Human Rights

Five months have passed since Justice Richard Goldstone et al. submitted their report on the UN fact-finding mission's investigation into the recent conflict in the Gaza Strip. Shortly after it was submitted, the Obama administration claimed that the report was "deeply flawed" and unduly critical of Israel, and the US ambassador to the UN voted against the Resolution in the United Nations General Assembly. Despite the serious nature of these allegations, the Obama administration has not offered any objective evidence or analysis to substantiate them.

First printed in MRZine.org on 13 November 2009

On 3 November 2009, the United States House of Representatives voted 344-36 in favor of House Resolution 867, making it Congress' official response to the 575-page Report submitted by Justice Richard J. Goldstone to the United Nations Human Rights Council at the conclusion of a “fact-finding” mission on the Gaza conflict. The Resolution does little more than recycle traditional rhetoric about an anti-Israel bias, Qassam rocket attacks, Hamas' use of human shields, and Israel's right of self-defense, all in an effort to ignore the reality of the Israeli Occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the devastating effects it has had on the region. By passing HR 867, Congress has opted to join the Israeli government in rejecting international efforts to defend the civilians in Palestine and to hold Israeli and Palestinian forces accountable to international law.

This column first appeared in the 15 October 2009 print edition of the Purdue Exponent
Forty-six years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. lead a 250,000-person march on Washington, D.C. to demand that black people be granted the same rights as white people. At that historic march, Dr. King shared his vision for a different world—a world where humanity would no longer be divided by ignorance and hatred. On Sunday, roughly 200,000 people followed his example and once again marched on Washington to bring his dream closer to fruition. Drawing inspiration from the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s and 1970s that prepared the way for the nation's first black president, protesters, many of them young people in their twenties and thirties, arrived from all over the nation to declare that the right to marry whom they choose is a fundamental civil right.

First printed in Socialist Worker on 22 November 2009

THE STUBBORN refusal of the Democrats in both Congress and the White House to deliver on their promise to hold the Bush administration responsible for torture offers a sobering reminder of the party's ability to hide conservative politics behind liberal rhetoric.

Public opinion has been demanding answers on this issue for more than five years now. In August, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration's latest concession to this public pressure would be an independent review into specific interrogations conducted by the CIA.

While the mainstream media may have wanted to ignore all this, public sentiment has forced it to keep the issue alive. Much of the credit for this goes to individuals and people working with groups like the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which kept a spotlight on the issue of torture and the U.S. prison camp at Guantánamo Bay. Likewise, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh's articles detailing abuses at Abu Ghraib and other revelations have added to the public questioning.

According to a USA Today/Gallup poll earlier this year, 62 percent of the population wants an investigation into "the possible use of torture while interrogating terrorism suspects" (38 percent wanted a criminal investigation by the Justice Department, while 24 percent wanted an independent panel that would investigate, but not necessarily prosecute).

Calls for an independent investigation into the Bush administration's misdeeds are becoming more persistent and difficult for the ruling officials to ignore.1 Spain has already initiated criminal proceedings against six of the administration's high-ranking officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In March, Center for Constitutional Rights President Michael Ratner appeared before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to request that they call for a criminal investigation in the United States, policy reforms, and reparations, and Amnesty International USA coordinated meetings between several citizen delegations and federal legislators in April to press for an independent inquiry. The people also want to see the previous administration face justice: according to a recent Gallup Poll, 62% of US citizens favor an investigation, with 38% favoring a criminal investigation, and 24% an investigation by an independent panel. 2 Even pundits in the notoriously subservient mainstream media -- perhaps upset by the way that the Bush administration's blatant deceptions threatened to draw attention to their role as a mouthpiece for the rulers -- have echoed calls for investigations and impeachments.

1. . a. b.
2. 2. J. Jones. 12 February 2009. No Mandate for Criminal Probes of Bush Administration. Gallup, Inc. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/114580/No-Mandate-Criminal-Probes-Bush-Administration.aspx

This column first appeared in the 7 April 2009 print edition of the Purdue Exponent
The domestic press has largely ignored Amnesty International's call for an arms embargo on Israel, Hamas, and other militant groups, even after the human rights organization's recent report that Israeli forces had used US-supplied weapons, including illegal white phosphorus artillery, against civilians. While several mainstream and student papers, including the Exponent, carried heated debates about the justification for Israel's three-week assault on the Gaza Strip, that this attack was almost entirely subsidized by the US government was largely overlooked.

As of Monday 29 December 2008, the death toll of Israeli military assaults in the Gaza region has passed 335 deaths since Israel began its bombing campaign on Saturday 27 December 2008. In this same time, rocket attacks by Hamas forces have caused two Israeli deaths. 1 As usual, spokespeople for the U.S. government have helped to escalate the violence by offering unconditional military support to the Israeli government. In an effort to help the government understand that the people of the U.S. do not condone U.S. backing for further violence in the region, I drafted and transmitted a brief letter to the President and to my two U.S. Senators and one Representative. While I expect my individual request to have little bearing on on this matter, it is my hope that many others are also doing something similar. Anyone who is looking for information to include in a letter of h(er|is) own is welcome to use what I have to offer below.

1. 1. Rory McArthy and Ewen MacAskill (29 Dec 2008) Israel says its army is fighting war to the bitter end against Hamas. guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/29/gaza-israel-palestinians-middle-east

Politicians, human rights activists, citizens and soldiers around the globe are debating whether the treatment of prisoners by U.S. forces is consistent with international and national laws. Although the U.S. government refuses to extend Constitutional protections or treat them as 'prisoners of war' or 'civilians under enemy control', officials repeatedly claim that they are treating prisoners in a manner 'consistent with international law'. Conversely, repeated reports of abuses and illegal practices from soldiers, FBI agents, prisoners and foreign governments have created serious doubts about whether the U.S. government is being entirely truthful in these claims. Given the current administration's history of misrepresentation, the fact that many reject claims that the government is in compliance with international human rights laws as outright lies is not at all surprising.

Originally posted on A contrario on 27 May 2008

On 2 May, I received a response from Congressman Steve Buyer to my 16 April letter requesting an independent investigation into the abuse and torture of prisoners by U.S. forces. He included an 'Issue Position Statement' with his response, which I have reproduced in its entirety below1:

1. 1. To the best of my knowledge, a position statement is by definition intended for public distribution, and can therefore be freely distributed. As it claims to reflect the views of its original author, however, any intentional alteration to such a statement could probably be construed as libel.

Originally posted on A contrario on 5 May 2008

The letter requesting that certain politicians be subpoenaed for testimony that is quoted below was sent by the ACLU on my behalf to the House Judiciary Committee and several other members of Congress on 5 May. The ACLU provided the introductory paragraph, and I wrote the rest of the letter. This letter was one of many petitions delivered to Congress as part of the ACLU's 'Citizen's Subpoena' campaign. Hopefully, the Judiciary Committee's call for testimony marks the beginning of a serious investigation into Executive policies on the use of torture or 'aggressive interrogation techniques'.

I demand to know the truth about torture. It's time to conduct a full investigation to determine what laws may have been broken and whether war crimes or other torture crimes were committed. John Ashcroft, John Yoo, George Tenet, Douglas Feith and others must testify. It's time to legally compel Bush's torture team to tell the truth.