July 11, 2009
Attorney General Eric Holder
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
The Washington State Religious Campaign Against Torture, affiliated with the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, urges you appoint a Special Counsel in order to initiate a criminal investigation into all violations of federal law since 2001 related to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners in the "war on terror," including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In March of 2009, excerpts of an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) report were released that concluded that detainees had been subjected to torture – a crime under both domestic and international law. Evidence contained within the DOJ memos released in April, the Senate Armed Services Report, as well as several other credible sources, strongly suggests that felonies have been committed and were authorized at high levels of the previous administration. This is not a matter, as has been alleged, of criminalizing policy differences. The anti-torture laws are clear. Their enforcement is not a discretionary matter.
Both the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture obligate such an investigation, and if evidence warrants, prosecution. The War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C., 2441, provides for jurisdiction in the courts for acts or conspiracy to commit acts of torture and cruel or inhuman treatment, both identified as punishable war crimes. The federal anti-torture statute, 18 U.S.C., 2341A, also creates jurisdiction in U.S. courts.
There are compelling political reasons for the appointment of a special counsel, not least of which bear upon the good name and moral and legal standing of the United States in the world. By far the most important reason, however, is that when the government itself
flaunts the law, the rule of law is put in grave danger. The cornerstone of any viable legal order is that no one should be above the law. No office should protect individuals from the willful violation of law. No bureaucracy’s legal interpretation designed to evade the law should be allowed to have the practical standing of law, indemnifying government officials from accountability under the law.
If the Department of Justice does not act, if those responsible for violating the law are not held accountable, we fear that a culture of impunity will take hold and that nothing will prevent future leaders in times of fear or threat to act once again outside the law.
We join the National Religious Campaign (NRCAT), the Presbyterian Church USA; the American Civil Liberties Union, Representatives Jerrold Nadler and John Conyers, and others in asking you to appoint a Special Counsel.
Sincerely,
Robert Crawford, facilitator,
Washington State Religious Campaign Against Torture
cc: Senator Harry Reid, Representatives Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, and Jerrold Nadler; and the Washington State Congressional Delegation.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
A Reflection on Where We Are Now
A Reflection on Where We Are Now
by Rob Crawford
We are entering June, which is Torture Awareness Month. I have always felt uncomfortable with condensing such important matters into a time frame, as if awareness--and, hopefully, the principled actions that accompany awareness-- can be safely put aside for the rest of the year. On the other hand, we live in a world of competing atrocities and urgent concerns, as well as the joys of summer, so anything we can do to remind ourselves and those with whom we converse that the urgency of confronting U.S. torture is a good thing--and that it is a continuing challenge. The shame and remorse that we feel that these terrible deeds were committed in our name do not disappear with the winter rains--nor with a new administration.
Why is this June unlike previous June's? Because, I believe, the anti-torture movement is at a critical stage, a moment of crisis, where the significant achievements we have won with President Obama's executive order ending all abusive treatment will either be solidified and extended so that our nation will never again return to the brutal and inhumane treatment of those it captures; or, that the political, cultural and ideological settlement will be such as to keep torture as an option, an item on the menu of state actions that can be employed in the name of national security, brought out as a response to the next emergency or "impending emergency". There is the appearance of our having put the "dark side" behind us--the Bush-Cheney administration is out of power; Obama is taking a different course--and thus we can safely "move forward". There is a widespread perception that America has returned to the rule of law and has restored its "moral authority". I believe, however, that the battle for public opinion about the legitimacy of torture has never been greater. Nor am I confident, given some recent decisions, that the Obama administration will do the right thing.
The events of the spring of 2009 have amply demonstrated that the struggle for a torture-free America is far from over. In the entire time of my involvement in this sordid issue, I have seen nothing like this spring's attention to torture. Not even the Abu Ghraib photos stirred the kind of debate we are seeing now. The release of the memos created a firestorm of commentary about what was done, why it was done, and what were the likely consequences for our country. In the history of the United States, there have been few parallels where the government's policies have come under such close moral and political scrutiny.
Obama's decision to release the secret torture memos on April 16 rightly called forth demands for investigation and accountability, including, of course, from our own National Religious Campaign Against Torture. Commentators from across the political spectrum, shocked by the brutality of the methods authorized in the memos and the accounts that appeared in the leaked report of the International Committee of the Red Cross, were moved to voice their dismay. The pressure for a Commission of Inquiry and/or criminal investigations grew dramatically.
These calls for accountability were met with an onslaught of commentary from the political right and the national security apparatus, led by Dick Cheney. We heard about how "enhanced interrogation" saved the United States from another terrorist attack, how it is an essential tool in the war on terrorism, and how Obama's ending that program has put the country in jeopardy. Throughout it all, there was a continuing denial that the U.S. had engaged in or authorized torture and that what Americans saw in the Abu-Ghraib photos had nothing to do with policy. And what was policy was not about unlawful or immoral acts but just a matter of "policy differences," "hard-choices" by well-intentioned leaders doing their best under strained circumstances to protect the nation. In May, Republicans jumped on the possibility of implicating the Democrats, essentially warning that any investigation into the Bush-Cheney era would be accompanied by a partisan counter-attack, giving preemptive substance to worries that any investigation would be too partisan and too divisive for the country. Further, we were repeatedly told not only from the right but from mainstream commentators that it would somehow be better for the country if we followed the president's advice to not look backward. In short, the counter-attack has been fierce and has been given voice in every single major media outlet.
Although difficult to assess, my guess is that this counter-attack by the advocates of "aggressive interrogation" was largely effective. The result? The anti-torture movement's call for accountability either through a commission of inquiry or criminal investigations appears to have been stymied--at least temporarily. The President himself has discouraged such efforts and the Congressional Democratic leadership seems to concur.
If this assessment is correct, think about the implications: with the release of the memos, there can no longer be doubt that crimes of the highest order were authorized by the president and vice president, the national security council, the Secretary of Defense and others in the chain of command, and the Director of the CIA. Certainly, many people will continue to deny that crimes have been committed but this denial increasingly strains credulity. The critical question is how we can claim that we are a nation of laws if there is no effort to hold accountable those who have broken the law? How can the grave immorality of torture become a part of our national consciousness if amnesia is the prescribed solution, especially when so much of what passes for informed public opinion still is attempting to justify these immoral and unlawful policies?
Depending on the outcome of the ongoing "debate" about torture or "enhanced interrogation," the "exception" of the Bush-Cheney torture regime may easily turn into a "torture culture"--a culture that, even though divided about torture, is still largely willing to consider torture as a legitimate tool of government if the country's national security is claimed to be at stake. From my perspective, given that the danger of another terrorist attack may be with us for a long time, this attitude translates, practically, into support for torture among broad sectors of the public. Polls continue to suggest this to be the case.
Such an outcome is unacceptable. If the moral core of our country is to survive (we are saying that it cannot survive if we opt for state torture under any circumstances), the struggle has become one for the hearts and minds of the American people. Let's not deceive ourselves; we can lose. We have much to do in educating our communities about the facts of what has happened and to converse about the moral and political implications of these sorry events.
Thus, this June and the months following deserve our continuing commitment to the anti-torture struggle. Contact WSRCAT for suggestions about what you can do.
by Rob Crawford
We are entering June, which is Torture Awareness Month. I have always felt uncomfortable with condensing such important matters into a time frame, as if awareness--and, hopefully, the principled actions that accompany awareness-- can be safely put aside for the rest of the year. On the other hand, we live in a world of competing atrocities and urgent concerns, as well as the joys of summer, so anything we can do to remind ourselves and those with whom we converse that the urgency of confronting U.S. torture is a good thing--and that it is a continuing challenge. The shame and remorse that we feel that these terrible deeds were committed in our name do not disappear with the winter rains--nor with a new administration.
Why is this June unlike previous June's? Because, I believe, the anti-torture movement is at a critical stage, a moment of crisis, where the significant achievements we have won with President Obama's executive order ending all abusive treatment will either be solidified and extended so that our nation will never again return to the brutal and inhumane treatment of those it captures; or, that the political, cultural and ideological settlement will be such as to keep torture as an option, an item on the menu of state actions that can be employed in the name of national security, brought out as a response to the next emergency or "impending emergency". There is the appearance of our having put the "dark side" behind us--the Bush-Cheney administration is out of power; Obama is taking a different course--and thus we can safely "move forward". There is a widespread perception that America has returned to the rule of law and has restored its "moral authority". I believe, however, that the battle for public opinion about the legitimacy of torture has never been greater. Nor am I confident, given some recent decisions, that the Obama administration will do the right thing.
The events of the spring of 2009 have amply demonstrated that the struggle for a torture-free America is far from over. In the entire time of my involvement in this sordid issue, I have seen nothing like this spring's attention to torture. Not even the Abu Ghraib photos stirred the kind of debate we are seeing now. The release of the memos created a firestorm of commentary about what was done, why it was done, and what were the likely consequences for our country. In the history of the United States, there have been few parallels where the government's policies have come under such close moral and political scrutiny.
Obama's decision to release the secret torture memos on April 16 rightly called forth demands for investigation and accountability, including, of course, from our own National Religious Campaign Against Torture. Commentators from across the political spectrum, shocked by the brutality of the methods authorized in the memos and the accounts that appeared in the leaked report of the International Committee of the Red Cross, were moved to voice their dismay. The pressure for a Commission of Inquiry and/or criminal investigations grew dramatically.
These calls for accountability were met with an onslaught of commentary from the political right and the national security apparatus, led by Dick Cheney. We heard about how "enhanced interrogation" saved the United States from another terrorist attack, how it is an essential tool in the war on terrorism, and how Obama's ending that program has put the country in jeopardy. Throughout it all, there was a continuing denial that the U.S. had engaged in or authorized torture and that what Americans saw in the Abu-Ghraib photos had nothing to do with policy. And what was policy was not about unlawful or immoral acts but just a matter of "policy differences," "hard-choices" by well-intentioned leaders doing their best under strained circumstances to protect the nation. In May, Republicans jumped on the possibility of implicating the Democrats, essentially warning that any investigation into the Bush-Cheney era would be accompanied by a partisan counter-attack, giving preemptive substance to worries that any investigation would be too partisan and too divisive for the country. Further, we were repeatedly told not only from the right but from mainstream commentators that it would somehow be better for the country if we followed the president's advice to not look backward. In short, the counter-attack has been fierce and has been given voice in every single major media outlet.
Although difficult to assess, my guess is that this counter-attack by the advocates of "aggressive interrogation" was largely effective. The result? The anti-torture movement's call for accountability either through a commission of inquiry or criminal investigations appears to have been stymied--at least temporarily. The President himself has discouraged such efforts and the Congressional Democratic leadership seems to concur.
If this assessment is correct, think about the implications: with the release of the memos, there can no longer be doubt that crimes of the highest order were authorized by the president and vice president, the national security council, the Secretary of Defense and others in the chain of command, and the Director of the CIA. Certainly, many people will continue to deny that crimes have been committed but this denial increasingly strains credulity. The critical question is how we can claim that we are a nation of laws if there is no effort to hold accountable those who have broken the law? How can the grave immorality of torture become a part of our national consciousness if amnesia is the prescribed solution, especially when so much of what passes for informed public opinion still is attempting to justify these immoral and unlawful policies?
Depending on the outcome of the ongoing "debate" about torture or "enhanced interrogation," the "exception" of the Bush-Cheney torture regime may easily turn into a "torture culture"--a culture that, even though divided about torture, is still largely willing to consider torture as a legitimate tool of government if the country's national security is claimed to be at stake. From my perspective, given that the danger of another terrorist attack may be with us for a long time, this attitude translates, practically, into support for torture among broad sectors of the public. Polls continue to suggest this to be the case.
Such an outcome is unacceptable. If the moral core of our country is to survive (we are saying that it cannot survive if we opt for state torture under any circumstances), the struggle has become one for the hearts and minds of the American people. Let's not deceive ourselves; we can lose. We have much to do in educating our communities about the facts of what has happened and to converse about the moral and political implications of these sorry events.
Thus, this June and the months following deserve our continuing commitment to the anti-torture struggle. Contact WSRCAT for suggestions about what you can do.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
No One is Above the Law
Statement of the Washington State Religious Campaign Against Torture, March 10, 2009
The Washington State Religious Campaign against Torture strongly endorses an "impartial, non-partisan and independent Commission of Inquiry," as advocated by the National Religious Campaign against Torture and several other anti-torture organizations. American citizens need to know the full story of the grave transgressions of law and morality that have taken place under the past administration, how earlier practices may have set precedents, and how continuing practices may endanger President Obama’s commitment to end torture. We need to know the truth about how the U.S. government came to adopt torture (called by anything but its true name) as its official policy. We must resist the temptation to sweep the past under the rug in the name of "looking forward" or attending to "more urgent tasks."
Arguably, for the vitality of our democratic republic, for the task of restoring our battered reputation in the world, for restoring our own moral vision, and for understanding what safeguards are required to prevent a recurrence, there is no more urgent task. Looking forward with clarity requires that we look backward. Collectively, we need to "have a comprehensive understanding of what happened–who was tortured, why they were tortured, and who ordered the torture" (NRCAT web site). The American public should know the magnitude of harm done to the victims of U.S. torture and the victims should be able to know all the facts as well. Achieving these objectives will require obtaining information held back from the American public to this day. We need to know how these policies were kept secret and then, when they became public, how they were justified. Without such knowledge and the hopefully careful discussion that would follow upon its release, we will not be able to arm ourselves against further violations of our core humanity and national and international law. In the words of the NRCAT statement, a commission of inquiry is crucial if we are to "confront U.S.-sponsored torture and completely renounce ... its use." Amnesia will not/can not serve the purposes of moral renewal, vigilance, and political commitment necessary to end torture and restore the rule of law.
A Commission of Inquiry, however, is not enough. Believing that already-existing evidence strongly suggests that crimes have been committed, WSRCAT calls for a criminal investigation; and, if the evidence derived from this investigation warrants, we call for prosecution of those who have broken the law. Such an investigation should aim all the way up the chain of command. No one is above the law; and those who order unlawful acts should be held accountable. As Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights has stated, "Unless government officials know that consequences follow from such abuses, they will break the law again." What kind of law and what kind of democracy would we have if by our inaction we endorsed a double standard? Assessing ethical responsibility is a complex matter that requires discernment and an unflinching eye willing to gaze into the mirror. Responsibility under the law is more clear-cut.
Without the rule of law, liberal democracy becomes a sham and human rights a mere chimera. Without accountability, the rule of law cannot endure. Executive lawbreaking has not been confined to the Bush administration. Nonetheless, motivated by a radical doctrine of presidential powers in wartime, the Bush administration swept aside the "American legal tradition . . . with its long-established precedents for dealing with adversaries in wartime–even those accused of heinous crimes" (Scott Horton, July, 2007). Moreover, if the United States wants to be counted among the nations as a defender and promoter of human rights, it is obliged to fulfill its treaty obligations. The United Nations Convention Against Torture, which the United States has signed, requires that if evidence indicates that crimes under the treaty have been committed, signatory nations must prosecute. Last summer, General Antonio Taguba said that "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account." In the year 2009, knowing what we already know about the torture of the last seven years, how can we not do what the law requires? We are not certain whether prosecutions are in order, but that is the purpose of a criminal investigation. The Commission of Inquiry may also reveal information that would lead to prosecution.
Is it possible to support both a Commission of Inquiry and a criminal investigation? The question has arisen because of the problem of immunity. In his proposal for a "truth commission, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has made clear his intention of exchanging immunity for testimony. If this occurs, prosecutions will become extremely difficult. How, then, can we support both the Commission of Inquiry and a criminal investigation? Following the lead of NYU’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ), which has taken this position, WSRCAT proposes that support the Commission of Inquiry with the proviso that selective immunity be provided rather than blanket immunity. Limited or targeted immunity for testimony provided to the commission keeps one eye on future criminal investigations.
Although our faith traditions call for reconciliation, they equally urge that we stand up for justice. Protecting our fellow human beings from the degradation of torture is what brought us to this work. Our commitment to protection requires both that we seek the truth and that we advocate for the enforcement of just law. Our religious voice should be clear; and we cannot afford to weaken our voice in the name of political expediency. It is possible to respond thoughtfully to legitimate concerns about aggravating partisanship, the appearance of seeking revenge, and diverting the country from more urgent matters. We are convinced that each of these reasons for not seeking criminal investigation and possible prosecution is misplaced. Accountability is not the same as revenge. Upholding the rule of law is beyond party. And as a country, we are capable of attending to more than one urgent matter at a time. Moreover, we must reject the absurd notion that holding lawbreakers accountable will prevent U.S. intelligence agents from doing their job of protecting the country. Such arguments are often opportunistic, designed to suppress the growing call for investigations.
If America is once again to become a nation of laws, we must do everything in our capacity to uphold the law. To do otherwise is to set a dangerous precedent for future government officials who can confidently assume that they can get away with violating their sacred duty to uphold the laws of the land. We will not participate in fostering a "culture of impunity." In the words of Margaret Satterthwaite of the CHRGJ, "If the United State wants to have a successful transition from an era of impunity to respect for the rule of law, it needs to embrace both truth and justice."
The Washington State Religious Campaign against Torture strongly endorses an "impartial, non-partisan and independent Commission of Inquiry," as advocated by the National Religious Campaign against Torture and several other anti-torture organizations. American citizens need to know the full story of the grave transgressions of law and morality that have taken place under the past administration, how earlier practices may have set precedents, and how continuing practices may endanger President Obama’s commitment to end torture. We need to know the truth about how the U.S. government came to adopt torture (called by anything but its true name) as its official policy. We must resist the temptation to sweep the past under the rug in the name of "looking forward" or attending to "more urgent tasks."
Arguably, for the vitality of our democratic republic, for the task of restoring our battered reputation in the world, for restoring our own moral vision, and for understanding what safeguards are required to prevent a recurrence, there is no more urgent task. Looking forward with clarity requires that we look backward. Collectively, we need to "have a comprehensive understanding of what happened–who was tortured, why they were tortured, and who ordered the torture" (NRCAT web site). The American public should know the magnitude of harm done to the victims of U.S. torture and the victims should be able to know all the facts as well. Achieving these objectives will require obtaining information held back from the American public to this day. We need to know how these policies were kept secret and then, when they became public, how they were justified. Without such knowledge and the hopefully careful discussion that would follow upon its release, we will not be able to arm ourselves against further violations of our core humanity and national and international law. In the words of the NRCAT statement, a commission of inquiry is crucial if we are to "confront U.S.-sponsored torture and completely renounce ... its use." Amnesia will not/can not serve the purposes of moral renewal, vigilance, and political commitment necessary to end torture and restore the rule of law.
A Commission of Inquiry, however, is not enough. Believing that already-existing evidence strongly suggests that crimes have been committed, WSRCAT calls for a criminal investigation; and, if the evidence derived from this investigation warrants, we call for prosecution of those who have broken the law. Such an investigation should aim all the way up the chain of command. No one is above the law; and those who order unlawful acts should be held accountable. As Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights has stated, "Unless government officials know that consequences follow from such abuses, they will break the law again." What kind of law and what kind of democracy would we have if by our inaction we endorsed a double standard? Assessing ethical responsibility is a complex matter that requires discernment and an unflinching eye willing to gaze into the mirror. Responsibility under the law is more clear-cut.
Without the rule of law, liberal democracy becomes a sham and human rights a mere chimera. Without accountability, the rule of law cannot endure. Executive lawbreaking has not been confined to the Bush administration. Nonetheless, motivated by a radical doctrine of presidential powers in wartime, the Bush administration swept aside the "American legal tradition . . . with its long-established precedents for dealing with adversaries in wartime–even those accused of heinous crimes" (Scott Horton, July, 2007). Moreover, if the United States wants to be counted among the nations as a defender and promoter of human rights, it is obliged to fulfill its treaty obligations. The United Nations Convention Against Torture, which the United States has signed, requires that if evidence indicates that crimes under the treaty have been committed, signatory nations must prosecute. Last summer, General Antonio Taguba said that "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account." In the year 2009, knowing what we already know about the torture of the last seven years, how can we not do what the law requires? We are not certain whether prosecutions are in order, but that is the purpose of a criminal investigation. The Commission of Inquiry may also reveal information that would lead to prosecution.
Is it possible to support both a Commission of Inquiry and a criminal investigation? The question has arisen because of the problem of immunity. In his proposal for a "truth commission, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has made clear his intention of exchanging immunity for testimony. If this occurs, prosecutions will become extremely difficult. How, then, can we support both the Commission of Inquiry and a criminal investigation? Following the lead of NYU’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ), which has taken this position, WSRCAT proposes that support the Commission of Inquiry with the proviso that selective immunity be provided rather than blanket immunity. Limited or targeted immunity for testimony provided to the commission keeps one eye on future criminal investigations.
Although our faith traditions call for reconciliation, they equally urge that we stand up for justice. Protecting our fellow human beings from the degradation of torture is what brought us to this work. Our commitment to protection requires both that we seek the truth and that we advocate for the enforcement of just law. Our religious voice should be clear; and we cannot afford to weaken our voice in the name of political expediency. It is possible to respond thoughtfully to legitimate concerns about aggravating partisanship, the appearance of seeking revenge, and diverting the country from more urgent matters. We are convinced that each of these reasons for not seeking criminal investigation and possible prosecution is misplaced. Accountability is not the same as revenge. Upholding the rule of law is beyond party. And as a country, we are capable of attending to more than one urgent matter at a time. Moreover, we must reject the absurd notion that holding lawbreakers accountable will prevent U.S. intelligence agents from doing their job of protecting the country. Such arguments are often opportunistic, designed to suppress the growing call for investigations.
If America is once again to become a nation of laws, we must do everything in our capacity to uphold the law. To do otherwise is to set a dangerous precedent for future government officials who can confidently assume that they can get away with violating their sacred duty to uphold the laws of the land. We will not participate in fostering a "culture of impunity." In the words of Margaret Satterthwaite of the CHRGJ, "If the United State wants to have a successful transition from an era of impunity to respect for the rule of law, it needs to embrace both truth and justice."
Saturday, January 3, 2009
NRCAT says Help Obama End Torture
The National Religious Campaign Against Torture urges everybody to Help Obama End Torture! Click on the image or the link below to sign on to the Declaration of Principles for a Presidential Executive OrderOn Prisoner Treatment, Torture and Cruelty
http://www.nrcat.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=183
http://www.nrcat.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=183
New Video: Religious Leaders Speak Out
NRCAT, National Religious Campaign gainst Torture has a powerful 6 minute video on its website with several speakers from the September torture conference in Atlanta that was sponsoredby Evangelicals for Human Rights and co-sponsored by NRCAT. These speakers from various faith traditions describe why their faith led them to oppose torture. NRCAT urges you to share it with your congregation and to use it in adult study programs. See http://www.nrcat.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=248&Itemid=182
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Action Needed Now to End Torture
Do you support a presidential executive order that will fully and completely, without exception, ban torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, anywhere in the world, including the transfer of prisoners to another country for torture?
Then join The Washington State Religious Campaign Against Torture (WSRCAT) and The National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) http://www.nrcat.org/ in supporting the Declaration of Principles for a Presidential Executive Order On Prisoner Treatment, Torture and Cruelty.
Sign on at:
http://www.nrcat.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=211&Itemid=160
Then join The Washington State Religious Campaign Against Torture (WSRCAT) and The National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) http://www.nrcat.org/ in supporting the Declaration of Principles for a Presidential Executive Order On Prisoner Treatment, Torture and Cruelty.
Sign on at:
http://www.nrcat.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=211&Itemid=160
Sunday, October 5, 2008
anti-torture events Nov 1 in Tacoma, Nov 12 in Seattle
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Public Forum
The Washington State Religious Campaign Against Torture (WSRCAT) presents "Torture, America's Moral Authority and the Question of National Security: A Pre-Election Ecumenical Forum".
Saturday, November 1, 2008, 7-9:15 p.m,
at St Mark’s Lutheran Church by-the-Narrows, 6730 N 17th Street, Tacoma; co-sponsored with several TACOMA congregations and Assocciated Ministries. The forum will include a talk by WSRCAT co-founder, Prof. Rob Crawford, a panel of responders, and time for discussion.
Keynote Address
“Torture and the American Future- a Moral and Political Reflection”
Speaker: Professor Rob Crawford is professor of modern history and culture at the University of Washington, Tacoma, where he teaches, among other courses, Post 9/11 America and Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Since 2004, he has been active in the anti-torture movement and in 2006 co-founded the Washington State Religious Campaign Against Torture.
Panel Discussion with Moderator: Mr. Rick Samyn, MSW, Pastoral Assistant for Social Justice Ministry - St. Leo Catholic Parish
Panelists:
Mr. Michael Collier is chair of First United Methodist MICAH Project and is a graduate from
Washington State University-Pullman. His post-graduate education included University of Washington, Concordia Lutheran College (Portland), Carthage College, Kenosha, Wisconsin, and University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. Pauline Kaurin holds a PhD in Philosophy from Temple University, Philadelphia and is a specialist in military ethics, just war theory, philosophy of law and applied ethics. She is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at PLU and teaches courses in military ethics, warfare, business ethics and philosophy of law. Recent articles include: Nothing New Under the Sun At Guantanamo Bay: Precedent and Prisoners of War and When Less is not More: Expanding the Combatant/Non-Combatant Distinction.
Andrew Williams, a former Lt. commander in the U.S. Navy, is now a practicing Silverdale attorney. In the Navy he was a Judge Advocate who served both at Naval Submarine Base, King’s Bay, Georgia, and on the USS NIMITZ. Mr. Williams recently resigned his commission in the Individual Ready Reserve due to torture and other improprieties committed by U.S. forces.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Public Forum
The Church Council of Greater Seattle (CCGS) and
the Washington State Religious Campaign Against Torture (WSRCAT) issue
A Call to End All Torture!
November 12, 2008, 7:30–9 pm, in Seattle
University Congregational UCC, 4515 16th Ave. N.E., Seattle, WA
Introduction: Rev. Monica Corsaro, CCGS
Speakers:
*Brig. General Stephen Xenakis, US Army (Ret). M.D. Psychiatrist, former Commanding General of the Southeast Regional Army Medical command; board member of NRCAT and works with Physicians for Human Rights on the issue of torture.
*Jorge Quiroga - Board member of CCGS, and an organizer for SEIU Local 6. He was tortured for three years in Argentina in the late 1970s.
*David Marshall, J.D. - Seattle attorney who represents three prisoners at Guantanamo in cooperation with the Center for Constitutional Rights.
*J. David Kinzie, M.D. - Professor of Psychiatry and Director of The Torture Treatment Center of Oregon.
*The Rev. Michael Denton - Conference Minister, Pacific North West Conference for the United Church of Christ.
WSRCAT and the Church Council have invited Washington’s Congressional representatives to this event. Rob Crawford, facilitator for WSRCAT, will present signatures calling for an Executive Order to Ban Torture Without Exception.
Co-sponsored by Western Washington Fellowship of Reconciliation
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)