Raymond Interview
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Economic and Social Council by Its Resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977
UNITED E NATIONS Economic and Social Distr. Council GENERAL E/CN.4/2006/120 27 February 2006 Original: ENGLISH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sixty-second session Items 10 and 11 of the provisional agenda ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay Report of the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Leila Zerrougui; the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak; the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir; and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Paul Hunt Summary The present joint report is submitted by five holders of mandates of special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights who have been jointly following the situation of detainees held at the United States of America Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay since June 2004. Section I provides a legal analysis common to all five mandates. Sections II to V outline the legal framework specific to each mandate, as well as the particular allegations of human rights violations which concern them. The final section contains conclusions and recommendations. GE.06-11276 (E) 170306 E/CN.4/2006/120 page 2 CONTENTS Paragraphs Page Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 - 5 4 I. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................... 6 - 16 5 A. Human rights and counter-terrorism measures ................ 6 - 7 5 B. The obligations of the United States of America under international law ................................................... -
Experiments in Torture: Evidence of Human Subject Research and Experimentation in the “Enhanced” Interrogation Program
EXPERIMENTS IN TORTURE: Evidence of Human Subject Research and Experimentation in the “Enhanced” Interrogation Program A White Paper by Physicians for Human Rights June 2010 Authors & This report was reviewed and edited by Stephen Greene, Communications Consultant to PHR. It was prepared for Acknowledgements publication by Gurukarm Khalsa, PHR Web Editor/ Producer. Jared Voss, PHR Web Editor/Producer, produced the video associated with the report. The lead author for this report is Nathaniel Raymond, Director of the Campaign Against Torture/Campaign for PHR is deeply indebted to critical research performed Accountability at Physicians for Human Rights (PHR). The by Daniel Scarvalone, Louise Place, and Jesse Hamlin. lead medical author is Scott Allen, MD, Co-Director of the This report could not have been written without their Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights at Brown contributions. University and Medical Advisor to PHR. They were joined in writing the report by Vincent Iacopino, MD, PhD, PHR Senior Medical Advisor; Allen Keller, MD, Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture; Stephen Soldz, PhD, President-elect of Psychologists for Social Responsibility and Director of the Center for Research, Evaluation and Physicians for Program Development at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis; Steven Reisner, PhD, PHR Advisor on Human Rights Ethics and Psychology; and John Bradshaw, JD, PHR Chief Policy Officer and Director of PHR’s Washington DC Office. PHR was founded in 1986 on the idea that health profes- sionals, with their specialized skills, ethical commitments, This report has benefited from review by Deborah and credible voices, are uniquely positioned to investigate Ascheim, MD, Associate Professor of Health Policy and the health consequences of human rights violations and Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and PHR board work to stop them. -
Oral History and Our Times
The Columbia Center for Oral History, The Oral History Master of Arts Program, INCITE | Interdisciplinary Center for Innovative Theory & Empirics, with Funding from the Paul F. Lazarsfeld Lecture Series, Present: ORAL HISTORY AND OUR TIMES PROGRAM May 1 and May 2, 2013 Maison Française, East Gallery Columbia University New York, New York May 2013 3 CO-SPONSORS Oral History Master of Arts (OHMA) is a one-year interdisciplinary Master of Arts degree program in the field of oral history that focuses on interviewing methodologies and interpretative methods. OHMA links social sciences and humanities research across disciplines including: History, Sociology, Literature, Anthropology, Psychology and Public Health. oralhistory.columbia.edu The Columbia University Center for Oral History [CCOH] is one of the world’s leading centers for the practice and teaching of oral history. Our archive, located in the Columbia University Libraries and open to the public, holds more than 8,000 interviews, in audio, video and text formats, on a wide variety of subjects. Our mission is to record unique life histories, documenting the central historical events and memories of our times, and to teach and do research across the disciplines. library.columbia.edu/indiv/ccoh/about.html INCITE | Interdisciplinary Center for Innovative Theory and Empirics cultivates public intelligence concerning socially and culturally vital ideas that can be advanced by research, education and conversation at the interdisciplinary seams that the social sciences share with the humanities, the sciences and one another. incite.columbia.edu The Paul F. Lazarsfeld Lecture Series explores and forges new methodological connections between the disciplines of the humanities and social sciences, while serving as a site for intellectual cooperation between students, faculty, and guests. -
Unclassified//For Public Release Unclassified//For Public Release
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE --SESR-Efll-N0F0RN- Final Dispositions as of January 22, 2010 Guantanamo Review Dispositions Country ISN Name Decision of Origin AF 4 Abdul Haq Wasiq Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 6 Mullah Norullah Noori Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 7 Mullah Mohammed Fazl Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 560 Haji Wali Muhammed Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war, subject to further review by the Principals prior to the detainee's transfer to a detention facility in the United States. AF 579 Khairullah Said Wali Khairkhwa Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 753 Abdul Sahir Referred for prosecution. AF 762 Obaidullah Referred for prosecution. AF 782 Awai Gui Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 832 Mohammad Nabi Omari Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 850 Mohammed Hashim Transfer to a country outside the United States that will implement appropriate security measures. AF 899 Shawali Khan Transfer to • subject to appropriate security measures. -
Omar Khadr's Legal Odyssey: the Erasure of Child Soldier As a Legal
GEORGIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW(DO NOT DELETE) 4/18/2018 1:10 PM OMAR KHADR’S LEGAL ODYSSEY: THE ERASURE OF CHILD SOLDIER AS A LEGAL CATEGORY M. Mehdi Ali* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 348 II. FACTS .............................................................................................. 349 III. LEGAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 351 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENTS ........................................................................ 359 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 367 * J.D., Stanford Law School; M.A., Stanford University; B.A., Stanford University. I am deeply grateful to my parents, Nisar and Mehnaz, and my wife, Sarah, for always encouraging me throughout my academic career. I am also thankful to my siblings, Hadi and Heraa, for their unwavering support, and for their excellent comments and suggestions to an earlier draft of this Article. Lastly, it was a great privilege to work with the editors at the Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, and I am indebted to them for their hard work and thoughtful feedback. 347 GEORGIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW (DO NOT DELETE) 4/18/2018 1:10 PM 348 GA. J. INT’L & COMP. L. [Vol. 46:347 I. INTRODUCTION After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. officials warned the American public that they were facing a “new kind of war.”1 The scale of the attacks, conducted by a foreign enemy on the American homeland, allowed the administration to exceed institutional restraints built into the political system. In the name of security, the government launched two wars, rounded up thousands of individuals on the basis of national origin, and dramatically altered long-held notions of liberty and due process. -
A New Forensics: Developing Standard Remote Sensing Methodologies to Detect and Document Mass Atrocities Nathaniel A
Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal Volume 8 | 2014 Humanitarian Technologies and Issue 3 | Article 6 Genocide Prevention A New Forensics: Developing Standard Remote Sensing Methodologies to Detect and Document Mass Atrocities Nathaniel A. Raymond Harvard University, [email protected] Brittany L. Card Harvard University, [email protected] Isaac L. Baker Harvard University, [email protected] Abstract. Aim: The aim of this article is to highlight potential methods applicable to a standard forensic approach for the analysis of high-resolution satellite imagery that may contain evidence of alleged mass atrocities. Methods: The primary method employed is the retrospective analysis of a case study involving the use of high-resolution satellite imagery analysis to document alleged mass atrocities. The case study utilized herein is the Satellite Sentinel Project’s reporting on the May 2011 sacking of Abyei Town by Government of Sudan-aligned armed actors. In the brief case study, categories of objects, patterns of activities, and types of alleged mass atrocity events are applied the Abyei Town incident. Recommended Citation Raymond, Nathaniel A.; Card, Brittany L.; and Baker, Isaac L. (2014) "A New Forensics: Developing Standard Remote Sensing Methodologies to Detect and Document Mass Atrocities," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 8: Iss. 3: 33-48. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.8.3.4 Available at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gsp/vol8/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Tampa Library at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. -
CCR Annual Report 2010
Annual Report 2010 Resettlement U.N. Advocacy Supreme Court GTMO Client Legal Advocacy Legal Advocacy Delegation CCR Client Legal Advocacy Both Our Mission The Center for Constitutional Rights is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change. CCR Annual Report 2010 Letter from the President 2 Letter from the Executive Director 3 Material Support 4 Guantánamo 6 International Human Rights 8 Policing and Prisons 14 Immigrant Justice 16 Employment Discrimination 18 Right to Dissent 20 Movement Support 22 CCR Media 24 Letter from the Legal Director 26 Case Index 27 Friends and Allies 37 2010 President’s Reception 42 CCR Donors 43 Board of Directors and Staff 56 Financial Report 58 In Memoriam 59 Rhonda Copelon Remembered 60 Letter from the President I look back on this last year at CCR with As our Guantánamo work begins to wind amazement. For those of us with progressive down, we have built up our involvement in politics and who believe in social justice, we other important areas. A good example is our are not in the best of times. Justice and equal- racial and economic justice docket which has ity have paid a high cost for years and years expanded significantly this year. In addition of conservative and moderate to our ongoing work fighting racial appointments to the courts and an profiling and employment discrimina- irresponsible “war-time” deference to tion and in defending the right to the executive branch. -
A FRAMEWORK for the ETHICAL USE of ADVANCED DATA SCIENCE METHODS in the HUMANITARIAN SECTOR Executive Summary
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ETHICAL USE OF ADVANCED DATA SCIENCE METHODS IN THE HUMANITARIAN SECTOR Executive Summary What is this document? This is a framework for applying data science methods for humanitarian outcomes. It aims to provide a set of ethical and practical guidelines for humanitarian data collectors, users, and stakeholders to consider when applying data science for humanitarian work. This work is at the juncture of data science (in particular AI), ethics, responsible data management,1 humanitarian innovation, and humanitarian principles and standards. Who is this document for? This framework provides a practical guide for a broad range of humanitarian data stakeholders ranging from users, collectors and enumerators on the ground to data scientists, project focal points, programme managers and donors. It can also assist private and civil sector actors that work in or are interested in working in humanitarian work, and can be a useful resource for academics, students and policy staff. How was this document made? This framework is the first output of the Humanitarian Data Science and Ethics Group (DSEG) - a multi- stakeholder group established in 2018. It is an outcome of a consultative process based on the discussions during DSEG meetings and resulting identified priorities. This document draws perspectives from programme staff from various areas of humanitarian work, such as camp coordination and camp management (CCCM); Cash; Shelter; Protection; Gender Based Violence (GBV) prevention; and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH). It refers extensively to existing academic and humanitarian documents and frameworks, combines research and interviews with various humanitarian field staff officers, and reflects inputs from a thorough review process involving diverse data stakeholders and experts. -
The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: an Empirical Study
© Reuters/HO Old – Detainees at XRay Camp in Guantanamo. The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empirical Study Benjamin Wittes and Zaahira Wyne with Erin Miller, Julia Pilcer, and Georgina Druce December 16, 2008 The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empiricial Study Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 The Public Record about Guantánamo 4 Demographic Overview 6 Government Allegations 9 Detainee Statements 13 Conclusion 22 Note on Sources and Methods 23 About the Authors 28 Endnotes 29 Appendix I: Detainees at Guantánamo 46 Appendix II: Detainees Not at Guantánamo 66 Appendix III: Sample Habeas Records 89 Sample 1 90 Sample 2 93 Sample 3 96 The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empiricial Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he following report represents an effort both to document and to describe in as much detail as the public record will permit the current detainee population in American T military custody at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba. Since the military brought the first detainees to Guantánamo in January 2002, the Pentagon has consistently refused to comprehensively identify those it holds. While it has, at various times, released information about individuals who have been detained at Guantánamo, it has always maintained ambiguity about the population of the facility at any given moment, declining even to specify precisely the number of detainees held at the base. We have sought to identify the detainee population using a variety of records, mostly from habeas corpus litigation, and we have sorted the current population into subgroups using both the government’s allegations against detainees and detainee statements about their own affiliations and conduct. -
Social Media Evidence of Alleged Gross Human Rights Abuses: Improving Preservation and Access Through Policy Reform
Mass Atrocities in the Digital Era Initiative (MADE) Working Paper No. 1 March 2021 Social Media Evidence of Alleged Gross Human Rights Abuses: Improving Preservation and Access Through Policy Reform Olivia Mooney, Kate Pundyk, Nathaniel Raymond and David Simon Potentially crucial digital evidence of gross human rights violations that occur outside the United States is being lost. The absence of a specific legal mandate and protocol by which this evidence could be routinely preserved and accessed is a problem that the United States Congress will need to help solve. This paper builds on the Yale Genocide Studies Program’s Mass Atrocities in the Digital Era (MADE) initiative’s three-month consultation process with a diverse range of civil society stakeholders working to improve preservation of digital evidence. It considers how U.S. potential liability has limited sharing social media data with stakeholders in the human rights community and presents three potential legal processes to address this issue. This work promotes justice and accountability for alleged gross human rights abuses. Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 I. Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 4 II. Proposal: A Model for Access and Preservation.............................................................................................. -
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 -
Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counter- Terrorism Operations
International Center for Transitional Justice CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CRIMINAL POLICY: Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counter- terrorism Operations An ICTJ Policy Paper November 2009 Carolyn Patty Blum, Lisa Magarrell, Marieke Wierda Cover Image: Redacted page (52) from Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001-October 2003), a May 2004 Special Review by the CIA’s Office of the Inspector General. Portions of that report have been declassified through litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations under the Freedom of Information Act. The Bush administration released a few paragraphs and lines of the report in May 2008 and the Obama administration went considerably further in an August 2009 reclassification. Regardless, this page and many others, including all of the In- spector General’s recommendations, remain classified as of this writing. Ques- tions persist about the full scope of abuses under U.S. policies on rendition, de- tention and interrogation. ICTJ’s policy paper relies on declassified information and other reporting to make the case for a thorough criminal investigation of abuses in counterterrorism policy and operations. Such an investigation must include those parts of the “dark side” still hidden from public view. CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CRIMINAL POLICY: Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counter- terrorism Operations November 2009 An ICTJ Policy Paper Carolyn Patty Blum, Lisa Magarrell, Marieke Wierda International Center for Transitional Justice ICTJ New York 5 Hanover Square, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel + 1 917 637 3800 Fax + 1 917 637 3900 About ICTJ About the U.S. Accountability Project The International Center for Transitional Justice works The U.S.