Did a psychologist violate his professional ethics when he developed abusive interrogation techniques for use on Guantanamo Bay detainees? Last week, a New York state court dismissed a petition which would have forced the New York Office of Professional Discipline to answer that question.
Recently the Obama Administration unveiled landmark legislation which has the potential to strengthen how the US deals with the prevention of mass atrocities and serious human rights violations. The inter-agency Atrocities Prevention Board (PSD-10) aims to close existing gaps in US law and provide new economic, diplomatic, and political deterrents to ensure that the US responds swiftly and unequivocally to all manner of human rights violators.
A June 16 decision filed by the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (comprised of DE, NJ, and PA) offered a ray of hope to asylum seekers facing the daunting and ambiguous “national security bar.” The decision prevented the deportation of two Uzbek men and likely saved their lives. On a larger scale, the decision is a step forward for all those seeking asylum from torture who would otherwise be barred because of tenuous national security concerns.
In June, PHR blogged about its concerns that the Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s (ICE) “enhancements” to its controversial Secure Communities (S-Comm) program were merely cosmetic and would do nothing to protect people who are unfairly swept up in its overly broad net. Now, it seems that those concerns are well-founded.
In the last week, two different federal courts have demonstrated a commitment to accountability for torture perpetrated by U.S. officials.