Seattle Human Rights Network

The Right to Counsel for Guantanamo Bay Detainees

Monday, November 17, 2008

12:00 -12:50 p.m.

Sullivan Hall, Room C5

“[A] rigged system that guarantees convictions in order to cover up wrongdoing…”

“Kangaroo courts…”

“[E]veryone involved is potentially guilty of war crimes …”

Please join Professor John McKay and 2008 Reutlinger Legal Writing Scholarship recipient Jeannie Duncan for a brief discussion of the historic roots of the right to counsel, the restrictions on counsel for detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the future of these rights in light of current trends and the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Boumediene v. Bush.

Light refreshments will be served.

There will be a fundraiser & clothing drive at SU on Wednesday, Nov 12 & Thursday, Nov. 13- please donate!

CLEAN BIRTHING KITS EVENT:

Every woman has the right to safe motherhood. This event is designed to raise awareness about internally displaced persons’ (IDPs) and refugees’ reproductive rights and the difficulties they encounter in accessing reproductive healthcare due to their unstable living environments. The project’s goal is to raise money for clean delivery kits that can be used by untrained birthing assistants or by pregnant women giving birth unassisted. These kits greatly reduce the risk of potentially deadly infections to both women and newborns. Each kit contains: (1) square meter of plastic sheet for the birthing table; (2) cotton cloth (2 meters by 1 meter); (3) razor blade (single edge); (4) string to tie umbilical cord (3 cm by 15 cm); (5) examination gloves; and (6) sealed bag for packaging. Each kit costs about $2.00, so that is the donation we ask of students. In return we give students stickers that read “I helped safely deliver a baby.” We will send the money raised to an organization that sends birthing kits to IDPs and refugees (Marie Stopes International).

The conversation was facilitated by Professor John Mitchell .

First student comment: We have a general disdain to state action in taking life.  This initiative sanction state action in taking life.

Comment: We have a general policy against suicide in this society.

Question from JM: How is this different from suicide?

Comment:  There is less of a shock and more opportunity for changing the outcome.  Consulation before taking ones life is much more likely.

Comment: This law does not allow healthy people to take there life.

Comment: This law just sanitizes the realities of death.  Anyone can kill them self.

Comment: We sanitize medical decision all the time, childbirth is not the painful high mortality practice it was 100 years ago.  Why should death be different.

Question from JM: Why is this not like other medical decision?

Comment:  This is different from other medical decisions because it is final.

Question JM:  What are other reasons for or against this?

Comment: There are high chances of cohesion.  What if children what early inheritance or are just tired of taking care of a parent?

Comment:  This initiative could prevent research on dieing patients. (Brian: Do we want to view dieing people as mere lab rats?)

Question JM: Does this change the fundamental function of doctors?

Comment: The propaganda on each side claims it will change doctors relationship with patents.

Question JM: How do we gauge success if it passes?

No real answer was given to this question.

Comment from Brian:  The main arguments almost all came down to autonomy v. the value of life.  All comment were from current students.  The discussion was much more in depth then one can capture in a quick blog post.  I strongly recommend attending future Social Justice Monday events.

PS: I am personaly pro Initiative 1000.

Title: “Initiative 1000″
Monday, November 3, 2008
12:00 -12:50 p.m.
Room C5
Pizza will be provided.

The Criminal Justice Society invites students to join a discussion about the “Death with Dignity Act”- Initiative 1000. This initiative, on the November 4th ballot, will legalize physician assisted suicide in Washington State. Professor John Mitchell and members of the Criminal Justice Society will lead a discussion on this very controversial topic.