November
23, 2016
Donald
Trump
President-elect
of the United States of America
Trump
Tower
735
5th Avenue
New
York, NY 10022
Dear
President-elect Trump:
I
write to you on behalf of Human Rights Watch to urge you to repudiate and
rescind pledges and policy proposals you made in the course of the presidential
election campaign that if implemented by your administration would violate
fundamental human rights and be deeply damaging to millions of people in the
United States and abroad.
While
you have recently stepped back from some of these proposals, suggesting that
certain campaign promises were merely ideas or opening bids in a negotiation,
none has been clearly and unequivocally retracted. In particular, statements that
indicate backtracking from US human rights commitments and the rule of law
threaten the well-being of people within the United States and US standing in
the world. Even leaving positions on issues ambiguous can have a lasting
corrosive effect.
Accordingly,
we believe it imperative that you explicitly retract the following proposals
that would violate or threaten core human rights under US law or the
international legal obligations of the United States.
Reinstating
Torture and Targeting Civilians
Torture
and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment violates US law,
including the federal torture statute and the War Crimes Act. It also violates
long-recognized protections under the laws of war, including the 1949 Geneva
Conventions.
Reinstating
any sort of interrogation program that involves torture, including
waterboarding, or ill-treatment will expose senior administration officials and
US military personnel to criminal liability within the US and abroad. Any legal
opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel or other
department attempting to justify torture will be legally void. It will put
legal counsel involved at risk of liability for conspiracy or related charges,
and it will not serve to protect anyone purporting to rely on such an opinion
that would so clearly not have been rendered in good faith.
You recently
suggested that after speaking with military leaders, you have come to realize
that torture might not be as effective as you had previously thought. This is an
important acknowledgment but you should state unequivocally that your
administration will never use torture or cruel treatment and that it will abide
by US and international law banning it.
Similarly,
reverting to past practices of detaining people in US custody incommunicado or
in secret facilities or rendering them to third countries where they are likely
to face torture or other ill-treatment, would violate US obligations under
federal and international law prohibiting arbitrary detention, torture, mistreatment,
enforced disappearance and other abuses. All those responsible for such
violations, including as a matter of command responsibility, would be subject
to criminal prosecution both in the US and abroad.
Reinstating
torture and other methods of coercive interrogation would also undermine US
national security. Past use of torture by the US continues to serve as a
rallying cry for anti-US armed groups. Experienced US interrogators have
emphasized that information obtained through torture is notoriously unreliable,
often producing time-wasting false leads, while lawful interrogation methods
produce more accurate information.
The US has more intelligent, effective, and principled ways of responding to national security threats than stooping to barbaric practices used by groups such as the Islamic State. Respecting fundamental rights has always been in the best long-term interests of the United States.
The US has more intelligent, effective, and principled ways of responding to national security threats than stooping to barbaric practices used by groups such as the Islamic State. Respecting fundamental rights has always been in the best long-term interests of the United States.
During
the campaign you also suggested that families of terrorism suspects could be
targets of lethal strike operations. Later, you sought to clarify your position
by saying that you would not issue orders for US military personnel to disobey
the law.
Acknowledging legal limits on the use of force by US forces was a positive step, but as you undoubtedly know, family members of combatants may not legally be targets of attack unless they are directly participating in the hostilities. Attacking them violates international legal protections for civilians and is a form of collective punishment. Anyone ordering such attacks would be subject to prosecution for war crimes. You should reaffirm US commitments to the Geneva Conventions and other international laws of war.
Acknowledging legal limits on the use of force by US forces was a positive step, but as you undoubtedly know, family members of combatants may not legally be targets of attack unless they are directly participating in the hostilities. Attacking them violates international legal protections for civilians and is a form of collective punishment. Anyone ordering such attacks would be subject to prosecution for war crimes. You should reaffirm US commitments to the Geneva Conventions and other international laws of war.
Expanding
Indefinite Detention at Guantanamo Bay
The
detention of hundreds of men indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay without charge or
trial over the past 15 years has done long-term damage to US credibility on
human rights and compromised relationships with allies. Senior officials in the
administration of George W. Bush came to recognize the harm to US standing
caused by Guantanamo. The administration released several hundred detainees.
The Obama administration further reduced the prison’s population, citing among
other reasons, the danger that Guantanamo poses as a recruiting tool for
extremist groups. Your administration should likewise be looking for ways to
undo the damage done by Guantanamo by appropriately transferring the dwindling
number of detainees still held there and shutting down the facility. You should
also certainly not add any detainees to Guantanamo.
The
US should instead detain and prosecute all individuals accused of terrorist
offenses in accordance with international law. That means disbanding the
fundamentally flawed military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, whose handful of
convictions have mostly been overturned on appeal, and prosecuting current and
future terrorism suspects in courts that comport with international fair trial
standards. US federal courts have prosecuted hundreds of terrorism cases since
9/11 but Congress has misguidedly banned the transfer of Guantanamo detainees
to the US for detention or trial.
Your administration should support lifting
the ban so that the cases, stalled for years in the dysfunctional military
commissions, can move forward in federal court. For example, it is a profound
embarrassment — a victory for blind ideology over any interest in justice —
that the suspects in the September 11, 2001 attacks have still not been tried
because their prosecution has proceeded before the military commissions rather
than in federal court. Victims and their family members, as well as the
defendants, would be much better served by the federal-court system, which
while not without its flaws, is well established and widely respected.
The use
of the discredited military commissions is particularly pointless because a
major aim was to prevent revelation of US torture of the suspects, but the
details of that torture have now largely been disclosed in the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence’s public summary of its longer report on the Central
Intelligence Agency’s detention and interrogation program.
Deporting
Millions of Immigrants
Your
proposal to deport or “incarcerate” two million or “even three million” people
who have had some contact with the criminal justice system would put the US on
course for massive rights violations. Experience has shown that when
immigration agencies try to deport millions of “criminals,” often with minor or
no actual convictions, people with deep ties in the US, who contribute to their
families and communities, pay the price.
The risks to due process and community safety are also severe. Expanding the flawed expedited removal mechanism to carry out deportations more rapidly, for example, would cause enormous damage to due process and risk numerous wrongful deportations. Your proposal to ramp up immigration enforcement using local police would have the effect of promoting racial profiling, fear, and distrust of police, ultimately damaging public safety.
The risks to due process and community safety are also severe. Expanding the flawed expedited removal mechanism to carry out deportations more rapidly, for example, would cause enormous damage to due process and risk numerous wrongful deportations. Your proposal to ramp up immigration enforcement using local police would have the effect of promoting racial profiling, fear, and distrust of police, ultimately damaging public safety.
“Extreme
Vetting,” Onerous Asylum Seeker and Immigrant Registration Requirements, and
Global Refugee Policy
Your
proposals to require Muslim immigrants to register with the government and to
subject certain nationals to new “extreme vetting” procedures would cause
serious harm. Both proposals were put forward in vague terms during the
campaign, yet it is difficult to see how either could be implemented without
denying people the internationally protected rights to seek asylum from
persecution and to protection against discrimination. The registration proposal
in particular conjures images of some very dark chapters in US and world
history.
Any kind of registration program would likely do harm to millions of
law-abiding people and families who live and work in the US, for no apparent
reason other than prejudice. US immigration, refugee resettlement, and asylum
procedures already include very rigorous forms of security screening.
The
US has for decades been the global leader in refugee resettlement. We strongly
urge you not to undermine that leadership by curtailing refugee resettlement
into the United States. A sudden attempt to curb the number of refugees coming
to the United States could upend the entire global system of refugee
resettlement – discouraging other countries as well from accepting more refugees
– at a time when the world is facing the greatest number of displaced people
since the end of the Second World War.
Curtailing
Women’s Rights in the US and Abroad
The
United States is one of only a few countries, rich or poor, that has
experienced a recent increase in women dying in childbirth. Women and men in
the US need access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care,
including birth control, prenatal care, care and treatment for sexually
transmitted infections, obstetric care, and access to safe and legal abortion.
Such care should be available to all, including low-income and marginalized
populations.
You
have proposed several measures that would dramatically undermine such access.
This includes your proposal to repeal most of the Affordable Care Act, which
expanded access to health care including sexual and reproductive health care —
without putting forward any complementary proposal to ensure that millions of
people who have benefitted under the act would not lose access to affordable health
care.
You also pledged that in nominating Supreme Court justices, your priority
would be to put “pro-life” judges who would “automatically” overturn Roe v.
Wade on the bench, which would open the door for the criminalization of
abortion in many states.
You have accepted the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding marriage equality on the ground that it is “settled” law, but the court’s recognition of reproductive freedom has been settled for more than forty years, with a series of cases reaffirming the privacy rights first protected in Roe v. Wade.
You have accepted the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding marriage equality on the ground that it is “settled” law, but the court’s recognition of reproductive freedom has been settled for more than forty years, with a series of cases reaffirming the privacy rights first protected in Roe v. Wade.
In addition, you have said that you will support making the Hyde
Amendment, which blocks Medicaid funding for abortion except when the pregnancy
results from rape or incest or endangers the woman’s life, a permanent law.
These proposals, if enacted, would cause harm to millions of women.
Beyond
these direct policy proposals, you have for many years made statements about
women that are deeply offensive and fly in the face of human rights principles
of dignity and equality. While you deny having committed sexual assault, you
have spoken of it with a callousness that deeply concerned people around the
country, risked normalizing violence against women, and jeopardized the standing
of the US in global efforts to combat gender-based violence.
As president you should no longer disregard such violence and discrimination but will have a duty to make strong efforts to combat it by fully supporting laws, policies, and government institutions that promote women’s safety from violence.
As president you should no longer disregard such violence and discrimination but will have a duty to make strong efforts to combat it by fully supporting laws, policies, and government institutions that promote women’s safety from violence.
With
regard to respecting women’s rights at the international level, your
administration should support the maintenance of institutions and the
enforcement of laws and policies that promote global women’s issues.
For years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the United States has shown strong leadership in attacking such damaging practices as child marriage, gender-based violence, and human trafficking. You are in a position to enhance rather than undermine that important legacy. Critical will be nominating a highly qualified proponent of women's rights to lead the State Department's Office of Global Women's Issues, and ensuring that the office has sufficient resources and authority.
For years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the United States has shown strong leadership in attacking such damaging practices as child marriage, gender-based violence, and human trafficking. You are in a position to enhance rather than undermine that important legacy. Critical will be nominating a highly qualified proponent of women's rights to lead the State Department's Office of Global Women's Issues, and ensuring that the office has sufficient resources and authority.
Weakening
Media Freedom
During
your campaign, you suggested you would attempt to weaken libel laws to make it
easier to sue the media. Existing libel laws are designed to protect freedom of
expression and ensure that the US has a robust free media, which is essential
to ensuring public accountability and strong democratic institutions. Any
efforts to erode such freedoms, including by strengthening libel laws, would be
profoundly harmful to journalists’ ability to hold government to account.
Ultimately, they would harm a fundamental and enduring component of US
democracy.
Encouraging
Hate Speech and Bias Crimes
When
asked, you have publicly disavowed support for white nationalists; however your
appointment of Stephen Bannon as your chief strategist and senior counselor
shows a reaffirmation, rather than a disavowal, of the racist, misogynistic,
and xenophobic rhetoric that characterized your presidential campaign. Bannon’s
stewardship of Breitbart News is widely recognized as promoting White
Nationalism’s message of hatred and intolerance and its accompanying racist and
anti-Muslim discourse.
Regardless
of whether you believe Bannon personally holds those views, his appointment to
a high-level position sends the message that your administration will tolerate
and perhaps even endorse or encourage views that might incite violence,
discrimination, or hatred against marginalized populations. Particularly when
coupled with the nomination to attorney general of Senator Jeff Sessions, who
as you know was denied confirmation as a federal judge because of allegations
of racism, Bannon’s appointment suggests your administration will also be slow
to act, if at all, when hate crimes and other bias crimes are committed.
You should rescind Bannon’s appointment, and state forcefully, publicly, and clearly that discriminatory acts and statements will have no place in your administration.
You should rescind Bannon’s appointment, and state forcefully, publicly, and clearly that discriminatory acts and statements will have no place in your administration.
Backtracking
on the Right to Health
We
urge you to withdraw your pledge to “repeal and replace” most of the Affordable
Care Act. This legislation has so far provided insurance coverage for 20
million uninsured Americans. The Affordable Care Act should not be repealed or
substantially amended without ensuring that these gains are preserved — an
assurance to which you have so far not credibly committed.
The Affordable Care
Act’s expansion of Medicaid and subsidized insurance plans are key steps toward
addressing significant economic, racial, and gender-based disparities in access
to health care in the US and parallel poor performance on several key health indicators.
As with maternal mortality (see above), the US is one of few countries in the
world where HIV prevalence rates have not gone down in recent years.
Mortality
rates among middle-aged non-Hispanic Whites have increased in recent years,
driven in significant part by high incidence of accidental drug overdoses and
suicides. Improving access to mental health services and treatment for
substance use disorders, both key elements of the Affordable Care Act and its
emphasis on preventative, comprehensive, and community-based health services,
is critical to reserving this trend.
Undermining
Environmental Protections
During
your campaign, you have announced an intention to dismantle the Environmental
Protection Agency (the EPA). Gutting environmental rules and regulations risks
undermining bedrock protections of people and their environment. The EPA plays
a crucial role in, among other things, studying pollutants harmful to human
health, establishing rules to curb dangerous pollutants, monitoring to ensure compliance,
and prosecuting certain polluters.
To cite a few of its recent actions, the EPA
has set limits on emissions of mercury, arsenic, and other toxic substances
from power plants, established a stricter air quality standard on the noxious
gas ozone, and launched numerous enforcement actions to protect communities
from exposure to toxic lead. We urge your administration to demonstrate
leadership by ensuring the EPA can to continue its work to protect public
health and the environment.
Relations
with Abusive Governments: Russia, Syria and Egypt
Your
stated interest in collaborating with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and
Russian President Putin in Syria is of grave concern given the massive crimes
committed by the Syrian government against civilians, Russia’s continued
military support to the Syrian government despite those ongoing crimes, and
Russia’s own involvement in unlawful aerial attacks in Syria.
In the last five
and a half years, the Syrian government has repeatedly used an overly broad
definition of terrorism that has allowed it to justify attacks against any
opposition group or activist who opposes or is perceived as opposing the Assad
government. It has also fought the war by targeting and besieging civilians in
opposition-held parts of the country in violation of the laws of war.
The Russian government has embraced these practices and contributed to Syria military equipment and technical, financial, and human support to assist Assad in his brutal campaigns. It has also joined in the bombing of civilians and civilian structures. In addition, Russia has provided President Assad political protection at the UN Security Council.
The Russian government has embraced these practices and contributed to Syria military equipment and technical, financial, and human support to assist Assad in his brutal campaigns. It has also joined in the bombing of civilians and civilian structures. In addition, Russia has provided President Assad political protection at the UN Security Council.
Over
the course of the war, these widespread and systematic rights abuses have
fueled instability, driving millions of civilians from their homes and creating
a strong incentive for the emergence of extremist groups that now pose a threat
well beyond Syria’s borders.
In these circumstances, partnering militarily with Russia would likely ratchet up abuse against civilians, intensify the adverse consequences, undermine prospects for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict, and discredit the United States throughout the region. Partnering with Russia and Syria on military operations could also make the US government complicit in their war crimes and crimes against humanity and expose US personnel to legal liability.
In these circumstances, partnering militarily with Russia would likely ratchet up abuse against civilians, intensify the adverse consequences, undermine prospects for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict, and discredit the United States throughout the region. Partnering with Russia and Syria on military operations could also make the US government complicit in their war crimes and crimes against humanity and expose US personnel to legal liability.
Similarly,
the absence of any mention of Egypt's substantial human rights abuses and weak
adherence to the rule of law when discussing the US-Egyptian partnership raises
further concerns. In the last three years, authorities in Egypt have banned
protests, arrested scores of LGBT people, prosecuted religious minorities,
imprisoned tens of thousands, put thousands of civilians before military
trials, embarked on a draconian campaign against civil society and the media,
and, in 2013, shot at least 817 protesters at Rabaa Square in the course of
twelve hours — a slaughter on a par with China’s crushing of the Tiananmen
Square democracy movement.
Armed groups, from an Islamic State affiliate in the
Sinai Peninsula to various extremists in the mainland, continue to regularly
kill members of the security forces, while the government’s overly broad
counterterrorism response has led to the arrest of thousands of non-violent
dissidents and many others erroneously targeted. Such intense repression,
sooner or later, is bound to destabilize one of America’s most important
regional allies. Sweeping these issues to the side is a deeply short-sighted
approach.
Unless
circumstances in Egypt change dramatically and the US is able to rectify long
standing human rights vetting concerns that continue to be problematic, we
believe suspending military and security assistance to Egypt is not only the
right decision but also one that will make clear that Cairo’s repressive
trajectory will make it difficult to continue a status quo US-Egyptian
alliance.
***
As
president, you will have the heavy responsibility to prevent enactment of
dangerous pledges and proposals that were made in the course of the campaign. A
first step will be to unequivocally retract such proposals, condemn hateful
rhetoric and acts undertaken in your name, and commit to respecting the
obligations of the United States under international human rights and
humanitarian law.
Sincerely,
Kenneth
Roth
Executive
Director
Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.