The involvement continues to this day. With the International Committee’s annual retreat taking place at Northeastern University in Boston from March 31 to April 1, this issue of Mass Dissent presents five timely articles on diverse international issues.

Judy Somberg is chair of the NLG’s Task Force on the Americas.  She recently organized and participated in a Guild delegation to El Salvador to monitor elections, and she describes the trip in her contribution.

Carol Gray lived in Cairo during the Tahrir Square uprising and conducted an oral history of an Egyptian human rights organization, blogging her experiences at RotaryInCairo.blogspot.com. Now back in Amherst, where she teaches political science, she writes in this issue about her experiences in Egypt and about the subsequent developments there.

Joseph Best, who practices immigration law with Best and Associates LLP in Holyoke and Pittsfield, discusses “self-deportation” as conservatives’ latest attack on the rights and dignity of undocumented immigrants in the United States, and analyzes why it will fail.

In anticipation of April 17’s global mobilization for Palestinian Prisoners Day, Charlotte Kates, who lives in Vancouver, British Columbia, writes about Palestinian political prisoners under Israel’s apartheid judicial system, in excerpts from a longer article published on the Mondoweiss blog.

Corey Sullivan Martin, a J.D. candidate from Boston College Law School and a law intern at the Dorchester-based Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, makes the case for prosecuting the brutal former Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, and discusses the U.S.’s role in preventing prosecution

We hope you are informed and inspired by this month’s thoughtful offerings, and invite you to get involved in the NLG International Committee.

- Uri Strauss -

We hope you will join us for this month’s NLG Happy Hour.  On the second Wednesday of each month, we rotate “Mentorship” Happy Hour with “NLG Presents…”.  Please see below for details about our next event.  If you have an idea for a presentation topic or would like to be a speaker, please call the Guild office at 617-227-7335.

GUILD GALA

This year’s Annual Fundraiser will be held on Friday, May 11, 6:00 pm, at Villa Victoria in Boston (85 West Newton St.).  At the event, we will celebrate the achievements of Carol Steinberg, David Grossman, Robert Sable, Occupy Boston Legal Working Group & NLG OB Mass Defense Committee, Lauren Marcous, and Marianne Tassone.  For more details, please go to http://www.nlgmass.org/events/2012-guild-gala/.

NLG CONVENTION

The NLG is celebrating its 75th birthday in 2012, and this year’s NLG Convention will commemorate the occasion with presentations and workshops on the past, present, and the future of the Guild.  The Convention will be held at the Pasadena Hilton in Pasadena, CA, October 10- 14.  For more information or to register call 212-679-5100 or visit www.nlg.org/members/convention/.

The following clinics and trainings were conducted for members of Boston area community organizations and agencies:

March 21: Stop & Search  training for law students at New England School of Law, by Makis Antzoulatos.

March 26: Legal Observer  training for Occupy UMass Boston, by Jeff Feuer and Urszula Masny-Latos.

If you haven’t renewed your NLG membership yet, please do so by filling out the form on our website (http://www.nlgmass.org/join-the-chapter/chapter-membership-form/) or by calling the office (617-227-7335).

NLG Mentorship Happy Hour

How to Go Solo
and Open Your Own Law Practice

An evening with

DAVID CONFORTO & HEATHER WARD

Wednesday, April 11, 2012
6:00 – 8:00 pm
Red Hat Cafe (9 Bowdoin St., Boston)

What can you do after law school?  No one hires and there are few options for new attorneys.  Have you considered opening your own law practice?  Can it be done just after graduation?
Join us for a conversation with two NLG members who have established successful solo practices.   David Conforto, with the helpful advice of many NLG colleagues, started his solo law practice in 2007.  He concentrates in employment law and exclusively represents employees.  He is a 2005 Boston College School of Law  graduate.   Heather Ward is a solo practitioner who opened her law firm in 2011, and now practices family and consumer protection law.  She graduated in 2008 from New England School of Law and has practiced law in Massachusetts for three years.

Participants listen to a fascinating and engaging presentation on the “3 Strikes” legislation.

Proposed “3 Strikes” sentencing legislation was on the table for March’s “NLG Presents…”. Massachusetts is considering harsher penalties for “habitual offenders,” which, the speakers agreed, will needlessly incarcerate more people at a high cost to taxpayers, and have a negative impact on public safety.  Barb Dougan of Families Against Mandatory Minimums gave background on sentencing trends, Tatum Pritachard of Prisoners Legal Services analyzed the proposals being debated in the State House, and Jamarhl Crawford of the Blackstonian and Occupy the Hood discussed how activists have mobilized to resist the legislation.  Considering that the legislation was initially expected to sail through, the coalitions organizing against it have proven to be a powerful force!

Fighting Against “3 Strikes” Legislation

On March 15, 2012, over 400 people came to the State House to stop the controversial “3-Strikes” bills and to demand Smart on Crime Sentencing Reform.  A broad range of 70 organizations, including the National Lawyers Guild, Massachusetts Chapter, endorsed the action and demanded new policies to reduce the prison population and re-direct funds towards jobs creation, housing, rehabilitation and education for ex-offenders.
The energized crowd chanted “Stop 3-Strikes, Jobs Not Jails!” and listened to speakers from NAACP, EPOCA, Boston Workers Alliance, and Blackstonian.  Faith speakers included Rev. Dickerson of Greater Love Tabernacle and Rev. Dan King of UU 1st Congregational Parish in Kingston, MA. Legislators and City Councilors including Sen. Brownsberger, Sen. Chang-Diaz, Rep. Henriquez, Rep. Rushing, City Councilors Arroyo and Pressley all spoke in support of our advocacy.
Hundreds of participants then entered the State House to lobby their Reps and Senators and to bring the community message to our elected officials.  Residents spoke to over 60 legislators and dropped post-cards and fact sheets at all 200 offices.

Smart on Crime Coalition Demands:
YES to Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Drug Offenses and YES to Reduce School Zones to 100ft.
NO to Stop 3-Strikes and NO to Mandatory Parole for All Prisoners.

Eight NLG members and friends just returned from a ten-day mission to El Salvador to observe the March 2012 legislative and municipal elections. We spent seven jam-packed days filled with meetings with attorneys, judges, members of civil society groups, NGOs, and activists. Then on our eighth day, we woke at 4 am and spent the whole day and evening — almost until midnight – at voting centers in three different provinces, watching the poll openings, the voting, and the vote count. There was never a dull moment!

NLG Delegation Observing elections in El Salvador. Photo by Judy Somberg.

For this trip, the Guild delegation joined up with CISPES, a US solidarity organization working continuously since the early ’80s to support the people of El Salvador. The Guild first sent a human rights delegation to El Salvador in 1984 (my first experience in El Salvador) at the height of the period of repression when the FMLN had taken up arms and moved to the countryside in response to the murders of hundreds of teachers, union leaders, priests, political activists, and others advocating for social change. Prior to and after the peace accords in 1992, many NLG attorneys represented Salvadoran refugees and immigrants in the US; one-third of the population of El Salvador now lives outside of the country, primarily in the US. In 2004 and 2009 we sent election observation delegations to help ensure a fair electoral process in which the FMLN would have a chance of coming to power.

Our 2009 delegation was witness to the victory of the FMLN presidential candidate, Mauricio Funes. This was a historic moment: a previously armed, revolutionary movement took control of a country through elections, universally described as free and fair. Now, in 2012, the FMLN hoped to expand its representation in the legislature and municipalities. Instead, the FMLN suffered a seemingly unexpected loss of four legislative seats (down from 35 out of 84 seats total) and the loss of some mayoralties in several large, working-class urban municipalities.

What happened?  Had the FMLN lost touch with its base?  The day after the election we met with William Hernandez, an upper-level FMLN leader. He told us that the FMLN will be analyzing, carefully and honestly, what went wrong with the election and why they had lost supporters.

For us, an interesting part of the trip was understanding the electoral process.  In the year before the elections a number of changes had taken place in the electoral law, some prompted by legislative initiatives, and others due to Supreme Court rulings. One change, promoted by the FMLN, created local polling centers in about two-thirds of the country. Before this, voters had to travel to centers that were sometimes located a significant distance from their homes, where voting officials and party monitors would not know the voters and would be hard put to identify individuals voting with fraudulent ID’s or who were fraudulently registered in a municipality where they did not live.

Another change was the inclusion of individual candidates (both party and non-party) on the ballot.  Before this change, only parties could run a full slate of candidates and a voter would only select his or her party of choice. As a result of this change, the ballots in the province of San Salvador, for example, included the names and photos of 24 candidates for each of eight political parties, plus two individual candidates. There were many different combinations of votes that were permitted and many that were not – potentially causing a lot of confusion for voters. The FMLN opposed this change, as they thought that a united front with the party choosing the candidates would lead to the best outcome for them.

Upcoming articles from members of our delegation will look at the struggle against mining of metals in El Salvador and the hurdle of international trade treaties and tribunals that, for example, promote the rights of transnational corporations over the right of Salvadorans to clean water. Others articles will include descriptions of some of the programs of the FMLN government in the last few years. These include changing the law to permit the importation of inexpensive generic medicines, creating over 400 community-based mobile health stations, funding small producers to make school uniforms and shoes for 1.3 million students, and creating adult literacy programs. Yes, there was barely a moment to catch our breath during this trip!

Judy Somberg practices law in Cambridge.  She is a member of the NLG International Committee and chair of the Task Force on the Americas.

As we celebrated in the streets on February 11, 2011, the night President Mubarak resigned, one Egyptian I interviewed for my blog commented with surprise at how quickly they were able to rid the country of Mubarak, the revolution taking only 18 days.   Car horns honked loudly in rhythm while people waved flags and played drums, thousands joyously blocked the intersection in our neighborhood… as was happening all over Cairo.  The exuberance in the streets and in Tahrir Square celebrated the success of the revolution and the dawning of democracy.  But the year that followed has shown those 18 days were just the beginning, with the most difficult part, reallocating power away from a deeply entrenched military, yet to come.

The “revolution” is more appropriately called an uprising since it was not a “thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.”  The uprising did accomplish significant things: Parliament was dissolved, the Constitution  suspended, the security forces disbanded and Parliamentary elections  held almost one year later with previously banned or marginalized Islamic parties capturing more than 70%  of the vote.

However, the Egyptian military remains the real power broker in the country.  When former President Mubarak resigned, the Supreme Counsel of the Armed Forces (SCAF) took over, ignoring some protesters’ demand for a civilian transitional government.  In some respects, the military has acted more brazenly to quash dissent than they did under Mubarak.  Brutal crackdowns by the military in Tahrir Square in December 2011 resulted in 17 deaths as soldiers beat fallen protesters.  One now infamous video of this crackdown showed soldiers dragging a limp female protester, exposing her bare torso, which a soldier then stomped, marking a new level of brutality against female protesters.  Female protesters were also targets during the uprising itself, subjected to torture which included “virginity tests” by the military, a practice later banned by Egyptian courts.

The use of military courts rose dramatically in this post-Mubarak era with more than 12,000 tried by military tribunals since the SCAF took power as compared to approximately 2,000 tried in military courts during the almost 30 years of Mubarak rule.  Criminal offenses include “insulting the military.”

For the past year, there has been a media campaign intent on blaming foreign NGOs for the continuing political unrest.  The SCAF has recently cracked down on human rights organizations in Egypt, both domestic and foreign, in an unprecedented way.

During the revolution in February 2011, the military raided one of Egypt’s leading human rights organizations, seizing all laptops and hard-drives, breaking equipment, and detaining the more than 30 people they found in the office.   Three months ago, the military again raided 17 human rights and pro-democracy organizations, some foreign, some domestic, including three American nonprofits, allegedly as part of an investigation of use of foreign funding supporting political unrest.  These raids led to more than 40 human rights and pro-democracy workers, including 16 Americans, being criminally charged. Foreigners charged were banned from leaving the country, causing conflict with the U.S. government which then threatened to cut its $1.3 billion in annual aid to the Egyptian military.  The Egyptian government ultimately allowed the 16 Americans to leave the country after the U.S. government paid almost $5 million in bail on their behalf.  Meanwhile, the Egyptian human rights workers appeared in the cage where defendants are held during their first court hearing on these charges earlier this month.

The January 25, 2011 uprising has not changed the fact that Egypt is a police state.  During the middle of the uprising when I was living in Cairo, the police answered my cell phone.  The friend who had called me, fearing I had been detained, asked if I was in their custody and was told the police did not have me, but they did have my phone.  My phone was with me the entire day.  I assumed this was a warning or part of a strategy to get foreigners to leave the country.   When I returned from Cairo last June, I learned that the translator I had hired in conjunction with an oral history project I was doing about an Egyptian human rights organization, had been contacted repeatedly by a relative who worked with the security forces.  She was told that ‘they’ knew when she met with me in Alexandria and Cairo and when she accompanied me to the human rights organization. She was also told that she, I and everyone in that organization was on a list.  My translator tried to keep working for me for a short time, but after learning that ‘they’ were now arresting people who translate for Americans, there was nothing she could do.  She quit.

The bottom line:  the situation for human rights in Egypt is still volatile, taking on new dimensions with this recent crackdown on organizations that protect human rights.  The Egyptian revolution is just beginning.

Carol J. Gray, former public defender, now  political science adjunct, did graduate studies and research in human rights in Cairo from 2010-2011.  She has been in the Guild since law school.

As November approaches, Republican candidates trip over each other to be the most strident on immigration enforcement.  Mitt Romney recently stated that his immigration reform plan would foster ‘self-deportation’.   Easy.  Cheap.  Safe.  Fast.  Media pundits and Romney’s political opponents jumped on him, stating that self-deportation was a joke.  In truth, though, attrition through enforcement, otherwise known as self-deportation, is de facto immigration policy in the U.S.  This policy is neither easy, cheap, safe nor fast.

What attrition through enforcement amounts to is the notion that if the laws, regulations and ordinances on the federal, state and local level become focused on requiring individuals to demonstrate their legal status at every turn, eventually the ‘illegals’ will give up and leave.  This idea appeals to conservatives for many fallacious reasons.  Self-deportation is said to save tax dollars, to promote respect of the law, to require little new infrastructure, and by definition to be voluntary, not requiring force.  Magically, according to believers, immigrants will slowly disappear, simply by the government enforcing the law as it is.  Like so many other intractable national problems in need of nuanced policy solutions, conservatives take it on faith that the problem will solve itself.  Then, once again, the good people can feel safe from “the other.”

In concert, the current Administration’s executive policy of increased enforcement, along with the increased (and likely unconstitutional) state immigration enforcement initiatives, absent any viable means to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, create the perfect context for the right to placate a small special-interest group with deep pockets.  Corrections Corporation of America boasts in the press and to their shareholders about the favorable impact of stepped up immigration enforcement on their long term profits based on gridlock in federal and state initiatives throughout the country.  Additionally, the immigration issue provides the red meat of retribution for a reactionary base to be meted out against the lawless and the brown.  It is a brutal game for short-term electoral gain – to hell with the consequences, despite the demographic trends which show it to be long-term political suicide.  Immigrants are the next ‘other’ – the new gays, abortionists, blacks, women, Communists, Catholics. Because this ‘other’ is bent on destroying our way of life, it is hard to walk that back.  Compromise becomes suicide.  Gridlock rules.  Private prisons prosper on public monies while millions of American families are decimated or driven underground.   What is not to love?

Our current immigration system provides no legal pathway for the 11 million undocumented people here.  Despite conservative handwringing over the impatient lawless ‘illegals’ who refuse to wait in line, for most people the line does not exist.  No legal entry process is available – not now, not in a year, or ten or ever.  Further muddling the picture is the fact that most undocumented people have been here for decades, and not surprisingly, they often now have American families – young children, spouses, homes, lives. And yet the conservative fantasy is that when things get tough, the undocumented will simply up and leave, as if they are unaccustomed to having it tough.  But when does a parent or spouse decide that things are just too much of a hassle to keep taking care of their kids or loving their wife?  In the real world we virtually never voluntarily abandon our families.  We are wired to struggle for the people we love, regardless of the consequences.  But if you dehumanize these same foreign people, calling them lawless, criminal ‘illegals’, then of course it is plausible to imagine them abandoning their young kids like a worn pair of shoes.

The Obama administration’s attempt to step up enforcement was allegedly designed to pave the way towards comprehensive immigration reform.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has removed record numbers of people, officially seeking by stated policy to target the worst of the worst – e.g. violent criminals.  Effective policy implementation is complicated by bureaucratic factors within the various enforcement branches of the Department of Homeland Security, of which ICE is a part.  Whether by accident or bureaucratic inertia, the fact is that many good people are being caught in the enhanced enforcement policies of the Obama Administration.  These people are by any measure not the ‘worst of the worst’, a fact well documented in the press and known to any practicing immigration attorney.

The policy solution to immigration in the United States is a decidedly political one.  I unabashedly lecture my immigrant clients about their newly acquired duty to partake fully in the American society they struggled to join.  The quality of our leaders is not accidental.  This means naturalizing the moment we are eligible.  Registering to vote the moment we become citizens. Voting in every election no matter for whom. We get the political system we deserve.  No bad governmental policy cannot be fixed if the people decide to make it happen.  Our current immigration system is no exception.  We simply have work to do.

Joseph Best practices law at Best & Associates in Western Massachusetts.

Khader Adnan’s 66 days of hunger strike under administrative detention, without charge or trial, sparked global discussion, outrage, and movement – perhaps the largest ever seen in the long history of the Palestinian prisoners’ struggle – as Adnan’s courage, steadfastness and strength inspired solidarity the world over. During that time, it was on many occasions expressed that Khader Adnan should be charged, or released.

The abolition of administrative detention is a long-term demand of the Palestinian prisoners’ movement – and Israel’s use of this system violates international law. However, it must be noted that “being charged” in the Israeli military courts, the justice system that governs Palestinians in the occupied West Bank of Palestine, is in no way a solution for Palestinian political prisoners. Any trial provided to a Palestinian political prisoner under such a system is fundamentally unjust and a mechanism of perpetuation of occupation. The military courts are not an alternative to administrative detention; instead, administrative detention is one piece of the structure of mass imprisonment and military rule constructed by the occupation. Given the prominence of the “charge or release” conversation in Khader Adnan’s case, it is important to explore what being “charged” in Israel’s military courts means for Palestinians under occupation and apartheid.

Over 2,500 military orders govern the West Bank. The “Order Regarding Security Provisions [Consolidated Version] (Judea and Samaria)” grants the Israeli military “the authority to arrest and prosecute Palestinians from the West Bank for so-called ’security’ offenses,” notes Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association. Another military order, issued in August 1967 and still in place today, criminalizes organizing protests, assemblies or vigils, waving flags and political symbols, and printing political material, and “also deems any acts of influencing public opinion as prohibited “political incitement,” and under the heading of “support to a hostile organization,” “prohibits any activity that demonstrates sympathy for an organization deemed illegal under military orders.”

The Israeli military retains for itself the right to declare any Palestinian organization ‘illegal’ and thus prosecute membership or association with that organization. Most Palestinian political parties, including Islamic Jihad (which is one of the four largest political parties in Palestine), as well as countless labour unions, student groups, women’s organizations, and other sectoral groups, fall squarely into the category of ‘illegal organizations’ and a large number of Palestinian political prisoners who have been “charged and tried,” are serving sentences for “membership in an illegal organization,” “support for a hostile organization” and similar charges.

In the Israeli military courts, the charge of “membership in an illegal organization” carries no maximum sentence, although “a military court decision instead set… a precedent that the minimum penalty is 24 months’ imprisonment. In fact some Palestinians, such as Ahmad Sa’adat, have been sentenced to as much as 30 years’ imprisonment on such charges. Under Israeli criminal law, the maximum penalty is one year…”

Palestinians facing military courts are often confronted with secret evidence; can be denied access to lawyers for up to 90 days; can be held for up to 2 years “until the end of legal proceedings;” and confront vague and non-specific charge sheets. It should be noted that settlers in the West Bank do not face this system of military courts; they, instead are directed into the Israeli criminal justice system, with much higher protections for the accused and much lower sentencing ranges. Addameer  notes one particularly egregious example of this disparity: “On 21 January 2011, Israeli settler Nahum Korman who beat an 11-year-old Palestinian child, Helmi Shusha, to death, was sentenced to 6 months of community service.  On the same day, Suad Ghazal, a 15-year-old Palestinian girl accused of attempting to stab an Israeli settler was sentenced to 6 and a half years in prison.”

An international coalition of prisoners’ rights and Palestine solidarity organizations have called for global mobilization for April 17, Palestinian Prisoners’ Day (and what will be the day of Adnan’s release). Such a global mobilization is also an opportunity to link the struggle of Palestinian prisoners in mutual solidarity with political prisoners elsewhere, from Leonard Peltier to Ricardo Palmera to countless others in the jails of the U.S., Canada, and the world.  This includes Palestinian political prisoners in international jails; the 65th day of Khader Adnan’s hunger strike was also the 9th anniversary of Dr. Sami al-Arian’s arrest. Al-Arian remains under house arrest in Virginia today, years after he was acquitted on the majority of charges – and convicted of nothing – by a jury, because he refuses to be forced into becoming an informant on the Palestinian community.  The call to action for April 17 states:

“We must not allow Khader’s struggle to pass, like so many before his, as one more brave stand crushed by the armed might of the Israeli apartheid regime, unremarkable and inconsequential. Rather let this historic moment mark the beginning of a revitalized global movement for Palestinian prisoners, their rights, their families, and their struggle. Together, we can make it so.”

Charlotte Kates coordinates the NLG International Committee.

In matters of diplomacy pertaining to Haiti, the United States government has a history of acting like a well-intentioned older sibling—willing to give advice whether wanted or not. But regarding the prosecution of Jean-Claude Duvalier, past dictator of Haiti, the American government has chosen to break this trend and remain silent.

Beginning in 1971 and lasting fifteen years, Jean-Claude Duvalier (“Baby Doc”) orchestrated a systematic attack of grave human rights violations on his own people including torture, unlawful imprisonment, forced disappearances, and murder. Because he fled Haiti in 1986, Duvalier was never held accountable for the atrocious crimes committed under his watch. On the contrary, he spent the last twenty-five years enjoying a life of comfort in France

In an unexpected twist, Duvalier returned to Haiti on January 16, 2011. To the surprise of many, the government seemed prepared to hold Duvalier accountable for the systematic repression his regime inflicted. A judge was appointed to investigate allegations of Duvalier’s corruption and crimes. Prosecutor Harycidas Auguste, appointed under the Préval administration, zealously pursued the charges. Unfortunately, support for the Duvalier prosecution has waned considerably since the right-wing President Martelly took office in May 2011, following U.S.-financed elections that excluded Haiti’s most popular political party, the progressive Fanmi Lavalas party.

In fact, on November 11, 2011, a new prosecutor appointed by President Martelly recommended dismissing all charges against Duvalier. A little over two months later, on January 30, the investigatory judge, Judge Carvés, dismissed the political violence charges because the statute of limitations under the Haitian Penal Code (10 years) had passed.  He did, however, file formal charges (similar to an indictment in the United States) against Duvalier on corruption charges.

International law is quite clear: there is no statute of limitations for crimes against humanity. No amount of time can bar someone from being held accountable for heinous crimes committed on a systematic scale – such crimes have universal jurisdiction. In addition, the lack of time bars is binding precedent in Haitian courts through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, whose “binding jurisdiction” Haiti accepted on March 20, 1998. Prior to that, on September 27, 1977, Haiti signed and ratified the American Convention on Human Rights. The recognition of crimes against humanity and the application thereof by the Inter-American Court demands that Haiti does the same. No amount of time can minimize the harm Duvalier inflicted on Haiti.

The U.S. State Department knows this, none better than Stephen J. Rapp, the State Department’s ambassador-at-large for War Crimes; Michael H. Posner, the current Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor; and Harold Koh, the State Department’s Legal Advisor. Ambassador Rapp has tried and convicted perpetrators of crimes against humanity and was Chief of Prosecutions at the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda.  Mr. Posner is the founder of Human Rights First.  Mr. Koh has zealously and successfully represented Haitian refugees who were improperly held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay.  These three officials should be helping Haiti to hold a past dictator accountable for his crimes against humanity, but unfortunately, no expressions of support or statements about Haiti’s duties have been forthcoming.

The reason for the continued resistance to Duvalier’s prosecution is one person—President Martelly. Martelly has been hesitant to support the prosecution and has exhibited signs that he would prefer that the remaining charges be dropped. Duvalier has many ties to the Martelly administration: Duvalier’s son works as a consultant to the president; a former Duvalier minister is a member of Martelly’s inner circle; and other Martelly ministers are the sons of past Duvalier ministers. Duvalier and Martelly have been seen at official events and private social events together. Martelly has even hinted that he would be willing to grant Duvalier amnesty, although, under pressure, he has backed away from that statement.

The U.S. State Department engineered President Martelly’s election, by paying half the cost of the elections that excluded Fanmi Lavalas, and forcing the Electoral Council to change the results of the first round of voting to allow Mr. Martelly into the runoff. In light of strong backing for his candidacy, the U.S. government appears resistant to openly criticize, challenge, or burden the current administration.

Without the United States’ explicit support, the odds of a successful prosecution diminish significantly. Endorsement from the United States has powerful implications in Haiti. If the United States does not speak out, Duvalier will most likely not be brought to justice. It is time for Ambassador Rapp, Mr. Posner, and Mr. Koh to admit that this scenario is completely unacceptable. With pressure, this prosecution is possible. Capable lawyers and, more importantly, numerous victims are committed to seeing it through despite the odds against them.

As it is often said, where there is a will there is a way. The United States has the ability to provide the will. Haiti can provide the way.

Corey Sullivan Martin is a law student at Boston College Law School and a law intern at the Dorchester-based Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti.

(l.-r.) Brian Kwoba and Rachel Plattus, Occupy Boston activists, speak about the Occupy Movement - its present and its future.

On March 20, the Massachusetts Chapter held its Annual Meeting where elections for the new Board of Directors and Chapter Officers took place.  David Kelston was elected to a one-year term of Chapter Chair, and Patricia Cantor and Jeff Petrucelly were re-elected to serve as Chapter Co-Treasurers.  The following members were elected to serve a one-year term on the Board of Directors:  Makis Antzoulatos, Beverly Chorbajin, Hillary Farber, Jeff Feuer, David Kelston, Jonathan Messinger, Halim Moris, Josh Raisler Cohn, and Stephanie Young.  Welcome!

(l.-r.) Trina Realmuto, Andrew Cowan, and Deborah Roher sending Daniel Werner off to do legal observing at an Occupy Boston rally and march. Photos by Urszula Masny-Latos.

We would like to thank our 2011-2012 Board members who did not run for re-election.  Your spectacular contributions to the Guild made it possible for the organization to exist and maintain its presence in Massachusetts.  Your commitment and devotion to the Guild has been exceptional.  We greatly appreciate your hard work.  Thank you for all your service.

To join in the recognition, we devote our March issue of Mass Dissent to women in the contemporary world, their triumphs, obstacles, and goals in  pursuit of equality.   Admittedly, we’ve come a long way since 1911 – 21st century women do have rights that were not even envisioned 100 years ago.  However, there are still social and political forces that do not rest in their attempts to subject women to differential treatment in public and private spheres.  The never-ending obstacles put forth by men in power continue to inhibit the growth and progress of women everywhere.  A recent example is  Congress’ attempt to pass two bills which would give health care providers an option to opt-out of providing health services, particularly those related to reproductive rights, on “moral” grounds.  These kind of attempts  should serve as a wake-up call and keep us alert to threats to the equality women have earned over the years.

Through this issue’s articles, we strive to portray the struggles and accomplishments of today’s women.

Heather Ward, a new attorney and Guild member,  in “Overcoming Ourselves,” gives us her perspective on what female attorneys encounter when they enter the lawyering profession and run their own law practice.

Kendra Williams, an activist with Occupy Boston (OB) opens the doors for us into OB Women’s Caucus and how women work with and contribute to the movement.

In “Stand Against Teachers,” Jennifer Berkshire tells us about the right-wings’ push to eliminate existing protections for teachers, especially older female teachers.

Lydia Edwards’s article gives us an update on a very successful campaign in support of rights for domestic workers.

Anna Siembor reports on steps local students are taking to fight chauvinists of the Barstool Sports phenomenon.
We end this issue with Jennifer Doe’s report from a fight Verizon’s women are leading against the corporation’s attempts to cut benefits.

One thing is for sure – women of today are far from being idle.

- Editors -