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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT