Search results

2020 Nov 10
The Human Consequences of Corruption
Registration Closed 1:00pm to 2:15pm
Location: 
Virtual Event (Registration Required)
Corruption is never a victimless crime. Grand corruption – the abuse of public office for private gain – is a contributor to some of the world’s most serious human rights concerns. Refugees are fleeing failed states because of corruption, corrupt government leaders (kleptocrats) are enriching themselves while their citizens die of hunger, lack of healthcare, and the effects of climate change.
Investigative journalists play an important role in the...
Read more about The Human Consequences of Corruption
Registration: 



Alberto Mora to Lead Aba Center for Global Programs

May 16, 2018

Former general counsel to the U.S. Navy, Alberto Mora, was named on Monday to be the new director of the ABA Rule of Law Initiative, and will oversee the association's international human rights programs.

... Read more about Alberto Mora to Lead Aba Center for Global Programs
2020 Nov 12
Summit on Nonviolent Resistance Today 
Registration Closed 11:00am to 4:00pm
Location: 
Virtual Event (Registration Required)
On November 12, 2020, the Nonviolent Action Lab convened a summit featuring scholars and practitioners of nonviolent action. The event featured a keynote speech from the Rev. Stephen Green of Faith for Black Lives, several panels featuring new research on nonviolent resistance, and focused discussion among dozens of scholars, practitioners, and Topol Fellows from Harvard, Tufts, Brandeis, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, University of Massachusetts-Boston, Boston Latin School, and elsewhere.
This Summit, convened by the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, is made possible...
Read more about Summit on Nonviolent Resistance Today 
Registration: 
2021 Mar 19
Indigenous Women Convening for Peace, Justice, and Reconciliation
Registration is required
9:30am to 1:00pm
Location: 
Virtual Event (Registration Required)
Join us for our Indigenous Women Convening for Peace, Justice, and Reconciliation. The Indigenous Women Convening on Peace, Justice, and Reconciliation brings together Indigenous scholars and women leaders from seven indigenous socio-cultural zones of the world to share stories of war and conflicts in their territories and find collective ways of ideating indigenous conflict resolution and peace-making processes. 
This event is organized by the Committee on Ethnicity, Migration, Rights, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, the Scholars at Risk Program, and...
Read more about Indigenous Women Convening for Peace, Justice, and Reconciliation
Registration: 
Sign up for this event



Appellate Court Reinstates Abu Ghraib Torture Lawsuit Against Private Military Contractor

October 24, 2016

A panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit  (Al Shimari v. CACI) brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of four Abu Ghraib torture victims against CACI Premier Technology, Inc., a private military contractor, for the corporation’s role in their inhumane treatment.... Read more about Appellate Court Reinstates Abu Ghraib Torture Lawsuit Against Private Military Contractor



Sushma Raman. 9/27/2018. “After 17 Years, Justice For 9/11 Remains Elusive.” Human Rights First. See full text.Abstract

Sushma Raman discusses the government’s twin challenges—upholding both the rule of law and national security—and the resulting delays in the trails of the 9/11 suspects.

 

“My father, along with many residents of the New Jersey town we are from, died on 9/11.  My mother died recently, without seeing justice.  It is possible that we will not see justice in my lifetime.”

—Family member of victim, September 15, 2018 

“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? You mean he is still alive and that trial hasn’t even started?” 

—A colleague of mine, who is a retired senior U.S. government official, September 17, 2018 

 

Earlier this month, as an independent observer for Human Rights First, I attended a pre-trial hearing in the Guantanamo military commission for the 9/11 suspects. The proceedings fell on the week of September 10, and it was particularly poignant to be there on the anniversary of the attacks. Seventeen years later, there is no start date for the trial of the five men accused of orchestrating the attacks, and the long-serving judge has just been replaced. 

The week’s highlights included a “voir dire” of the new judge, in which he was questioned by the prosecution and defense, and a hearing on the dismissal of the former Military Commissions Convening Authority, Harvey Rishikof. 

Judge Pohl, an Army colonel, announced his retirement in August and assigned Keith Parrella, a military judge with two years’ judicial experience, to replace him. Just before stepping down, Judge Pohl ordered the exclusion of statements the defendants made to FBI interrogators after their transfer from CIA secret prisons, also called “black sites,” to Guantanamo. 

Lawyers for the defendants questioned incoming Judge Parrella on his limited experience as a military judge and in death penalty cases. They also raised the potential for conflict of interest, given Parella’s prior work at the Department of Justice (DOJ) as a fellow alongside several members of the 9/11 prosecution team. 

They also inquired about his knowledge of “mitigation”—evidence from the defense geared to persuade the court that the defendants should not receive a death sentence. The defendants spent years in the CIA’s Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation program. Their brutal treatment will undoubtedly be raised as a mitigating factor during any sentencing phase. Defense attorneys also questioned Parella’s ability to come up to speed on past rulings. He would have to review more than 20,000 pages of transcripts of the last six years of pre-trial proceedings. 

On September 10^th, all five defendants were present at the start of the day, along with their defense counsel. The new judge agreed to, among other things, allow the defendants to be unshackled (unless there was probable cause) and keep breaks in the day that coincide with the defendants’ prayer times.

On Tuesday, September 11^th, all five defendants were absent in the morning. Judge Parrella set forth his findings that he possessed the requisite skills and experience to preside in the case, that his DOJ fellowship did not pose a conflict, and that he has no personal bias against the defendants or prior affiliation with the case. 

Another key matter was the firing of Convening Authority Harvey Rishikof. The government argued that Rishikof was fired due to concerns about judgment, temperament, and a lack of appropriate coordination with superiors. The court heard testimony from Lieutenant Doug Newman, an investigator assigned to the office that oversees the defense teams, who described his investigation into Rishikof’s firing. Newman discussed his interviews with former Obama Administration officials, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work and former White House Counsel Neil Eggleston. According to Newman, Eggleston indicated that President Obama had become frustrated with the slow pace and cost of the process and asked for a path to move the case forward. 

Defense counsel said that Rishikof had been exploring plea deals that would have taken the death penalty off the table and expedited proceedings. They questioned whether his firing constituted unlawful command influence from political appointees who sought to shape the judicial workings of the case and thus, compromise the independence of the proceedings. 

Upholding both the rule of law and national security are the twin challenges facing the government in this case. The use of torture, as well as alleged government surveillance and intrusion into attorney-client conversations, may result in delays for years to come, with justice remaining elusive for the victims, their families, and the American public. 

Sushma Raman is the Executive Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and served as an independent observer representing Human Rights First. This blog does not reflect the official opinion or position of Harvard Kennedy School or the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. 

 

Pages