From the Associated Press, via Common Dreams:
Washington’s new anti-terrorism law could end up violating international treaties protecting detainees, with some provisions denying suspects the right to a fair trial, a key U.N. rights expert said Friday.
Martin Scheinin, the United Nations’ expert on protecting human rights in the fight against terrorism, said the Military Commissions Act signed into law earlier this month by U.S. President George W. Bush contains provisions “incompatible” with U.S. obligations to adhere to treaties on human rights and humanitarian law.
“One of the most serious aspects of this legislation is the power of the president to declare anyone, including U.S. citizens, without charge as an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ – a term unknown in international humanitarian law,” said Scheinin, a legal expert from Finland.
As a result, he said, those detainees are subject to the jurisdiction of a military commission composed of military officers – rather than a civilian court of law.
He also deplored the denial of the habeas corpus rights of foreigners – including legal, permanent U.S. residents – to challenge the legality of their detention, “in manifest contradiction with” the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty the U.S. ratified in 1992.
Another concern, Scheinin said, is the denial of detainees’ rights to see evidence that could exonerate them if the evidence….
I’ve deleted the usual nonsense from U.S. officials on how its all perfectly legal.
October 28th, 2006
Many of us have been fighting for a long time to change APA policy regarding psychologists’ participation in national security interrogations. As I have written about, there have been various efforts, so far unsuccessful, to change the organization’s policies from within. Some members, led by Ghislaine , have decided that we have tried the internal fight long enough. They are organizing to withhold APA dues, now due. See Ghislaine Boulange’s article:
Should we withhold our 2007 dues to the American Psychological Association?
There has been a lot of discussion recently about whether to withhold dues from the APA in light of the continuing use of psychologists in Guantanamo and other sites in which ‘enemy combatants’ are being tortured. Some have been categorically opposed to withholding dues, arguing that it is better to stay within the organization and work from there, saying that not paying dues is poor strategy; others have urged a wait and see attitude. For some of us this is not a question of strategy, it is a question of conscience. Which is not to say that sometimes acts of conscience cannot also be strategic. Be that as it may, let me speak for myself, I simply cannot in good conscience continue paying dues to an organization whose ethics code supports the use of psychologists in facilities that do not observe international human rights law. I cannot support an organization whose spokesmen do not speak for me (recall Stephen Behnke, APA’s director of ethics, telling a reporter from the NY Times last June that “helping military interrogators made a valuable contribution because it was part of an effort to prevent terrorism”). I do not wish to be associated with an organization whose president publishes columns on the question of psychological ethics that are at best naive and at worst disingenuous (see Gerald Koocher’s President’s columns in the February 2006 and July/August 2006 Psychological Monitor).
I have watched this struggle for several years believing that good sense would prevail. I hoped that it would this summer, and thought, briefly, that it had, only to watch as the 2006 resolution against torture was subverted by the addition of a clause rendering changes meaningless. Worst of all, the APA continues to support the use of psychologists in facilities that contravene the Geneva Conventions, making American psychologists vulnerable to charges of unethical conduct and poor judgment in the international community.
Some psychologists opposed to these ethics are continuing to work actively within the APA to change the policy. Others, in an act of ‘civil disobedience,’ are opting to withhold dues. I do not believe that those of us who are withholding our dues are in any way questioning or undermining what those who are working within the system are seeking to accomplish. At best our action can add further impetus to the argument that current policies are offensive to at least some of the memberhsip.
A number of us who are interested in withholding dues want to reach as many like-minded psychologists as we can. To that end we have set up a listserve which interested psychologists can join in order to discuss how to organize as a group and how to maximize the impact of our decision. If you are interested in exploring this direction, we invite you to join the listserve. This is how to do it: To join the Withholdapadues listserve, you have to have a Yahoo account first. If you don’t have a Yahoo account, it takes less than five minutes to go through all the steps (and it’s free), if you have a Yahoo account, you probably know that it takes less than 60 seconds to join a specific group). In either case, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/withholdapadues and follow the directions. Once you have made it into the group, please send us a message to withholdapadues@yahoogroups.com to tell us that you have joined the group. If you have any trouble going through this process, please send an email to our webmaster, Rachel Kadushin, at Kadushin@aol.com and she will make sure you get onto the listserve.
I am of two minds about this movement. I certainly can understand the feeling that we should not remain part of an organization sanctioning psychologists’ participation in activities tantamount to torture, or in total institutions, such as Guantanamo, that are completely removed from any domestic or international legal protections. The very existence of Guantanamo is a war crime, and those participating are themselves engaging in war crimes.
My hesitancy about this movement is that I think the effort to reform the APA is far from over. There are several major mainstream magazine investigative articles on the issue due to appear in the next few months. I’m hopeful that publication of these articles will stimulate a new round of efforts to change the organization. I’d hate to have some of the most morally-engaged forces outside the organization and sidelined. At a minimum, I’d strongly urge dues withholders to keep those dues handy and be prepared to pay up promptly if reform efforts heat up. We’ll need you!
October 28th, 2006