Forensic mental health evaluations in the Guantánamo military commissions system: An analysis of all detainee cases from inception to 2018.

Even though the Bush Administration opened the Guantánamo Bay detention facility in 2002 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, little remains known about how forensic mental health evaluations relate to the process of detainees who are charged before military commissions. This article discusses the laws governing Guantánamo's military commissions system and mental health evaluations. Notably, the US government initially treated detainees as "unlawful enemy combatants" who were not protected under the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, allowing for the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques." In subsequent legal documents, however, the US government has excluded evidence obtained through torture, as defined by the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Using open-source document analysis, this article describes the reasons and outcomes of all forensic mental health evaluations from Guantánamo's opening to 2018. Only thirty of 779 detainees (~3.85%) have ever had charges referred against them to the military commissions, and only nine detainees (~1.16%) have ever received forensic mental health evaluations pertaining to their case. Of these nine detainees, six have alleged mental torture while in US custody. This paper shows that leaders in the United States and Europe should consider whether counterterrorism policies that supersede traditional health and human rights complicate the ability of future governments to prosecute cases when successive leaders change laws, a pertinent consideration as North American and European states grapple with the return of foreign fighters.

An Assessment of State Laws Providing Gubernatorial Authority to Remove Legal Barriers to Emergency Response.

Legal Perspectives is aimed at informing healthcare providers, emergency planners, public health practitioners, and other decision makers about important legal issues related to public health and healthcare preparedness and response. The articles describe these potentially challenging topics and conclude with the authors' suggestions for further action. The articles do not provide legal advice. Therefore, those affected by the issues discussed in this column should seek further guidance from legal counsel. Readers may submit topics of interest to the column's editor, Lainie Rutkow, JD, PhD, MPH, at lrutkow@jhu.edu. Governors play a fundamental role in emergency preparedness and can help facilitate rapid responses to emergencies. However, laws that operate successfully under normal circumstances can inadvertently create barriers during emergencies, delaying a timely response. State laws could thus limit, or even prohibit, necessary response efforts. To combat this risk, legislatures have passed emergency powers laws in each state granting governors the authority to declare a state of emergency and to exercise certain emergency powers to meet the needs of the emergency. Researchers conducted a 50-state legal assessment, which identified and examined state laws that give governors the discretion to modify existing laws or create new laws to respond effectively to any type of declared emergency. This article outlines the findings of that assessment, which identified 35 states that explicitly permit governors to suspend or amend both statutes and regulations; 7 states in which governors are permitted to amend regulations during a declared emergency but are not explicitly authorized to modify or remove statutes; and 8 states and the District of Columbia that provide no explicit authority to governors to change statutes or regulations during a declared emergency. The article also provides examples of how this power has been used in the past to demonstrate the utility and scope of this authority in a variety of public health threats.

Handedness and the neurocognitive foundations of public attitudes about international laws and norms.

Whether Geneva Conventions (GC) rights should apply to terrorists is a contentious question that has received little attention in public opinion research. Both personality and contextual factors may be important. We queried participants' support for applying the GC to alleged terrorists, but first we measured participants' authoritarianism and presented them with a scenario concerning an alleged terrorist. We manipulated whether (1) the scenario contained examples of GC rights and (2) the alleged terrorist's religious affiliation was Muslim or non-Muslim. Support for applying the GC to alleged terrorists was high and unaffected by providing examples of GC provisions, but it was negatively related to authoritarianism. Support was reduced by priming with a Muslim terrorist, but only among participants exhibiting a behavioral marker for limited interhemispheric interaction - consistent-handedness. Consistent-handers in our sample expressed greater authoritarianism, suggesting that limited interhemispheric interaction promotes greater authoritarianism, which decreases support for applying the GC to alleged terrorists.

Fear of communicating fear versus fear of terrorism: A human rights violation or a sign of our time?

At its very first session, the United Nations General Assembly, adopted Resolution 59(I) which states that "freedom of information is a fundamental human right and … the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated". In 1948, it proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris. Article 19 of that Declaration states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers". When we place these basic human rights against current global terror threats, and consequent restrictive antiterror legislations to combat them, the question becomes whether Article 19 is still relevant in the context of today's changed security landscape. The aim of this paper is to explore ways that anti-terror legislations can balance between national security, and the protection of freedom of information.

[Jihadi radicalisation, legal definitions and reference points]. / La radicalisation djihadiste, définitions et repères juridiques.

Since the terrorist threat has become part of daily life in France, two terms are systematically used in the public debate: radicalisation and deradicalisation. It is essential to understand exactly what these words encompass, and to know the legal framework associated with them, in order to limit all sorts of interpretations which serve to add to the confusion related to the current context.

MEDICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES OF THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

The European Convention on Human rights is a document that protects human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals, and the European Court of Human Rights and its case-law makes a convention a powerful instrument to meet the new challenges of modernity and protect the principles of rule of law and democracy. This is important, particularly for young democracies, including Georgia. The more that Georgia is a party to this convention. Article 3 of the convention deals with torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, while article 8 deals with private life, home and correspondence. At the same time, the international practice of the European court of human rights shows that these articles are often used with regard to medical rights. The paper highlights the most recent and interesting cases from the case-law of the ECHR, in which the courts conclusions are based solely on the European Convention on Human Rights. In most instances, the European Court of Human Rights uses the principle of democracy with regard to medical rights. The European court of human rights considers medical rights as moral underpinning rights. Particularly in every occasion, the European Court of Human Rights acknowledges an ethical dimension of these rights. In most instances, it does not matter whether a plaintiff is a free person or prisoner, the European court of human rights make decisions based on fundamental human rights and freedoms of individuals.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BIODOSIMETRY AND RADIOLOGICAL/NUCLEAR MEDICAL COUNTERMEASURE PROGRAMS.

The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is fully committed to the development of medical countermeasures to address national security threats from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents. Through the Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise, HHS has launched and managed a multi-agency, comprehensive effort to develop and operationalize medical countermeasures. Within HHS, development of medical countermeasures includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH), (led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases), the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Preparedness and Response/Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA); with the Division of Medical Countermeasure Strategy and Requirements, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration as primary partners in this endeavor. This paper describes various programs and coordinating efforts of BARDA and NIH for the development of medical countermeasures for radiological and nuclear threats.

[Medical and hygienic aspects of instrumental supervision system over nuclear materials and radioactive substances transport on Russian Federation territory].

Hygienic evaluation of radiation situation in operation of mobile and stationery elements within a project of national system for instrumental supervision over nuclear materials and radioactive substances transport, created with a Global initiative against nuclear terrorism. Levels of exposure to ionizing radiation of the screening complexes appeared to match requirements on radiation safety for service personnel and general population.

Hunger strikers: ethical and legal dimensions of medical complicity in torture at Guantanamo Bay.

Physicians and other licensed health professionals are involved in force-feeding prisoners on hunger strike at the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO), Cuba, the detention center established to hold individuals captured and suspected of being terrorists in the wake of September 11, 2001. The force-feeding of competent hunger strikers violates medical ethics and constitutes medical complicity in torture. Given the failure of civilian and military law to end the practice, the medical profession must exert policy and regulatory pressure to bring the policy and operations of the US Department of Defense into compliance with established ethical standards. Physicians, other health professionals, and organized medicine must appeal to civilian state oversight bodies and federal regulators of medical science to revoke the licenses of health professionals who have committed prisoner abuses at GTMO.