This Friday I wanted to highlight an amazing project which recently won the 2009 Echoing Green Fellowship. Accountability Counsel is an organization aiming to partner with communities harmed by international finance and development projects in order to hold international institutions and corporations accountable, and develop new accountability systems where none exist.

Communities around the world have been harmed by multinational corporations, which have displaced people and taken their land, dumped toxic chemicals and waste in bodies of water, and threatened those who have dared to challenge such injustices. This is nothing new. However what surprised me most is that no other organization existed to assist communities - that often lack the resources to pursue their cases through the legal system - in seeking justice for the wrongs they have experienced.

Accountability Counsel conducts trainings at the grassroots level regarding accountability tools and helps communities implement these tools, including litigation. The organization helps communities seek redress for the harm they have experienced at the hands of international corporations.

The project is spearheaded by Natalie Bridgeman, an inspiring young attorney who has worked on environmental and human rights issues, with a focus on development accountability. She is a graduate of Cornell University where she was a Udall Scholar, and of UCLA School of Law’s Program in Public Interest Law and Policy where she was Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs. She has work experience with NGOs on advocacy campaigns, as a litigator at a large law firm, and as an accountability consultant.

About her inspiration, she says:

“While there, I traveled to the BioBio River where the indigenous Mapuche were protesting the illegal construction of a large series of hydroelectric dams on the River, which were displacing their villages and inundating their land. I stood a few feet away while the police tear gassed the eighty-year-old Mapuche women who were fighting for their land. I learned that the project was financed by an institution that used US taxpayer money – that my country was funding this injustice. They implored me to help. There was no turning back from development accountability work after that.”

Read more about Natalie’s project here!

A few days ago, amidst my crazy studying for final exams (which I have finally finished!), I ran across this simple, yet immensely poignant “Letter to a Law Student Interested in Social Justice,” by Professor Bill Quigley. Now, I’m not a law student, but I hope to be sometime in the next few years. And, the letter truly touched me. If I could, I’d rewrite every portion of the letter here - because it was just that inspiring and enlightening. But I can’t, and so I’ll focus on a few portions that really spoke to me. In the letter, Quigley says:

Advocates who do not create time for regular reflection can easily become angry and overwhelmed and bitter at the injustices around and ultimately at anyone who does not share their particular view about the best way to respond.

This is so true. When you start thinking about critical issues and social change, and when you get consumed in all the grand ideas of how messed up the world is and what you can do to help - everything else starts to seem a bit more trivial. You start to get really angry when you see people constantly striving to become millionaires, or just trying to climb the corporate ladder. It starts to become extremely frustrating to witness people obsessed with acquiring material possessions and fame.

This is happening to me. For the past week or so, this feeling has been intensifying, as I keep wondering: Why don’t people care more? There are so many ongoing atrocities around the world: conflict, torture, poverty. When there is so much to be done, how can people sit idle? It’s started to make me angry, because I just don’t think it’s right.

True, society is changing, and it’s changing for the better. Every day more people are dedicating time and effort to public service, and the nonprofit industry is becoming mainstream. Social enterprises are pulling talent in with fresh, innovative ideas and business models. But at the end of the day, it’s frustrating to still see so much greed everywhere.

Let’s face it - society’s priorities are completely screwed up. Who said it was okay to have prestige defined by the number of zeroes in your salary, the brand names in your closet, or the cars in your driveway? Why is it considered “cool” to live extravagantly, to have all the latest gadgets? Why does society define people by what they own, and not who they are? We all have our priorities wrong when money and possessions and fame become more important than integrity, humility, passion, and dedication. Prestige needs to be defined by what’s in a person’s heart, by compassion and goodness, and by dedication to a mission larger than yourself - passion for what you do, and passion for changing the world.

This is one of the problems with law school. In his letter, Quigley describes how students enter law school with the desire to help others. Bright eyed and imbued with idealism, they hope to use their legal skills to defend those who need it most. But 2/3 of those who enter law school with interest in government or public sector jobs do not end up in that line of work. Quigley quotes a student who said: “The first thing I lost in law school was the reason that I came.” Why? Because law - and thus, law schools - ultimately isn’t about justice, or upholding some noble ideal. When it comes down to it, much of the legal profession is about making money. He writes:

Unfortunately, the experience of law school and the legal profession often dilute the commitment to social justice lawyering. The repeated emphasis in law school on the subtleties of substantive law and many layers of procedure, usually discussed in the context of examples from business and traditional litigation, can grind down the idealism with which students first arrived. It pains me to say it, but justice is a counter-cultural value in our legal profession. Because of that, you cannot be afraid to be different than others in law school or the profession – for unless you are, you cannot be a social justice lawyer.

There’s the key point - in order to care about others, and want to make a difference in others’ lives - you’re automatically different. This is true for law school, but it’s also true in business school, and for society as a whole. Why is it that if you actually care, you have to be different? An anomaly? Shouldn’t the desire to better the world be something normal? Something admirable, something to aspire to?

But it’s not. I don’t blame individuals for chasing success or money. When society values something, it’s natural for people to gravitate towards that. Not everyone knows what their true passion is, but it’s often because they haven’t been exposed to all the career paths out there, and so turn to society’s conceptions of what to do as a rough guideline. Well, that guideline is skewed, and it needs to be changed.

That’s why before we can help “change the world,” we have to change ourselves. As you, and I, and others one by one decide to go against the grain and work to improve the world we live in, society will undergo a shift. Someday, it’ll become more normal for law schools to emphasize human rights law or public defense. Someday, I’ll have to hope that working on criminal justice reform or microfinance will be as prestigious as being an investment banker or corporate lawyer. We’re not there yet, but I hope someday we will be.

Today I want to feature an amazing organization in Sierra Leone, called Timap for Justice. Timap for Justice is an innovative organization aiming to provide basic access to justice to the people of Sierra Leone. Timap for Justice formed to address the shortage of lawyers in the country, and employs and trains community-based paralegals instead of lawyers. They employ 25 paralegals who work in 13 paralegal offices in various parts of Sierra Leone.

Their model is unique and effective, not only because of the reliance on trained paralegals, but also because of the combined approach of education, mediation, negotiation, organizing, and advocacy they utilize. Paralegals mediate conflicts between individuals (e.g. family arguments, property disputes), and also engage in community-level advocacy (e.g. discussing various schooling and health issues with local non profit groups). Sierra Leone has a dualistic legal structure, meaning there is a formal legal structure as well as a customary/traditional legal system. Paralegals are trained to solve problems through both channels. The program also has centrally located lawyers/directors who employ litigation and high-level advocacy in certain severe cases, or where litigation can have a broader impact.

Very few organizations combine all these approaches, thus allowing Timap for Justice to have a truly effective, innovative model - which champions a holistic approach to fighting human rights violations, rather than a myopic focus on legal issues. Paralegals are advocates and mentors, and become truly a valuable part of the communities they work with - again, very rare for nonprofits.

I’d encourage you all to check out Timap for Justice and acknowledge the great work they are doing. It’s important to recognize and raise awareness of grassroots organizations which are often doing amazing work, especially since they originate within the communities they work in - but so sadly, often lack attention due to the dominance of larger Western NGOs which gain prominence in the the media’s eyes.

Photo Credit: here

We need more - we need the truth. We need to look back at the Bush Administration and investigate what went wrong with America’s rule of law during our “war on terror”: torture, illegal wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and other human rights violations. Why did this happen? Who let it happen? And how can we ensure it never happens again?

We desperately need to establish a Truth Commission to investigate these abuses, and America agrees. After all, 62% of Americans agree that the government should undertake a criminal investigation or set up an independent panel to investigate these anti-terror measures, according to a Gallup poll.

But President Obama said it is more important to move forward, rather than to look back. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy has proposed such a commission, but President Obama didn’t seem to be too keen on the idea. Yet, President Obama really should consider an informal commission - if not a formal investigation. Personally, I believe that criminal prosecutions are necessary. Necessary for accountability and deterrence. Only by conducting formal investigations will America come to terms with the gravity of what has passed. And only this way can we ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself.

Moreover, if we don’t conduct investigations into the allegations of waterboarding and other torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, foreign courts (and even the ICC, though that likely won’t happen anytime soon) will have the right to prosecute U.S. officials under “universal jurisdiction.” It’s only right that we fulfill our responsibilities.

As a legal matter, we are compelled to investigate by the Convention Against Torture, a binding treaty, that requires its signatories to investigate and refer for possible prosecution credible evidence of torture under their jurisdiction. — David Cole

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions have been set up around the world - in Rwanda after the genocide, in Argentina, in Chile, in South Africa. There is a precedent for their success. Truth Commissions in some countries led to eventual criminal prosecutions, as they uncovered valid evidence through the process. I’m not saying the crimes of the “war on terror” are in any way comparable to genocide, but I am saying we have a responsibility to at least look into it.

We lock up people for low-level drug offenses through harsh mandatory minimum prison terms, rather than giving them the support services they need. New York spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year imprisoning people convicted of drug possession, but we can’t investigate into something as serious as allegations of torture? It seems a little ironic to me that drug possession lands you in jail for years, but something like approving torture of indefinitely detained prisoners doesn’t even require an investigation.

And sure, people argue that many of those involved simply followed the legal advice of the Justice Department which stated that waterboarding was not torture. But don’t people have responsibilities for their actions regardless? These officials should have had the ability to judge on their own whether what they were doing is wrong. It’s that plain and simple. Following orders blindly can be wrong, as we see from the Holocaust. Again, I’m not comparing these two situations at all - just pointing out similarities. People need to be held responsible for their actions, regardless of whether it was their idea or not in the first place.

Michael Ratner sums this up well:

This is why President Obama is wrong when he argues that prosecution is looking backward; it is not. Prosecution is a means of preventing torture in the future…..Some claim that to prosecute those who approved torture techniques would criminalize a policy difference. But torture is against the law. The claim that the administration officials who promoted the use of waterboarding and other measures were acting in the national interest does not absolve them; if it did, all torturers the world over would use the same justifications.

And so, we need an investigation because America is a role model for countries around the world. We need to show that we are not just changing our policies, but being truly accountable for our actions. Only then can we become a strong advocate for human rights around the world, and only then can we encourage other governments to end human rights violations without hypocricy at home. And we need to investigate so that those responsible will be brought to justice. Together, we have to say - never again.

This post was also featured on the Brazen Careerist network. Please click here to read more comments on it.

Recently, I watched an excellent interview of Kevin Jon Heller of Opinio Juris, a professor of international law as well as a defense adviser for Radovan Karadzic. Karadzic is a former Bosnian Serb leader who is currently being indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for counts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. He is accused of genocide - namely, ethnic cleansing campaigns in Bosnia, as well as the 1995 massacre in Srebenica when Serb troops murdered about 8,000 Muslim men. Karadzic has been accused of some of the worst crimes in history — and Heller is responsible for defending him. The interview compares defending Karadzic with defending Hitler and asks: Would you defend Hitler?

This point is fascinating because it’s something people have been questioning for ages. Why - and how can you - ethically defend someone if you know they’re guilty? The reason is the honorable institution of the fair trial. Without defending both parties involved in any case, the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and a major civil liberty in so many countries around the world (at least on the books), is endangered. I’ve noted down the most important part of Heller’s interview below:

What really struck me was the same people who didn’t understand why I would be involved in defending a monster like Karadzic in the very next breath savagely criticized the U.S. governments for denying fair trials to the inmates at Guantanamo Bay. And I agree with the criticism of the way Guantanamo Bay detainees were treated….But it’s that blindness, that we care about giving fair trials to the accused terrorists , because I guess we think most of them are innocent, but we have no concern whatsoever with giving fair trials to someone like Dr. Karadzic. That’s what I don’t understand…The right to a fair trial extends back to the Magna Carta. This is not an optional human right that is less important than the rights of victims. I don’t think we should be prioritizing which of our human rights we want to take seriously and which  we don’t want to take seriously. To not insist upon fair trials and the right of a good defense to every accused criminal regardless of our political sympathies to them, I just think is devastating to international criminal justice in general. — Kevin Jon Heller

Being a public defender is probably one of the most difficult jobs ever. You are constantly questioned by others about the ethics of your job, and why you would even think of defending someone who has done such horrible things. But we have to think back to one of our basic human rights - the right to a fair trial. Heller makes an excellent point in stating that every criminal, regardless of the level of their crimes, deserves a fair trial. Only then can we ensure that criminal justice institutions are fair enough to save those who are in fact innocent, and to ensure the appropriate justice for those who are guilty.

So, would YOU defend Hitler?