It will be great to welcome you on the first day of class: Monday, January 3rd.

We’ll meet again
Don’t know where
Don’t know when
But I know we’ll meet again
Some sunny day
Keep smiling through
Just like you always do
‘Till the blue skies
Drive the dark clouds far away

So, will you please say hello
To the folks that I know
Tell them I won’t be long
They’ll be happy to know
That as you saw me go
I was singing this song

We’ll meet again
Don’t know where
Don’t know when
But I know we’ll meet again
Some sunny day

The Ethnography of an Air-Strike
Canada’s military academics in the Afghan war and at home

ANTHROPOLOGISTS for JUSTICE and PEACE (AJP)

and, for the book for our course,

ALERT PRESS

The British Prime Minister Makes Nato’s Case Against Milosevic–And Pledges That The Allies Will ‘See It Through.’

By Tony Blair | NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Apr 19, 1999

We have learnt by bitter experience not to appease dictators. We tried it 60 years ago. It didn’t work then and it shouldn’t be tried now. Milosevic’s actions in Kosovo have given rise to scenes of suffering and cruelty people thought were banished from Europe forever.

Europe and the United States must stand firm together. Milosevic’s policy of ethnic cleansing must be defeated and reversed. President Clinton has shown exactly the right resolve and determination. Once again, our thanks go to him and to the American people for their support in the cause of what is right.

Of course, we will be subject to the usual barrage of criticism, sometimes from people who, I think, find it hard to come to terms with the fact that there is a new generation of leaders in the United States and in Europe, who were born after World War II, who hail from the progressive side of politics, but who are prepared to be as firm as any of our predecessors right or left in seeing this thing through. See it through, we will.

Some argue we waited too long to act. To them I say it was right to give the negotiations every chance. Others argue we should not have acted at all. Of them I ask, what was the alternative? To do nothing would have been to acquiesce in Milosevic’s brutality. It was clear that unless he was stopped, Kosovo would share Bosnia’s fate.

The evidence is sobering. The Serbian offensive last year forced over 300,000 people from their homes. Villages were burned, people massacred. Despite all the efforts of the international community, including Russia, Milosevic rejected diplomacy in Paris this year. Within hours, he had let his forces off the leash in Kosovo. Within days, tens of thousands of people had fled their homes.

Milosevic was preparing for ethnic cleansing long before a single NATO bomb ever fell. What has happened was part of a plan to drive hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians out of their homes, execute many of their menfolk and torch their villages.

In Bosnia we waited four years before acting decisively. As a result of that conflict, over 200,000 people lost their lives, and 2 million people were made homeless. The duration of the conflict meant that a million of them were never able to return to their homes. NATO has not made the same mistake in Kosovo. Anyone who has seen the pictures of the hundreds of thousands of refugees leaving Kosovo, or who has heard the piteous stories of suffering imposed by the Serbian special police and the paramilitary thugs who work with them, knows why we had to act. Now they want to know that we are going to succeed.

Just as I believe there was no alternative to taking action, I am convinced there is no alternative to continuing until we succeed. On its 50th birthday NATO must prevail. We are fighting for a world where dictators are no longer able to visit horrific punishments on their own peoples in order to stay in power. It is important the people of Serbia know our quarrel is not with them. It is with the architects of Kosovo’s ethnic cleansing. Just as after World War II, a war-crimes tribunal will bring those responsible to justice.

Our policy in Kosovo is taking its toll on Milosevic’s killing machine. We should not be fooled by his state-controlled television. If he was so confident of his position, why did he suppress the independent media in Serbia? But we need to be patient. As I said, as President Clinton said, as other world leaders said at the outset of this action, he will not be defeated overnight.

We are also right to be cautious of the notion of a ground intervention force. Of course ground forces will be necessary in Kosovo to give the refugees the confidence to return to their homes in safety. But that is very different from fighting our way in. While we keep all options under review at all times, that is not our plan. A land invasion would be a massive undertaking and would take time to assemble. The casualties would potentially be large. And the civilian population would be at Milosevic’s mercy. That is why airstrikes remain the sensible option in the present crisis, intensifying them and adding to their impact.

Milosevic knows what he has to do to end NATO’s air campaign: a verifiable cessation of all combat activities and killings; the withdrawal of military, police and paramilitary forces from Kosovo; an international security force; the return of all refugees and unimpeded access for humanitarian aid, and a political framework for Kosovo based on Rambouillet.

We will not stop until he agrees to all of these conditions. The world knows too much of Milosevic to fall for any of his ploys. The succession of offers from Belgrade show that he is now looking for a way out. He wants to hang on to the results of his ethnic cleansing while protecting his killing machine. But anything short of what I’ve listed, and there’s nothing doing. The airstrikes go on.

We should start now planning for the longer term, building on the agreement that was reached at Rambouillet, accepted by the KLA, but rejected by Milosevic. After all their suffering, it is clear that the Kosovar Albanians will never trust Milosevic to rule Kosovo again. Any political solution must recognize that fact. Russia has a unique and leading role to play in these efforts.

We need to enter a new millennium where dictators know that they cannot get away with ethnic cleansing or repress their peoples with impunity. In this conflict we are fighting not for territory but for values. For a new internationalism where the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups will no longer be tolerated. For a world where those responsible for such crimes have nowhere to hide.

Find this article at

http://www.newsweek.com/id/88065

A Just And Necessary War

By WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

WASHINGTON — We are in Kosovo with our allies to stand for a Europe, within our reach for the first time, that is peaceful, undivided and free. And we are there to stand against the greatest remaining threat to that vision: instability in the Balkans, fueled by a vicious campaign of ethnic cleansing.

The problem is not simply ethnic hatred, or even ethnic conflict. The people of the former Yugoslavia have lived together for centuries with greater and lesser degrees of conflict, but not the constant “cleansing” of peoples from their land. Had they experienced nothing but that, their nations would be homogenous today, not endlessly diverse.

The intolerable conditions the region finds itself in today are the result of a decade-long campaign by Slobodan Milosevic to build a greater Serbia by singling out whole peoples for destruction because of their ethnicity and faith. The brutal methods are familiar now. Spreading hate in the media. Killing moderate leaders. Arming paramilitaries and ordering soldiers to conduct planned campaigns of murder and expulsion. Eradicating the culture, the heritage, the very record of the presence of his victims. Refugees are not a byproduct of the fighting he has initiated; the fighting is designed to create refugees. We are haunted by the images of people driven from their homes, pushing the elderly in wheelbarrows, telling stories of relatives murdered.

We saw this for the first time in Croatia and in Bosnia. The international community responded at first with a studied neutrality that equated victims with aggressors; it followed with diplomacy and the deployment of unarmed peacekeepers with the mandate, but not the means, to protect civilians. By the time NATO acted, 250,000 people were dead, more than two million displaced, and many have still not returned. People will look back on Kosovo and say that this time, because we acted soon and forcefully enough, more lives were saved and the refugees all came home. The Balkan conflict that began 10 years ago in Kosovo will have ended in Kosovo.

We cannot respond to such tragedies everywhere, but when ethnic conflict turns into ethnic cleansing where we can make a difference, we must try, and that is clearly the case in Kosovo. Had we faltered, the result would have been a moral and strategic disaster. The Kosovars would have become a people without a homeland, living in difficult conditions in some of the poorest countries in Europe, overwhelming new democracies. The Balkan conflict would have continued indefinitely, posing a risk of a wider war and of continuing tensions with Russia. NATO itself would have been discredited for failing to defend the very values that give it meaning. Those who say Kosovo is too small to be of great importance forget these simple facts.

When the violence in Kosovo began in early 1998, we exhausted every diplomatic avenue for a settlement. Last October, we convinced Mr. Milosevic that he should withdraw some forces from Kosovo and allow an unarmed international presence. That is the solution advocates of compromise propose today. But it failed last fall. Mr. Milosevic broke his promises, poured more troops into Kosovo, poised for an offensive he had been planning for months. When it began, we had to act.

Mr. Milosevic’s strategy has been to outlast us by dividing the alliance. He has failed. Instead of disunity in Brussels, there are growing signs of disaffection in Belgrade: Serbian soldiers abandoning their posts, Serbian civilians protesting the policies of their leader, young men avoiding conscription, prominent Serbs calling on Mr. Milosevic to accept NATO’s conditions. Meanwhile, our air campaign has destroyed or damaged one-third of Serbia’s armored vehicles in Kosovo, half its artillery, most of its ability to produce ammunition, all its capacity to refine fuel and done enormous damage to other sectors of its economy. Though he has driven hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanians from their homes, Mr. Milosevic has not eliminated the Kosovar Liberation Army. Indeed, its ranks are swelling, and it has begun to go on the offensive against Serb forces hunkered down to hide from air strikes.

Now Mr. Milosevic faces the certainty of continuing air strikes, the persistence of the K.L.A. and the prospect of having to answer to his people for starting an unwinnable conflict that is bringing military failure and economic ruin. The question now is not whether his ethnic cleansing will be reversed, but when, and how much of his military he is willing to see destroyed along the way.

While I do not rule out other military options, we are pursuing our present strategy for three reasons. First, and most important, it is working and will succeed in meeting NATO’s basic conditions of restoring the Kosovars to their homes, with Serb forces out of Kosovo and the deployment of an international security force. This force must have NATO at its core, which means it must have NATO command and control and NATO rules of engagement, with special arrangements for non-NATO countries, just like our force in Bosnia. Our military campaign will continue until these conditions are met, not because we are stubborn or arbitrary, but because these are the only conditions under which the refugees will go home in safety and under which the K.L.A. have any incentive to disarm — the basic requirements of a resolution that will work.

Second, this strategy has broad and deep support in the alliance, and allows us to meet our objectives. While there may be differences in domestic circumstances, cultural ties to the Balkans and ideas on tactics, there is no question about our unity on goals and our will to prevail. I have worked hard to shape our present consensus; 60 days into the air campaign, NATO is more unified on Kosovo than it was at the beginning.

Third, this strategy gives us the best opportunity to meet our goals in a way that strengthens, not weakens, our fundamental interest in a long-term, positive relationship with Russia. Russia is now helping to work out a way for Belgrade to meet our conditions. Russian troops should participate in the force that will keep the peace in Kosovo, turning a source of tension into an opportunity for cooperation, like our joint effort in Bosnia.

Finally, we must remember that the reversal of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo is not sufficient to end ethnic conflict in the Balkans and establish lasting stability. The European Union and the United States must do for southeastern Europe what we did for Western Europe after World War II and for Central Europe after the cold war. Freedom, respect for minority rights, and prosperity are powerful forces for progress. They give people goals to work for; they elevate hope over fear and tomorrow over yesterday.

We can do that by rebuilding struggling economies, encouraging trade and investment and helping the nations of the region join NATO and the European Union.

Already, the region’s democracies are responding to the pull of integration by sticking with their reforms, taking in refugees and supporting NATO’s campaign. A democratic Serbia that respects the rights of its people and its neighbors can and should join them.

If it does, we will help to restore it to its rightful place as a European state in the Balkans, not a balkanized state at the periphery of Europe.

The Balkans are not fated to be the heart of European darkness, a region of bombed mosques, men and boys shot in the back, young women raped, all traces of group and individual history rewritten or erased. Just as leaders took their people down that road, leaders must take them back to a better tomorrow. Ultimately, we and our allies can help make this happen, if we stick with NATO’s campaign and follow through with a strategy to insure that the forces pulling southeastern Europe together are stronger than the forces tearing it apart.

Torturing Democracy (2008) is a comprehensive documentary, and a very robust web-based archival project concerning the role of torture in the U.S. “war on terror.” See the website. In particular, see:

1. Transcript of the Movie;
2. Study Guide;
3. recently released memoranda on the use of torture techniques;
4. interviews conducted for the documentary, with: Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to Secretary of State (2002-2005); Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State (2001-2005); Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch, Senior Prosecutor, Office of Military Commissions (2003-06); Dr. Michael Gelles, Chief Psychologist, Naval Criminal Investigative Service (1991-2006); Alberto Mora, General Counsel, U.S. Navy (2001-2006); Dr. Allen Keller, Director, Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture; Clive Stafford Smith, Director, Reprieve Legal Rights NGO; Colonel Steven Kleinman, Senior Intelligence Officer, U.S. Air Force (1985-2008); Martin Lederman, Legal Adviser, Department of Justice (1994-2002); Colonel Brittain Mallow, Commander, Criminal Investigation Task Force (2002-05); Joseph Margulies, Lead Counsel, Rasul v. Bush, Assistant Director, MacArthur Justice Center; George Brent Mickum IV, Attorney, Spriggs & Hollingsworth; Malcolm Nance, Chief of Training, US Navy SERE (1997-2001); Major General Thomas Romig, Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army (2001-2005); Richard Shiffrin, Deputy General Counsel, Intelligence, Department of Defense (1998-2003); Bisher Al-Rawi, Detainee #906; Moazzam Begg, Detainee #558; Shaffiq Rasul, Detainee #086;
5. The Torture Archive.

Resources listed for further reading, from their website, are as follows:

• Benjamin, Mark. The CIA’s torture teachers. Salon, July 21, 2007
  Psychologists helped the CIA exploit a secret military program to develop brutal interrogation tactics — likely with the approval of the Bush White House.
• Bravin, Jess. The Conscience of the Colonel. The Wall Street Journal, March 31, 2007
  The story of Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch, who returned to duty following the 9/11 attacks to prosecute terrorists, and his subsequent professional and moral dilemmas when he learned of the harsh and coercive techniques used to interrogate one prisoner at Guantanamo.
• Eban, Katherine. Rorschach and Awe. Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007
  An examination of how interrogation techniques used on terror suspects were “reverse-engineered” by two C.I.A. psychologists with expertise in the military’s SERE anti-torture training.
• Gall, Carlotta. Prisoners; U.S. Military Investigating Death of Afghan in Custody.The New York Times, March 4, 2003
  This report on the investigation into the death of a man being held in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, also began to raise questions about conditions of detention and interrogation.
• Golden, Tim. In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates’ Deaths. The New York Times, May 20, 2005
  A report on the Army’s investigation into the deaths of two Afghan prisoners being interrogated at Bagram Airbase, Afghanistan in December, 2002. Many of the interrogators under investigation at Bagram were later transferred to Abu Ghraib.
• Hersh, Seymour. The General’s Report. The New Yorker, June 25, 2007
  The story of Major General Antonio Taguba, whose investigation and subsequent report for the U.S. Army on abuses at Abu Ghraib cost him his military career.
• Hersh, Seymour. Torture at Abu Ghraib. The New Yorker, May 10, 2004
  The first in-depth look at the abuses of Abu Ghraib, this report was instrumental in triggering several Congressional and Pentagon investigations into detainee treatment and interrogation policies.
• Lasseter, Tom and Matther Schofield. Guantanamo – Beyond the Law. McClatchy Newspapers, June 2008
  A series of articles based on an eight-month investigation by McClatchy news into the post-September 11th system of detention and interrogation. Reports include interviews with numerous prisoners held by the United States at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
• Lewis, Neil A. Red Cross Criticizes Indefinite Detention in Guantanamo Bay. The New York Times, October 10, 2003
  A senior Red Cross official in Washington says it was unacceptable for detainees to be held at Guantanamo Bay without legal protection, and the consequence of this situation on the mental health of the population had become a major problem.
• Mayer, Jane. The Black Sites. The New Yorker, August 13, 2007
  Exploring the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation of 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the Agency’s network of ‘black sites,’ used for the detention and interrogation of high value detainees.
• Mayer, Jane. The Experiment. The New Yorker, July 11, 2005
  An exhaustive look at the links between the U.S. military’s torture-resistance training and techniques used for interrogation at Guantanamo.
• Mayer, Jane. The Hard Cases. The New Yorker, February 23, 2009
  Will Obama institute a new kind of preventive detention for terrorist suspects?
• Mayer, Jane. The Hidden Power. The New Yorker, July 3, 2006
  This profile of David Addington, (principal legal advisor and chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney) details his efforts to radically alter the American justice system vis-à-vis the war on terror.
• Mayer, Jane. The Memo. The New Yorker, February 27, 2006
  An in-depth examination of retired Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora and his unsuccessful efforts to halt harsh interrogation techniques from being used at Guantanamo.
• Mayer, Jane. Outsourcing Torture. The New Yorker, February 14, 2005
  This 2005 story outlines the post September 11, 2001 practice of ‘extraordinary rendition,’ in which suspects are arrested or kidnapped outside the United States and transferred to another country for interrogation and/or prosecution.
• Priest, Dana and Barton Gellman. U.S. Decries Abuse but Defends Interrogations. The Washington Post, December 26, 2002
  This report from 2002 examines techniques used on terrorism suspects being held in overseas detention facilities, including various “stress and duress” techniques employed by interrogators and the justification used for such methods of treatment.
• Rose, David. Tortured Reasoning. Vanity Fair, December 16, 2008
  George W. Bush defended harsh interrogations by pointing to intelligence breakthroughs, but a surprising number of counterterrorist officials say that, apart from being wrong, torture just doesn’t work. Delving into two high-profile cases, the author exposes the tactical costs of prisoner abuse.
• Sands, Phillippe. Green Light. Vanity Fair, May 2008
  A detailed accounting of American interrogation policy and its legal underpinnings since September 11, 2001, drawing on interviews from many of the lawyers and decision-makers who were implementing detainee policy.
• Van Natta Jr., Don. Interrogations; Questioning Terror Suspects In a Dark and Surreal World. The New York Times, March 9 2003
  This article addresses some of the interrogation methods used on suspected terrorists, as well as examining the boundary between security and torture.

Blogs and Online Resources:

• Balkinization
  Though a broad-ranging blog focusing on a variety of legal topics, Balkinization has posted some of the most insightful analysis of legal issues pertaining to interrogation policy and the war on terror. See specifically the postings of Martin Lederman, a former attorney with the Office of Legal Counsel, and now a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center.
• Convictions (Slate)
  Another blog covering a range of legal issues, but with significant focus on issues pertaining to interrogation and detention policy in the war on terror. See specifically posts by Martin Lederman of Georgetown University Law Center, and Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School.
• SCOTUSblog
  A blog focusing on cases before the United States Supreme Court, SCOTUSblog is an outstanding resource for information pertaining to the various cases before appellate courts dealing with detainees held at Guantanamo.
• American Civil Liberties Union Blog
  The premier advocacy organization for civil liberties in the United States, the ACLU’s blog gives first-hand insight into the legal issues surrounding America’s interrogation and detention policy in the war on terror.
• CagePrisoners
  Cageprisoners is a British-based human rights organization that seeks to “raise awareness of the plight of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detainees held as part of the War on Terror.”
• Reprieve.org.uk
  Reprieve is a human rights group headed by Clive Stafford Smith providing legal representation to numerous detainees in the war on terror.
• The Guantanamo Testimonials Project at UC Davis
  The Guantanamo Testimonials Project was designed to host “testimonies of prisoner abuse in Guantanamo, to organize them in meaningful ways, to make them widely available online, and to preserve them there in perpetuity.”
• Human Rights First Blog
  A premier international group fighting for human rights, HRF has been advocating for humane treatment for detainees at Guantanamo since the prison camp opened in January 2002. This blog details their first hand observations of the legal proceedings at Guantanamo.
• Human Rights Watch
  One of the world’s largest and well-regarded human rights organizations, Human Rights Watch is a fierce advocate for the rights of detainees held at Guantanamo.
• Human Rights Watch, Timeline of Detainee Abuse Allegations and Responses, 2006
  Containing articles, memos, and statements, this timeline spans from December 25, 2002 to May 3, 2004 and highlights significant moments and themes relating to concerns about mistreatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations.
• No Comment (Scott Horton @ Harper’s)
  Blog of New York human rights attorney and Harper’s contributor Scott Horton.
• Humans Rights First, Chronology of Denial of Habeas Corpus
  This timeline, from December 28, 2001 to December 5, 2007, outlines changes to detainee rights during the post 9-11 years.
• International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
  As an independent and neutral international organization, the ICRC is committed to ensuring humanitarian protection and assistance to victims of war and violence, including the proper treatment of detainees at facilities such as Guantanamo Bay.

Books:

• Alexander, Matthew with John Bruning. How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq, Free Press, 2008.
• Begg, Moazzam. Enemy Combatant: My Imprisonment at Guantanamo, Bagram, and Kandahar. New Press, 2007.
• Danner, Mark. Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror. New York Review Books, 2004.
• Gellman, Barton. Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency. Penguin Press HC, 2008.
• Goldsmith, Jack. The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration. W. W. Norton, 2007.
• Greenberg, Karen and Joshua Dratel. The Torture Papers, The Road to Abu Ghraib. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
• Gourevitch, Philip and Errol Morris. Standard Operating Procedure. Penguin Press HC, 2008.
• Hersh, Seymour. Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. Harper Perennial, 2005.
• Jaffer, Jameel and Amrit Singh. Administration of Torture: A Documentary Record from Washington to Abu Ghraib and Beyond. Columbia University Press, 2007.
• Khan, Mahvish. My Guantanamo Diary: The Detainees and the Stories They Told Me. PublicAffairs, 2008.
• Kurnaz, Murat. Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantanamo. Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
• Mahler, Jonathan. The Challenge: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and the Fight over Presidential Power. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008.
• Margulies, Joseph. Guantanamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power. Simon & Schuster, 2006.
• Mayer, Jane. The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals. Doubleday, 2008.
• McCoy, Alfred. A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. Holt Paperbacks, 2006.
• Rejali, Darius. Torture and Democracy. Princeton University Press, 2007.
• Saar, Erik and Viveca Novak. Inside the Wire: A Military Intelligence Soldier’s Eyewitness Account of Life at Guantanamo. Penguin Press HC, 2005.
• Sands, Phillippe. Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values. Palgrave Macmillan. 2008.
• Savage, Charles. Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy. Back Bay Books, 2008.
• Smith, Clive Stafford. The Eight O’Clock Ferry to the Windward Side: Fighting the Lawless World of Guantanamo Bay. Nation Books, 2007.
• Suskind, Ron. The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11. Simon & Schuster, 2007.
• Wax, Steven T. Kafka Comes to America: Fighting for Justice in the War on Terror – A Public Defender’s Inside Account. Other Press, 2008.
• Worthington, Andy. The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 759 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison. Pluto Press, 2007.

Organizations engaged in a range of activities on the issue of torture, and their reports:

American Civil Liberties Union

The nation’s largest public interest law firm, the American Civil Liberties Union works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws.  The ACLU filed a landmark FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Defense and other federal agencies that has resulted in the release of thousands of documents – which continues to this day – regarding detention and interrogation policies.

Reports:

Enduring Abuse: Torture and Cruel Treatment by the United States at Home and Abroad

American Constitution Society

The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy is a non-partisan educational organization comprised of a network of lawyers, law students, scholars, judges and policymakers.  ACS has addressed the legal implications of matters such as torture and restrictions on habeas corpus.

Reports:

Guantanamo is Here: The Military Commissions Act and Noncitizen Vulnerability

Amnesty International

Amnesty International is a movement of people across more than 150 countries who campaign for internationally recognized human rights.  AI’s human rights campaigns include Countering Terror with Justice and Detention and Imprisonment.

Reports:

USA: Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power

USA: Cruel and Inhuman: Conditions of isolation for detainees at Guantanamo Bay

USA: Rendition – torture – trial? : The case of Guantanamo detainee Mohamedou Ould Slahi

Cageprisoners

Cageprisoners is a human rights organization created to raise awareness of the plight of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere in the “war on terror.”  The organization, launched in October 2003, has the backing of both Muslim and non-Muslim lawyers, activists, former detainees, families of prisoners and academics.

Reports:

Citizens No More: ‘War on Terror’ Abuses in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Center for Constitutional Rights

Founded in 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights is a legal advocacy group dedicated to advancing and protecting rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.   CCR has coordinated more than 500 attorneys who have worked pro bono defending prisoners in custody at Guantanamo, in proceedings that have placed thousands of pages of documents on the public record.

Reports:

Profiles of Guantanamo Refugees

Guantánamo: Six Years Later

The Torture of Mohammed Al Qahtani

a. Declaration of Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Esq., Lawyer for Mohammed al Qahtani

b. Interrogation Log

The Military Commissions Act of 2006

Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment of Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay

Report: Tipton Three Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay

Report: Guantanamo and Its Aftermath (UC Berkeley & C.C.R.)

Center on Law and Security at New York University

Founded in 2003, the Center on Law and Security is an independent, non-partisan center designed to promote an informed understanding of major legal and security issues that have defined the post-9/11 environment.  Policymakers, practitioners, scholars, journalists and other experts are brought together to address major issues and provide concrete policy recommendations.

Reports:

Terrorist Trials, September 11, 2001-April 1, 2008

Center for Victims of Torture

The Center for Victims of Torture is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization which provides services directly to torture survivors; trains health, education, and human services professionals; conducts research; and advocates for public policy initiatives.  It also operates healing centers in Sierra Leone, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Human Rights First

Human Rights First seeks accountability for human rights violations while also working to protect people at risk: refugees who flee persecution, victims of crimes against humanity, victims of discrimination, those whose rights are eroded in the name of national security, and advocates who are targeted for defending the human rights of others.

Reports:

How to Close Guantanamo: Blueprint for the Next Administration

Tortured Justice: Using Coerced Evidence to Prosecute Terrorist Suspects

Command Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan

Ending Secret Detentions

Arbitrary Justice: Trials of Bagram and Guantanamo Detainees in Afghanistan

Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch, an independent nongovernmental organization, is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world.  HRW challenges governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law.

Reports:

Locked Up Alone:  Detention Conditions and Mental Health at Guantanamo

Double Jeopardy: CIA Renditions to Jordan

National Religious Campaign Against Torture

The National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) is a growing membership organization committed to ending U.S.-sponsored cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.  Since its formation in January 2006, over 200 religious groups have become members.

Physicians for Human Rights

Physicians for Human Rights mobilizes health professionals to advance health, dignity, and justice.  Harnessing the specialized skills of doctors, nurses, public health specialists, and scientists, PHR investigates human rights abuses.

Reports:

Broken Laws, Broken Lives: Medical Evidence of Torture by the US

Reprieve / UK office

Reprieve, founded by Clive Stafford Smith, is a legal action charity that uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners from death row to Guantanamo, where 30 prisoners are currently represented by the organization’s attorneys.   Reprieve is also investigating “extraordinary renditions” and secret prisons.

Reports:

The Forgotten Italian Residents In Guantanamo Bay

“Human Cargo:”  Binyam Mohamed and the Rendition Frequent Flier Programme

Torture Abolition and Survivor Support Coalition International

The Torture Abolition and Survivors Support Coalition International (TASSC) is the only organization founded by and for torture survivors, and works to end the practice of torture wherever it occurs and to empower survivors, their families and communities wherever they are.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)