SAVE THE DATE: Special Event to Mark the 10th Anniversary of the U.S. Invasion of Iraq

Event Notice

March 26, 2013

“For Us, The Wars Aren’t Over: The Right to Heal Initiative”

7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Wasserstein 2012

Food will be served

Ten years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Human Rights Program and organizations from across the Harvard and Boston communities mark the anniversary with speakers from two groups still living with the consequences of the last decade of U.S.-led wars: Iraqis and U.S. veterans and service members.  Members of the Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq and Iraq Veterans Against the War will speak about the costs of war they share.  Together with attorneys from the Center for Constitutional Rights and Harvard Law School, they will discuss the Right to Heal Initiative, the partnership they have formed to fight for redress.

Speakers:

Yanar Mohammed, President, Organisation of Women’s Freedom in Iraq
Ms. Mohammed is the founder of OWFI, a nongovernmental organization that promotes women’s rights and interests in Iraq.  She will speak about OWFI’s work in an Iraqi town near a U.S. military base that has seen dramatic increases in the incidence of birth defects, cancers, and other severe health ailments.

Matt Howard, Member, Iraq Veterans Against the War
Mr. Howard served two tours in Iraq with the Marine Corps.  He will discuss the costs of war for U.S. service members and veterans, particularly the obstacles that prevent too many from receiving proper medical and mental health care.  IVAW and its subcommittee, Afghan Veterans Against the War, have advocated for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and for reparations to Iraqis for the costs of war.

Pamela Spees, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights

Ms. Spees will discuss CCR’s role as a support player in the Right to Heal’s collaborative project to ensure the U.S. takes concrete steps for health care, accountability, and reparations.

Moderator: Deborah Alejandra Popowski, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School

This event is being co-sponsored by: HLS Advocates for Human Rights, Harvard National Security and Law Association, Islamic Society of Boston, National Lawyers Guild (Mass. Chapter), Veterans for Peace (Ch. 9, Smedley D. Butler Brigade), BC Law Holocaust/Human Rights Project, HKS Human Rights Professional Interest Council, HLS American Constitution Society, HLS Democrats, HLS Human Rights Journal, Harvard International Law Journal, HLS Muslim Law Students Association, Harvard Women’s Law Association, HSPH Muslim Student Group, MIT Amnesty International, MIT Center for International Studies, MIT Muslim Student Association, Northeastern Univ. Arab Student Association, Human Rights Caucus at Northeastern Univ. School of Law, Tufts Univ. New Initiative for Middle East Peace, Tufts Univ. Fletcher School Human Rights Project

Announced at HRP Event: UN to Investigate Civilian Deaths from Drone Strikes

Posted by Cara Solomon

At a packed event co-sponsored by HRP and the Harvard National Security and Law Association, Ben Emmerson, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism, announced a UN investigation yesterday into civilian deaths from drone attacks, as well as other forms of targeted killings conducted during counter-terrorism operations.

In his remarks, which you can read here, Emmerson took aim at the Obama administration for neither confirming nor denying the existence of the U.S. drone program- while publicly trying to justify the legality of drone strikes.

“In reality the administration is holding its finger in the dam of public accountability,” he said, according to the prepared remarks. “There are now a large number of law suits, in different parts of the world, including in the UK, Pakistan and in the US itself, through which pressure for investigation and accountability is building.”

He pointed to figures from the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism that suggest at least 474 civilians have been killed in Pakistan alone, and that 176 children are reported among the deaths. (For more on civilian deaths from drones, here is a joint report recently released from Stanford University and New York University, “Living Under Drones.”)

Emmerson also delved into the U.S. presidential elections, particularly around the issue of waterboarding, which Obama believes is torture. Mitt Romney has said he does not believe it is torture.

“Let us be clear on this,” Emmerson said. “Secret detention is unlawful as a matter of international law.  Water-boarding is always torture.  Torture is an international crime of universal jurisdiction. The torturer, like the pirate before him, is regarded in international law as the enemy of all mankind.  There is, therefore, a duty on States to investigate and to prosecute acts of torture.”

Mindy Roseman, Academic Director for HRP, said she was struck by the substance of his speech. The event has already made international news.

“Emmerson’s announcement is bold and courageous, and at the very least should renew interest in holding the US government accountable for military actions, such as drone strikes, ostensibly undertaken to stop terrorism,” she said.

For those with particularly sharp eyes, here is a classroom video of the event. And here is a selection of media coverage of Emmerson’s speech:

The Guardian

The Washington Post

The Harvard Crimson

Common Dreams

Today: Human Rights, Counterterrorism, and the U.S. Elections

Event Notice

October 25, 2012

“Enemies of All Mankind”

A Talk by Ben Emmerson

UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism

12- 1 pm

Hauser 104

Lunch Provided

Ben Emmerson QC will describe the principal challenges currently facing his UN mandate, including recent developments on the accountability of public officials for involvement in the US policies of targeted killing, torture, secret detention and rendition.  He will also address the positions taken on some of these key issues by the candidates to the US Presidential Election, and give an overview of the human rights issues currently heading the UN’s counter-terrorism agenda.

Emmerson has more than 25 years of experience in domestic and international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. He has litigated extensively in domestic courts, the European Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, including on domestic and international terrorism cases.

If We Could Ask the Candidates One Question, It Would Be…

Posted by Amelia Evans, LLM ’11

It’s impossible to turn on the radio, walk into a coffee shop, or even sit down at the dinner table without hearing talk of the latest U.S. presidential debate topics.  But amidst the analysis of bird-counts and who has the largest binder full of ladies, certain issues are clearly being silenced in the election—and in U.S. political discourse altogether.

On the day of the final presidential debate, I asked staff at HRP and HIRC: if you had the chance, what question would you put to the candidates tonight?  Here’s what some of them said.

Tyler Giannini:  “When will Guantánamo be closed?”

Meera Shah: “Governor Romney, you’ve stated that you would make U.S. military and foreign aid to Egypt conditional on its respect for human rights. Do you intend to hold other recipients of U.S. aid, such as Israel, which gets $3.1 billion annually in U.S. aid, accountable to the same standards?  President Obama, how will you promote respect for human rights in countries receiving U.S. aid?”

Cara Solomon: “What is the one issue you care deeply about but do not mention on the campaign trail—and why?”

Phil Torrey: “One of the greatest powers a President has is nominating judges to serve in the federal judiciary.  Currently, there is an alarming number of vacant federal judge positions, which severely hampers individuals’ access to justice.  What is your strategy for addressing this problem, and based on what criteria would you nominate federal judges for confirmation?”

Yennifer Pedraza:  “As a recent college graduate, I’m concerned about my future.  The presidential campaigns have focused much of their attention on small businesses.  Yet, in a world where a bachelors degree is necessary to get even a basic job, my loans and interest rates are overwhelmingly high, so a small business is far from my mind and beyond my scope of opportunity.  What are you going to do to help current students and graduates who are paying off loans with interest rates ranging from seven to ten percent?  How will you help these individuals get to a place where they can envision a future without debt, as home owners, with the ability to financially support a family?”

Mindy Roseman: “What is your position on the Helms amendment, which prohibits U.S. foreign assistance to go to any organizations that work to legalize or provide services related to abortion?”

Fernando Delgado:  “Though the United States is a diverse nation, it has a political system dominated by only two parties.  Many citizens express frustration with this dearth of viable electoral choices.  What steps, if any, would you take to encourage a move away from two-party system in the United States?  For instance, would you support the modest electoral reform of instituting a two-round voting system with a multi-party first round and second round run-off between the top two candidates?  In several multi-party democracies around the world, a two- round electoral system encourages citizens to vote for candidates who actually best represent their views by eliminating the fear that a vote for an independent or small party candidate would be irrelevant to the outcome of the election or ‘wasted.’  Citizens could save their ‘strategic’ voting between the two front-runners for the second round run-off.”

Bonnie Rubrecht: “For nearly two decades, the Violence Against Women Act has protected undocumented immigrant women from abuse by American citizens.  Now its reauthorization is stalled in Congress.  If this act is allowed to expire, what protections will be provided to the women who are currently covered under it?”

And me?  I would ask something raised by one of our clinical students, Sean Hamidi, last week: “I am hearing a lot about ‘the very wealthy’ and even more about ‘the middle-class,’ but I am hearing absolutely nothing about ‘the people living in poverty.’  Why?”

Amelia Evans, LLM ’11, was the 2011-2012 Global Human Rights Fellow.  She is currently preparing to launch a new organization, the Institute for Multi-Stakeholder Initiative Integrity.

Performance Art (and Other Pictures from HRP Orientation)

Posted by Cara Solomon

Here’s a Friday afternoon treat for you: an iconic image from the law school experience.

When Fernando spotted this display at our recent HRP Orientation, he rightly described it as a piece of performance art—except, of course, that it wasn’t.

Below are some other images from the event. Apologies in advance for the poor picture quality, and a belated thanks to all who came, learned, and ate. We were so happy to have you there.

Tyler talks to a full house at HRP Orientation.Thanks for coming!

Fernando speaks with students about his work on prison reform in Brazil.

Mindy and Deborah speak with a student about (I’m guessing here) their fall seminar on Gender and Human Rights.

Ana Lise Feliciano Hansen and James Tager, co-presidents of HLS Advocates for Human Rights, speak with a student about the group’s work. My bet is that James is saying something odd here. Hence, the laugh.

Meera speaks with a student about her projects in the Middle East.

Psychologists Demand Accountability for Torture from APA Ethics Committee

Posted by Deborah Popowski

Last week, psychologist advocates Trudy Bond and Steven Reisner sent the open letter below to the American Psychological Association president.  The letter calls for a review of the organization’s failure to investigate allegations that APA psychologists, including current Wright State University School of Professional Psychology Dean Larry James, were implicated in torture and other forms of prisoner abuse.

Open Letter to

President Suzanne Bennett Johnson

American Psychological Association

A.P.A. has taken a very strong stance against the use of torture, inhumane, and degrading treatment, and if anyone is able to identify A.P.A. members who have been involved in such activities, we will take disciplinary action.

– Gerald Koocher, former APA President, speaking on Democracy Now! (June 16, 2006)

September 18, 2012

Dear Dr. Johnson:

We are two psychologists committed to making certain that psychologists implicated in torture and prisoner abuse are held accountable by oversight bodies for their egregious ethical violations. We believe the public trust and the reputation of our profession depend upon such accountability.

We are writing at this time regarding ethics complaints filed with the APA Ethics Office against three psychologists who remain APA members in good standing: Dr. Michael Gelles, Dr. Larry James and Dr. John Francis Leso. Based on undisputed facts, these cases cry out for investigation and appropriate censure. We would like to briefly review some of the evidence for these complaints and express our concern with regard to the status of each complaint.

Adnan Latif Died on Saturday

Posted by Deborah Popowski

Adnan Latif died on Saturday. He died in Guantánamo.  The Pentagon says he was 32 years old. David Remes, one of his lawyers, says that his documents show that he was 35 or 36 years old.  Given the U.S. government’s dismal track record in getting its facts straight on the people they have rendered, tortured and detained for years without charge, I’ll go with David’s assessment.

Adnan Latif, who died on Saturday in Guantánamo after being held there since 2002, without charge or trial.

Either way, Adnan and I were close in age.

Of all the things I could write about, this is what I keep coming back to.  I’m trying to figure out what it is about this particular piece of horror news that is making me cry.  This is a question worth asking when reading horror news is a big part of what you do for a living, and the things that once made you cry – the things that you imagined would make everyone cry – stop doing so as regularly, probably because crying all the time, every day, would be too hard.

Last night, I taught my first class of the semester, and today, the mad, exhilarating rush of project work begins, but all I can think about is how long a decade is.  I’ve been thinking about how when Adnan was 25, or maybe 24, my government bought Adnan from the Pakistanis for $5000, and flew him, shackled and drugged, to Guantánamo. And how it was around the same time that this same government flew me to Niger to serve in the Peace Corps, where I explained to Muslims that, never mind what they heard on the radio, my country was not at war with Islam.

The series of images flickers by, our decades in review in split-screen, the realization that for the last ten years, while I made my way through nine homes and a dozen countries; while I explored two other careers before applying to, attending, graduating from and coming back to teach law school; while I was meeting, befriending, falling in love with and marrying my husband—Adnan was sitting, pacing, writing, and fighting in a cell, ill and far from his loved ones.

His lawyer David, who spent the better part of the last few years fighting alongside Adnan for justice, released this statement about him:

“Slightly built and gentle, he was a father and husband. He was a talented poet and was devoutly religious. He never posed a threat to the United States, and he never should have been brought to Guantanamo. The military has not stated a cause of death. However Adnan died, it was Guantanamo that killed him. His death is a reminder of the human cost of the government’s Guantanamo detention policy and underscores the urgency of releasing detainees the government does not intend to prosecute.”

Adam Cohen of The Atlantic summarizes here, with devastating efficiency, the perversity of the system that brought him to this death.

Reckoning With Torture: A Free Public Reading on August 21

Event Notice

“Reckoning with Torture”

8 pm

Central Square Theater

450 Massachusetts Avenue

Cambridge, MA

This free public event will feature a dramatic reading of official documents, including testimonies of torture from the “War on Terror.” These declassified documents are among more than 130,000 obtained by the ACLU and partners, who litigated for years to make them public. Following the readings, Clinical Instructor Deborah Popowski, of the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School, will moderate a conversation with the audience and the actors involved.

This performance is part of the ACLU’s larger “Reckoning with Torture” project, based on the premise that engaging with the documentary record is a key step towards coming to terms with the human rights abuses committed by the U.S. government. Director Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity) will produce a film from the footage of readings by professional actors, former military officials, and ordinary people. To learn how you can contribute your own reading and submit the footage, click here.

Interview with Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International: On Respecting Human Rights, from Bahrain to Guantanamo Bay

Posted by Cara Solomon

Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International, spoke last month at Harvard Law School.

Last month, Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, drew more than 100 students for a fascinating lecture entitled “Ending Double Standards: Human Rights in the World Today.”  For a copy of his remarks, click here.

Clinical student James Tager, JD ’13, later followed up with Shetty in an interview about everything from the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa to the need for strong human rights advocacy in the United States. Below is an edited version of that interview, which is also posted in the Harvard Human Rights Journal.

JT: In your lecture, you said that “the clear cut division that the purists sometimes like to make in the human rights world—between civil and political rights on the one hand and economic social and cultural rights, on the other—was exposed as meaningless” by the Arab Awakening. Can you elaborate on what you meant by that?

SS: Let’s take Tunisia, for example, and look at the case of Mohamed Bouazizi.  Bouazizi was the Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire in protest, an action which then set Tunisia on fire, which set Egypt on fire.  If you were to ask: Was he unhappy about his unemployed status, and the fact that he didn’t have a livelihood?  Or was he protesting against the fact that he couldn’t express himself freely, and he had no way of getting any redress?  And the answer, obviously, is both.  Bouazizi’s actions were a graphic illustration of that.

There are other graphic illustrations.  In Egypt, 40% of the population in Cairo lives in slums, with very uncertain tenure.  I visited many of the slums in Cairo—Manshiyat Naser and others—where people are forcibly evicted.  Then, when they go to the government to complain, they are further repressed, and there is massive corruption.  So there is really a combination of factors at play here.

There’s another example in my mind that is particularly poignant, of a woman in a favela in Saô Paulo, who is in an abusive relationship with her husband, who doesn’t have a next meal to look forward to, and who has no security from the police.

The bottom line here, the thread that connects all of these stories together, is:  It is those who are poor who have no voice, and those who have no voice who are poor.  With this in mind, the distinction between civil-political rights and economic-social-cultural rights becomes a bit meaningless.  Legally, of course, we understand that there are different Covenants that enumerate different rights, and so on.  But in a very practical way, the distinction doesn’t mean much.

Today: Candy and the Clinical Forum!

Posted by Cara Solomon

We’ve put away the chips and salsa from yesterday’s Open House and we’re moving on to…CANDY for tomorrow’s Clinical Forum!

Please join us for a delicious and non-nutritious assortment of treats from 6:00-8:00 pm in Milstein East BC. This is your chance to:

- Chat with our clinicians about their projects and seminars.

- Grill our students about what it’s like to be a member of the Clinic.

- Learn about the dozens of other clinical programs at HLS , including Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, our neighbor in the clinical wing and, more importantly, our friend!

Formal announcement below. Hope to see you soon.