Justice for all

First of all, more than six years after the International Criminal Court (ICC) opened, the ICC is holding it’s first trial ever: Thomas Lubanga, 48, a Congo militia leader wanted for his war crimes. He was the president of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), “a military group purporting to further the interests of the Hema ethnic group in the Ituri region of the DRC”. He is especially (but not exclusively) wanted for recruiting child soldiers under the age of 15 into his army, and forcing them to terrorize, kill, harm and rape civilians. In 2003, it was believed that up to 30,000 young child soldiers were a part of the militia group — some as young as 9. He has pleaded not guilty to the accusations, and has finally been put on trial after being in the ICC’s custody for three years.

The exciting news: I will be visiting the ICC in February with other students, and will hopefully have the opportunity to meet the Chief Prosecutor as well as sit in on the Lubanga trial! So this news is just in time for my visit :).

Thomas Lubanga

One of the ongoing debates in international law is how exactly child soliders should be treated before the law. Many of the children abducted by Kony and his forces, for example, have grown up to become powerful military leaders themselves, often commanding large armies and continuing to recruit children into their ranks. Should these leaders be convicted or rehabilitated into society? And moreover, what about the child soldiers who maybe haven’t risen in their ranks, but still are responsible for maiming and brutally killing thousands of civilians? How can we distinguish between their roles as victims, but at the same time - horrifying perpetrators?

But the truth is, if we simply condemn these child and teenage soldiers to be perpetrators of war crimes and attempt to indict them, we are ignoring the forces behind their involvement in these armies. First, many children were abducted and threatened, thus forced into joining the army. Often, one of the first tasks that militia leaders forced abductees to do was to chop off the limbs of family members and friends, or torture nearby civilians while watching them writhe in pain, and eventually die. These are ‘initiation tasks’ that children are forced into performing; otherwise, the answer is certain death. After performing such horrific acts within their local communities, the children have no choice but to accept the army as their new home. After all, they will forever be stigmatized within their communities, and often no longer can obtain the support they need to return home. These children are then trained to use a gun - and again and again, are threatened with death or torture unless they kill and harm others. Being brainwashed into a vicious cycle of killing for survival, it is no wonder that these child abductees grow up with a thirst for blood and often a need to continuously engage in violence. The psychological damage suffered by these children is extensive, but the answer to this problem is not to put them behind bars. Ultimately, we have to not just feel compassion for these children - but also understand that they can be and must be rehabilitated into society in order to reclaim their lives. True, they might have killed hundreds of men and women — but forgiveness and psychological support is what they need more than life in an overcrowded prison cell. One amazing success story is that of Ishmael Beah, who tells a heart-wrenching & yet uplifting story of his abduction into a child army and his eventual rehabilitation into society in his memoir, A long way gone. There is hope for even the seemingly bleakest cases, and though it proves to be a great challenge, the rehabilitation of child soldiers is not something governments and international law can ignore.

The second underlying problem is that of poverty and destitution itself, a reality for many children who are tempted to join the army in exchange for food, false promises of protection, drugs, and weapons. Although most children tend to be abducted, and are generally afraid of joining the army, there are certainly those who join by choice. However, it is dangerous to title these children and young adults as “criminals” because this simplistic assumption ignores the challenges these boys and girls face on a daily basis. Children, often lacking basic needs or the support of a caring family, can easily be lured by hopes of a better future. If the present is so bleak, children might view the army as an opportunity for growth and success; at least they’ll be fed, have a group of friends, and perhaps one day even become a leader! I think even these children ought to be counseled and rehabilitated, because ultimately the perpetrator is poverty and lack of education - not the children themselves.

Understanding all of this, though, I still support the ICC’s indictment of Mr. Lubanga. He is one of the senior commanders responsible for some of the killing in Congo, and we must indict the top-most officials in order to slowly put an end to the abduction of child soldiers. Moreover, the statement made by the ICC through this trial is very significant and Lubanga’s is a gory story that simply needs to be heard by the international community in order to raise awareness about the plight of child soldiers in Africa, especially Congo & Uganda.

The opening of Lubanga’s trial suggests how powerful the court may be in deterring war crimes and providing a voice for victims. As Lubanga pleaded not guilty, his court appearance, and prosecution video of him in training camps with child soldiers, was broadcast live on giant screens in Congo’s war-ravaged northeast, devastated by years of attacks by militias like Lubanga’s. — LA Times

The commanders must no doubt be brought to justice in order to expand the rule of law — the focus, yet, must be on the abductees themselves and on ensuring that they are adequately receiving the treatment they need. I think sometimes we tend to lose sight of the actual issue and the hundreds actually involved in the bloodshed when we start focusing on high profile cases and ‘exciting’ events such as this one. There are many more criticisms of the ICC, but that I will save for the next post.

Moreover, another advantage of this case is that it takes a new step in international law; it allows victims to play a direct role in the trial and to be represented by their own lawyers. A group of 93 victims is participating in the Lubanga case.

In fact, this is a small, tiny step forward for international criminal justice — only time will tell if Lubanga and others will finally experience justice for their acts. In the meantime, there is much more to be done in terms of helping the actual victims of his crimes — young children that we can’t forget in our elusive quest to find justice.

Obama hasn’t even been President for two days, and he’s already changing the country, giving America a new face. A kinder and more benevolent face - one that says we are fair, just, and honest. He’s begun his presidency with something most human rights activists hoped for with their fists clenched and their breath ragged. And now, not only will activists around the world be taking a deep breath and exhaling - perhaps even jumping up and down, popping a bottle of champagne, or writing a blog - but the world will begin to give us more approving glances.

Obama has kept true to his promise, and today he signed executive orders directing the C.I.A. to shut down its remaining secret prisons - and to close down the Guantánamo Bay detention center within one year. This is incredible; not only have NGOs like Amnesty International, the ACLU, and Human Rights Watch worked tirelessly towards this goal — beyond simply closing Guantanamo, they hoped that ending America’s flagrant disregard of human rights would be the first thing that our new President would do. And I, I remained cynical – wondering if it would indeed be first on his agenda.

But he has happily surprised me and many others I’m sure. Obama gets it. He realizes that we are campaigning not only for the rights of the detainees, many of them innocents caught up in violence and at the least, undeserving of the torture and humiliation they have faced. No, people are campaigning because Guantanamo Bay has become a symbol of America’s cruelty and utter disregard for our own constitution, that which has always been seen as representative of Freedom, Liberty, and Opportunity. Obama realizes that with a swift stroke of the pen, he can restore some of America’s good reputation in the world. And he can set the tone for his Presidency; he can set high standards for himself. He’s already closed Guantanamo on day one, and we can only expect an uphill journey from here.

But amidst the celebration, there is much left to be done. President Obama has halted the unconstitutional military commissions taking place in Guantanamo by ordering a 120-day suspension.

He has postponed some of the most important decisions to be made for 6 months. He knows its time to close the prison, but still seems uncertain what is to be done with the detainees.

“There are … ambiguities in the orders regarding treatment of certain detainees that could either be the result of the swiftness with which these orders were issued or ambivalence within the Obama administration. We are hopeful that as the process unfolds and gets clarified, there will be no doubt that detainees must either be charged, prosecuted and convicted or they need to be released,” – Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director

Right now? It’s all still a bit of a mess. Some prisoners are to be transferred back to their home countries to be tried - how can we guarantee that they will not suffer torture again in foreign prisons? And what about those deemed to ‘dangerous’ to even try in American courts? Or those who cannot be brought to trial for fear of revealing intelligence secrets? And for those who were tortured, humiliated in Guantanamo - what is to be done with them? If we are to be fair, we cannot admit their tainted guilty pleas, their bloodstained testimonies. We have to think of new solutions, be creative, and solve this problem quickly.

Obama has made his symbolic move, and found a way to garner quick praise. But time well tell whether this symbol will transform into substance. I respect him immensely for this single act — but I’ll respect him all the more if he can untangle the mess Bush left for us.

6 months? President Obama: I say we can do it faster. Let’s make it happen.

Although I read this article months ago, it still keeps haunting me and lurking around in the back of my mind. Shockingly, “public defenders’ offices in at least seven states are refusing to take on new cases or have sued to limit them” due to overwhelming workloads. It is no secret that the U.S. criminal justice system needs vast improvement, but this is absolutely outrageous. The fact that public defenders are so overworked means that they are able to dedicate less and less time to each individual case – and this ultimately interferes with the constitutional right to counsel for those who cannot afford it.

It’s completely unacceptable that public defenders are so overloaded with cases that each lawyer has to handle almost 500 felony cases per year (which has risen from about 367 in the past three years). And caseloads for lawyers who handle misdemeanour cases have risen to 2,225 from 1,380. In just three years!

Public defenders do some of the hardest work in our country. They defend the voiceless and the poor, and often have to fight for people they know are guilty – all in the pursuit of justice. Their jobs are difficult in themselves and often involve personal ethical battles and questions of morality. But in spite of this, public defenders are notoriously overworked and underpaid. They often work long hours for salaries of only $35,000 - $50,000. They do this out of pure personal belief, desire, and motivation to help others and promote justice.

But public defenders should be paid more and their caseloads should be decreased. Corporate lawyers easily earn a minimum of $150,000 starting salary after graduating from a good law school. If state governments begin to pay public defenders more, then public interest law as a profession will attract more talented young minds who might have otherwise entered corporate practice. The truth is, many law students don’t go to law school solely for the money – many of them genuinely want to practice law in court and work for the public interest. After all, it not only gives you incredible legal experience - often more substantive and hands-on, not to mention exciting, than the work on contracts done in corporate firms - but also allows you to join the fight for justice and impact the lives of the indigent. But motivated students are often deterred from this goal by the fear of ever-increasing student loans and the huge debt one incurs from attending law school. It’s not easy to pay back exorbitant law school loans (often over $110,000) while on a public defenders salary of $40,000. If this fear can be eradicated, then corporate law won’t become the default anymore – if one can make a decent living as a public defender, it becomes much easier for young lawyers to follow their dreams rather than sell their souls.

Also, research shows that indigents receive the best representation when they receive the assistance of a well-funded public defenders office. When case loads increase, lawyers are more likely to settle on a plea bargain without full information; they are less likely to go to trial since they don’t have the time, even if a trial is necessary to search out the truth. Courts are even threatening to delay trials or even drop charges against unrepresented defendants. Clearly, increasing case loads are becoming a threat to the very foundation of our democracy. These aren’t simply small issues of misdemeanors either; innocent people have in the past been condemned to death due to inadequate representation. There will be increasing impunity for actual offenders as caseloads increase.

It angers me that our legal system is deteriorating by the day, and such few measures are being taken to prevent this. Rather than increasing the budget of criminal defense offices, state governments are decreasing financing (in NYC, financing from the city and state decreased by $2.7 million this year). It shocks me that we can spend over $500 billion on the war on terror abroad - but refuse to work harder to fight crime at home. Our people live here, at home, in American states and cities - and the law is being flouted every day within our borders, harming our citizens daily. We need to fight this demon first. This is a priority, and it needs to be put higher up on the national to-do list — not banished to the lowly sidelines. Change will have to begin at home, with reform in our flailing criminal justice system, if we are to improve the state of our local communities, provide justice for all – and uphold the ideals of our Constitution.