The ICJ held a panel today at the Brookings Institution consisting of human rights experts, judges, and lawyers from around the world, who for the past three years have investigated over forty countries treatment of human rights in counterterrorism efforts. The report found that counterterrorism policies put international legal respect for human rights in jeopardy. The panel was the first presentation of the report to a U.S. audience, thus the focus was on U.S. obligation to end its practices since the “war on terrorism” was coined, that the state of war provides justification to set aside human rights safeguards.
The panel reports that human rights violations in counterterrorism come in many forms. Individuals are abducted and held in secret prisons, being tortured and ill treated, not given access to lawyers, courts, or fair trial. Additionally, the culture of secrecy has become pervasive to the point where “innocent victims find themselves with no avenue for redress.”
Suzanne Spaulding, Principal of Bingham Consulting Group, explained that by declaring a “war on terror,” the U.S. put human rights into jeopardy because collateral damage is accepted much more in war time and the president is given significant power and fewer checks and balances. Of the increase in presidential power, Spaulding stated, “I think that is one of the most damaging consequences of our having taken this very broad, global ‘war on terror’ approach.” Spaulding concluded that she feels very “gratified” that President Obama has not used the term “war on terror.”
Robert Goldman, Professor of Law at American University, outlined the process that should be taken when a human rights violation occurs. “When there is a serious human rights violation the remedies are clear. One, there has to be effective access to court.” When the government tries to plead “state secrecy” for actions which it knew were illegal, it is “utterly inconsistent with human rights law.” Second, in order to go along with international human rights law, each case deserves “thorough and impartial investigation.”
Arthur Chaskalson, former Chief Justice of South Africa, presented the fact that some U.S. representatives have argued that human rights law does not apply in times of war. He then read the recommendation of the panel to the United States as a response to this point of view: “The incoming U.S. administration should reaffirm the U.S.’s historic commitment to fully uphold and faithfully apply international humanitarian law, the laws of war, during situations of armed conflict and recognize that human rights law does not cease to apply in such situations.” The concluding argument is that while the U.S. is at war, and must use force, this force needs to be “necessary and appropriate.”
International Commission of Jurists: U.S. needs to put an end to its human rights violations
The panel reports that human rights violations in counterterrorism come in many forms. Individuals are abducted and held in secret prisons, being tortured and ill treated, not given access to lawyers, courts, or fair trial. Additionally, the culture of secrecy has become pervasive to the point where “innocent victims find themselves with no avenue for redress.”
Suzanne Spaulding, Principal of Bingham Consulting Group, explained that by declaring a “war on terror,” the U.S. put human rights into jeopardy because collateral damage is accepted much more in war time and the president is given significant power and fewer checks and balances. Of the increase in presidential power, Spaulding stated, “I think that is one of the most damaging consequences of our having taken this very broad, global ‘war on terror’ approach.” Spaulding concluded that she feels very “gratified” that President Obama has not used the term “war on terror.”
Robert Goldman, Professor of Law at American University, outlined the process that should be taken when a human rights violation occurs. “When there is a serious human rights violation the remedies are clear. One, there has to be effective access to court.” When the government tries to plead “state secrecy” for actions which it knew were illegal, it is “utterly inconsistent with human rights law.” Second, in order to go along with international human rights law, each case deserves “thorough and impartial investigation.”
Arthur Chaskalson, former Chief Justice of South Africa, presented the fact that some U.S. representatives have argued that human rights law does not apply in times of war. He then read the recommendation of the panel to the United States as a response to this point of view: “The incoming U.S. administration should reaffirm the U.S.’s historic commitment to fully uphold and faithfully apply international humanitarian law, the laws of war, during situations of armed conflict and recognize that human rights law does not cease to apply in such situations.” The concluding argument is that while the U.S. is at war, and must use force, this force needs to be “necessary and appropriate.”