Corri Zoli to Attend UNSC Counterterrorism Special Meeting on the “Madrid Principles”

Zoli_UN_MeetingINSCT Director of Research Corri Zoli has been invited to attend a special meeting of the United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee on Dec. 13, 2018, in the Economic and Social Council Chamber, UN Headquarters, New York City. The meeting will discuss “Security Council Resolution 2396 (2017): A Review of the Madrid Principles,” a document that provides guidance to member states on stemming the flow of Foreign Terrorist Fighters (FTFs) across national borders, while staying compliant with human rights laws and norms.  

In particular, explains UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee Chair Gustavo Meza-Cuadra in his letter of invitation, the special meeting will tackle the issue of FTFs “in light of the evolving threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters, particularly FTF returnees and relocators and their family members.” The review of the Madrid Principles also will examine gaps that may hinder states’ abilities to detect, interdict, prosecute, rehabilitate, and reintegrate FTF returnees and their families, as well as identify good practices.

Among the working sessions will be those on “border security and information-sharing”; “global research perspectives on cross-cutting trends”; “countering incitement, recruitment, and violent extremism”; and “judicial measures, international cooperation, and prosecution, rehabilitation, and reintegration strategies.” Invited discussants include Edmund Fitton-Brown of the Analytical and Sanctions Monitoring Team of the ISIL and Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee; Elisabeth Neugebauer, Deputy Special Representative, International Criminal Police Organization; and Tanya Mehra, International Centre for Counterterrorism, The Hague.

The Madrid Principles were developed from a July 2015 special meeting hosted by the Government of Spain and co-organized by the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED), with which INSCT collaborates on counterterrorism prevention. This Madrid meeting was attended by member states from every region of the world, as well as representatives of international and regional organizations, universities, and civil society groups. Discussions and technical sessions identified 35 guiding principles that were subsequently adopted by the Security Council and offered as a practical tool for use by member states in their efforts to combat terrorism.

Share this!

William C. Banks Discusses Posse Comitatus & the US Military’s Southern Border Deployment

The controversial deployment in late October 2018 of 5,800 US servicemembers to the US-Mexico border in response to a perceived migration and asylum crisis has caused a media stir. Not unsurprisingly, questions about the legality of the deployment have arisen, especially in the wake of a November 20 White House “Cabinet Order” allowing troops to perform law enforcement roles and to use lethal force, potentially in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Professor Emeritus William C. Banks, author of Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic Role of the American Military, has answered some of these questions for Military Times, Vox, and PRI, as well as on the Just Security blog.

What’s a Posse Comitatus, Anyway? The Military Role at the Southern Border

(ACSBlog | Dec. 3, 2018) … What about the “crowd control, temporary detention” and “cursory search” permitted by the order? Secretary Mattis responded to a question about involvement in law enforcement this way: “We do not have arrest authority. Detention, I would put it in terms of minutes. . . . [We would stop an assault on a CBP agent] and deliver them to a Border Patrol man, who would then arrest them” …

What’s a Posse Comitatus, Anyway? The Military Role at the Southern Border

What Trump’s “lethal force” authorization means at the border

(Vox | Nov. 27, 2018) “On one hand, it is kind of ridiculous because there is nothing approaching an invasion there,” William Banks, a national security expert with Syracuse University, said. “There is no indication that there is a force lining the border that [Customs and Border Protection] couldn’t take care of. But on the other hand, if you take the Cabinet order’s language at face value, and take what the president is saying as credible threats, then it becomes grayer.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/27/18112610/trump-lethal-force-caravan-migrant-border-military

Military at the southern border and the Posse Comitatus Act

(PRI The World | Nov. 23, 2018) The White House has signed a memo allowing troops stationed at the border to take on some law enforcement roles including using lethal force, if necessary. Some experts say the directive is at odds with the Posse Comitatus Act. The federal law, which dates back to the 19th century, forbids active military members from engaging in civilian law enforcement roles. The World’s Carol Hills interviews William C. Banks, a professor of law at Syracuse University, and co-author of “Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic Role of the American Military.”

https://www.pri.org/file/2018-11-23/military-southern-border-and-posse-comitatus-act

White House approves use of force, some law enforcement roles for border troops

(Military Times | Nov. 21, 2018) Posse Comitatus is “always looming in the background. You never invoke it as such because it is such a background principle,” said William Banks, author of “Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic Role of the American Military” and the former director of the Institute for National Security and Counter-terrorism at Syracuse University’s College of Law.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/11/21/white-house-approves-use-of-force-some-law-enforcement-roles-for-border-troops/#.W_a8R03c8js.twitter

Legal Analysis of “Cabinet Memo” on the Military’s Role at Southern Border

(Just Security | Nov. 26, 2018) More important is what the Constitution, Posse Comitatus Act, and other federal laws represent – a longstanding legal norm disfavoring military involvement in domestic affairs except in dire circumstances. It is no exaggeration to say that avoidance of military involvement in civil society is part of our cultural heritage. Let’s hope that Secretary Mattis’ cool head prevails in the days ahead.

Legal Analysis of “Cabinet Memo” on the Military’s Role at Southern Border

Share this!

NCCIT Publishes Report on “Torture Flights” from North Carolina Airfields

The North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture (NCCIT)—which counts as one of its Commissioners INSCT Research and Practice Associate David M. Crane—has published Torture Flights: North Carolina’s Role in the CIA Rendition and Torture Program.

“The report demonstrates to state officials across the country how illegal activity at the federal level may come to implicate state actors in potential liability.”

The report presents NCCIT’s investigatory findings on the issue of whether individuals or business entities located in the state of North Carolina, and acting out of its territory, participated in the US Government’s CIA-led torture program during the President George W. Bush Administration.

The report’s sobering finding is that they did.

The connection between North Carolina and the government-sponsored torture of the era is clear, write the authors. Aircraft operated by at least one local company—flown by North Carolina pilots out of North Carolina airfields that were subsidized by North Carolina revenues and subject to a measure of North Carolina regulation—were engaged in the transport of dozens of captive individuals to multiple foreign sites, some managed by US officials, others by foreign governments, to be tortured.

Torture Flights not only documents North Carolina’s connection to torture, it helps illuminate one of the least known aspects of the CIA’s infamous “Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation” program, the rendition element.

According to the authors, the “torture taxi” system that transported prisoners relied on a network of private contractors that were engaged in this activity, both important cogs in the machinery of torture.

“There are many dark corners that need to see the light of truth related to America’s so called War on Terror,” says Crane. “This import report shines that light of truth.”

Furthermore, the report demonstrates to state officials across the country how illegal activity at the federal level may come to implicate state actors in potential liability.

“Indeed, because the commission of torture or conspiring in the commission of torture is a crime in North Carolina (as it is in every state), it would be surprising if North Carolina state authorities would not now launch their own investigation to determine whether or not state laws were broken or whether evidence relevant to open investigations in other countries should not be sought,” suggest the authors.

Read the report here.

Share this!

28th Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law Conference

INSCT Director James E. Baker and Professor Emeritus William C. Banks will represent the Institute at the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security’s 28th Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law Conference, taking place Nov. 1-2, 2018 at the Capitol Hilton in Washington DC.

This premier national security law conference includes panels focusing on vital topics, including:

  • Space Law: Issues and Progress
  • Legal Issues Confronting the Military National Security Law Community
  • The 4th Amendment, Surveillance and the Future, preceded by a special keynote luncheon address by Glenn Gerstell, General Counsel, National Security Agency
  • Reviewing Current Controversies Surrounding Security Clearances
  • Ethical Challenges of the National Security Lawyer: A Roundtable Discussion
  • Global Trade and National Security
  • The Movement of Individuals Across Borders and National Security
  • SCOTUS, GTMO, the FISC, and More: The Role of the Courts in Shaping National Security Law
  • Social Media: 2020
  • The Role and Duty of the National Security Lawyer: The Audience Responds

Judge Baker will host the panel on “The Role and Duty of the National Security Lawyer: The Audience Responds,” and Banks will moderate “SCOTUS, GTMO, the FISC and More: The Role of the Courts in Shaping National Security Law.” This panel also will feature discussants Amy Jeffress, Partner, Arnold & Porter; Mary McCord, Visiting Professor of Law and Senior Litigator from Practice, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Georgetown University Law Center; and the Hon. Reggie Walton, Senior Judge, US District Court for the District of Columbia.

More information and registration

Share this!

David M. Crane Appointed Chair of UN Commission on Alleged Violations During Palestinian Protests

See also: UN picks American to lead investigation into Gaza protest killings (Reuters | 7.25.18)

Syracuse University College of Law and Professor of Practice and INSCT Faculty Member David M. Crane has been appointed Chair of a United Nations Human Rights Council Independent International Commission of Inquiry into alleged violations of international law “in the context of large-scale civilian protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” that occurred during May 2018.

The protests—primarily in Gaza and East Jerusalem—came in the wake of the announcement that the United States would move its embassy to Jerusalem and coincided with the 70th anniversary of Nakba (the 1948 Palestinian Exodus).  The Guardian noted that May 14, 2018, was “the bloodiest day in Gaza since the 2014 war”. At the time, The Guardian reported, other UN human rights bodies—including UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination—urged Israel to halt “excessive force” against Palestinian protesters, and Amnesty International accused Israel of violating international law. 

In his letter of appointment to Crane, UNHRC President Vojislav Šuc observed that the Commission has been formed as a result of the UNHRC Resolution S-28/1. In the Resolution, the Council decided “to urgently dispatch an independent, international commission of inquiry, to be appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council.” 

The Resolution grew out of a May 18 Special Session of the UNHRC, at which UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein called attention to the “[a]ppalling recent events in Gaza.” She explained to the Council that, “Since … protests began on 30 March, 87 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli security forces in the context of the demonstrations, including 12 children; 29 others, including three children, were killed in other circumstances. And over 12,000 people have been injured, more than 3,500 of them by live ammunition.”

Resolution S-28/1 also “Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, and all relevant parties to cooperate fully with the commission of inquiry and to facilitate its access, requests the cooperation, as appropriate, of other relevant United Nations bodies with the commission of inquiry to carry out its mission.”

“The focus of the investigation is to be open minded, fair, and neutral,” says Crane.

The two other members of the Commission of Inquiry will be Sara Hossain, a Bangladeshi lawyer, and Kaari Betty Murungi, a Kenyan lawyer and human rights activist. The commissioners have been asked to convene a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, “with a view to agreeing on terms of reference and methods of work, establishing contacts with relevant stakeholders, and preparing [a] programme of work.”

Read the press release.

Share this!

The Future of the US Military Commissions: Legal and Policy Issues

By the Hon. James E. Baker & Professor Laura A. Dickinson

The ongoing operation of the US military commissions at Guantanamo Bay has posed significant challenges for multiple US administrations. Originally established by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 to try noncitizen terrorism suspects, the commissions have been plagued with a variety of problems. Cases have languished, and no contested commission trials have become final, including the 9/11 case itself—for which a trial has not yet begun. (Military commission proceedings have resulted in 8 convictions pursuant to pleas, however). Much of the law related to commissions remains unsettled and in dispute. For example, it is unsettled precisely which crimes can be tried before the commissions.

“The Workshop Report offers a detailed, non-partisan, legal and policy analysis and recommendations with respect to the wide range of issues that currently face the Military Commissions.”

Meanwhile, the commissions are operating against a backdrop of changing policies regarding the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. President Trump recently reversed the Obama Administration’s stated policy of closing the facility, where participants in the military commissions system are housed along with other terrorism detainees. As of May 3, there are 40 detainees held at Guantanamo, 4 of whom have been deemed eligible for transfer to other countries. (They cannot be moved to the United States, due a legislative ban). Of the remainder, 10 have been charged within the commissions and are in proceedings at various stages, and 26 have neither been charged nor have been deemed eligible for transfer. Although President Obama did not bring new detainees to Guantanamo, and President Trump has not done so to date, President Trump has stated in a recent Executive Order that “the United States may transport additional detainees to US Naval Station Guantanamo Bay when lawful and necessary to protect the Nation.”

To grapple with some of the tough legal and policy issues facing the military commissions moving forward, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security and the George Washington University Law School convened a diverse group of 24 national security law experts at a Workshop on Dec. 7, 2017. The Workshop was not-for-attribution, but a Report summarizing the discussion at the event has now been made public. As one would expect (and hope) from such a meeting, participants expressed a wide range of views, but there were also some key areas of consensus. Here is a brief overview of the Report’s conclusions.

Overall Approach to Commissions Moving Forward: Reform or Repeal?

Workshop participants were divided on the wisdom of establishing the commissions in the first place–with some supportive of the goals underlying the military commissions and others critical of the entire endeavor as an unnecessary diversion from time-tested Article III courts and the regular military justice system. Yet all agreed that

  • The commissions are not working as intended; and
  • The commissions should either be reformed or terminated.

Options for improving US military commissions

The Workshop considered a variety of reforms to the commissions. Although many participants did not think that the commissions should continue, participants identified a series of reforms that merit consideration and review, in particular

  • Expand and/or clarify the role of the commissions’ Convening Authority using the authority and role of convening authorities within the US military justice system as a model.
  • Change and expand the eligibility rules for trial judges and change the current judicial pay and tenure structure to allow both civilian and military judges to hear commission cases (as opposed to the current rules, which permit only military judges to serve).
  • Mitigate or minimize procedural and appellate delay by removing the death penalty as a sentencing option.
  • Enhance or eliminate the role of the Court of Military Commissions Review. This is a part-time court, with judges paid by the hour, that hears cases of first impression, interlocutory appeals, and emergency writs without settled law. A standing court could more expeditiously process these appeals. Alternatively, disbanding the Court of Military Commissions Review in favor of direct appeal to the D.C. Circuit would more rapidly result in settled law and precedent.
  • Review the classification and declassification procedures (which are necessary, but slow) for efficacy.
  • Provide improved “clean” facilities for secure attorney-client communications.
  • Establish a central and timely website and clearinghouse for commission filings and information to enhance transparency, public knowledge, and confidence in the commission’s proceedings.

Alternatives to Commissions

Participants also considered alternatives to commissions, including prosecution

  • In-theater before commissions or courts-martial;
  • By host-government courts;
  • By third-country courts;
  • Before hybrid domestic-international courts;
  • Within the US military justice system; and
  • Before Article III federal courts. 

In addition, there was a notable degree of support for the following conclusions:

  • Most participants expressed the view that US national security and justice would be better served by trying terrorism cases in Article III courts, instead of before commissions as they are currently constituted.
  • Many participants recommended that remote plea-bargaining before Article III judges via videoconference is an option that should be considered for Guantanamo detainees.
  • There was consensus that the prohibition on transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States should be repealed to afford the Executive Branch flexibility in addressing terrorism cases.

New Entrants

As indicated by the recent Executive Order, the possibility of bringing new detainees to Guantanamo, and potentially charging them in the military commissions system, is now an option. Yet most participants agreed that bringing new entrants into the current military commissions system would be problematic. Specifically,

  • Most participants—indeed, all but one—agreed that bringing new entrants not currently detained at Guantanamo, such as ISIS members, into the existing commissions system at Guantanamo Bay would compound existing challenges, such as those involving prosecutorial and appellate delay, cost, and both public and international credibility.
  • Most participants also agreed that new entrants would also bring potential additional challenges, such as litigation addressed to detention authority under the existing 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the scope of the 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA), the co-mingling of detainees, and/or the exact crimes with which the detainees are charged.

The “End of Conflict” and a New AUMF

Finally, participants identified a series of issues related to defining the “end of conflict” with respect to some or all of the conflicts during which detainees have been transferred and held at Guantanamo, as well as issues that could arise if there is a new authorization to use military force to provide clearer and more specific authority for the use of force against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Specifically,

  • Many participants expressed the view that the US should better define what counts as the end of conflict and how the operations of jus post bellum should be carried out. Such definition could also encourage and facilitate the plea process, enhance the commissions’ credibility, and minimize the risk of inconsistent or adverse judicial or congressional definitions.
  • There was consensus that, until and unless there is a declared “end of conflict,” the current Periodic Review Board process for detainees should continue. This process assesses whether continued law-of-war detention is necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States.
  • Most participants agreed that a new AUMF would reduce the legal grounds for litigation challenging the President’s authority to detain new persons. However, participants could not agree on whether a new AUMF should include express detention authority and/or a sunset clause.

In sum, the Workshop Report offers a detailed, non-partisan, legal and policy analysis and recommendations with respect to the wide range of issues that currently face the Military Commissions and that will remain salient if the Trump Administration ultimately decides to expand the Commissions’ use.

The Hon. James E. Baker is INSCT Director and Chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security. Laura A. Dickinson is Oswald Symister Colclough Research Professor of Law at George Washington Law.

Share this!

The Stain of Torture

By David M. Crane

(Re-published from The Jurist | June 26, 2018) June 26th is the United Nations’ International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. Its purpose — to denounce the crime of torture and proclaim solidarity with its survivors — is in stark opposition to the policy of my government.

As a former Chief Prosecutor of an international war crimes tribunal in West Africa, I walked the countryside, interviewing hundreds of victims — often people who had been tortured by their own government. The atrocities scarred them physically, emotionally, and psychologically for life.

But they shared their stories enthusiastically with our team, willing to relay the horror in order to receive human empathy, long after giving up hope of finding anything resembling justice.

Having prosecuted the officials of other governments for torture, I now find myself in a United States increasingly identified with torture and cruelty. Intensifying torture was presidential campaign rhetoric. A person who oversaw waterboarding in black site prisons is promoted to lead the CIA. Children are removed from their families as they flee gang violence. The U.S. reportedly now plans to leave the UN Human Rights Council, although a member has never before departed that body voluntarily.

How Did We Get Here?

A leader in building the post-World War II consensus against torture and for the rule of law, the United States chose a path of lawless brutality after the horrendous crime of 9/11. Lashing out broadly at Muslims, it threw aside its own rules and embarked on the rendition, detention and interrogation program (RDI).

Our government embraced torture, long known by interrogation professionals to be counter-productive. It did so as an attempt at payback, out of anger. Weak justifications defied logic, morality, and international legal norms that had stood for decades.

Two Libyan victims of the RDI program, Abdul-Hakim Belhaj and his wife Fatima Boudchar, exemplify how far the U.S. moved to the dark side. They were on their way to the U.K. to seek asylum as opponents of the Gaddafi regime. With intelligence from the U.K., the CIA detained them in Thailand and tortured them: painful stress positions, drugs, and vicious beatings. Boudchar was several months pregnant.

From Thailand they were rendered to Libya, to the hands of their enemies, where they suffered further torture. Ms. Boudchar was released from prison just three weeks before she gave birth.

Fourteen years later, the British Prime Minister finally issued an apology for the U.K.’s role in the couple’s rendition and torture, a crime led by the United States. Stating that her country had contributed to the couple’s capture, Teresa May admitted “neither of you should have been treated this way,” and apologized unreservedly.

Less than a month later, the European Court of Human Rights also repudiated torture. It delivered judgments against Romania and Lithuania, which both hosted secret CIA torture prisons, finding this supporting role a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In stark contrast, at the same time such moral progress was occurring across the Atlantic, the U.S. confirmed a key figure in the RDI program to lead the CIA. Gina Haspel oversaw detention and torture at a black site occupied by Abd al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, the detainee whom the European Court said was subject to “an extremely harsh interrogation regime.”

What Are Citizens to Do When Their Government Doubles Down on its Torture Record?

I am part of one attempt to answer that question and give the survivors a safe space to tell their stories. I am a Commissioner of the North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture (NCCIT). As part of the RDI program, the CIA used contractors and public facilities in North Carolina to move victims around the world to be tortured. Now local citizens are demanding to know how and why this was allowed to occur …

Read the whole article.

Share this!

David M. Crane to Speak on Yemen Crisis at Stimson Center Event

David Crane Stimson CenterINSCT Faculty Member David M. Crane will join other distinguished international law scholars and practitioners at “Crisis in Yemen: Accountability and Reparations,” an event designed to bring the world’s attention to a growing humanitarian disaster in this Middle East nation.

The panel discussion takes place at The Stimson Center in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2018, from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. The simulcast can be viewed here.

Sponsored by the American Society of International Law, the Stimson Center, and the Washington Foreign Law Society, the panel also features Stephen Rapp, Former US Ambassador-At-Large for War Crimes; Mark Agrast, Executive Director, American Society of International Law; and Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director, Middle East and North Africa Division, Human Rights Watch, among others. View the full list of panelists here.

The Yemen Civil War, which had its roots in the political upheaval of 2011-2012, has since turned into a complex conflict among a central, recognized government and its powerful Saudi-led allies, an alternative government in the country’s north backed by Houthi rebels, and several terrorist groups.

Escalating in 2015, the civil war has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. An estimated three quarters of the civilian population have been affected by the devastation from warring parties on all sides. Death, disappearances, detentions, torture, displacement and famine are ravishing the country. A cholera epidemic is being exacerbated by raids on civilian populations.

Meanwhile, critical ports for delivery of food and medicines have been blocked. Arms and deadly munitions, funded by the US and UK, have proliferated. Secret prisons established inside and outside the country are detaining countless numbers of civilians, women, children, and aid workers.

The panel of experts, led by Rapp and Crane, will assess the situation on the ground in this stage of the Yemen crisis, and propose solutions drawn from fundamental international laws and standards.

Share this!

David M. Crane Testifies About Postconflict Justice Options for Sri Lanka

INSCT Faculty Member David M. Crane testified in front of the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations on June 19, 2018. The hearing, chaired by Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ), investigated postconflict justice options and human rights issues related to the long Sri Lankan Civil War, which lasted from 1983 to 2009.

Joining Crane as witnesses were J.S. Tissainayagam, journalist and human rights advocate;
Michael Jerryson, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Youngstown State University; and John Sifton, Asia Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch.

In his statement, Crane told the committee that, “I approach this issue as a neutral, someone who stands for the rule of law, particularly on the battlefield and for the protection of noncombatants. We live in an age of extremes. Dirty little wars arise across the globe. Parties to the conflict pay little heed to the laws of armed conflict. Many of these largely non-international armed conflicts see civilian casualties mount, most of
them women and children. The conflict in Sri Lanka was one such dirty little war, which saw the death and destruction of tens of thousands of human beings on both sides.”

Crane was a member of a panel of experts advising the Commission of Missing Persons set up by the Sri Lankan government in 2014. “I spent days walking the battlefields of the conflict in Sri Lanka, particularly of the final campaign in the Winter of 2009.”

Crane enumerated several humanitarian and war crimes issues that arose from the conflict and that have yet to be properly reconciled. These include violations of international humanitarian law committed by all sides, the intentional targeting of civilians in a campaign of terror to seek a military and political conclusion, and a brutal final campaign in the winter of 2009 that was exacerbated by an increasingly desperate Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam army (the LTTE, or “Tamil Tigers”).

Noted Chairman Smith, “Although the civil war ended almost 10 years ago, important work remains to make sure basic human rights are being respected in Sri Lanka. The resurgence of Buddhist Sinhalese nationalism poses a particular challenge to ethnic reconciliation. It is imperative for Congress to exercise leadership on this issue and ensure that a country as strategically located as Sri Lanka doesn’t collapse again.”

 

Share this!

David M. Crane to Discuss Yemen Crisis at Stimson Center Discussion

The conflict in Yemen is currently one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, yet is often forgotten by the international community. It is reported that close to 6,000 civilians have been killed in the conflict and almost 9,000 wounded as a result of indiscriminate and disproportionate airstrikes, artillery fire, and rocket launches. Many civilians languish and are tortured in secret prisons. The suffering of ordinary citizens is exacerbated by blockades of humanitarian aid and food.

On June 26, 2018, INSCT Faculty Member David M. Crane will join other distinguished speakers at a Stimson Center event to explore how war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the most egregious human rights violations can be addressed via international law to promote accountability, uphold fundamental humanitarian standards, and obtain reparations for the countless victims of the Yemen crisis.

Crane will lead the discussion with former Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Stephen Rapp. Discussants will be Amanda Catanzano, Senior Director for International Program, Policy, and Advocacy, International Rescue Committee; Waleed Al Hariri, Director of US Office, Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies; Raed Jarrar, Advocacy Director, Middle East and North Africa, Amnesty International; Kate Kizer, Policy Director, Win Without War; Don Picard, Chief Legal Advisor, Yemen Peace Project; and Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director, Middle East and North Africa Division, Human Rights Watch.

Learn more about the event.

 

Share this!