

Argument 2: Upholding international human rights law in U.S. courts could hurt American citizens.

Second, skeptics argue that upholding international human rights law will hurt U.S. citizens by "handicap[ing] America's efforts to defend itself" and "harm[ing] American business." In reality, U.S. security and business interests demand reciprocity – if we expect humane treatment of U.S. citizens abroad, we should ensure such treatment of foreign nationals in the U.S. By condoning – either explicitly or implicitly - violations of international law, the United States undermines its ability to demand respectful treatment of U.S. citizens overseas.

For example, due to U.S. failure to thoroughly address allegations of human rights violations, Spain considered prosecution of former U.S. officials for torture. The ability of another country to charge U.S. officials is beyond the scope of this entry, suffice to say that had the the U.S. government not ignored international human rights norms as a general policy, U.S. citizens acting within that political framework would not have been in such an undesirable situation.

Along with protecting the interests of U.S. citizens abroad, domestically enforcing international human rights norms protects U.S. citizens from violations of human rights by their own government. Six years ago, The New York Times dubbed Jack L. Goldsmith, a former law professor at the University of Chicago, as "one of the brightest stars in the conservative legal firmament," and "a leading proponent of the view that international standards of human rights should not apply in cases before U.S. courts."

A mere nine months after becoming legal advisor to the Pentagon in 2003, however, Goldsmith resigned from the prestigious position and began to speak publicly on how the Bush Administration violated both domestic and international human rights law. According to Goldsmith, the former Administration's pre-emptive approach to the "War on Terror" was an attempt to expand the limits of presidential power and simultaneously immunize government officials from international human rights violations and war crimes.

Goldsmith's exposure to high-ranking intelligence regarding human rights violations led the renowned conservative opponent of international law to recognize that enforcing international human rights law in the United States is necessary to fill domestic legal gaps and loopholes the government might exploit to harm American citizens. For example, respect for international human rights law could have protected U.S. citizens from the discretionary use of wiretapping, ethnic profiling, illegal detention of suspected terrorists, and attempts to justify torture.

These are but a few of the reasons Americans ought not fear judicial recourse to international human rights law. Rather, we should embrace international human rights law to protect national and personal interests, and to demonstrate to the world that the U.S. remains a leader in fostering and promoting human rights for all world citizens.

-Annie Johnston, International Justice Project Legal Intern

[1] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 554 (2005).

[2] Louis Henkin, How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy, in Int'l Law 25, 24 (Barry E. Carter, Phillip R. Trimble, & Allen S. Weiner 5th ed., 2007).

April 20th Screening of Pray the Devil Back to Hell a Huge Success.

Human Rights USA thanks everyone who made the April 20, 2009 screening of “Pray the Devil Back to Hell” a success. We had a wonderful turnout to see this documentary of the courageous Liberian women who brought peace to their war-torn country. Our audience included an impressive mix of NGO workers, government employees, law students, and members of the DC community with varying levels of familiarity with the history and the current situation in Liberia. We are happy to hear from many attendees that the film helped them better understand and appreciate why HRUSA was involved with the criminal prosecution against Chuckie Taylor and has brought a civil case against him as well.

HRUSA would like to thank:

Our panelists, Abigail Disney, the film's producer; Dr. Patricia Morris, Executive Director of Peace x Peace; and Matthew Baechtle, an ICE Special Agent who launched the investigation of Chuckie Taylor, for their insightful discussion of the impact of the film, the array of issues it addresses and the reality facing Liberians as a result of the civil war.

Steptoe & Johnson LLP for its generous support of this event.

Rona Leff and the Letelier Theater for use of their beautiful theater and reception space.

Chef Emilie Stein of Cafe 1612, Hello Cupcake, and Sumah's West African Restaurant for catering the reception.

Volunteers Robbie Kleekpo and Jonathan Henriques who most generously volunteered their time in making this event possible.

Update 07/21/09: for photos of the event, please see our Facebook album on our Fan Page.

Update 07/28/09: here is the trailer for this powerful movie:

Human Rights USA and University of Texas Law Clinic Published in Northeastern University Law Journal

An article written by Human Rights USA's Colleen Costello, Attorney for Human Rights & Anti-Terrorism Project, in collaboration with law students from the University of Texas National Security & Human Rights Clinic, appears in the February 2009 inaugural edition of the Northeastern University Law Journal.

The article, Challenging the Practice of Transfer to Torture in U.S. Courts: A Model Brief for Practitioners, examines the myriad legal issues presented by transfers to torture (the practice of transferring detainees to countries where they face a substantial likelihood of being tortured), and sets forth legal arguments challenging these unlawful transfers as violations of the Convention Against Torture and other international and domestic laws.

Portions of the article were presented by Ms. Costello at the Northeastern University School of Law's Guantánamo Symposium on April 25, 2008.*

The full citation for the article is Colleen Costello, Challenging the Practice of Transfer to Torture in U.S. Courts: A Model Brief for Practicitioners, 1 NE. U. L.J. 157 (2009). An electronic version of the article may be found at the NULJ website.

*The article was subsequently updated to incorporate the Supreme Court's June 2008 decisions in Boumediene v. Bush and Munaf v. Geren, which further defined the scope of rights available to detainees held by the United States Government.

Human Rights USA Supporter Doug Wilson Speaks to TED TV About Corporate Accountability

Longtime Human Rights USA supporter and human rights advocate Doug Wilson gave a speech in February 2008 to Ted TV about corporate accountability in the internet era. The annual conference brings together the world's most fascinating thinkers and doers, who are challenged to give the talk of their lives. During the presentation, Mr. Wilson urged U.S. companies to adapt a "human rights framework" when selling their products and technologies into repressive regimes.

Mr. Wilson illustrated that during the modern internet era, technology sold by US companies into repressive regimes can be used to help "harass, kidnap, intimidate, torture, and ultimately imprison" journalists, activists, and bloggers.

Human Rights USA is fighting to prevent such abuses from occurring by holding corporations accountable for their human rights violations in US Courts. Mr. Wilson specifically cited Human Rights USA's lawsuit against Yahoo! Inc., in which Yahoo! was held accountable for aiding and abetting the arbitrary and prolonged detention of journalists and human rights advocates in China.

To view his talk, and to obtain further information about Doug Wilson, please visit his website: http://douglasawilson.com. To read more about TED, please visit www.ted.org.

HRUSA to Host Panel Discussion "Bringing Human Rights Home" on March 11th at GWU's Betts Theater

Flier design by Katie Donohue of www.katiedonohuedesign.com

HR USA Executive Director Theresa Harris to Speak at Launch of New AAAS Coalition

Theresa Harris, Executive Director of Human Rights USA, will speak tomorrow (January 15, 2009) at the launch of the Science and Human Rights Coalition of the American Association for the Advancement of Scientists (AAAS).

On a panel called, "Hearing from the Human Rights Community: How Science and Scientists Can Contribute," Ms. Harris will discuss how computer scientists provided critical support for Human Rights USA's lawsuit against Yahoo, Inc. and how the group relies on scientific research for its ongoing work to protect freedom of expression online. The panel also features Cathy Albisa of the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative, John Bradshaw of Physicians for Human Rights,and Matthew Smith of EarthRights International. Sage Russel of AAAS will moderate the discussion.

From the AAAS website, www.aaas.org:

"After a full year of preperation and deliberation, the AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition is ready to be launched. Join us in celebrating the promising new initiative!

The Launch of the AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition is an opportunity to learn about the Coalition, its areas of activity, and how you and your scientific association can become a part of this important new initiative, to discover the varied contributions that science and scientists can make to human rights, and have the opportunity to equip your scientific association with the information and tools needed for robust engagement in human rights."

Human Rights USA is proud to support a coalition that aspires to strengthen the relationship between the human rights and scientific communities. The launch will be held at the AAAS Headquarters, located at 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington DC 20005.

Human Rights USA Urges President-elect Obama to Keep His Promise to Put an End to Torture

In response to recent news reports indicating that the Obama administration will abandon any prospect of initiating criminal investigations and prosecutions into detainee abuse and torture, Human Rights USA, in partnership with the Torture Abolition Support and Survivors' Coalition (TASSC) and the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT), as well as nearly twenty other human rights advocates and organizations, is asking the next administration to keep the option of criminal investigations and prosecutions on the table.

As the President-elect continues to appoint candidates for top-level cabinet posts and finalize his policy goals, Human Rights USA and other human rights advocates ask him to keep his promise to putting an end to torture by the United States Government. In order to demonstrate his commitment to ending torture, President-elect Obama must make it clear that America will not tolerate impunity for torture.

The groups have asked President-elect Obama, when the time comes, to direct his Attorney General to appoint independent counsel to investigate and, where warranted, prosecute top officials responsible for approving or directing the use of torture and other forms of unlawful treatment against detainees during the "war on terror."

Human Rights USA, in collaboration with TASSC, has been drafting a criminal complaint to support its request for criminal investigations and prosecutions (where warranted) of U.S. officials responsible for authorizing or directing detainee abuse and torture. For more information about this project, please contact Colleen Costello at ccostello [at] humanrightsusa.org.

A PDF version of the letter is available here. The full text of the letter follows:

December 2, 2008

The Honorable Barack Obama
President-elect of the United States
1800 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20405
Fax: (202) 228-5417

Presidential Transition Office
Kluczynski Federal Building
230 S. Dearborn Street, 38th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604

Re: Accountability for Torture and Other Violations
of U.S. and International Law

Dear President-elect Obama:

Congratulations on your historic election to become the 44th President of the United States. Americans have expressed their overwhelming confidence in your ability to lead our country to realizing its full potential.

We write to you today as human rights advocates to express our appreciation for your long-standing commitment to human and civil rights. From the beginning of your campaign, you have said that one of your main priorities as President will be to restore America’s moral stature in the world. Americans’ faith in its leaders was shaken by the United States Government’s response to the terror attacks of September 11th. The irresponsible policies of the past seven years have diminished the United States’ reputation as a world leader in advancing and protecting human rights. Our country went from being a beacon of liberty to a leading purveyor of torture.

With the prospect of a new administration, guided by your leadership, Americans are hopeful that things will change – for the better. We believe that under your administration, the rule of law will receive the respect it deserves. Recently, you renewed your pledge to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, which is a significant – and commendable – first step in renewing our nation’s commitment to its human rights obligations. As you said, following the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, fundamental human rights should be bigger than politics.

We agree.

But, President-elect Obama, we are concerned by recent news reports that seem to indicate that politics may yet trump human rights under your administration. In an article published by the Associated Press on Tuesday, November 18th, two of your advisers, who asked to remain anonymous, reported that there is “little – if any – chance that [your] Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.”[1]

Following the nomination of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General, you asked, “[h]ow, if we are willing to rationalize torture through legalisms and semantics, can we claim to our children, and the children of the world, that America is different, and represents a higher moral standard?” Let us put this question another way: How, if we are willing to allow people – representatives of our government, at that – to torture with impunity, can we claim to future generations that America is different, and represents a higher moral standard?

If Our Goal is to End Torture, Here is What We Need to Do

You have said, throughout your campaign and in the weeks after your election, that putting an end to torture was among your priorities for your administration. The policies pursued by our government over the past several years have set a dangerous precedent that is likely to be repeated by future administrations – unless we set a minimum standard that puts future generations on notice that this country does not, and will not, tolerate impunity for torturers.

We are asking for you, and for other members of your new administration, to take your commitment to protecting human rights one step further: please put “justice” back in the Justice Department. We are not asking you to make a formal commitment to prosecutions of specific individuals. We are asking you, at this point in time, to keep the option of criminal investigations and prosecutions on the table.

When the time comes, direct your Attorney General to appoint independent counsel to initiate an investigation into criminal wrongdoing by government officials related to detainee abuse and torture. Ensure that the independent counsel receives the authority and resources he or she needs to properly and thoroughly conduct the investigation. And if the independent counsel does find any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, ensure that the Attorney General grants him or her sufficient power to prosecute officials who have violated not only the laws of the United States, but also the trust of the American people.

In your speech on the night of November 4th, you called on all Americans to make the change they wish to see. For the past several months, Human Rights USA, in collaboration with TASSC International, has been drafting a criminal complaint in support of our request for criminal investigations and, where warranted, prosecutions of U.S. officials responsible for authorizing or directing detainee abuse and torture. We are not alone in this request for accountability.[2]

We understand that you cannot do it alone. But understand that the decision to initiate investigations, and the decision to hold accountable those individuals who have done so much damage to our nation and to the individuals who were abused, tortured, and killed, must come from you.

President-elect Obama, you were correct in saying that there is no challenge too great that America cannot overcome. We see the promise that the future holds for this country, and, like you, we want to be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did.

Sincerely,

Organizations

World Organization for Human Rights USA
Theresa Harris, Executive Director
Washington, DC

Torture Abolition Support and Survivors’ Coalition International (TASSC)
Demissie Abebe Gebremedhin, Executive Director
Washington, DC

Backbone Campaign
Bill Moyer, Executive Director
Vashon, WA

CODEPINK
Gael Murphy, Cofounder

National Economic and Social Rights Initiative (NESRI)
Cathy Albisa, Executive Director
New York, NY

Society of American Law Teachers (SALT)
Hazel Weiser, Executive Director
Central Islip, NY

U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW)
Michael Eisenscher, National Coordinator
Washington, DC

Voces de la Frontera: Workers' Center
Christine Neumann-Ortiz, Executive Director
Milwaukee, WI

Individuals*

Sandra Babcock
Associate Clinical Professor
Center for International Human Rights
Northwestern Law School

John Bonifaz
Constitutional Attorney

Deborah Buffton
La Crosse, Wisconsin

Catherine M. Grosso
Assistant Professor of Law
Michigan State University College of Law

Rogelio A. Lasso
Professor
The John Marshall Law School

Nathan J. Miller
Human Rights Program Officer
International Senior Lawyers Project

Jordan J. Paust
Mike and Teresa Baker Law Center Professor
University of Houston Law Center

Michael Ratner
President
Center for Constitutional Rights

Cindy Sheehan
Gold Star Mother and Human Rights' Activist

David Swanson
Co-Founder
After Downing Street

Dean Lawrence R. Velvel

*The individual signatories to this letter have signed on in their individual capacity. Institutional affiliations are listed for information and identification
purposes only.

[1] Lara Jakes Jordan, Associated Press Writer, Obama advisers: No charges likely vs. interrogators, Associated Press, Nov. 18, 2008, available at http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_INTERROGATORS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-11-18-00-21-27.
[2] American Civil Liberties Union, Actions for Restoring America, Oct. 20, 2008, at 2, available at http://72.3.233.244/images/asset_upload_file45_37256.pdf; Physicians for Human Rights, Broken Laws, Broken Lives, June 2008, at 10, available at http://brokenlives.info/?page_id=69; Amnesty International, Counter Terror With Justice: A Checklist for the Next U.S. President, Nov. 5, 2008, at 2, available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/117/2008/en/f5aa6a76-a5db-11dd-98b9-d503e38a5523/amr511172008en.pdf; University of California, Berkeley, Human Rights Center and International Human Rights Law Clinic, Guantanamo and Its Aftermath: U.S. Detention and Interrogation Practices and Their Impact on Former Detainees, November 2008, p. 80, available at http://hrc.berkeley.edu/pdfs/Gtmo-Aftermath.pdf; Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, The General’s Report, June 25, 2007, available at http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=trueAmerican (statement by Ret. General Antonio Tabuba, who headed an investigation into detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, whose findings were reported in the Taguba Report); Human Rights First, How to End Torture and Cruel Treatment: Blueprint for the Next Administration, Oct. 2008, at 2, available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/etn-end-torture-blueprint.pdf.

DHS Agent Arrested for Raping Green Card Applicant

On March 11, New York prosecutors arrested Isaac R. Baichu, a 46-year old immigration official, after he extorted sex from a young Colombian woman seeking a green card. Three days after her green card interview, Mr. Baichu began making personal phone calls to the young woman's cellphone. Nina Bernstein from the New York Times reports:

He hinted, she said, at his power to derail her life and deport her relatives, alluding to a brush she had with the law before her marriage. He summoned her to a private meeting. And at noon on Dec. 21, in a parked car on Queens Boulevard, he named his price — not realizing that she was recording everything on the cellphone in her purse. “I want sex,” he said on the recording. “One or two times. That’s all. You get your green card. You won’t have to see me anymore.” She reluctantly agreed to a future meeting. But when she tried to leave his car, he demanded oral sex “now,” to “know that you’re serious.” And despite her protests, she said, he got his way.

The victim took the sixteen-minute recording to the police, who arrested and pressed charges against Mr. Baichu on March 11. He has been released on $15,000 bond, and has been suspended with pay by the Department of Homeland Security. The victim still has not received a green card. The Department of Homeland Security regularly receives complaints of employee misconduct, but reports a significant backlog in pending complaints.

Bernstein's article breaking the story illustrated "the vast power of low-level immigration law enforcers, ... a growing desperation on the part of immigrants seeking legal status ... [and] the difficulty and danger of making a complaint, even in the rare case when abuse of power may have been caught on tape."

Human Rights USA's Refugee Project Director called the case "just one example of the failings of a poorly managed agency that operates under a statutory and regulatory scheme that fosters impunity and places non-citizens in a position of acute vulnerability to abuse."

Please go here for more information on this case.

Celebrating a Year of Unprecedented Success

As the holidays roll in, take a moment to join us in celebrating a year of unprecedented success in litigation on behalf of survivors of torture, slavery, and gender-based violence. Download our Winter 2007 Newsletter (hot off the press today!) and read about our latest work:

• Yahoo! Inc. Settles Historic Human Rights Lawsuit
• Human Rights USA Supports First Prosecution Under Anti-Torture Statute
• Asylum Granted to Albanian Woman Fleeing Forced Prostitution

Join us in ringing in the new year and moving forward:

• Forward our newsletter to your colleagues and friends.
• Buy holiday gifts at our new online store.
• Send a note of support to one of our clients, letting them know that you stand behind them as they fight for their safety, dignity, and rights, or
  
• Make a tax-deductible contribution to Human Rights USA before year’s end.