ILNews

Law school symposium to discuss torture

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Valparaiso University School of Law, as part of its annual symposium lecture series, is offering "Torture: Justifiable?" which focuses on whether and under what circumstances torture may be justifiable.

The Feb. 26 event begins at noon with remarks by Nathaniel Hubley, executive symposium editor; law school Dean Jay Conison; and Laura Dooley, professor of law and law review symposium adviser.

Judge Dennis Davis of the High Court of Cape Town, South Africa, will present "Torture: Historical Context;" the main symposium address will be presented by Jordan Paust, Mike and Teresa Baker Law Center Professor of International Law at the University of Houston School of Law. Paust is a noted authority on international law, human rights, terrorism, and the use of force.

A plenary session, "Conflicting Responses to Torture Techniques: International and Domestic Issues," will feature four authorities on human rights and torture: Col. Steven Kleinman, a career intelligence officer and former trainer of interrogators for the U.S. military; Dr. E. Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars magazine and author; Rhonda Copelon, professor at City University of New York School of Law and co-founder of its International Women's Human Rights Law Clinic; and Graeme Mitchell, director of constitutional law branch of the Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice and vice chair of the National Constitutional and Human Rights Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association.

The symposium ends at 5 p.m. and a reception will follow the event. Seating is limited, free, and open to the public. Attorneys can receive 3 hours of CLE credit for $100. Since seating is limited in Wesemann Hall, 656 S. Greenwich St., everyone interested in attending must register by calling (219) 465-7829 or e-mail Joann.Campbell@valpo.edu.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT