DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record—House H8620

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Record—House H8620 H8620 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð HOUSE July 29, 1996 Mr. Speaker, H.R. 740, introduced by The SPEAKER pro tempore. The The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. question is on the motion offered by objection to the request of the gen- SCHIFF] and the gentleman from New the gentleman from Texas [Mr. SMITH] tleman from Texas? Mexico [Mr. SKEEN] would permit the that the House suspend the rules and There was no objection. Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe to file a pass the bill, H.R. 740. Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I claim in the U.S. Court of Federal The question was taken; and (two- yield myself such time as I may Claims for certain aboriginal lands ac- thirds having voted in favor thereof) consume. quired from the tribe by the United the rules were suspended and the bill Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3680 is designed to States. The tribe was erroneously ad- was passed. implement the Geneva conventions for vised by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in A motion to reconsider was laid on the protection of victims of war. Our regard to this claim, and as a result the table. colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina, WALTER JONES, should be never filed a claim for aboriginal lands f before the expiration of the statute of commended for introducing this bill limitations. WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1996 and for his dedication to such a worthy The court's jurisdiction would apply Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I goal. only to claims accruing on or before move to suspend the rules and pass the b 1445 August 13, 1946, as provided in the In- bill (H.R. 3680) to amend title 18, Unit- dian Claims Commission Act. Mr. Speaker, the Geneva Conventions ed States Code, to carry out the inter- of 1949 codified rules of conduct for The Pueblo of Isleta Tribe seeks the national obligations of the United opportunity to present the merits of its military forces to which we have long States under the Geneva Conventions adhered. In 1955 Deputy Under Sec- aboriginal land claims, which other- to provide criminal penalties for cer- wise would be barred as untimely. The retary of State Robert Murphy testi- tain war crimes. fied to the Senate thatÐ tribe cites numerous precedents for The Clerk read as follows: conferring jurisdiction under similar The Geneva Conventions are another long H.R. 3680 circumstances, such as the case of the step forward towards mitigating the severity Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep- of war on its helpless victims. They reflect Zuni Indian Tribe in 1978. enlightened practices as carried out by the An identical bill passed the Senate in resentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, United States and other civilized countries, the 103d Congress, but was not consid- and they represent largely what the United ered by the House. In the 102d Con- SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``War Crimes States would do, whether or not a party to the Conventions. Our own conduct has served gress, H.R. 1206, amended to the cur- Act of 1996''. to establish higher standards and we can rent language, passed the House, but SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN WAR was not considered by the Senate be- only benefit by having them incorporated in CRIMES. a stronger body of wartime law. fore adjournment. On June 11, 1996, the (a) IN GENERAL.ÐTitle 18, United States Judiciary Committee favorably re- Code, is amended by inserting after chapter Mr. Speaker, the United States rati- ported this bill by unanimous voice 117 the following: fied the Conventions in 1955. However, vote. ``CHAPTER 118ÐWAR CRIMES Congress has never passed implement- Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of ``Sec. ing legislation. my time. ``2401. War crimes. The Conventions state that signatory countries are to enact penal legislation Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield my- ``§ 2401. War crimes self such time as I may consume. punishing what are called grave ``(a) OFFENSE.ÐWhoever, whether inside or breaches, actions such as the deliberate Mr. Speaker, I think the bill has been outside the United States, commits a grave explained that was introduced by the breach of the Geneva Conventions, in any of killing of prisoners of war, the subject- gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. the circumstances described in subsection ing of prisoners to biological experi- SKEEN] and the gentleman from New (b), shall be fined under this title or impris- ments, the willful infliction of great Mexico [Mr. SCHIFF]. It is a fair bill, oned for life or any term of years, or both, suffering or serious injury on civilians and I would just urge colleagues to sup- and if death results to the victim, shall also in occupied territory. port it at this time. be subject to the penalty of death. While offenses covering grave Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance ``(b) CIRCUMSTANCES.ÐThe circumstances breaches can in certain instances be of my time. referred to in subsection (a) are that the per- prosecutable under present Federal Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to son committing such breach or the victim of law, even if they occur overseas, there extend my strong support for H.R. 740 which such breach is a member of the armed forces are a great number of instances in of the United States or a national of the which no prosecution is possible. Such deals with the Pueblo of Isleta Indian land United States (as defined in section 101 of claims. H.R. 740 comes before Congress for a the Immigration and Nationality Act). nonprosecutable crimes might include vote which will correct a 45-year-old injustice. ``(c) DEFINITIONS.ÐAs used in this section, situations where American prisoners of In 1951, the Pueblo of Isleta was given erro- the term `grave breach of the Geneva Con- war are killed, or forced to serve in the neous advice by employees of the Bureau of ventions' means conduct defined as a grave Army of their captors, or American Indian Affairs regarding the nature of the claim breach in any of the international conven- doctors on missions of mercy in foreign the Pueblo could mount under the Indian tions relating to the laws of warfare signed war zones are kidnapped or murdered. Claims Commission Act of 1946. This is docu- at Geneva 12 August 1949 or any protocol to War crimes are not a thing of the past, mented and supported by testimony. The any such convention, to which the United and Americans can all too easily fall States is a party.'' Pueblo was not made aware of the fact that a victim to them. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.ÐThe table of H.R. 3680 was introduced in order to land claim could be made based upon aborigi- chapters for part I of title 18, United States nal use and occupancy. As a result, it lost the Code, is amended by inserting after the item implement the Geneva Conventions. It opportunity to make such a claim. relating to chapter 117 the following new prescribes severe criminal penalties for The Pueblo of Isleta was a victim of cir- item: anyone convicted of committing, cumstances beyond its control, and this bill is ``118. War crimes ................................ 2401''. whether inside or outside the United States, a grave breach of the Geneva an opportunity for us to correct this wrong. No The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- Conventions, where the victim or the expenditure or appropriations of funds are pro- ant to the rule, the gentleman from vided for in this bill: only the opportunity for perpetrator is a member of our Armed Texas [Mr. SMITH] and the gentleman the Pueblo to make a claim for aboriginal Forces. In future conflicts H.R. 3680 from Virginia [Mr. SCOTT] each will lands which the Isletas believe to be rightfully may very well deter acts against Amer- control 20 minutes. theirs. This bill may be the last chance for the icans that violate the laws of war. The Chair recognizes the gentleman United States to correct an injustice which oc- Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to from Texas [Mr. SMITH]. curred many years ago because of misin- support this legislation, and I reserve formation from the BIA. GENERAL LEAVE the balance of my time. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield my- H.R. 740. ask unanimous consent that all Mem- self such time as I may consume. Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I bers may have 5 legislative days to re- Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from have no further requests for time, and vise and extend their remarks on the Texas has fully explained, H.R. 3680 im- I yield back the balance of my time. bill under consideration. plements this country's international July 29, 1996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð HOUSE H8621 obligation under the Geneva Conven- States the legal authority to try and human rights abuses and discrimination tion which were ratified by the United prosecute the perpetrators of war against its indigenous black population; States in 1955 to protect the victims of crimes against American citizens. Ad- Whereas the Department of State and nu- war by providing criminal penalties for ditionally, those Americans prosecuted merous human rights organizations have documented such abuses; certain war crimes. Mr. Speaker, this will have available all the procedural Whereas chattel slavery, with an estimated has never been formally enacted by protections of the American justice tens of thousands of black Mauritanians con- statute, and the bill accomplishes this system.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ethics of Interrogation and the Rule of Law Release Date: April 23, 2018
    Release Date: April 23, 2018 CERL Report on The Ethics of Interrogation and the Rule of Law Release Date: April 23, 2018 CERL Report on The Ethics of Interrogation and the Rule of Law I. Introduction On January 25, 2017, President Trump repeated his belief that torture works1 and reaffirmed his commitment to restore the use of harsh interrogation of detainees in American custody.2 That same day, CBS News released a draft Trump administration executive order that would order the Intelligence Community (IC) and Department of Defense (DoD) to review the legality of torture and potentially revise the Army Field Manual to allow harsh interrogations.3 On March 13, 2018, the President nominated Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, and Gina Haspel to replace Mr. Pompeo as Director of the CIA. Mr. Pompeo has made public statements in support of torture, most notably in response to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2014 report on the CIA’s use of torture on post-9/11 detainees,4 though his position appears to have altered somewhat by the time of his confirmation hearing for Director of the CIA, and Ms. Haspel’s history at black site Cat’s Eye in Thailand is controversial, particularly regarding her oversight of the torture of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri5 as well as her role in the destruction of video tapes documenting the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques.6 In light of these actions, President Trump appears to be signaling his support for legalizing the Bush-era techniques applied to detainees arrested and interrogated during the war on terror.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Criminal Court
    The International Criminal Court • an international court set up to prosecute major human rights crimes • Jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression. • Proceedings may be initiated by (1) state party request, (2) the prosecutor, or (3) UN Security Council resolution. • In (1) and (2), the ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to citizens of member states and individuals accused of committing crimes on the territory of member states. In (3), these limits do not apply. • Principle of Complementarity. The Court acts only if the state of primary juris- diction proves itself “unwilling or unable” to launch criminal proceedings (art. 17). Situations under official investigation by the ICC: Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan (Darfur), Central African Republic (2), Kenya, Libya, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Georgia, Burundi. Preliminary Examinations: Afghanistan, Myanmar/Bangladesh (Rohingya crisis), Colombia, Guinea, Iraq (UK), Nigeria, Palestine, Philippines, Ukraine, Venezuela. Convicted by the ICC: Thomas Lubanga (Dem. Rep. of Congo), Germain Katanga (Dem. Rep. of Congo), Bosco Ntaganda (DR Congo), Ahmad Al- Faqi Al-Mahdi (Mali), and a few others for obstruction of justice. Some individuals convicted at trial have been acquitted on appeal. On trial at the ICC: Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain (Sudan), Dominic Ongwen (Uganda). Wanted for trial at the ICC: Omar al-Bashir (Sudan), Seif al-Islam Gaddafi (Libya), Joseph Kony (Uganda), and several others Laurent Gbagbo, former president of Côte d’Ivoire • In late 2017, the prosecutor requested permission to open a formal investigation into crimes committed in Afghanistan. The investigation would cover crimes by the Afghan government, the Taliban, and US authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • War Crimes Act of 1995
    WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1995 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 2587 WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1995 JUNE 12, 1996 Serial No. 81 Legislative Office MAIN LIBRARY U.S. Dept. of Justice Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 27-100 CC WASHINGTON : 1996 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-053593-X COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado Wisconsin BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL McCOLLUM, Florida CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICK BOUCHER, Virginia LAMAR SMITH, Texas JOHN BRYANT, Texas STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico JACK REED, Rhode Island ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia BOB INGLIS, South Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia XAVIER BECERRA, California STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana ZOE LOFGREN, California MARTIN R. HOKE, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas SONNY BONO, California MAXINE WATERS, California FRED HEINEMAN, North Carolina ED BRYANT, Tennessee STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinois BOB BARR, Georgia ALAN F. COFFEY, JR., General Counsel /Staff Director JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND CLAIMS LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman ELTON GALLEGLY, California JOHN BRYANT, Texas CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL McCOLLUM, Florida CHARLES E.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Letter Abuse: the US Legal Response to Torture Since 9/11 James Ross* James Ross Is Legal and Policy Director at Human Rights Watch, New York
    Volume 89 Number 867 September 2007 Black letter abuse: the US legal response to torture since 9/11 James Ross* James Ross is Legal and Policy Director at Human Rights Watch, New York. Abstract The use of torture by the US armed forces and the CIA was not limited to ‘‘a few bad apples’’ at Abu Ghraib but encompassed a broader range of practices, including rendition to third countries and secret ‘‘black sites’’, that the US administration deemed permissible under US and international law. This article explores the various legal avenues pursued by the administration to justify and maintain its coercive interrogation programme, and the response by Congress and the courts. Much of the public debate concerned defining and redefining torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. While US laws defining torture have moved closer to international standards, they have also effectively shut out those seeking redress for mistreatment from bringing their cases before the courts and protect those responsible from prosecution. I. Introduction: revelations of torture Allegations of torture by US personnel in the ‘‘global war on terror’’ only gained notoriety after photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were broadcast on US television in April 2004. Prior to the mass dissemination of these disturbing images, reports in the media and in the publications of human rights organizations of torture and other mistreatment generated little public attention and evidently rang few alarm bells in the Pentagon (Department of Defense). Words did not * Thanks to Nicolette Boehland of Human Rights Watch for her assistance in preparing this article. 561 J.
    [Show full text]
  • Applicability of the Geneva Conventions to “Armed Conflict” in the War on Terror
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 30, Issue 3 2006 Article 4 Applicability of the Geneva Conventions to “Armed Conflict” in the War on Terror Miles P. Fischer∗ ∗ Copyright c 2006 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Applicability of the Geneva Conventions to “Armed Conflict” in the War on Terror Miles P. Fischer Abstract This Essay briefly reviews the application of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (the “Con- ventions”) in the so-called war on terror since September 11, 2001 (“9/11”), highlighting a few current issues of particular interest; notably, the concept of “armed conflict,” the role of Common Article 3, the impact of the MC Act, screening by “competent tribunals,” and enforcement of the Conventions in courts martial and against Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) operatives. APPLICABILITY OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS TO "ARMED CONFLICT" IN THE WAR ON TERROR Miles P. Fischer* What a roller-coaster ride it has been! Human rights advo- cates emerged from a black hole of international lawlessness to the exhilaration of victory in the U.S. Supreme Court's Rasul v. Bush1 and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld2 decisions in June 2004 and June 2006, only to fall back to political reality upon the adoption of the Military Commissions Act of 2006' (the "MC Act") in Octo- ber, 2006. And the ride goes on. This Essay briefly reviews the application of the Geneva Conventions of 1949' (the "Conventions") in the so-called war on terror since September 11, 2001 ("9/11"), highlighting a few current issues of particular interest; notably, the concept of "armed conflict," the role of Common Article 3,5 the impact of the MC Act, screening by "competent tribunals," and enforce- ment of the Conventions in courts martial and against Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") operatives.
    [Show full text]
  • War Crimes Act of 1996
    104TH CONGRESS REPORT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 104±698 "! WAR CRIMES ACT OF 1996 JULY 24, 1996.ÐCommitted to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 3680] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 3680) to amend title 18, United States Code, to carry out the international obligations of the United States under the Geneva Conventions to provide criminal penalties for certain war crimes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. CONTENTS Page Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 1 Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 Hearings ................................................................................................................... 9 Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 9 Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 10 Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 10 Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings ............................... 10 New Budget Authority
    [Show full text]
  • The War Crimes Act: Current Issues
    Order Code RL33662 The War Crimes Act: Current Issues Updated January 28, 2008 Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney American Law Division The War Crimes Act: Current Issues Summary The War Crimes Act of 1996, as amended, makes it a criminal offense to commit certain violations of the laws of war when such offenses are committed by or against U.S. nationals or Armed Service members. Among other things, the act prohibits certain violations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which sets out minimum standards for the treatment of detainees in armed conflicts of a non-international character. Common Article 3 prohibits protected persons from being subjected to violence, outrages upon personal dignity, torture, and cruel, humiliating, or degrading treatment. In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration’s long-standing position that Common Article 3 was inapplicable to the present armed conflict with Al Qaeda. As a result, questions have arisen regarding the scope of the War Crimes Act as it relates to violations of Common Article 3 and the possibility that U.S. personnel may be prosecuted for the pre-Hamdan treatment of Al Qaeda detainees. As amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA, P.L. 109-366), the War Crimes Act now criminalizes only specified Common Article 3 violations labeled as “grave breaches.” Previously, any violation of Common Article 3 constituted a criminal offense. This report discusses current issues related to the War Crimes Act. This report also briefly describes legislation introduced in the first session of the 110th Congress that would amend the War Crimes Act.
    [Show full text]
  • The Authority to Prosecute Terrorists Under the War Crime Provisions of Title 18 August 2,2006
    Statement United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary RESCHEDULED--The Authority to Prosecute Terrorists Under The War Crime Provisions of Title 18 August 2,2006 The Honorable Patrick Leahy United States Senator, Vermont Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee "The Authority to Prosecute Terrorists Under The War Crime Provisions of Title 18" Judiciary Committee August 2,2006 In 1996, working with the Department of Defense, Congress passed the War Crimes Act to provide criminal penalties for certain war crimes committed by and against Americans. The next year, again with the Pentagon's support, Congress extended the War Crimes Act to violations of the baseline humanitarian protections afforded by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Both measures were supported by a broad bipartisan consensus, and I was proud to sponsor the 1997 amendments. The legislation was uncontroversial for a good reason. As I explained at the time, the purpose and effect of the War Crimes Act as amended is to provide for the implementation of America's commitment to the basic international norms we subscribed to when we ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1955. Those norms are truly universal: They condemn war criminals whoever and wherever they are. That is a critically important aspect of the Geneva Conventions and our own War Crimes Act. When we are dealing with fundamental norms that define the commitments of the civilized world, we cannot have one rule forus and one for them, however we define "us" and "them." As Justice Jackson said at the Nuremburg tribunals, "We are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us ." In that regard, I was disturbed to read recent reports that the Department of Justice is drafting legislation to narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act to exclude violations of the Geneva Conventions and retroactively immunize past violations.
    [Show full text]
  • The War Crimes Act of 1996, As Amended, Makes It a Criminal Offense to Commit Certain Violations of the Law of War When Such Offenses Are Committed by Or Against U.S
    = -*=&7= 7.2*8= (9a= :77*39=88:*8= .(-&*1= 4-3= &7(.&= *,.81&9.;*= 99473*>= &3:&7>=,,`=,**3= 43,7*88.43&1= *8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 18/1**= <<<_(78_,4;= --00,= =*5479=+47=43,7*88 Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress -*=&7=7.2*8= (9a=:77*39=88:*8= = :22&7>= The War Crimes Act of 1996, as amended, makes it a criminal offense to commit certain violations of the law of war when such offenses are committed by or against U.S. nationals or Armed Service members. Among other things, the act prohibits certain violations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which sets out minimum standards for the treatment of detainees in armed conflicts “not of an international character (e.g., civil wars, rebellions, and other conflicts between State and non-State actors). Common Article 3 prohibits protected persons from being subjected to violence, outrages upon personal dignity, torture, and cruel, humiliating, or degrading treatment. In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration’s long-standing position that Common Article 3 was inapplicable to the present armed conflict with Al Qaeda. As a result, questions have arisen regarding the scope of the War Crimes Act as it relates to violations of Common Article 3 and the possibility that U.S. military and intelligence personnel may be prosecuted for the pre-Hamdan treatment of Al Qaeda detainees. As amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA, P.L. 109-366), the War Crimes Act now criminalizes only specified Common Article 3 violations labeled as “grave breaches.” Previously, any violation of Common Article 3 constituted a criminal offense.
    [Show full text]
  • Outlawed: Extraordinary Rendition, Torture and Disappearances in the War on Terror
    Companion Curriculum OUTLAWED: Extraordinary Rendition, Torture and Disappearances in the War on Terror In Plain Sight: Volume 6 A WITNESS and Amnesty International Partnership www.witness.org www.amnestyusa.org Table of Contents 2 Table of Contents How to Use This Guide HRE 201: UN Convention against Torture Lesson One: The Torture Question Handout 1.1: Draw the Line Handout 1.2: A Tortured Debate - Part 1 Handout 1.3: A Tortured Debate - Part 2 Lesson Two: Outsourcing Torture? An Introduction to Extraordinary Rendition Resource 2.1: Introduction to Extraordinary Rendition Resource 2.2: Case Studies Resource 2.3: Movie Discussion Guide Resource 2.4: Introduction to Habeas Corpus Resource 2.5: Introduction to the Geneva Conventions Handout 2.6: Court of Human Rights Activity Lesson Three: Above the Law? Limits of Executive Authority Handout 3.1: Checks and Balances Timeline Handout 3.2: Checks and Balances Resource 3.3: Checks and Balances Discussion Questions Glossary Resources How to Use This Guide 3 How to Use This Guide The companion guide for Outlawed: Extraordinary Rendition, Torture, and Disappearances in the War on Terror provides activities and lessons that will engage learners in a discussion about issues which may seem difficult and complex, such as federal and international standards regarding treatment of prisoners and how the extraordinary rendition program impacts America’s success in the war on terror. Lesson One introduces students to the topic of torture in an age appropriate manner, Lesson Two provides background information and activities about extraordinary rendition, and Lesson Three examines the limits of executive authority and the issue of accountability.
    [Show full text]
  • The War Crimes Act: Current Issues
    Order Code RL33662 The War Crimes Act: Current Issues Updated July 23, 2007 Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney American Law Division The War Crimes Act: Current Issues Summary The War Crimes Act of 1996, as amended, makes it a criminal offense to commit certain violations of the laws of war when such offenses are committed by or against U.S. nationals or Armed Service members. Among other things, the act prohibits certain violations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which sets out minimum standards for the treatment of detainees in armed conflicts of a non-international character. Common Article 3 prohibits protected persons from being subjected to violence, outrages upon personal dignity, torture, and cruel, humiliating, or degrading treatment. In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration’s long-standing position that Common Article 3 was inapplicable to the present armed conflict with Al Qaeda. As a result, questions have arisen regarding the scope of the War Crimes Act as it relates to violations of Common Article 3 and the possibility that U.S. personnel may be prosecuted for the pre-Hamdan treatment of Al Qaeda detainees. As amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA, P.L. 109-366), the War Crimes Act now criminalizes only specified Common Article 3 violations labeled as “grave breaches.” Previously, any violation of Common Article 3 constituted a criminal offense. This report discusses current issues related to the War Crimes Act. Contents The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441) ............................1 Implications of Hamdan v.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles Strengthening American War Crimes
    ARTICLES STRENGTHENING AMERICAN WAR CRIMES ACCOUNTABILITY GEOFFREY S. CORN AND RACHEL E. VANLANDINGHAM* The United States needs to improve accountability for its service members’ war crimes. President Donald J. Trump dangerously intensified a growing national misunderstanding regarding the critical nexus between compliance with the laws of war and the health and efficacy of the U.S. military. This Article pushes back against such confusion by demonstrating why compliance with the laws of war, and accountability for violations of these laws, together constitute vital duties owed to our women and men in uniform. This Article reveals that part of the fog of war surrounding criminal accountability for American war crimes is due to structural defects in American military law. It analyzes such defects, including the military’s failure to prosecute war crimes as war crimes. It carefully highlights the need for symmetry between the disparate American approaches to its enemies’ war crimes and its own service members’ battlefield offenses. To help close the current war crimes accountability deficit, we propose a comprehensive statutory remedial scheme that includes: the enumeration of specific war crimes for military personnel analogous to those applicable to unlawful enemy * Geoffrey S. Corn is The Gary A. Kuiper Distinguished Professor of National Security at South Texas College of Law Houston. Rachel E. VanLandingham is a Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, California. They teach criminal law, criminal procedure, national security law, and the law of armed conflict. They are each former military lawyers and retired Lieutenant Colonels in the U.S. Army and U.S.
    [Show full text]