The Human Rights Blog

Ben Ferencz Letter to Admiral Mullen Re Aggression

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:35:39 +0000

March 3, 2010 Admiral Mike Mullen Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 9999 Joint Staff Pentagon Washington, DC 20318-9999 ATTN: PLEASE SEE THAT THIS LETTER REACHES THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS PERSONALLY SUBJECT: Ben Ferencz Letter to Admiral Mullen Re Aggression Dear Admiral Mullen: Since I am entering my 91st year and without staff, I apologize for not being able to reach you by any other means. The message I feel compelled to convey concerns our vital national interests. A glance at my website (www.benferencz.org) indicates my credentials: graduate of Harvard Law School (1943), combat soldier in World War Two (5 battle stars), Nuremberg war crimes Prosecutor and recent winner of the prestigious Erasmus Prize for lifetime service to humanity. I am encouraged to write because I particularly appreciated your wise observation (C-SPAN, Jan. 6, 2010, and elsewhere) that you "would surely rather prevent a war than fight a war." It was a reminder of President Eisenhower's conclusion that "the world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive it must choose the rule of law." (May 19, 1958). Nuremberg, inspired by our most respected jurist, Robert M. Jackson, stood for the proposition that war-making was no longer a national right but an international crime for which responsible leaders could be held to account by an international court. The reaffirmation by the United States that law applies equally to all was hailed throughout the world. The primary goal was to deter illegal wars. That has been my own primary goal for half a century and I am now calling to you for help, for the sake of our military, our country and the world. I have written more on the crime of aggression than anyone (all of my books are available free on my website, courtesy the U.N. Audio-Visual Program). The Statute for the International Criminal Court that came into existence in 2002 lists aggression as one of the 4 crimes. No one cane be tried for that particular crime until certain new conditions are met: (1) aggression must be defined - that sounds reasonable enough but ignores the fact that it has already been adequately defined; (2) the Security Council must determine that aggression by a State has occurred - that seems reasonable too but it ignores the fact that Security Council powers are already fully respected in the U.N. Charter and the existing Rome Statute. Raising such non-persuasive arguments gives rise to fears and suspicions about U.S. intentions. Until these obstacles are removed, aggressors will know that they remain immune and cannot face trial by the ICC. Instead of deterring war, they will be encouraged to make war. The ICC Statute will be discussed at a meeting of the Assembly of State Parties between March 22 - 26, 2010, in preparation for a Review Conference in Uganda, from May 3 - June 12, 2010. With adequate determination and skilled draftsmanship, compromises to meet all legitimate concerns are possible. But the goal must be clear: the lock which now exists preventing aggressors from being tried must be removed from the courthouse door. Failure to make "the supreme international crime" punishable by the ICC would, in fact, be a repudiation of the Nuremberg Principles and the rule of law. It would be a step backward instead of forward. Despite contemporary political hesitations and legal ambiguities, we must not lose sight of long-range goals even if short term achievements seem minimal. We were all proud when our President received the Nobel Prize for Peace. I am quite sure that he favors a U.S. policy that may deter war. I would be pleased to meet with you and your legal staff should further clarification be desired. With all good wishes, Benjamin B. Ferencz

Nicaragua Anti-Abortion Law Becomes a Cancer Patient's Death Sentence

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:49:09 +0000

by Sarah Menkedick A pregnant 27-year old Nicaraguan woman has been refused treatment for metastatic cancer, a result of Nicaragua's draconian anti-abortion law. The law stipulates that women will face prison sentences for obtaining or attempting to obtain abortions, and health care professionals will face jail time for providing women with health services associated with abortions. It also refuses treatment for HIV/AIDS, cancer, malaria, and cardiac emergencies when such treatment may interfere with the life of the fetus. The law is so complete that it criminalizes abortion even when carrying the pregnancy to term threatens the health or life of the mother (as in the case of the aforementioned woman with the pseudonym "Amelia," who is being denied cancer treatment because of potential harm to the fetus) or when the woman has been a victim of rape or incest. The majority of rape and incest victims who become pregnant are 10- to 14-year-old girls, forced into pregnancies that seriously endanger their physical and mental health at this immature state. Doctors have spoken out about their fear of treating pregnant women for disease, because if anything happens to the unborn fetus, they could be charged under the anti-abortion law. Amelia's case has brought the hideousness of this law to international light. The particularly cruel irony in her case is that she is likely to die from the cancer before the baby is even born, meaning the government's policy will have not only killed the mother, but the baby as well. Amelia is also the mother of a 10-year-old girl, who apparently has no right to a mother, but does have the right to a sister. This is beyond absurd -- it is painfully, egregiously wrong. Amelia's case is one of many, but it has come out because her sister, who doesn't want to lose Amelia to a law created by men to appease the Catholic Church, has spoken out and asked human rights groups to come to her aid. Amelia gets sicker and sicker by the day; the cancer is in her brain, lungs and breasts. Activists need to act immediately and demand that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights petition Nicaragua's government to save Amelia's life and overturn this horrific law. This is not the right to life -- it is the right of the state to effectively hand death sentences to women. I urge you to sign this petition immediately and help to save Amelia and so many other Nicaraguan's women's lives before it's too late. http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/nicaragua_anti-abortion_law_becomes_a_cancer_patients_death_sentence#

On the charges faced by Judge Garzon in Spain

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:36:38 +0000

Judge Baltasar Garzón came to international prominence a decade ago when he indicted former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet on charges of terrorism, torture and genocide. Since then, he has stayed in the public eye with a series of high-profile criminal investigations, such as that concerning the torture of suspected al-Qaida militants by American forces in Guantanamo. However, it is now Garzón himself who is being investigated for wrongdoings in his position as a judge. The main issues concern his acceptance of jurisdiction in a case involving the victims of Franco and serious accusations of corruption. This is a summary of his current situation. -- The case of the Victims of the Francoist regime On December 2006 several Spanish lawyers submitted a series of criminal complaints before the Spanish National Audience (Audiencia Nacional) vis-a-vis the victims of Francoist repression in Spain. The Investigation Court to which it was assigned was Court No. 5, headed by Baltasar Garzón. On January 29, 2008, the Prosecutor’s Office of the Audiencia Nacional, pursuant to the oral instructions of the State Attorney General issued its decision concerning the admissibility of the lawsuits, concluding that “it was not appropriate to admit for trial the lawsuits filed, ex art. 313 Lecrim, as the Central Court of Investigation is not competent and as a consequence the case should be closed”. On October 16, 2008, almost 2 years after the complaints were initially filed, Baltasar Garzon issued a ruling stating that his court was competent and went on to investigate them. His investigation, unfortunately, was limited to locating and exhuming the bodies of the victims, rather than to ascertain criminal responsibility for their deaths. He had even restricted the investigation period to the years between 1936 and 1952. Be it as it may, under Spanish law the National Audience is a court of limited jurisdiction, its jurisdiction includes crimes against the Crown, drugtraffiking, terrorism and serious crimes against human rights committed against Spaniards abroad. It does not, however, have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Spaniards on Spaniards in Spanish territory. "Natural" judges have jurisdiction on those cases. Given the fact that Garzon accepted jurisdiction in a case where he clearly did not have it, a fact that as a judge he knew or should have known, he was accused of "prevarication" (i.e. failing on his duties as a judge), a charge that is still pending. On September 2008, Equipo Nizkor and other organizations of victims of the Franco regime warned about the potential problems with Garzon taking on jurisdiction on this case (see http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/bgen.html). They also expressed concerns about the fact that most of the complaints concerned the exhumation of bodies, rather than a criminal investigation as to those responsible for the killings, and the lack of reliance on international law (see http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/inhibit.html. As expected, the Prosecutor appealed Garzon's jurisdiction. On November 7, 2008 the Criminal Division of the National Audience sitting in banc, in a 10 to 5 decision, sided with the prosecutor and ordered the investigative judge (Garzón) to stop the investigation. On November 18, Garzón transferred 62 cases to the ordinary courts. Under Spanish law, it is a very serious offense for a judge to wrongfully claim jurisdiction over a case. The “Consejo General de la Magistratura” (the Judiciary General Council), the judicial organ charged with overseeing the judiciary, has an open investigation as to this matter. More worrisome for Garzon (and potentially international justice), he has been sued by two Spanish right-wing groups which claim that his real error was on ruling that the crimes in question (the killings of Spanish citizens by the Francoist regime) constituted crimes against humanity. This suit has been accepted by the Spanish Supreme Court. The Supreme Court judge on charge of the case is the same one who pronounced a dissenting opinion in favor of Scilingo, the Argentine Navy captain famous for the "death flights" and who was convicted in Spain for crimes against humanity. One of the groups which brought on the suit is "Falange Española de la Jons", the Spanish equivalent of the National Socialist party in Germany. The Spanish Congress recognized the legal legitimacy of this party when it issued the so-called "Memory Law", a law that in the name of remembering the victims of the Spanish Civil War, has actually solidify impunity for Francoist crimes in Spain. (You can see the Supreme Court's decision accepting the complaint by the Falange at http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/garzon42.html) The real danger here is that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of these groups. Instead of just ruling on the objective and procedural question of Garzon’s competence, the Supreme Court can now enter into more substantive matters and can use this case as a means to reject the application of the criminal characterization of crimes against humanity to systematic acts of persecution committed during Franco’s Dictatorship.

Corruption case Meanwhile, judge Garzon himself has greater legal problems. In 2004, Garzon took a paid sabbatical in the United States purportedly to study English. While in the US, he decided he wanted to give a series of lectures and be paid for them - despite the fact that Spanish judicial rules forbid judges from obtaining any compensation beyond their judicial salary. A complaint on this specific matter was filed with the Consejo General de la Magistratura, but not until the statute of limitations had expired. However, new evidence shows that Garzon had not only been paid for his lectures, but that he, himself had written to Emilio Botín, the president of the Santander bank, asking for money to fund them. Botín funded Garzón to the tune of E.300,000. Not too long after, Garzon closed a criminal case against Botín. On February 2010, the Supreme Court accepted a criminal complaint against Garzon on charges of bribery (see http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/doc/garzon41.html). Giving the pending charges, it's likely that Garzon will be suspended from his duties as an investigative judge.

On the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:47:58 +0000

Derechos Human Rights and Equipo Nizkor want to express their deepest sorrow on the death of American Senator Ted Kennedy. Kennedy was a tireless fighter for human rights in the United States and Latin America. He was always by the side of victims of human rights violations and their families. His office took report after report, demanded investigation after investigation and through its intervention, it saved the lives of countless victims of political persecution and forced disappearances and prisoners of conscience. His work on behalf of civil, social and economic rights in the United States improved the lives of thousands of people and serves an example for politicians the world over. From the human rights movement, we will always remember Ted Kennedy and be grateful for his stands.

Execution of an Egyptian sentenced to death in Libya

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:00:45 +0000

Cairo, on July 29th 2009 The Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession, expresses its strong dissatisfaction that the Libyan authorities executed the Egyptian citizens Fadl Ismail Htitah on Tuesday, 7-28-2009, pursuant to the issuance of a death sentence against him by the Libyan judiciary It should be noted that the citizen in question was executed after the Benghazi prison authorities isolated him and citizen Haitham El-Shahat Abd elqawi on 7-27-2009 in preparation for the implementation of the death penalty against them. What aggravates the center’s resentment, is that the execution of the citizen in question, despite he had a concession from the blood guardians of the victim and he paid the blood money, according to the Libyan law of conciliation and blood money, but the Libyan Attorney General has refused to invoke the conciliation document, on the basis that it had not been documented by the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The center has many concerns is that the Egyptians convicted of death penalty haven’t been released yet, although they have reconciliation and compromise from the blood guardians in accordance to the Libyan law of conciliation and blood money. Furthermore, the continued detention in the Libyan prisons for more than three years after their reconciliation and compromise and in spite of the continued Libyan authorities to release convicted in similar situations, like for example the release of a Sudanese and a Libyan on 17/2/2009. in addition another convicted had been released also on Monday, Feb 23, 2009, although he does not have a compromise. Worth mentioning, that the Egyptians that were sentenced to death in Libya are 25 persons distributed in the Libyan prisons in Tripoli and Benghazi. Six convicted persons obtained compromise from the relatives of the victims as they accepted the blood money, they deserve immediate release by the force of law, namely: (Sami Fathi Abdel - Raboh – Hussein El sayed Darwish - Abdel-Halim El sayed Abdel-Halim - Farhat Abdo Farhat - Adel Abdel-Azim Omar - Mohamed Omar Ibrahim) While the sentences against 5 convicted persons were suspended pending judicial appeals to the provisions of their right to the Libyan Supreme Court, while negotiations are currently done on 13 convicted persons, by an Egyptian-Libyan committee composed from Libyan civil society institutions and the Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession. The Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession call upon the Libyan authorities to release the convicts who have completed their conciliation and compromise process immediately, and appealed to the Libyan authorities, to pardon the rest of the convicted persons to implement the directions of His Excellency the Libyan leader on the death penalty. The center also appeals to His Excellency the President of Egypt, to intervene directly to the Libyan authorities on the release of the Egyptians, who had been sentenced to death, and then got on reconciliation and compromise by the guardians of blood, and who entitled in accordance with the provisions of Libyan law on retribution and blood money to be released immediately.

Thoughts on Iran

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:55:12 +0000

This blog posting comes from Laurie King, a writer, human rights activist and adjunct professor at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown. --- I've seen the heartbreaking video of the young Iranian woman, Neda, dying on the street in Tehran a dozen times now. Unspeakably shocking, horrible and tragic. I'm afraid her life and death will be used now in possibly distasteful ways, though. The whole Iran story has left me strangely distraught. I'm shocked by friends who seem to think the protestors are pawns of imperial powers and completely devoid of sense or agency. For some, a global war against neoliberalism trumps the tragedies that this film clip embodies. Then there are the "let's go to war and save the Iranian people" contingent. Most of whom are the same people who would have applauded had Israel bombed the hell out of Tehran, killing Neda and hundreds of others. Iran has to find it's own way. For the US to intervene would be a huge mistake. US legitimacy and credibility in the world is nil, after the disastrous Bush-Cheney misadventures in the Middle East. Then there is my bitter question: Why don't the deaths of Palestinian children and women cause such outrage and alarm? That's why I say "Down with Ideological Purity", or more to the point, down with anyone who wants to mourn some deaths while ignoring others, or want to mourn for reasons that are more self-serving than humanitarian. And then there's the simply ridiculous and surreal: The call to nominate twitter for a Nobel prize. Or, last night, seeing Mavis Leno, wife of Jay Leno, on the Larry King (no relation!) Show talking about how Iranian women are now finally "finding their voice." I can think of ten Iranian women who could have spoken eloquently and incisively about the shooting of this young woman. But no: We get the rather inarticulate wife of a celebrity who knows nothing about Iran saying "well, now Iranian women will be able to wear their chadors in a new style that will allow them to show more hair!" (Apparently she is active with some group called Feminist Majority. As if "feminist" means the same thing all over the world, or as if what Americans think of as liberated is what Iranians would think of as "liberated.") The message of emotionally-overwrought US news coverage of Iran seems to be that Modernization = Americanization, modernization is inevitable, and America is a beacon of freedom to the world. Not to so people living not far from Iran: Palestinians, who are, alas, a people our country is ACTIVELY involved in oppressing in criminal ways. I did not see journalists, congresspeople, pundits, or many Facebook and twitter friends getting outraged at the murders of over 1000 Palestinians in January. But do I think Ahmadinejad is some sort of model of a progressive leader that the left should support? Hell, no. He's Iran's version of George Bush. (Recall that he said that "There are no gay people in Iran. That's a Western sickness.") The point is not "Is Mousavi better or any different?" but rather, what else could a movement like the one unfolding on the streets of Iran accomplish and change? Here we are watching what appears to be a really transformative moment, but one that everyone wants to harness to their own agenda. And to my friends on the Left (where I sit myself): Does neoliberalism mean anything different, or play out in new ways, in the new economic crisis situation, in what can reasonably be described as the post-American Empire period of the 21st century? What does that mean for a progressive agenda? Do we even think and reflect anymore, or just shout slogans? And if you are sitting in a Starbucks somewhere updating your FB account from an iPhone and posting about how Iranian youth are unwitting tools of the US or the World Bank or the IMF and don't understand political economy, try facing people with guns who don't want to hear you assert your will and desires in public. The American left does not know much about Iran. So chill out and listen and learn, people, before defending basijis or painting the Supreme Leader as a victim. If the protestors prevail, the biggest disappointment will be felt among the Likud in Israel and the neocons in the US (note that Daniel Pipes said he'd vote for Ahmadinejad if he were Iranian). With no Evil Mad Man of the week (which is overstating the abilities and impact of a bumpkin like Ahmadinejad) to stir up fear to legitimate an Israeli or American attack on Iran, it's gonna be a boring summer for the warmongers in Israel and Washington. And do note that Iranian youth are not protesting for the right to wear miniskirts, body piercings, or play with the Wii all day. They don't want to undo the Islamic revolution (which was initially all about social justice before corrupt mullahs hijacked it), but rather, to upgrade and adjust their system of governance in the way that they see fit. Listening to the young Iranian people being interviewed, I have to say they are smarter and more mature than most American teenagers I know. I hope no more of them get killed by thugs. This is what democracy looks like, my fellow Americans who did not go to the streets to protest when Bush and Cheney stole the election in 2000 (and very possibly 2004, too). A little respect for others' struggles is in order. It's not always all about us (i.e., from the left feeling that the Iranians are not protesting as they think they should, or the center-left's self- satisfaction that women's liberation is now breaking out, or the right's maudlin crocodile tears for young women like Neda, whose death they seem to want to use to push American intervention in a country that has had very, very bad experiences with US interference. Maybe we should all start intervening in our own systems of governance, which don't reflect or embody much social justice. Ultimately, it's about dignity not ideology. If you aren't supporting and safeguarding others' dignity, then you are not a revolutionary.

Shell settles Saro Wiwa lawsuit

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:39:24 +0000

It's been over a decade since Ken Saro Wiwa and other Ogoni environmental rights activists were executed by the Abacha government in Nigeria. Saro Wiwa had led a peaceful protest against the environmental degradation brought about by Shell's oil exploitation in the Ogoniland region. Saro Wiwa was very successful in garnishing international attention for the plight of his people, and Shell and the Nigerian government wanted him out of the way - they thus conspired to have him tried on made up charges by a military tribunal. Despite the best efforts of thousands of human rights activists worldwide, Saro Wiwa and other activists were quickly found guilty and executed. His family and his people continued to fight for justice - suing Shell for complicity in the torture, killing, and other abuses of Saro Wiwa and his colleagues. Today, on the eve of the start of the trial, Shell settled for $15.5 million - thus tacitly admitting responsibility for such crimes. Of course, money does not equate justice. Brian Anderson, the head of Shell's Nigeria operations, and the others who conspired in the torture and eath of the Ogoni activists should face criminal charges as well - but every step towards justice is a good one. I congratulate Earth Rights, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the private lawyers who worked tirelessly on this effort. What follows is the press release by the organizations that sponsored the trial.

Some thoughts on Obama and Human Rights

Thu, 21 May 2009 18:57:07 +0000

There has been much criticism of Obama's Bushesque human rights policies in recent days and weeks in the American press. However, I'm not sure that the extent of Obama's continuation of Bush's repressive and illegal policies is commonly known outside the US. For those of us who maintained even a glimpse of hope that Obama would be significantly different than Bush, what is happening is very disappointing. In short, the administration wants to limit habeas corpus, leave open the door for continuing the use of torture and forced disappearances, maintain the power of the president to arbitrarily detain people indefinitely and spy on them without judicial oversight. Not surprisingly, the administration also wants to solidify the impunity of those responsible for committing such vile acts. I don't need to explain to you how these policies are not only violative of the human rights of the people involved, but also how they profoundly threaten the core of any liberal democracy, of justice and therefore peace. As the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law". And, in the United States, the rule of law has been broken - and, according to the deeds of the current administration, it will stay that way. What I find most insidious, most dangerous, is that Obama is covering his repressive policies in the language of human rights. He pronounces the importance of the rule of law, while at the same time he undermines it. Doublespeak, if you will. The following is a brief overview of the human rights that continue to be threatened under the Obama administration:

EOHR received a response from the Ministry of Social Solidarit

Thu, 14 May 2009 00:16:42 +0000

Yesterday I sent a press release about the threatened closure of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. I did not do my due diligence to find out if the situation had changed until after I sent the story - for which I apologize. Here is the statement by the EOHR on the response by the Ministry of Social Solidarity, which is backing down from its previous threat.

EGYPT: New harassment of a human rights organisation

Tue, 12 May 2009 17:55:33 +0000

Copenhagen-Geneva-Paris, April 30, 2009. The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), and the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN) express their deep concern about the warning letter received by the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) from the Egyptian Ministry of Social Solidarity, which seriously undermines freedom of association in Egypt. On April 27, 2009, the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) received a letter from the Egyptian Ministry of Social Solidarity, Masr-El-Kadima district authority, in which it was warned that the organisation risks to be subjected to closure and dissolution for violating Law of Association No. 84 of 2002. More specifically, the Ministry, which is the competent executive authority for all non-governmental organisations, indicated that Article 42 of the NGO Laws had been breached by EOHR, which, allegedly, had received unauthorised foreign funding.

Mexico: Human Rights & US aid

Thu, 07 May 2009 21:18:17 +0000

Over 70 Mexican human rights organizations have written to the US Congress expressing their concern over the military aid to fight the drug traffic that the United States is providing Mexico. The US Congress is considering increasing that aid significantly. The organizations request that human rights be put in the agenda of any conversation between the US and Mexico. The following is the letter they've sent.

Rwanda suspends BBC radio service for "unacceptable speech"

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:06:47 +0000

29 April 2009 Government suspends BBC radio service for "unacceptable speech" in programme on genocide SOURCE: Media Institute, Nairobi (Media Institute/IFEX) - On 25 April 2009, the Rwandan government suspended the British Broadcasting Corporation's (BBC) local-language radio service in the country saying it threatened the country's national reconciliation by hosting people with views negating the 1994 genocide. A press statement released by Information Minister and government spokesperson Louise Mushikiwabo attibuted the closure of the BBC's Kinyarwanda service to "unacceptable speech" on the 1994 Rwanda genocide. She pointed out that the BBC's broadcasts, especially its local vernacular programme "Imvo n'Imvano" (Analysis of the Source of a Problem), had, despite repeated written and verbal protests from government, consistently showed total disregard for Rwanda's unity and reconciliation efforts.

Impeach Torture Architect Bybee

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:45:15 +0000

From the Center for Constitutional Rights http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/383/t/6374/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27088 We need your help to impeach one of the legal architects of the Bush administration Torture Program who is now, incredibly, a federal judge. Last week, President Obama released four torture authorization memos written by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) under the Bush administration that devised a legal framework for the justification of the Torture Program. The memos were released as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit the Center for Constitutional Rights helped file with the ACLU and other organizations.

US - Torture case lawyers may face jail for letter

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:35:06 +0000

A former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who accused a Bay Area company of flying him to foreign torture chambers for the CIA is at the center of a bizarre new case, in which his lawyers face possible jail sentences for writing a letter that asked President Obama to disclose how brutally he was treated. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2009%2F04%2F20%2FBA68172JDM.DTL

U.S.-Trained Human Rights Abusers

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:41:46 +0000

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6055 From Foreign Policy in Focus President Barack Obama has reversed a few of the Bush administration's most egregious policies violating human rights and international law, such as the announced closure of the detention center in Guantánamo. But it remains to be seen to what extent he will lead the military toward respect for human rights, and change the institutional impunity to which American commanders and U.S. military allies have become accustomed. Last month, combatant commanders came before Congress to make their case for funding. Southern Command Chief Admiral James Stavridis didn't hesitate to say how critical funds are for military training, especially the former School of the Americas (now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). "The camaraderie developed among our military officers at these institutions," Stavridis said, "and the schools' strong emphasis on democratic values and respect for human rights are critical to creating military establishments capable of effective combined operations."