Learn from the mistakes of others

Friday, May 05, 2006
Senate panel OKs demand for legal opinion on interrogation methods
Jeannie Shawl at 9:35 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Senate Armed Services Committee [official website] on Thursday added a provision to the 2007 defense spending bill which would require the Bush administration to provide "a US government coordinated legal opinion on whether certain specified interrogation techniques would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005." The provision was inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 [S 2507 summary] as the committee completed markup [press release, PDF] of the bill. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 [JURIST document], passed as part of the 2006 military spending bill, prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees "under the physical control of the United States Government," but clear rules defining these terms have yet to be provided to military interrogators. US Defense Department [official website] officials have been updating the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation [current text] to provide clearer guidelines, but the revised manual has not yet been released [JURIST report]. The release has been held up due to debate on whether specific guidelines on interrogation techniques [JURIST report] should be classified. The Defense Department's draft would keep secret specific descriptions of what constitutes acceptable interrogation practices, but Armed Services Committee members have raised concerns that by keeping this information classified, there is no way to ensure that the guidelines fall within the bounds of US and international law.

The US House is set to vote on its defense spending bill next week, and the full Senate could begin debate on the Senate version by the end of the month. The interrogation opinion provision will become law only if it is still included in the reconciled version of the spending bill eventually passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

AP has more.

Friday, May 05, 2006
Senate panel OKs demand for legal opinion on interrogation methods
Jeannie Shawl at 9:35 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Senate Armed Services Committee [official website] on Thursday added a provision to the 2007 defense spending bill which would require the Bush administration to provide "a US government coordinated legal opinion on whether certain specified interrogation techniques would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005." The provision was inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 [S 2507 summary] as the committee completed markup [press release, PDF] of the bill. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 [JURIST document], passed as part of the 2006 military spending bill, prohibits "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees "under the physical control of the United States Government," but clear rules defining these terms have yet to be provided to military interrogators. US Defense Department [official website] officials have been updating the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation [current text] to provide clearer guidelines, but the revised manual has not yet been released [JURIST report]. The release has been held up due to debate on whether specific guidelines on interrogation techniques [JURIST report] should be classified. The Defense Department's draft would keep secret specific descriptions of what constitutes acceptable interrogation practices, but Armed Services Committee members have raised concerns that by keeping this information classified, there is no way to ensure that the guidelines fall within the bounds of US and international law.

The US House is set to vote on its defense spending bill next week, and the full Senate could begin debate on the Senate version by the end of the month. The interrogation opinion provision will become law only if it is still included in the reconciled version of the spending bill eventually passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

AP has more.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Human rights key component of Annan global counter-terror plan
Angela Onikepe at 7:51 AM ET

[JURIST Europe] UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan presented [speech text] his recommendations [UN press release] for a global counter-terrorism strategy to the UN General Assembly Tuesday, emphasizing the need to respect human rights in all aspects of anti-terrorism policy and practice. The defense of human rights constituted the fifth part of what he called the fundamental components of a global strategy, which also included:

• dissuading people from resorting to terrorism or supporting it;
• denying terrorists the means to carry out an attack;
• deterring States from supporting terrorism; and
• developing State capacity to defeat terrorism

Annan's strategy is encapsulated in a 32-page report [text] calling on states to "ratify and implement the core international human rights instruments and accept the competence of international and national human rights monitoring bodies." Annan insisted that by defending human rights, the global community can deprive terrorists of a critical victory. He also called upon member states to agree on the draft of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism [text], long held up by disagreements over a core definition of terrorism, insisting that those disagreements should not stand in the way of agreement on other issues.

The UN General Assembly is slated to begin discussions on Annan's recommendations May 11.

Voice of America has more.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Human rights key component of Annan global counter-terror plan
Angela Onikepe at 7:51 AM ET

[JURIST Europe] UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan presented [speech text] his recommendations [UN press release] for a global counter-terrorism strategy to the UN General Assembly Tuesday, emphasizing the need to respect human rights in all aspects of anti-terrorism policy and practice. The defense of human rights constituted the fifth part of what he called the fundamental components of a global strategy, which also included:

• dissuading people from resorting to terrorism or supporting it;
• denying terrorists the means to carry out an attack;
• deterring States from supporting terrorism; and
• developing State capacity to defeat terrorism

Annan's strategy is encapsulated in a 32-page report [text] calling on states to "ratify and implement the core international human rights instruments and accept the competence of international and national human rights monitoring bodies." Annan insisted that by defending human rights, the global community can deprive terrorists of a critical victory. He also called upon member states to agree on the draft of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism [text], long held up by disagreements over a core definition of terrorism, insisting that those disagreements should not stand in the way of agreement on other issues.

The UN General Assembly is slated to begin discussions on Annan's recommendations May 11.

Voice of America has more.

stratfor.com PUBLIC POLICY INTELLIGENCE REPORT 04.06.2006

Ending the CSR Debate
Bart Mongoven

The debate over the moral responsibilities of corporations to society has taken on a more solid form with the release of the first draft of the standard known as ISO-26000. When finished, the standard -- drafted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) -- can be used by corporations to determine (and prove) that they are acting in a socially responsible manner. The standard will not be published until 2008, and the current draft reportedly is in a highly unfinished form, with many significant questions still to be answered. Nonetheless, the release of the draft marks a turning point in the long-running debate.

stratfor.com PUBLIC POLICY INTELLIGENCE REPORT 04.06.2006

Ending the CSR Debate
Bart Mongoven

The debate over the moral responsibilities of corporations to society has taken on a more solid form with the release of the first draft of the standard known as ISO-26000. When finished, the standard -- drafted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) -- can be used by corporations to determine (and prove) that they are acting in a socially responsible manner. The standard will not be published until 2008, and the current draft reportedly is in a highly unfinished form, with many significant questions still to be answered. Nonetheless, the release of the draft marks a turning point in the long-running debate.

[JURIST] The State Department announced Thursday afternoon in Washington that the United States will not be seeking membership this year of the new UN Human Rights Council [official website; UN materials; FAQ]. A spokesman said in a press statement ahead of a scheduled daily briefing:

There are strong candidates in our regional group, with long records of support for human rights, that voted in favor of the resolution creating the Council. They should have the opportunity to run....

Since the credibility of the Council depends on its membership, the United States will actively campaign on behalf of candidates genuinely committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, and which will act as responsible members of this new body. We will also actively campaign against states that systematically abuse human rights.

With a strong collective effort in the coming months to make the new Council effective, the United States will likely run for the Council next year.

Last month the US led a tiny minority of 4 countries opposing [JURIST report] the resolution [JURIST document] creating the council, insisting that it wanted more to be done to prevent abusive countries from gaining membership [JURIST report] on the body. There had been speculation that the US would not be able to secure the majority 96 UN General Assembly votes necessary for a successful membership bid. Cuba and Iran are two of the 40 countries that have so far applied for council membership [UN list]; 47 countries will be chosen on May 9.

The new body, which replaces the troubled UN Commission on Human Rights [official website], which held its last meeting on March 27 [JURIST report], meets for the first time in Geneva on June 19. Countries will serve a maximum of two three-year terms.

AP has more.

[JURIST] The State Department announced Thursday afternoon in Washington that the United States will not be seeking membership this year of the new UN Human Rights Council [official website; UN materials; FAQ]. A spokesman said in a press statement ahead of a scheduled daily briefing:

There are strong candidates in our regional group, with long records of support for human rights, that voted in favor of the resolution creating the Council. They should have the opportunity to run....

Since the credibility of the Council depends on its membership, the United States will actively campaign on behalf of candidates genuinely committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, and which will act as responsible members of this new body. We will also actively campaign against states that systematically abuse human rights.

With a strong collective effort in the coming months to make the new Council effective, the United States will likely run for the Council next year.

Last month the US led a tiny minority of 4 countries opposing [JURIST report] the resolution [JURIST document] creating the council, insisting that it wanted more to be done to prevent abusive countries from gaining membership [JURIST report] on the body. There had been speculation that the US would not be able to secure the majority 96 UN General Assembly votes necessary for a successful membership bid. Cuba and Iran are two of the 40 countries that have so far applied for council membership [UN list]; 47 countries will be chosen on May 9.

The new body, which replaces the troubled UN Commission on Human Rights [official website], which held its last meeting on March 27 [JURIST report], meets for the first time in Geneva on June 19. Countries will serve a maximum of two three-year terms.

AP has more.

[JURIST] The last meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights [official website] took place in Geneva Monday, as its replacement prepares to hold its first session on June 19. The UN Human Rights Council [JURIST news archive; UN backgrounder] was brought into being by a General Assembly resolution [text] earlier this month after five months of negotiations following the UN World Summit. The Commission, created in 1946, had been sharply criticized for allowing countries with continued human rights violations to win seats and protect each other from inquiries.

While originally inspired by the United States, the new Council faced objections [JURIST report] from the United States [official statement], Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau for not taking enough measures to prevent abusive countries from becoming members. US Ambassador Kevin Moley told the Associated Press, "The good news is that the commission is over. The bad news is that what replaces it isn't much better." The US has not announced whether it will seek election to the council.

AP has more.

unless and until everyone recognises that the club isn't really going to criticise itself too much, everyone is going to feel dissatisfied with any human rights body the club creates. especially when the club creates a body that it (a) refuses to fund properly, preventing it from actually doing much, and (b) refuses to give sufficient powers to, so it cannot do much unless 'invited' to intervene.

also, one wonders where the usa gets off whinging about the 'ineffectiveness' of any body that it proposes on the one hand, then objects too when it is formed. leads to suspicions of sensitivities to the possibility that the body might say things the usa does not like to hear ...

[also, are not the marshall islands a protectorate of the usa, or have i missed something?]

[JURIST] The last meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights [official website] took place in Geneva Monday, as its replacement prepares to hold its first session on June 19. The UN Human Rights Council [JURIST news archive; UN backgrounder] was brought into being by a General Assembly resolution [text] earlier this month after five months of negotiations following the UN World Summit. The Commission, created in 1946, had been sharply criticized for allowing countries with continued human rights violations to win seats and protect each other from inquiries.

While originally inspired by the United States, the new Council faced objections [JURIST report] from the United States [official statement], Israel, the Marshall Islands, and Palau for not taking enough measures to prevent abusive countries from becoming members. US Ambassador Kevin Moley told the Associated Press, "The good news is that the commission is over. The bad news is that what replaces it isn't much better." The US has not announced whether it will seek election to the council.

AP has more.

unless and until everyone recognises that the club isn't really going to criticise itself too much, everyone is going to feel dissatisfied with any human rights body the club creates. especially when the club creates a body that it (a) refuses to fund properly, preventing it from actually doing much, and (b) refuses to give sufficient powers to, so it cannot do much unless 'invited' to intervene.

also, one wonders where the usa gets off whinging about the 'ineffectiveness' of any body that it proposes on the one hand, then objects too when it is formed. leads to suspicions of sensitivities to the possibility that the body might say things the usa does not like to hear ...

[also, are not the marshall islands a protectorate of the usa, or have i missed something?]