Here's why a direct call for the prosecution of torturers is among the best metrics for one's commitment to anti-torture measures. By declining to advocate for such legal actions, we're announcing our willingness to let bygones be bygones.
The military commissions have once again cancelled two weeks' worth of hearings scheduled in the case of the five alleged plotters of the September 11 attacks. Although the attacks themselves took place nearly 14 years ago, the five men accused of masterminding the deadliest terror attack to ever take place on U.S. soil are still nowhere near trial.
Finally: Last week, after a ten-year internal struggle, the American Psychological Association voted to ban its member psychologists from any involvement in national security interrogations and, more to the point, in torture.
Acknowledgment accompanied by justice and accountability helps restore that sense of control. But for national security detainees held by the U.S. government and its proxies, justice and accountability are being systematically denied as a matter of law.
Even if torture works, it's a really, really bad idea. That anyone does it is appalling. That American psychologists participate in and endorse torture is outrageous. The APA and its adherents lose any semblance of credibility.
Rather than dealing with the problems raised by a policy of massive preventive detentions, force-feeding adds insult to injury: it violates basic human rights simply to allow other human rights violations to persist without struggle or social outcry.
In 40 years of dealing with presidents, prime ministers and other leaders, I could count on one hand the times I have heard a president or a prime minister or other high official speak candidly about the mistakes their country has made. It may be that I can count them on two fingers.
Obama should agree to a plan for returning Malik to his homeland rather detaining him indefinitely in the Guantanamo Bay prison without charge or trial.
Now that Obama has achieved a rapprochement with Cuba, it would seem the perfect time to give up our hold on Guantanamo. But what could the president get in return to satisfy the Congress?
The American Psychological Association's (APA) recent release of an internal investigation of possible ethics violations by APA members is just another example of the devastating consequences of the decision to employ inhuman, degrading and abusive treatment of prisoners as an instrument of national policy.
While Americans were celebrating the Fourth of July holiday with fireworks and beach vacations, some prominent Brits were noting a certain irony.
Each year, throughout the Muslim world, believers participate in the month-long Ramadan fast. Here in Kabul, where I'm a guest of the Afghan Peace Volunteers, our household awakens at 2:15 a.m. to prepare a simple meal before the fast begins at about 3:00 a.m.
No more delays. No more excuses. No more partisan finger pointing. It's time to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. America will be judged, and judged harshly, for not closing it sooner.
If you watched, you're surely pondering the meaning of Draper/Whitman's latest and greatest incarnation as New Age pitchman of killer soft drinks. But I've also given a lot of thought to something else: What was Mad Men trying to tell us about America?
It was no surprise on Friday in Manhattan federal court when convicted Osama bin Laden lieutenant Khaled al-Fawwaz received a life sentence for terrorism. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan had done this twice before.
Mohamedou Ould Slahi and over 100 other men remain at Guantanamo, held indefinitely without effective legal recourse. So long as it remains open, the detention camp poses a threat to liberty around the world, as there is nothing to stop a President from seizing and imprisoning there anyone for any reason at all.