Talking Rights

Talking Rights random header image

Can human rights trials improve mental health?

January 20th, 2010 by Robin Kirk
Respond

Today, we hosted Dr. Jeffrey Sonis from UNC-Chapel Hill. He’s been studying the international human rights trials in Cambodia, to see if trials produce measurable effects on the mental health of victims who suffer from trauma (or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, according to the lingo). This was an event cosponsored with the Duke Global Health Institute.

The question is provocative. Usually, trials are seen in the context of justice, not mental health. Trials evaluate accused law-breakers and mete out punishment to the guilty. In purely legal terms, they are not meant to improve the mental health of victims.

Yet often, trials are said to be “healing” or provide “closure.” There is a common perception that by telling their stories, victims who have suffered horrible treatment can get better. The victims’ rights movement in the United States would argue that trials — and especially guilty verdicts or even the death penalty — help them recover from the loss of a loved one.

Is this really true? In the context of international tribunals or truth commissions, can you measure therapeutic outcomes? Can genocide be somatically “healed” with justice? Most tribunals have no mental health services that accompany proceedings or serve witnesses who testify.

The questions don’t stop there. If the effects are negative — if trials retraumatize — then should they be stopped in the interests of the victims? Is impunity the price of mental health? Or does impunity (and forgetting) take its own, harder-to-measure toll?

But trials really aren’t about satisfying victims, but upholding the rule of law. In murder trials, the prosecutor doesn’t represent the victims; the prosecutor represents the government, acting to uphold its laws. So even if victims suffer again, isn’t it defensible for the world to insist on justice for the greater good?

Of course, individuals would react differently — some more and some less traumatized. And trauma in the context of justice, the emergence of a fuller story, the contact victims might have with each other — might end with some healing.

This leaves aside entirely the subject of reconciliation — when individual healing leads to the ability of larger numbers of people, victims and perpetrators, to establish a new and positive relationship.

One thing is clear, though. It’ not possible to assume that justice automatically produces healing. Justice can take its own, separate toll. And unfortunately, victims continue to pay the price for us all.

Tags:   · · · · No Comments.

The cost of convicting innocents…

September 17th, 2009 by Robin Kirk
Respond

The Duke Human Rights Center was lucky to be a part of an event marking the end of an art exhibition examining the human cost of capital punishment. Malaquias Montoya, the artist, is well known for his political work (and his images are familiar to me from having lived in Berkeley in the 1980s and seen innumerable advertisements for local music, often featuring Montoya’s images).

We hosted State Sen. Floyd McKissick, Jr., who sponsored the Racial Justice Act, passed this summer. This act allows defendants charged with capital crimes to present evidence showing that race is a factor in their prosecutions or convictions.

And no case shows racial bias more starkly that that of Darryl Hunt. Convicted of a rape and murder he did not commit, he spent 19 years in jail before being exonerated. DNA evidence showed that another man committed the crime. The other man then confessed.

For 19 years, Hunt claimed his innocence. Once, he was even offered a plea of time served and his lawyers urged him to take it. But he was innocent and turned them down. Years passed before he was fully cleared.

I was able to have Hunt come speak to my human rights class (picture below). What I was most amazed by was what he said about the families of the victims. Just as he was wrongly accused for 19 years, the family of the young woman so brutally murdered was lied to by prosecutors, who knew early on that they had the wrong man. Meanwhile, the man who actually was the murdered continued to rape and beat women, almost killing one of his victims.

So the cost of convicting the innocent is not just measured in their lives, but also in the lives of the victims’ family members, and the members of communities still at risk.

A very moving and thoughtful presentation…

Darryl Hunt with human rights students

Darryl Hunt with human rights students

Tags: 1 Comment

If Americans torture…

September 14th, 2009 by Robin Kirk
Respond

“If Americans torture and it comes to light — as it inevitably will — it embitters and alienates the very people we need most.

Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.

Some of the most hard-hitting and cogent responses to former Vice President Cheney’s advocacy for torture come from the American military. As the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer has reported, Former Marine commandant Krulakhas been passionate in his opposition to torture and met with then-candidate Obama prior to the election to explain why.

In a Miami Herald oped published on September 11, 2009, Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, another influential general, took Cheney to the woodshed for his insistence on promoting torture. Their language is unequivocal. “In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas — and his scare tactics,” they write.

Gen. (ret) Charles C. Krulak

Gen. (ret) Charles C. Krulak

They go after Cheney point by point. Torture didn’t provide useful intelligence. To the contrary, the best information was obtained “by professional interrogations using non-coercive techniques. When the abuse began, prisoners told interrogators whatever they thought would make it stop.”

What torture did accomplish was staining our honor and the values that American armed forces stand for.

Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation’s honor. To argue that honorable conduct is only required against an honorable enemy degrades the Americans who must carry out the orders. As military professionals, we know that complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality. Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed.

And far from making us safer, torture recruited more people to the forces that attack Americans. “Repudiating torture and other cruelty helps keep us from being sent on fools’ errands by bad intelligence. And in the end, that makes us all safer.”

Well worth reading in full…

Tags:   · · · 1 Comment

CIA and Torture

August 25th, 2009 by Robin Kirk
Respond

The just-released report by the CIA Inspector General (CIA IG) is one of a series of documents released yesterday about the US torture program. The report dates from 2004, but has lots of new detail.

What you need to know about yesterday’s revelations (via Time’s Michael Scherer):

1. The CIA IG concluded that the public had been misled about the interrogation program. While the report stops short of accusing any public official of lying, it makes clear that the public statements that the U.S. Government made about its conduct differed from what was actually happening, creating a liability for the CIA if the information ever got out. “The EITs [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] used by the Agency under the CTC [Counterterrorist Center] Program are inconsistent with the public policy positions that the United States has taken regarding human rights,” the report reads. In particular, the IG notes that President Bush in June of 2003 issued a statement in observance of the “United Nations International Day In Support Of Victims of Torture.” The report quotes Bush’s statement at length, including this assertion: “The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.” Later in the report, the IG writes: “Although the current detention and interrogation Program has been subject to DoJ [Department of Justice] legal review and Administration political approval, it diverges sharply from previous Agency policy and practice, rules that govern interrogations by U.S. military and law enforcement officers, statements of U.S. policy by the Department of State, and public statements by very senior U.S. officials, including the President.”

2. The CIA IG found that the CIA used waterboarding in a way that had not been approved by the Justice Department, calling into question the legality of the technique. In one passage, the IG notes that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel had approved the waterboarding of detainees based on the assumption that the waterboarding would be similar to the practice used in a U.S. military training program [a reference to the SERE program, itself highly questioned]. The IG quotes medical experts at the CIA asserting that the “the [U.S. military] waterboard experience is so different from the subsequent Agency use as to make it almost irrelevant.” An interrogator/psychologist who had helped to administer the program admitted the difference, saying the CIA use of waterboarding was “for real.” The differences included duration, frequency, the amount of water used, and the way air passages were obstructed.

3. The CIA IG repeatedly brought what it viewed as abuses or violations of law to the attention of Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department, without any positive result. After a review of the program determined that one detainee had been waterboarded “in a manner inconsistent with” the description of the technique in military training and in the Justice Department legal guidance, the matter was brought directly to Ashcroft by the CIA general counsel. According to the report, Ashcroft disagreed with the CIA IG assessment. Ashcroft responded by telling the CIA that he saw no problem with waterboarding one detainee 119 times, deciding that the “CIA is well within the scope of the DoJ opinion and the authority given to CIA by that opinion.” This is not the only difference of opinion between the Justice Department and the CIA IG. At another point, the IG reports to prosecutors that one CIA employee had threatened a detainee with a powerdrill and a handgun, both unauthorized techniques for which he did not seek approval. The Justice Department announced its decision not to prosecute this CIA employee on September 11, 2003, exactly two years after the attacks on New York and Washington D.C.

4. The CIA IG concluded that while high-value detainees did produce valuable intelligence, the measurement of the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques “is a more subjective process and not without some concern.” The CIA lists four reasons for this muddled view. First, “the Agency cannot determine with any certainty the totality of the intelligence the detainee actually possesses.” Second, “each detainee has different fears of and tolereace for” harsh techniques. Third, “the application of the same” harsh technique “by different interrogators may have different results.” The fourth reason that the effectiveness of harsh techniques could not be known objectively remains classified, and was redacted from the released document.

5. The initial harsh interrogation program, begun in 2002, was poorly managed, some interrogators were poorly trained and informed, and they used techniques that were substantially harsher than what had been approved by the White House and the Justice Department. “[T]he Agency—especially in the early months of the Program—failed to provide adequate staffing, guidance, and support to those involved with the detention and interrogation of detainees,” the report states. There were a number of episodes when people working for the CIA behaved outside of approved techniques. Perhaps the most serious case involved an Afghan citizen, who had been implicated in rocket attacks on U.S. military bases. Once captured, in June of 2003, the suspect was held at a military base. “During the four days the individual was detained, an Agency independent contractor, who was a paramilitary officer, is alleged to have severely beaten the detainee with a large metal flashlight and kicked him during interrogation sessions.” The detainee died in custody. The contractor, who had not been trained or authorized to conduct interrogations, received a relatively light punishment. He did not have his contract renewed by the CIA.

And there’s lots more to come, one suspects…

Tags:   · · · · · No Comments.

High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group

August 24th, 2009 by Robin Kirk
Respond

The Obama Administration just announced the creation of a new, multi-institution group that will take over the questioning of high-value suspects in the “war on terror.” According to the Los Angeles Times, interrogators will “stay within the parameters of the Army Field Manual when questioning suspects,” meaning no torture.

This comes on a day when we will be reading new details about torture and mistreatment contained in a CIA inspector general’s report  Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. continues to deliberate on whether to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate past interrogation abuses.

Even those of us who have followed this issue closely are challenged to keep the timeline straight. Foreign Policy recently published a helpful summary, beginning with September 11. Of course, it’s possible to go much further back, including the Middle Ages. Newsweek just did one that started with the Crucifixion and end with waterboarding.

It’s important to remember where we’ve come from at this juncture. Although the Obama Administration would like to move forward without investigating the past, it’s going to stick to them like gum on a shoe. Better to know what happened — and hold the right people responsible — than close our eyes.

Tags:   · · · · No Comments.

American troops to the Congo?

August 14th, 2009 by Robin Kirk
Respond

With Secretary Clinton’s trip to Africa highlighting the fighting that continues in the Congo, an opinion piece in the Washington Post is calling for American troops to support the tiny UN force.

Michael O’ Hanlon, at Brookings writes:

If the situation is to improve, we need to do the one thing that is required above all others — strengthen security, especially in eastern Congo. And by now we should have learned the hard way that there is only one way to do so — by leading through example, with the deployment of at least modest numbers of American troops, to spark a broader strengthening of the current U.N. mission. If the Afghanistan mission was undermanned last year with only 60,000 NATO-led troops in a country of 30 million, how can a U.N. mission of 20,000 address the challenges of Congo and its 60 million people?

But what is really interesting about O’ Hanlon’s piece is his proposal that the US military create an all volunteer force to send on peace keeping operations. “Ask for volunteers to join a peace operations division for two years,” O’ Hanlon writes. “They would begin their service with, say, 12 weeks of boot camp and 12 weeks of specialized training and then would be deployable. They would receive the same compensation and health benefits as regular troops, given their age and experience. Out of a division of 15,000 troops, one brigade, or about 3,000 to 4,000 soldiers, could be sustained in the field at a time.”

This doesn’t erase all objections, of course. US force is US force, regardless of whether or not these volunteers are committed to stopping human rights abuses. At the same time, this proposal would dilute the objection that we are risking American lives for goals that are not directly related to national interests.

Interesting idea…

Tags:   · · · 2 Comments

Pauli Murray Project

August 10th, 2009 by Robin Kirk
Respond

As part of our effort to practice human rights at home as well as far away, the Duke Human Rights Center sponsors a Durham project that seeks to use the legacy of one of our most illustrious daughters, Pauli Murray, to spur more knowledge about our past and build a constituency interested in positive change for the future.

“Activating history for social justice” is one way of putting this.We are also asking Durham residents what reconciliation would look like for them and how do we begin talking about the past, good and bad. Durham is often portrayed as the place where, albeit in secret, black and whites “got along.” After all, both Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois used Durham as an examples of how their views on race and progress — as segregated communities helping themselves or integrated communities with equal rights — were the right ones. Yet there was violence and injustice resulting from slavery, segregation and the “quiet rage” or one race dominating and exploiting another.

We’re using the “sites of conscience” museum movement as one way to show how the past can be harnessed to a more open and inclusive future.

The local newspaper, the Durham Herald-Sun, has been covering the project with a great deal of interested. There was a front page story in the August 9 Sunday edition; and an opinion piece today.

The Sunday story:

BY DAWN BAUMGARTNER VAUGHAN : The Herald-Sun
dvaughan@heraldsun.com
Aug 9, 2009

DURHAM — Pauli Murray’s life story can be an example for many facets of our community — white, African-American, women, men, the faithful. The woman who grew up in Durham and affected society well beyond it is the subject of a local project to educate people about her legacy. She was a poet, a lawyer, civil rights and women’s rights activist, and a priest.

Murray’s heritage was white, black and Native American. She became the first female African-American to be ordained to the priesthood in the Episcopal Church. And her 1956 family history, “Proud Shoes: The Story of an American Family” discussed issues of identity that are uncomfortable for some even today.

A public art project in Durham this past February featuring murals of Murray was the catalyst for The Pauli Murray Project. Fourteen colorful murals representing Murray were painted at six sites by “Face Up: Telling Stories of Community Life,” sponsored by the Duke Center for Documentary Studies.

Barbara Lau, director of the Pauli Murray Project, said there are a lot of people in Durham who don’t know about Murray. “We want to introduce her and her ideas to Durham,” she said.

The project is part of the Duke Human Rights Center at the John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, and aims to use Murray’s legacy to explore Durham history and promote reconciliation and dialogue that may lay the foundation of the proposed Durham History Museum.

Lau said they hope the project will spark a grassroots effort to read and discuss “Proud Shoes.” The Durham County Library has a book club pack of “Proud Shoes,” providing several copies to check out at once, plus a reading guide. A public discussion will be held Wednesday night at St. Joseph’s Episcopal Church, facilitated by Courtney Reid-Eaton and the Rev. Brooks Graebner, who both serve on the steering committee.

Murray’s family history is also local Episcopalian history, said Graebner, rector of St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church in Hillsborough.

Murray’s great-grandmother Cornelia Fitzgerald was born into slavery in Orange County to her mother, Harriet, and a white slave-owning father in the Smith family. As a child, she was brought to church by the woman who owned her — and was also her aunt — at The Chapel of the Cross in Chapel Hill.

Murray discussed her ancestry in “Proud Shoes,” which has been reprinted multiple times. Cornelia Fitzgerald married a biracial schoolteacher in Orange County who was a Union veteran that came South during Reconstruction to teach. The couple lived in Hillsborough at first, attending St. Matthew’s Episcopal and baptizing their children there, including Pauline Fitzgerald Dame. Dame was Murray’s aunt and a founding member of St. Titus Episcopal Church in Durham. Dame also raised Murray after her parents died.

After Murray was ordained an Episcopal priest, she celebrated Eucharist at The Chapel of the Cross in Chapel Hill. July 1, the date of her death in 1985, is being considered as a feast day in the Episcopal Church. Proposed at the General Convention this summer, it was moved to committee for a process that could take a few years to complete.

Graebner, diocese historiographer, said Murray’s nomination as a saint also helps the predominantly white Episcopal Church to examine its own racial history and grapple with its complicity in slavery. The balcony at St. Matthew’s was once the slave section.

After the Civil War, St. Titus was founded by African-Americans in Durham and remains the only predominantly African-American Episcopal congregation in the area, Graebner said.

“It is important for us to be talking about this — that we remember what this racial history is. ‘Proud Shoes’ opens very interesting windows into that complex, painful history,” he said.

For Reid-Eaton, a member of St. Joseph’s, which is hosting the book discussion Wednesday, “Proud Shoes” showed her that Murray was a visionary thinker to talk about race and incendiary issues in the 1950s.

“She strove to be a fully integrated human being, proud of all her identities — African-American and part white, Irish and Native American,” Reid-Eaton said. She said that like Murray, she too is a person of mixed heritage as most African-Americans are. Her husband is white, and it is important to them to raise their children in a world where they can embrace all that they are.

“People tend to be pretty single-minded about race. I think it’s hard for people to accept that people can be both black and white, not have to choose one or the other. For example, our president,” she said. She said that while the term African-American is used to describe black people, but not all black people are African-American. Her own ancestry is Caribbean.

“Race is very complicated and we try to simplify that, making things black and white,” Reid-Eaton said. “Pauli Murray is someone who was talking like this, like I’m talking now, in 1956. That’s amazing. Her writings have been an incredible gift to me.”

And an opinion piece by the same reporter today:

What will Murray’s legacy be?

Aug 10, 2009

Whooo … Are … You? The caterpillar in “Alice in Wonderland” poses the question in fantastical puffs of smoke, but the question is a sober one. A thoughtful one. We can all give a quick answer: our name. I’m Dawn. Americans like identifying ourselves by our occupations, too. I’m a journalist. We move on to parenthood, where we live, where we’re from, where we went to school, our political persuasions, our social activities, our religion — really the list is endless.

Somewhere in there is race. Some people, like me, don’t usually mention it because it’s not significant to them. I’m not reminded daily of being white. It’s something I take for granted, in that any discrimination I feel would be based on gender, not race. If I were a Duke professor breaking into my own house, police probably wouldn’t be very suspicious of me.

While our president and events in the news lately have brought to light our national reaction to America’s racial relations, reconciliation and history, someone raised here in Durham brought up the subject half a century ago. That would be Pauli Murray. Perhaps you’ve seen her face splashed in bright colors of paint on buildings around the city.

I wrote the story that ran Sunday about the latest developments in The Pauli Murray Project, started at Duke earlier this year. Murray’s accomplished life spanned much of the 20th century. She was the first African-American Episcopal priest. She broke gender and racial barriers and was a lawyer and a poet. I think we can all find a way to identify with her on some level. She called people out. That’s what I like best about her. She questioned authority. She literally would not sit at the back of the bus.

Murray also showed us that not everyone is just white or just black. At a time when any black heritage at all meant that you were black, period, Murray wrote about her multiracial family history in “Proud Shoes: The Story of an American Family.” It was published in 1956. Pause and think about that for a minute. That was way before I was born, but I know enough U.S. history to know that our country was just waking up to stamping out the injustice white Americans shoved onto African Americans. We certainly weren’t a cross-racial nation joining in a round of beers together at the White House.

I wrote my column last week about a Durham man who went out of his way to return a found laptop computer because it was the right thing to do. Murray called out her ancestors and discussed her family history publicly because it was the right thing to do. She questioned the admissions policy at UNC and Harvard because it was the right thing to do. Doing the right thing can present itself in myriad ways.

The right thing for us to do in Durham, as the city that raised Murray, is to recognize what she has done for us as a city and a country. How the Pauli Murray Project takes shape may be guided by its steering committee, but the result will be completed by you.

What will Pauli Murray do in Durham, now 24 years after her death? Will she spark conversation? Will her image grace more public art space than the murals? Will her legacy inspire fellow Hillside High graduates to succeed? Will she inspire women to become priests or lawyers? Will Durham spread the word about one of its own? I don’t have the answer. You do.

Now, Pauli Murray wasn’t the first and won’t be the last person who grew up in Durham and went on to do great things. If you think a Durhamite that has been forgotten or overlooked deserves some attention, let me know.

Check out the Pauli Murray Facebook page for more!


Tags: No Comments.

Remembering Tiananmen

June 3rd, 2009 by Robin Kirk
Respond

YouTube Preview Image



Tags:   · · No Comments.

Sotomayor on torture…

May 28th, 2009 by Robin Kirk
Respond

Sotomayor was one of the appeals judges to hear the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was suing the US government over his extraordinary rendition in 2002. Suspected wrongly of being a terrorist, Arar was detained at JFK, then flown to Syria, where he underwent 10 months and 10 days of torture.

Unfortinately, the Obama Administration has embraced the state-secrets claims pioneered by the Bush administration, arguing that his suit would reveal too much confidential information. As the New York Times noted in February, “In Mr. Arar’s case, the secrecy claims are even more baseless in light of the widespread publicity about his treatment, and the published findings by the Canadians.”

This clip features Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor grilling a Justice Department lawyer. This actually took place in November 2008, tobefore Obama’s inauguration. She cuts to the chase very quickly…



Tags:   · · · No Comments.

Jon Stewart on torture

April 30th, 2009 by Robin Kirk
Respond

Worth watching, if only for Stewart’s impassioned defense of human rights:

Jon Stewart’s Extended Interview with Cliff May | Indecision Forever | Comedy Central

Tags: 1 Comment