On September 16

On this day in ...

... 1982 (30 years ago today), the BBC published reports that in the midst of civil war in Lebanon, over a thousand Palestinian refugees had been "been killed during a 24-hour rampage by Lebanese militia in West Beirut" (map credit), at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Links between that Christian Phalangist militia and the Israeli government prompted a judicial inquiry in Israel; the inquiry's report led to the 1983 resignation of Ariel Sharon, then Minister of Defense (though he'd be elected Prime Minister in 2001, and would serve till a 2006 stroke, which incapacitates him to this day). Efforts by survivors to sue extraterritorially on allegations of crimes against humanity failed, as detailed by IntLawGrrls contributor Deena Hurwitz in her "Universal Jurisdiction and the Dilemmas of International Criminal Justice: The Sabra and Shatila Case in Belgium," published as a chapter in Human Rights Advocacy Stories (2009), which Deena edited along with colleagues Margaret L. Satterthwaite and Doug Ford.

(Prior September 16 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

Nathan, J., et al.

Delighted to take note of a federal judicial 1st:
A Senate confirmation vote Thursday had the welcome result of placing the 1st of retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens' former law clerks on the federal bench.
She's our colleague Alison J. Nathan (right), now a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan.
Following her JPS clerkship, Ali had practiced as an associate at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, taught at Fordham University (prior post), and served both as an Associate White House Counsel and as a Special Counsel to the Solicitor General of New York.
Ali's pictured at left with her partner, our colleague Meg Satterthwaite (prior posts), a clinical law professor and human rights expert at New York University, their twin sons Oliver and Nathan, and President Barack Obama. (credit for official White House photo, made in July 2010 by Pete Souza)
On the same day last week, the Senate also approved 2 other women for the federal bench: Deputy U.S. Assistant Attorney General Katherine Forrest, who's also headed to the Southern District of New York, and state Judge Susan Hickey, who will serve in the Western District of Arkansas.

Heartfelt congratulations to all!

On the Job! NYU Human Rights Center Fellow

(On the Job! pays occasional notice to interesting intlaw job notices) Applications for a Center Fellow, who will serve for 1 year beginning in August 2009, are being sought by the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law.
Under the supervision of the Center’s Directors, Philip Alston, Margaret Satterthwaite, and Smita Narula, the Fellow will:
► Work in an independent manner on a wide variety of substantive projects;
► Support the work of the Center’s general operations, such as fundraising, event planning, supervision of the Center’s internship program;
► Be responsible for leading student teams and interns on several of the Center’s projects, via litigation, research, and advocacy. Current Center projects focus on:
► Human rights violations and counter-terrorism;
► The right to food and water in Haiti;
► Gender and counter-terrorism;
► Caste discrimination in South Asia;
► Corporate accountability for human rights violations; and
► Racial profiling in counter-terrorism and immigration.
Details on the position and qualifications sought may be found here.
Deadline for applications is April 30, 2009. They should be e-mailed to Ms. Kelly Ryan, ryank@exchange.law.nyu.edu, with the subject heading “Application for Center Fellow Position,” and must include a cover letter addressing the job qualifications, a CV, names or letters of reference, and an unedited writing sample of no more than 30 pages.

Scholars state detention changes

Seems everyone has notions these days about how to close the detention camp for terrorist suspects that the Bush Administration opened on January 11, 2002. Some are included in a report by a coalition of more than 20 organizations, entitled Liberty and Security: Recommendations for the Next Administration and Congress. IntLawGrrls’ own Fiona de Londras, in an excellent post, recently offered hers. I’ve my own, too, and will post them in due course. They begin with a pre-eminent concern, on which I posted more than a year ago. In closing Guantánamo as he has promised to do, the new President also must close “Guantánamo” – the abusive policies of detention, interrogation, and rendition now given that metaphoric label even if in point of fact they occur far away from the 45 square miles that comprise the U.S. naval base at Guantánamo Bay. (12/08 photo of Camp Justice, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, by Diane Marie Amann)
Today’s post is intended to point readers to the Scholars’ Statement of Principles for the New President on U.S. Detention Policy: An Agenda for Change. Drafted by our colleague Catherine Powell, also author of a human rights Blueprint on which we’ve posted, and signed by more than 2 dozen other scholars, among them yours truly, IntLawGrrl Jenny Martinez, and our colleagues Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Sarah H. Cleveland, Deborah Pearlstein, Hope Metcalf, Martha Minow, Judith Resnik, Margaret L. Satterthwaite, and Ruti Teitel. The Statement begins with an explication of how “the existing detention system,” -- “viewed as unprincipled, unreliable, and illegitimate” -- “undermines our national security.” It then sets forth 4 principles on which any new policy ought to be based:
► Observe the rule of law
► Liberty is the norm
► Individualized process
► Transparency
Then follows a host of recommendations for the new administration. As one would expect, it calls on the President to “Close Guantánamo” – to close it in the broader sense. Detainees who can be released are to be released; those should be prosecuted are to be transferred to the United States for prosecution before “established U.S. courts,” and not the military commissions. The Statement urges the Administration to attend to U.S. detention at other sites, “primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan.” It calls for an end to extraordinary rendition, and it admits no tolerance for abuse during detention or interrogation.
In short, the Statement's a document essential to thorough consideration of what to do to undo post-9/11 detention policies.

Go On! "Preventing Torture"

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia of interest.) Insufficiently noted when issued was a November 2007 statement on combating torture, set forth by the U.N. Committee Against Torture (CAT) in its General Comment No. 2.
The General Comment elaborates on Article 2 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which states in full:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

A careful look at the General Comment will be taken by a host of panelists at "Preventing Torture," a symposium to be held this Friday, March 28, 2008, at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. As cosponsors -- the New York City Law Review, a student journal at the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law, and the International Human Rights Committee of the city's bar association -- put it in their conference brochure:

The General Comment addresses key fault lines in the absolute prohibition against torture and ill-treatment that have been opened in the name of counter-terrorism. It also underscores the applicability of the Convention to sexualized and gender violence, where perpetrated by state officials as well as where state officials acquiesce to private violence, including domestic violence.
Speakers will address the authority, adequacy, and policy implications of the General Comment. Since the U.S. is a State party to the CAT, speakers will also address the relevance of the Comment to current laws and practices of the Bush administration and to positive reforms and initiatives needed to bring U.S. law and practice into compliance with its international commitments to eliminate torture and ill-treatment in every sphere.

Among those speakers will be several women who're experts on these questions, a number of whom we've featured in prior posts. Among the CAT members who'll speak are Felice Gaer (top left), former Vice-Chair and current Rapporteur of CAT, as well as Co-Rapporteur for General Comment No. 2, and Nora Sveaass (bottom left), President of the Norwegian Psychological Association's Human Rights Committee. Other panelists will include: Patricia Viseur Sellers, former Legal Advisor for Gender-Related Crimes, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; New York University Professor Margaret L. Satterthwaite, Research Director of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice; CUNY Professor Rhonda Copelon, Director of the International Women's Human Rights Clinic; and Columbia Professor Betty Reardon, Founding Director Emeritus of the Peace Education Program.
Details here.

Globally Disappeared

Questions've been raised about the accuracy vel non of the term "Global War on Terror" almost since its inception. Is it correct, many ask, to label the campaign a "war"? Can one fight "terror"? Or ought the campaign target, rather, acts of terrorism? Though less has been said about the 1st word, 2 recent reports on persons who've been ghosted into secret detention counsel more consideration of the campaign's "global" nature.
Six NGOS -- Amnesty International, Cageprisoners, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University School of Law, Human Rights Watch, and Reprieve -- focus "Off the Record" on U.S. conduct. The report names more than 3 dozen persons -- including 1 woman and her 3 children, aged 6 months to 7 years -- whom they believe have been detained in secret. "'Enforced disappearances are illegal, regardless of who carries them out,'" said NYU's Meg Satterthwaite on release of the report, which points to violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and of the Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is party, as well as the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance opened for signature in February.
As remarkable as the role of the United States in in this account is the involvement of intelligence agencies from other states. Nearly 2/3 of the seizures cited occurred in Pakistan, where the issue of disappearance has sparked unrest. Other countries of capture: Somalia, Afghanistan, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Sudan, and Georgia.
That last country, of course, is in Europe -- and a report to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe indicates that Georgia was by no means the only European state involved in secret detention. Rapporteur Dick Marty named Poland and Romania as the location of CIA "black sites" for detainees believed to have high intelligence value. Neither country acted alone, in Marty's opinion; to the contrary, he concluded that they and other states aided the U.S. effort within the framework of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization "platform" agreement reached just weeks after the 9/11 attack (¶¶ 72-111). Marty attributed his ability to ferret out facts that states want to keep secret to the "dynamics of truth" -- often, a sense among Europeans that since President George W. Bush conceded the existence of the program he said he'd keep secret, they might as well tell the story, under promise of anonymity, from their perspective. He called for further inquiry, greater accountability, and a return to the rule of law:

We are fully aware of the seriousness of the terrorist threat and the danger it poses to our societies. ... The fight against terrorism must not serve as an excuse for systematic recourse to illegal acts, massive violation of fundamental human rights and contempt for the rule of law. ... [H]aving recourse to abuse and illegal acts actually amounts to a resounding failure of our system and plays right into the hands of the criminals who seek to destroy our societies through terror. ... [I]n the process, we give these criminals a degree of legitimacy -- that of fighting an unfair system .... (¶ 14)

(Next counterterrorism update: the status of accountability, at home and abroad.)