DOCSLIB.ORG

Print: Bush's Plan to Erode Our Liberties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Print: Bush's Plan to Erode Our Liberties Print: Bush's Plan to Erode Our Liberties http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/huq/print Bush's Plan to Erode Our Liberties by AZIZ HUQ June 8, 2007 Early this week, judge advocates halted two prosecutions in the Guantánamo military commissions established under the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA). This is not the first setback the Administration's second-tier court system has hit; the Supreme Court invalidated an earlier iteration of the commissions in 2006. And it won't be the last. But while this week's setback likely will be speedily surmounted, it casts an unexpected light on the MCA's real purposes, and what's at stake when the Bush Administration plays politics with national security. Understanding the significance of this week's ruling means delving into a bit of procedural arcana. The devil in the MCA is, almost literally, in the details--and unless we attend closely to the rococo details of the statute, we'll miss the ways in which the Administration intends to slowly erode our liberties. At the beginning of this week, the military commissions' two judges--Army Col. Peter Brownback and Navy Capt. Keith Allred--dismissed charges filed against Omar Khadr and Salim Hamdan. The rulings focused on a question of categorization--basically, the judges found that Khadr and Hamdan had been wrongly classified. But how did this happen? The MCA, which created the military commissions, states that only an alien who is an "unlawful enemy combatant" can be tried in a military commission. It also defines "unlawful enemy combatants" in tremendously sweeping terms to include anyone who has "materially supported hostilities." Many civil libertarians, including myself, expressed grave concerns about the scope of this provision. Read in tandem with recent Supreme Court cases, it might be taken not merely as a gateway to trial by military commission but also as a sweeping new executive detention authority. The MCA doesn't say how a person gets designated as an "unlawful enemy combatant." But all except one of the detainees at Guantánamo have already all been classified as enemy combatants by a procedure known as a CSRT, or Combatant Status Review Tribunal. (The one exception is a prisoner recently transferred to the base.) CSRTs are shoddy summary procedures in which the detainee has barely a role and cannot respond to the secret evidence used to detain him. Problems arose this week not because of the flaws in the CSRT procedures but because the definition of "enemy combatant" that the CSRT uses isn't the same as the definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" in the MCA. Judges Brownback and Allred focused on this divergence and basically told the military that it couldn't fit a square peg in a round hole: A person designated by a CSRT as an "enemy combatant" isn't an MCA-compliant "unlawful enemy combatant." Nevertheless, Hamdan and Khadr likely qualify as "unlawful enemy combatants" under the MCA's absurdly sweeping definition. So the likely next step will be a do-over. (And a do-over appears easy: The MCA allows a CSRT or "another competent tribunal" to do the designation.) This stumble for the commissions, in short, is unlikely to turn into a fall. 1 of 3 10/16/2008 6:24 PM Print: Bush's Plan to Erode Our Liberties http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/huq/print At one level, this is just another story of Bush Administration incompetence: No one looked at the Pentagon's rules when they were drafting the MCA. Today, we find out there's a technical mismatch. Just another screw-up, right? Well, no. It's more than just peculiar: The MCA was enacted to allow the military commissions to go forward. And yet the provision that couples the detention system and the new military commissions wasn't carefully drafted. But this is simply implausible in this situation. A tremendous amount of care went into the drafting the MCA, as one glance at its elaborate provisions shows. A great deal of care, for example, went into giving government torturers and their bosses retroactive immunity--including through the specification of the precise month and day that the immunity would kick in. In a statute drafted with tremendous care--and word-by-word White House editing, I do not doubt--the disparity is not just evidence of familiar incompetence: It is evidence of something far more troubling. In obtaining a broad definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" at a time of partisan panic and electoral heat, the Administration has laid the groundwork for justifying future detention operations on firmer legal grounds. It is stashed away as a weapon to be leveled against the basic human liberty from governmental detention. Today, the definition may be a gateway to the military commissions--but that was always a secondary end. In the heat of crisis, the same provision may well be invoked for far, far more. After all, military commissions function as a mere auxiliary to the present detention system. Consider more closely the cases of Khadr and Hamdan. What do they win by winning this week? A return ticket back to Guantánamo's endless hell of cages, beatings and suicide. Just because they cannot be tried, argues the Administration, doesn't mean they cannot be held--even indefinitely. Any victory for a detainee in a military commission, indeed, is a hollow one so long as the government asserts authority to detain them indefinitely regardless of whether they are convicted in a military court. There are other bits of the MCA that betray a gap between the White House's claimed need for speed and the facts on the ground. Take interrogation rules: Standing in the White House surrounded by 9/11 family members, President Bush solemnly declared the "urgent" need for new law because of the CIA's need for new interrogation rules. The need was urgent, argued Bush, because the Geneva Convention rules about interrogation were "vague," and the CIA desperately needed guidance. But vagueness wasn't the problem and the need wasn't pressing. In February 2002, the Administration had rejected the Geneva rules in favor of an open-ended standard of "humane" treatment. As Fritz Schwarz and I have argued, this standard meant nothing: What was "humane" depended on a mushy "all things considered" approach that allowed executive officials to override a detainee's dignity if they thought the need compelling enough. And the Administration used this vagueness to promote and put into practice harsh measures like "cold cells" and "waterboarding." And there was no rush either. The CIA is still waiting for an executive order that sets out new interrogation rules and new limits on coercive interrogation. The forward-looking changes to the antitorture rules were no response to immediate needs. Consider this: If--heaven forbid--another attack were to occur, think about how much easier it would be to use this new statutory framework to secure a new and harsher set of coercive interrogation rules. 2 of 3 10/16/2008 6:24 PM Print: Bush's Plan to Erode Our Liberties http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/huq/print That's the situation the MCA sets up. What this week's rulings show is that the White House's protests about the urgency of the MCA were false and that the Administration was going for bigger fish. It was laying the foundation of a far broader detention and coercive interrogation policy for the future. And in large part, this effort has succeeded. This is why the MCA needs to be rolled back: It is far more than a piecemeal erosion of the rights of Guantánamo detainees. It is the spearhead of a more sustained and long-term incursion on all our civil liberties. Senator Christopher Dodd was one of the first to introduce legislation pushing back against the MCA. Many pieces akin to his bill have been introduced in a piecemeal fashion--most important the restoration of habeas corpus--but none is as comprehensive as Dodd's bill. There's no chance Dodd's bill will pass this Congress, but the votes to overcome a filibuster, let alone a veto, just aren't there. Nevertheless, it should be passed into law as soon as politically feasible. Pieces of it--such as habeas restoration--are getting some significant attention, although to date not enough. (And for this Congress to dissolve without restoring habeas corpus would be a heavy strike against its Democratic leaders.) It is Congress today that must fix the structural damage it inflicted in the MCA--and the quicker it does so, the safer all our liberties will be. About Aziz Huq Aziz Huq directs the liberty and national security project at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. He is co-author of Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a Time of Terror (New Press, 2007) He is a 2006 recipient of the Carnegie Scholars Fellowship and has published scholarship in the Columbia Law Review, the Yearbook of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law, and the New School's Constellations Journal. He has also written for Himal Southasian, Legal Times and the American Prospect, and appeared as a commentator on Democracy Now! and NPR's Talk of the Nation. more... Copyright © 2008 The Nation 3 of 3 10/16/2008 6:24 PM.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Day Two of Military Judge Questioning 9/11 Accused About Self-Representation
    Public amnesty international USA Guantánamo: Day two of military judge questioning 9/11 accused about self-representation 11 July 2008 AI Index: AMR 51/077/2008 On 10 July 2008, military commission judge US Marine Colonel Ralph Kohlmann held further proceedings to question the men accused of orchestrating the attacks of 11 September 2001 about their decision to represent themselves at their forthcoming death penalty trial in the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Amnesty International had an observer at the proceedings. The primary purpose of the hearings was to inquire of each of the accused individually about whether they had been intimidated before or during their arraignment on 5 June 2008 into making a choice to represent themselves, or whether this decision had been made knowingly and voluntarily. Judge Kohlmann had questioned two of the accused, ‘Ali ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ‘Ali (‘Ammar al Baluchi) and Mustafa al Hawsawi at individual sessions held on 9 July (see http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/076/2008/en). He had scheduled sessions for the other three men, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Ramzi bin al-Shibh on 10 July. In the event, Ramzi bin al-Shibh refused to come to his session. It seems unlikely that the military judge will question him again on the matter of legal representation until the issue of Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s mental competency is addressed at a hearing scheduled to take place next month (see http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/074/2008/en). Both Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Walid bin Attash denied that they had been intimidated or that any intimidation had taken place.
    [Show full text]
  • \\Crewserver05\Data\Research & Investigations\Most Ethical Public
    Stephen Abraham Exhibits EXHIBIT 1 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings - New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/us/23gitmo.html?pagewanted=print July 23, 2007 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings By WILLIAM GLABERSON NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — Stephen E. Abraham’s assignment to the Pentagon unit that runs the hearings at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, seemed a perfect fit. A lawyer in civilian life, he had been decorated for counterespionage and counterterrorism work during 22 years as a reserve Army intelligence officer in which he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. His posting, just as the Guantánamo hearings were accelerating in 2004, gave him a close-up view of the government’s detention policies. It also turned him into one of the Bush administration’s most unlikely adversaries. In June, Colonel Abraham became the first military insider to criticize publicly the Guantánamo hearings, which determine whether detainees should be held indefinitely as enemy combatants. Just days after detainees’ lawyers submitted an affidavit containing his criticisms, the United States Supreme Court reversed itself and agreed to hear an appeal arguing that the hearings are unjust and that detainees have a right to contest their detentions in federal court. Some lawyers say Colonel Abraham’s account — of a hearing procedure that he described as deeply flawed and largely a tool for commanders to rubber-stamp decisions they had already made — may have played an important role in the justices’ highly unusual reversal. That decision once again brought the administration face to face with the vexing legal, political and diplomatic questions about the fate of Guantánamo and the roughly 360 men still held there.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oath a Film by Laura Poitras
    The Oath A film by Laura Poitras POV www.pbs.org/pov DISCUSSION GUIDe The Oath POV Letter frOm the fiLmmakers New YorK , 2010 I was first interested in making a film about Guantanamo in 2003, when I was also beginning a film about the war in Iraq. I never imagined Guantanamo would still be open when I finished that film, but sadly it was — and still is today. originally, my idea for the Oath was to make a film about some - one released from Guantanamo and returning home. In May 2007, I traveled to Yemen looking to find that story and that’s when I met Abu Jandal, osama bin Laden’s former bodyguard, driving a taxicab in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen. I wasn’t look - ing to make a film about Al-Qaeda, but that changed when I met Abu Jandal. Themes of betrayal, guilt, loyalty, family and absence are not typically things that come to mind when we imagine a film about Al-Qaeda and Guantanamo. Despite the dangers of telling this story, it compelled me. Born in Saudi Arabia of Yemeni parents, Abu Jandal left home in 1993 to fight jihad in Bosnia. In 1996 he recruited Salim Ham - dan to join him for jihad in Tajikistan. while traveling through Laura Poitras, filmmaker of the Oath . Afghanistan, they were recruited by osama bin Laden. Abu Jan - Photo by Khalid Al Mahdi dal became bin Laden's personal bodyguard and “emir of Hos - pitality.” Salim Hamdan became bin Laden’s driver. Abu Jandal ends up driving a taxi and Hamdan ends up at Guantanamo.
    [Show full text]
  • No Torture. No Exceptions
    NO TORTURE. NO EXCEPTIONS. The above sketch by Thomas V. Curtis, a former Reserve M.P. sergeant, is of New York Times an Afghan detainee, Dilawar, who was taken into U.S. custody on December 5, 2002, and died five days later. Dilawar was deprived of sleep and chained to the ceiling of his cell—techniques that the Bush administration has refused to outlaw for use by the CIA. Further, his legs were, according to a coroner, “pulpified” by repeated blows. Later evidence showed that Dilawar had no connection to the rocket attack for which he’d been apprehended. A sketch by Thomas Curtis, V. a Reserve M.P./The 16 January/February/March 2008 Introduction n most issues of the Washington Monthly, we favor ar- long-term psychological effects also haunt patients—panic ticles that we hope will launch a debate. In this issue attacks, depression, and symptoms of post-traumatic-stress Iwe seek to end one. The unifying message of the ar- disorder. It has long been prosecuted as a crime of war. In our ticles that follow is, simply, Stop. In the wake of Septem- view, it still should be. ber 11, the United States became a nation that practiced Ideally, the election in November would put an end to torture. Astonishingly—despite the repudiation of tor- this debate, but we fear it won’t. John McCain, who for so ture by experts and the revelations of Guantanamo and long was one of the leading Republican opponents of the Abu Ghraib—we remain one. As we go to press, President White House’s policy on torture, voted in February against George W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Value of Claiming Torture: an Analysis of Al-Qaeda's Tactical Lawfare Strategy and Efforts to Fight Back, 43 Case W
    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 43 | Issue 1 2010 The alueV of Claiming Torture: An Analysis of Al- Qaeda's Tactical Lawfare Strategy and Efforts to Fight Back Michael J. Lebowitz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael J. Lebowitz, The Value of Claiming Torture: An Analysis of Al-Qaeda's Tactical Lawfare Strategy and Efforts to Fight Back, 43 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 357 (2010) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol43/iss1/22 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. File: Lebowitz 2 Created on: 1/9/2011 9:48:00 PM Last Printed: 4/5/2011 8:09:00 PM THE VALUE OF CLAIMING TORTURE: AN ANALYSIS OF AL-QAEDA’S TACTICAL LAWFARE STRATEGY AND EFFORTS TO FIGHT BACK Michael J. Lebowitz* I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 357 II. CLAIMING TORTURE TO SHAPE THE BATTLEFIELD .............................. 361 A. Tactical Lawfare ........................................................................... 362 B. Faux Torture ................................................................................. 364 C. The Torture Benchmark ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • True and False Confessions: the Efficacy of Torture and Brutal
    Chapter 7 True and False Confessions The Efficacy of Torture and Brutal Interrogations Central to the debate on the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques is the question of whether those techniques are effective in gaining intelligence. If the techniques are the only way to get actionable intelligence that prevents terrorist attacks, their use presents a moral dilemma for some. On the other hand, if brutality does not produce useful intelligence — that is, it is not better at getting information than other methods — the debate is moot. This chapter focuses on the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation technique program. There are far fewer people who defend brutal interrogations by the military. Most of the military’s mistreatment of captives was not authorized in detail at high levels, and some was entirely unauthorized. Many military captives were either foot soldiers or were entirely innocent, and had no valuable intelligence to reveal. Many of the perpetrators of abuse in the military were young interrogators with limited training and experience, or were not interrogators at all. The officials who authorized the CIA’s interrogation program have consistently maintained that it produced useful intelligence, led to the capture of terrorist suspects, disrupted terrorist attacks, and saved American lives. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a 2009 speech, stated that the enhanced interrogation of captives “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” President George W. Bush similarly stated in his memoirs that “[t]he CIA interrogation program saved lives,” and “helped break up plots to attack military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.” John Brennan, President Obama’s recent nominee for CIA director, said, of the CIA’s program in a televised interview in 2007, “[t]here [has] been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Personal Jurisdiction of Military Commissions1 (August 9, 2008)
    Taking Liberties: The Personal Jurisdiction of Military Commissions1 (August 9, 2008) Madeline Morris2 with Yaniv Adar, Margarita Clarens, Joshua Haber, Allison Hester-Haddad, David Maxted, James McDonald, George (‘Wes’) Quinton, Dennis Schmelzer, and Jeffrey Ward I. Introduction On September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda operatives attacked civilian and military targets on US territory, causing thousands of deaths and billions of dollars of economic loss. The next day, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1368 characterizing the attack by Al Qaeda as a “threat to international peace and security” and recognizing the right of states to use armed force in self defense.3 NATO, for the first time in its history, invoked the obligation of collective self defense under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.4 On September 14, the US Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, authorizing the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks. .” 5 Terrorism, conceived until then as crime, was reconceived—as war. On November 13, 2001, invoking the law of war, President Bush announced that enemy combatants in the US “war on terror” would be subject to trial by military commission—a form of military tribunal last convened in the aftermath of World War II. Issuing a Presidential Military Order (PMO), he stated: 1 © Madeline Morris 2007. 2 Professor of Law, Duke Law School. 3 S.C. Res. 1368, U.N. SCOR, 56th Sess., 4370th mtg., U.N. Doc. S/RES/1368 (Sept. 12 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • Waterboarding: Political and Sacred Torture Stephen F
    chapter 9 Waterboarding: Political and Sacred Torture Stephen F. Eisenman The Scene of Politics After the release of photographs of tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in May 2003, a Gallup Poll indicated that 54 percent of Americans were “bothered a great deal” by the revelations. A year later the number had declined to 40 percent. In December 2005 an AP/IPSOS poll revealed that 61 percent of Americans agreed that torture was justifi ed, at least on some occasions.1 A May 2006 report by the UN High Commission for Human Rights about US torture at Guantánamo Bay was widely reported in newspapers, radio, and television, but produced no major outcries, public protests, or congressional investigations. Soon thereafter, President Bush— invoking the fi ctional “ticking bomb” scenario—successfully argued to Congress that the CIA should be allowed to use so-called “alternative interrogation procedures” and be given immunity from criminal prosecu- tion for prisoner abuse and war crimes. Despite the efforts of a few sena- tors, notably Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Joe Biden of Delaware, that immunity was granted. The US public and its representatives, it would seem, were not bothered by the fact 129 This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Thu, 30 Jun 2016 01:27:50 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms CCarlson-Partarlson-Part IIII.inddII.indd 112929 77/2/2012/2/2012 44:54:33:54:33 PPMM 130 Stephen F. Eisenman that the US government permitted and even encouraged its agents to torture people held in their custody.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights Watch All Rights Reserved
    HUMAN RIGHTS Delivered Into Enemy Hands US-Led Abuse and Rendition of Opponents to Gaddafi’s Libya WATCH Delivered Into Enemy Hands US-Led Abuse and Rendition of Opponents to Gaddafi’s Libya Copyright © 2012 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 1-56432-940-2 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world. We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice. We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable. We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law. We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org SEPTEMBER 2012 ISBN: 1-56432-940-2 Delivered Into Enemy Hands US-Led Abuse and Rendition of Opponents to Gaddafi’s Libya Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Recommendations....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Responding to War on Terror Detainees' Attempts to Dismiss
    0070.BLOOM 10/25/2007 10:58 AM Matthew Bloom “I Did Not Come Here To Defend Myself”: Responding to War on Terror Detainees’ Attempts To Dismiss Counsel and Boycott the Trial abstract. A significant portion of the war on terror detainees who have been charged at Guantanamo have announced their intentions to dismiss their attorneys, to waive their right to be present at their trials, or to take both actions simultaneously so that their interests will not be represented. This Note demonstrates that strong justifications, rooted in international and domestic legal rules and precedent, support honoring the detainees’ requests. Yet the military tribunal proceedings are designed to follow the adversarial model to achieve just outcomes; granting the detainees’ procedural requests can, in certain situations, undermine the ability of the military commissions to reach just outcomes in favor of the personal whims of the detainees. When a detainee’s procedural request threatens to undermine the adversarial model, I propose that military adjudicators appoint an amicus curiae counsel to provide sufficient process on behalf of the tribunal. author. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2008; Yale University, B.A. 2005. The author is especially indebted to Professor Michael Wishnie for his support and advice throughout this project. He also wishes to thank Maj. Thomas Fleener and Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler of the U.S. Department of Defense Office of Military Commissions for their firsthand insights; Professor Muneer Ahmad, Peter Elikann, Justice Joette Katz, Justice Richard Palmer, Priti Patel, and Katherine Wiltenburg Todrys for their comments on earlier drafts; and Benjamin Siracusa for his expert editing.
    [Show full text]
  • Guantanamo Bay (Also GTMO Or Gitmo) Is a US Naval Base in Cuba Covering 45 Square Miles
    Guantanamo Bay (also GTMO or Gitmo) is a US Naval base in Cuba covering 45 square miles. It contains several prison camps, the first of which was established by the Bush Administration in January 2002 to house enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan. The US Government committed to closing the prison by January 2010 however as of March 2011 there are 172 prisoners still housed with no immediate date for closure. This PDF is a text version of the interactive feature, How To Get Out Of Guantanamo. abc.net.au/innovation/gitmo PAGE 1/11 © ABC 2011 HOW TO GET OUT OF GUANTANAMO abc.net.au/innovation/gitmo 779 DETAINED SINCE 2002 The first 20 prisoners arrived at Guantanamo on Jan 11 2002 from Afghanistan. They were detained under a Military Order issued by President Bush after the 9/11 attacks allowing individuals to be held without charge indefinitely. On Feb 7 2002, Bush signed a memorandum excluding them from prisoner of war status (POW) and Article 3 of the Geneva Convention; Article 3 prohibits unfair trials, torture, cruelty and outrages on human dignity. On March 14, 2008, the last known prisoner arrived at Guantanamo Bay. At its peak capacity Guantanamo has housed about 660 pris- oners (November 2003). 12 of these prisoners have been children under the age of 16. Some inmates were transferred to the prison after being held for months or years in detention at so-called CIA 'black sites'. This included 14 men in 2006 described as 'high value detainees'. REFERENCES: Amnesty International, Guantanamo Timeline (2008) http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/148/2008/en/d620ceca-cde2-11dd-b0c5-1f8db3691f48/amr511482008en.html
    [Show full text]
  • President Obama's Legacy on Human Rights
    BRIEF President Obama’s Legacy on Human Rights “When the United States stands up for human rights, by example at home and by effort abroad, we align ourselves with men and women around the world who struggle for the right to speak their minds, to choose their leaders, and to be treated with dignity and respect. We also strengthen our security and well being, because the abuse of human rights can feed many of the global dangers that we confront—from armed conflict and humanitarian crises, to corruption and the spread of ideologies that promote hatred and violence.” – Barack Obama, Statement on Human Rights Day 2008 THROUGHOUT HIS EIGHT YEARS in the White accordance with the Army Field Manual, which House, President Obama has repeatedly spoken explicitly prohibits torture and other cruel treatment, about the importance of American leadership in including waterboarding. advancing global human rights. During his time in President Obama also established a High Value office, key advances were made including the ban Interrogation Group, to ensure effective interrogation on the use of torture and greater protection of the of detainees using lawful interrogation methods and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and ordered the Senate’s report on CIA torture to be transgender (LGBT) people both at home and preserved, protecting it from destruction and abroad, while in other areas the president’s rhetoric allowing it to be declassified in the future. However, was not backed up by firm action. pursuant to President Obama’s preservation order, As President Obama prepares to deliver his final declassification cannot take place of at least 12 address to the nation as President, here’s a look at years and there are reports that not all the executive his human rights record: branch agencies that have received the report have read it.
    [Show full text]