Detainee treatment

  • December 12, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Chris Edelson is an assistant professor of government in American University's School of Public Affairs. He is the author of Emergency Presidential Power: From the Drafting of the Constitution to the War on Terror, published in 2013 by the University of Wisconsin Press.

    In his piece, “Torture Is Who We Are,” Peter Beinart rightly exposes the Pollyanish mindset that would describe the United States as “intrinsically moral” with torture that has occurred since 9/11 “represent[ing] an aberration.” Beinart is of course right to point out that post-9/11 waterboarding is hardly the first time in U.S. history that Americans have been guilty of torture -- he cites slavery, waterboarding of Filipino prisoners during the Spanish-American War and electric shocks delivered to the genitals of prisoners during the Vietnam War as some grotesque examples. There are others. Civilian law enforcement authorities used waterboarding and sleep deprivation on domestic criminal suspects decades before 9/11. A U.S. soldier waterboarded a Vietnamese prisoner in 1968

    So Beinart is right in one sense -- torture is not something new in American history. It cannot be seen as an aberration from a previously morally upright, torture-free history. But there is one important difference that he misses, that makes his analysis more pessimistic than it need be.  Torture by Americans is not new. The idea that Americans can torture with impunity, however, is new. In each of the examples I listed, there were consequences for the torturers. A Texas sheriff and his deputies who waterboarded a criminal suspect were themselves convicted and sentenced to prison. The U.S. soldier who waterboarded a Vietnamese prisoner was court-martialed. When law enforcement authorities subjected a suspect to questioning for 36 hours without sleep, the Supreme Court threw out a conviction based on the coerced confession that had been extracted.  The same is true for one of Beinart’s examples.  A U.S. military officer who waterboarded Filipino prisoners was court-martialed, suspended from command for one month and fined $50.  Moreover, before 9/11, even when torture was not punished, no one proudly defended it or attempted to justify it -- instead, it was swept under the rug, as often happened during the Vietnam War. There is one essential exception to emphasize: slavery.  Slaveowners openly tortured slaves with impunity.  This is of course a central fact of American history, not truly an “exception”, except in the limited sense that it varies from the other examples I have given where torture before 9/11 was either punished or else covered up.  What has changed since 9/11 as compared with most of the examples noted is that there are now people willing, even proud, to defiantly defend torture

    Beinart is correct that “America has tortured throughout its history.” Before 9/11, however, there were usually consequences for torture: torturers faced prosecution and punishment in the criminal justice system. This is part of what it means to be true to the rule of law: when the law is violated, offenders are punished. No country can guarantee that all of its law enforcement officials, soldiers, or government officials, will refrain from torture. But countries that uphold the rule of law can guarantee that torturers will be prosecuted. 

  • December 10, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Chris Edelson, an assistant professor of government in American University's School of Public Affairs. He is the author of Emergency Presidential Power: From the Drafting of the Constitution to the War on Terror, published in 2013 by the University of Wisconsin Press.

    Following release of the redacted Senate Intelligence Committee's majority report on torture, critics are insisting that the report overlooks the value of waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other interrogation methods better suited to the Spanish Inquisition than a constitutional republic. Those who defend torture tend to emphasize its supposed efficacy in extracting intelligence that prevents terrorist attacks.  In fact, those who insist torture saves lives have never identified evidence that proves their case.

    More importantly, however, arguing about the efficacy of torture point obscures two essential points: (1) torture, by definition, is illegal and (2) the argument in defense of torture is a rejection of the rule of law.

    Defenders of the Bush administration’s tactics have helped make these points clear. For example, on yesterday's “Morning Joe,” former Bush communications chief Nicolle Wallace declared that she “pray[s] to god that until the end of time, we do whatever we have to do to find out what’s happening [in terms of planned terrorist attacks].” She suggested that we must trust the government to do whatever it believes is necessary to protect the nation -- in her words, “I don’t care what [the government] did” after 9/11 to prevent another terrorist attack -- as long as it works.                                         

    Wallace is an effective and powerful speaker, and I thought her bombastic approach caught her sparring partner, Howard Dean, off guard and made for good TV. But it's worth taking more time than cable TV allows in considering the implications of what she said.

    Wallace's argument is a case for handing over power to the executive branch, assigning it complete power to defend the nation, unrestrained by law. That is, of course, not what the framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind when they created a system of checks and balances designed to give government enough power to carry out is responsibilities but also to set definable limits on that power. It is, however, precisely how government officials who authorized torture justified their actions. In once-secret memos written on August 1, 2002, former Justice Department lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee concluded that waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other methods CIA interrogators wanted to use on suspected al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah could not be defined as torture. Their view depended on the preposterous notion that severe physical pain necessary to constitute torture under U.S. criminal law could be defined by reference to health care statutes. But it is the backup argument that Yoo and Bybee relied on that is most chilling: they concluded that President George W. Bush could authorize any interrogation methods he deemed necessary, even if such methods violated U.S. criminal law. The president, they said, could not be constrained by Congress in this area.  

    That is the language of an executive branch above the law, the same language Wallace uses when she says that she doesn't care what the government did to prevent terrorist attacks after 9/11, that it must do whatever is necessary. Bush administration lawyers agreed, concluding that the executive branch is not constrained by law.

  • August 8, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Raha Wala, Senior Counsel, Defense & Intelligence, Human Rights First

    Last week President Obama admitted what most people have long known—that, in the president’s words, “we tortured some folks” after 9/11 in a bid to thwart future terrorist plots.  The president was referring to a soon-to-be released report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) that documents the CIA’s use of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment at secret “black sites” around the world in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. But the CIA has resisted and even undermined oversight on this critical issue from the beginning. And now current and former CIA leaders appear poised to mount a “counterattack” to undermine the report’s key findings and defend the so-called “enhanced interrogation” program. President Obama can’t let that happen.  He should direct members of his administration, including CIA Director Brennan, to get in line with the anti-torture policy he laid out when he—as one of his first official acts as president—signed an Executive Order shuttering the CIA black sites and banning torture and other forms of cruel treatment. 

    The SSCI report is the result of a five-year inquiry into the CIA rendition, detention and interrogation program; it began when the committee discovered that the CIA had disregarded warnings from the White House and destroyed videotapes of waterboarding and other brutal torture sessions. The report—a voluminous account, at 6,700 pages—is based on a review of more than 6 million pages of official documents, and is said to conclude that interrogations in the CIA program were much more widespread and brutal than previously known, and much less effective at gathering intelligence to stop terrorist plots than proponents of so-called “enhanced interrogation” claim. The report will show, for example, how the interrogation program played no meaningful role in gathering intelligence to help discover Osama Bin Laden’s whereabouts. It is also said to document how the CIA systematically misled Congress, the Department of Justice, and the White House about the effectiveness of the program. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Chair of the SSCI, has called the investigation into the CIA’s use of torture one of the most significant in the history of the United States Senate, and the most important oversight activity ever conducted by the SSCI. The executive summary, findings and conclusions of the SSCI report—about 600 pages of material—are set to be released in the coming weeks.

  • May 16, 2014
     
    An unclassified report released Wednesday by the departments of Justice and Defense assured  members of Congress that “if Guantánamo Bay detainees were relocated to a prison inside the United States, it is unlikely that a court would order their release onto domestic soil.” Charlie Savage at The New York Times discusses how the report “addresses concerns over President Obama’s plan to close the controversial prison.
     
    Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge James E. Boasberg upheld Washington, D.C.’s strong post-Heller gun regulations, finding that they “pass constitutional scrutiny.” Ann E. Marimow at The Washington Post has the story.
     
    At The Week, Matt Bruenig argues in favor of term-limiting Supreme Court justices. In his article, Bruenig supports a proposal that would enable Supreme Court judges to serve single, staggered 18-year terms.
     
    Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit struck down several sections of Wisconsin’s campaign finance law. At Concurring Opinions, Ronald K.L. Collins breaks down Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland
  • March 5, 2014

    The Justice Department has been asked to investigate accusations of CIA surveillance of computers used by Senate staff to prepare a Senate Intelligence Committee report allegedly detailing “how the CIA misled the Bush administration and Congress about the use of interrogation techniques that many experts consider torture.” Jonathan S. Landay, Ali Watkins, and Maris Taylor at McClatchy DC have the story.

     
    State officials are appealing U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II’s ruling that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed outside the state. Writing for The Courier-Journal, Tom Loftus and Chris Kenning report on why the Office of the Attorney General is sitting this one out.
     
    The Supreme Court agreed to hear oral argument in a case that challenges the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ no-beard policy for inmates. Ruthann Robson—Faculty Advisor for the CUNY School of Law ACS Student Chapter—reviews Holt v. Hobbs at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog and explores whether the ADC’s policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
     
    Yesterday, the Supreme Court expanded whistleblower protections. In Lawson v. FMR LLC, the justices agreed to extend such protections to businesses working for public companies. Writing for Reuters, Lawrence Hurley breaks down the high court’s decision.
     
    Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic examines United States v. Maloney, a case that features a wrongfully convicted man, an intrepid prosecutor and “a result … that is worthy of respect.”
     
    Alex Rich at Above the Law argues why a new meaning of legal work “may define the work of a generation of lawyers.”