Chapter 8 of International Humanitarian Law

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

Cover Page The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/22937 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation Author: Duffy, H. Title: The ‘war on terror' and international law Issue Date: 2013-12-18 8 Case study I – Guantanamo Bay detentions under international human rights and humanitarian law ‘The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.’1 Fyodor Dostoyevsky ‘To deny violent extremists one of their most potent recruitment tools, we will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay’. US National Security Strategy 20102 A defining feature of practice since 2001 has been the large scale detention of persons ‘for reasons related to the conflict’ that the US purports to be waging against al-Qaeda and associated groups. While people have been detained in many centres across the world, by the US or by proxy, a major repository for detainees, and symbol of the ‘war on terror’, has been the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Since early January 2002, an estimated total of nearly 800 people, including nationals of at least forty states, have at some point been transferred to and held in detention facilities at Guantanamo.3 The location of the detention centre on Guantanamo Bay, which the United States authorities claimed was beyond US sovereign territory, was an acknow- ledged attempt to circumvent the application of human rights protections in the United States constitution and access to United States courts.4 The detainees were labelled ‘enemy combatants’, in support of the view that normal criminal and human rights law do not apply, though the epithet was simul- taneously relied upon to justify the non-application of the protective aspects 1 Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoyevesky (1821-1881) in Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quota- tions Requested from the Congressional Research Service, ed. Suzy Platt (1989), available at http:/ /www.bartleby.com/73/1527.html. 2 U.S. National Security Strategy, 2010, p. 2, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf. 3 One year after 9/11 Bush referred to 550 detainees held at Guantanamo, and at its peak it was 800. As of early 2013, 166 detainees remain in Guantanamo. See breakdown in Human Rights First, ‘Guantanamo by the Numbers’, 3 October 2012, available at: http:// www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/USLS-Fact-Sheet-Gitmo-Numbers.pdf. 4 See, e.g., legal arguments made in Al Odah et al.v.United States, 321 F.3d 1134 (DC Cir.-2003) hereinafter ‘Al Odah’); John Yoo Interview, PBS, 19 July 2005, available at: http:// www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/yoo.html. 596 Chapter 8 of international humanitarian law. They came to be held in what has cor- respondingly been described as a ‘legal black hole’5 or ‘legal limbo.’6 Guantanamo Bay promptly came to symbolise the war on terror and it’s ‘flouting of the rule of law’.7 International condemnation was slow but gathered momentum over time, culminating in perhaps unprecedented levels of state and international criticism of US policy.8 Superlatives abound, with the Guantanamo regime having been condemned variously as a ‘shocking affront to democracy’,9 a ‘stain’10 or ‘horrendous blot’11 on the US reputation, and ‘the gulag of our times’.12 Within the US itself, over time reflections have emerged on the implications of the camp, including that it has ‘shaken the belief the world had in America’s justice system.’13 The administration has repeatedly acknowledged that it threatens national security by constituting a ‘potent recruitment tool’ for terrorists14 and an obstacles to international cooperation.15 5 See Lord J. Steyn, ‘Guantánamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole’ (2004) 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1. See likewise, the English Court of Appeal R (Abbasi and another) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (2002) EWCA Civ. 159 (hereinafter ‘Abbasi’), para. 64. 6 L. Dembart, ‘Old Laws Hard to Apply to Modern Terrorism: For Afghans in Cuba, Untested Legal Limbo’, International Herald Tribune, 25 January 2002, available at: http:// www.nytimes.com/2002/01/25/news/25iht-legal_ed3_.html. On the development of the right to habeas and its effect over time, see below. 7 ‘GTMO has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law.’ B. Obama, speech at National Defense University, 23 May 2013, transcript available at: http:/ /www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone- policy.html. 8 Chapter 8C on responding to Guantanamo. 9 Lord Falconer in C. Dyer, ‘Falconer accuses US of affront to democracy’, The Guardian,13 September 2006, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/13/politics.usa. 10 U.S. Colonel Morris Davis, chief prosecutor of the Guantanamo military commissions who resigned in protest: ‘Guantánamo is a stain on our reputation. The only way we can end that chapter is to close it’. E. Pilkington, ‘Guantánamo: still a part of America’s conscience, a decade on’, The Guardian, 11 January 2012, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ world/2012/jan/11/guantanamo-bay-10-years-on. 11 South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu inT. Shipman, ‘Blair under pressure to condemn Guantanamo camp’, Daily Mail, 16 February 2006, available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article-377562/Blair-pressure-condemn-Guantanamo-camp.html. 12 I. Khan, former Secretary General of Amnesty International ‘Amnesty International Report 2005: The state of the world’s human rights’, para. 9, available at: http://www.amnesty.org/ en/library/info/POL10/001/2005/en. See a more thorough discussion of the international reaction to Guantanamo 8C2 below. 13 Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Meet the Press, 10 June 2007, available at: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19092206 and Obama, 23 May speech, note 13. 14 National Security Strategy, supra note 2, p. 22. During a press conference President Obama explained that ‘the reason for wanting to close Guantanamo was because my number one priority is keeping the American people safe. One of the most powerful tools we have to keep the American people safe is not providing al Qaeda and jihadists recruiting tools for fledgling terrorists. And Guantanamo is probably the number one recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations. And we see it in the websites that they put up. We Case study I 597 Around 2008, the tide seemed to be turning on Guantanamo. Ground- breaking US Supreme Court cases recognised the rights of detainees to chal- lenge the legality of their detention before a neutral arbiter.16 There were political pledges to ‘clean up the mess,’17 recognitions of the ‘failure of the entire system’18 and promises to relegate a ‘sad chapter in American history’ to the past.19 Incoming President Barack Obama issued an executive order concerning the closure of Guantanamo and has reiterated his pledge many times since then;20 as will be seen, however, deadlines have come and gone and the camp remains active, with some one hundred and sixty increasingly see it in the messages that they’re delivering.’ B. Obama, ‘News Conference by the Pres- ident’, South Court Auditorium, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, 22 December 2012, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/22/news-conference- president. Janet Napolitano, the United States Homeland Security Chief, ‘Guantanamo became a recruiting tool for terrorism: Napolitano’, AFP News, 6 November 2009; Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that “Guantanamo … has been a symbol, and one which has been a recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who would fight us,’ M. Mullen, ‘Military Chief: Gitmo “Needs to Be Closed”’, ABC News, 24 May 2009, available at: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/05/military-chief/; Obama’s Director of National Intelligence told the Senate Committee on Intelligence in January 2009 that Guantanamo is ‘a rallying cry for terrorists and harmful to our international reputation, and so closing it is important for our national security’. Nomination of Admiral Dennis Blair to be Director of National Intelligence: Hearing before Senate Committee on Intellig- ence, 109th Cong. 7, 22 January 2009, available at: http://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ Newsroom/Testimonies/20090122_transcript.pdf. 15 In April 2013 Obama described Guantanamo as ‘inefficient’ and noted that ‘it hurts us in terms of our international standing, it lessens co-operation with our allies on counter- terrorism efforts, it is a recruitment tool for extremists, it needs to be closed.’ ‘Barack Obama says Guantanamo Bay Prison must close’, BBC News, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ news/world-us-canada-22358351. See also, Obama speech, 23 May 2013, supra note 7. 16 See Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) (hereinafter ‘Rasul’); Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008) (hereinafter ‘Boumediene’). 17 See, e.g., President Barack Obama, ‘Remarks by the President on National Security’, 21 May 2009, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President- On-National-Security-5-21-09/. 18 Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, the former Director of the US National Intelligence, noted that it was a ‘failure of the entire [political] system’ that Guantanamo remained open. ‘Ex US intelligence chief talks Guantanamo Bay, China, East Timor’, Radio Australia, 9 August 2012, available at: http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/connect- asia/ex-us-intelligence-chief-talks-guantanamo-bay-china-east-timor/996384. 19 President Obama’s description of Guantanamo while campaigning in 2008. A. Spillius, ‘Barack Obama “proposes to move terrorists suspects from Guantanamo Bay”’, The Telegraph, 10 November 2008, available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ northamerica/usa/3417913/Barack-Obama-proposes-to-move-terrorists-suspects-from- Guantanamo-Bay.html.
Recommended publications
  • I Have Been Working on a Book, Stand-Ins, on The

    I Have Been Working on a Book, Stand-Ins, on The

    Workshop Participants: I have been working on a book, Stand-Ins, on the causes and consequences of temporary leadership in government, business, and religion, which is aimed at a more general audience. Given recent events, I have returned to more traditional scholarship to explore some of the issues involving temporary leadership (and the lack thereof) in federal agencies, among other topics. This paper is brand new, incomplete, and unpolished. Given its length, I would recommend reading the Introduction (pp.1-5), Scope of Actings (pp.13-27), and Statutory Questions (pp.33-42). I look forward to your reactions and suggestions for improvement. AJO Actings Anne Joseph O’Connell Stanford Law School April 1, 2019 Please do not cite or distribute beyond the workshop without permission. I. Introduction Stand-in leaders do not usually command much attention. They step up in moments of need to keep organizations running. The stereotypical interim leader is therefore a caretaker—in place to maintain stability; not to implement major changes. But not all interim leaders are caretakers. Some are auditioning for the permanent job. And a few are there to shake up the organization—so-called “fixers”. The scope of temporary leadership is vast—after all, traditional leaders are transitory, and selection procedures for more permanent leaders take time. On the public side, there are interim leaders in all branches of the federal government. In Congress, there are appointed senators, chosen by their state’s governor to fill in for an elected senator who has died or resigned, perhaps in disgrace or perhaps to take a different job.
  • Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee

    Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee

    Stanford Law Review Volume 73 June 2021 NOTE Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee William S. Janover* Abstract. As arbiter of the constitutionality of executive actions, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) possesses vast authority over the operation of the federal government and is one of the primary vessels for the articulation of executive power. It therefore is not surprising that the OLC has found itself at the center of controversy across Democratic and Republican administrations. OLC opinions have justified the obstruction of valid congressional investigations, the targeted killing of an American citizen overseas, repeated military incursions without congressional approval, and, most infamously, torture. These episodes have generated a significant body of proposals to reform, constrain, or altogether eliminate the OLC. All of these proposals can be categorized as either direct or indirect constraints on how the OLC operates. Direct constraints target how the OLC actually creates its legal work product. Indirect constraints instead focus on the OLC’s personnel or the public scrutiny the Office’s opinions will face. This Note expands on this existing body of research, focusing on how one institution unstudied in this context, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, can operationalize meaningful indirect constraints on the OLC. Unlike the other actors that scholars have examined, the Committee’s position outside the executive branch allows it to sidestep the President’s ever-expanding reach within the federal bureaucracy. At the same time, the Committee’s oversight powers and its central role in the nomination of both the OLC’s leader and Article III judges give it important constitutional and statutory authority to constrain the Office.
  • The Right to Heal U.S

    The Right to Heal U.S

    The Right to Heal U.S. Veterans and Iraqi Organizations Seek Accountability for Human Rights and Health Impacts of Decade of U.S.-led War Preliminary Report Submitted in Support of Request for Thematic Hearing Before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 149th Period of Sessions Executive Summary Submitted By: The Center for Constitutional Rights On Behalf of Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq Iraq Veterans Against the War Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq Submitting Organizations Federation of Workers Councils and Unions in Iraq (FWCUI) is a national unionist organization for the defense of rights of workers in Iraq, established since 2003, and has representatives in all main cities. FWCUI is known for its continuous positions against the newly introduced neo-liberal economic policies, and the new labor code which the FWCUI describes as “protecting the rights of employers while disempowering workers.” Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) was founded by Iraq war veterans in July 2004 at the annual convention of Veterans for Peace (VFP) in Boston to give a voice to the large number of active duty service people and veterans who are against this war, but are under various pressures to remain silent. From its inception, IVAW has called for: (1) Immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq; (2) Reparations for the human and structural damages Iraq has suffered, and stopping the corporate pillaging of Iraq so that their people can control their own lives and future; and (3) Full benefits, adequate healthcare (including mental health), and other supports for returning servicemen and women.
  • Baltasar Garzón - El Juez Indomable

    Baltasar Garzón - El Juez Indomable

    BALTASAR GARZÓN - EL JUEZ INDOMABLE by George Venturini * Judge Baltasar Garzón, of the Spanish Audiencia National, Fifth Chamber of the Central Criminal Court, was indicted in April 2010 for knowingly and willfully exceeding his competence when investigating crimes committed by the Franco regime which were said to be covered by an amnesty. He had - as charged in March 2010 - twisted the limits of his jurisdiction to by-pass the amnesty law enacted by the Spanish Parliament in 1977, two years after the death of the Caudillo, and thus to be able to engineer a case when there was none. The specific charge against Judge Garzón is: delito de prevaricación. Accepting that charge, the Supreme Court declared admissible three criminal accusations against Judge Garzón. Prevaricación means in the case the use by a judge of his authority intentionally to subvert the course of justice. This is a very serious criminal offence, punishable by suspension from any judicial activity for up to twenty years. The contested delito consists in the Judge having knowingly overstepped his judicial competence by opening a probe into the disappearances of 114,266 people - part of the crimes committed by Franco between 17 July 1936 and 31 December 1951, the bloodiest period of Franco’s dictatorship. Judge Garzón was suspended on 14 May 2010, pending trial. He was given permission to work at the International Criminal Court in The Hague for seven months from May 2010. It is not known why the judicial authorities did not previously institute any internal inquiry or disciplinary proceedings - for example: following the public debate after the Judge had ordered to open suspected Francoist era mass graves two years earlier, in September 2008 - but instead preferred to rely on criminal accusations, brought by two neo-Francoist organisations: a fictitious trade union called Manos Limpias (Clean hands) and another 2 seedy Libertad y Identitad (Liberty and Identity), and the resurrected Falange, and declared admissible on 26 May 2009.
  • Wikileaking the Truth About American Unaccountability for Torture Lisa Hajjar University of California—Santa Barbara

    Wikileaking the Truth About American Unaccountability for Torture Lisa Hajjar University of California—Santa Barbara

    Societies Without Borders Volume 7 | Issue 2 Article 3 2012 Wikileaking the Truth about American Unaccountability for Torture Lisa Hajjar University of California—Santa Barbara Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/swb Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Hajjar, Lisa. 2012. "Wikileaking the Truth about American Unaccountability for Torture." Societies Without Borders 7 (2): 192-225. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/swb/vol7/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Cross Disciplinary Publications at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Societies Without Borders by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Hajjar: Wikileaking the Truth about American Unaccountability for Torture L. Hajjar/Societies Without Borders 7:2 (2012) 192-225 Wikileaking the Truth about American Unaccountability for Torture Lisa Hajjar University of California—Santa Barbara Received September 2011; Accepted March 2012 ______________________________________________________ Abstract. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions are international offenses and perpetrators can be prosecuted abroad if accountability is not pursued at home. The US torture policy, instituted by the Bush administration in the context of the “war on terror” presents a contemporary example of liability for gross crimes under international law. For this reason, classification and secrecy have functioned in tandem as a shield to block public knowledge about prosecutable offenses. Keeping such information secret and publicizing deceptive official accounts that contradict the truth are essential to propaganda strategies to sustain American support or apathy about the country’s multiple current wars.
  • A Kafkaesque Experience Before Spanish 'Justice'

    A Kafkaesque Experience Before Spanish 'Justice'

    CORRUPTION IN SPAIN AND THE JUDICIAL ‘FRAMING’ OF JUDGE BALTASAR GARZÓN REAL (Part two) by George Venturini * A Kafkaesque experience before Spanish ‘justice’ During half of January and the whole month of February 2012, Judge Garzón sat in his judicial robe next to his lawyer Francisco Javier Baena Bocanegra before the judges of the Second Chamber of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, defending himself from the charges brought against him by private individuals and organisations rather than the State. In fact, during investigations and at the trials, public prosecutors had recommended Judge Garzón’s acquittal. What was happening to Judge Garzón had undoubtedly a bad political odour. The three private prosecutions had been brought by a curious outfit, a fictitious trade union called Manos Limpias, Clean Hands, directed by Miguel Bernad Remón, an official of the far-Right party Fuerza Nueva, another seedy organisation called Libertad e Identitad, Liberty and Identity and the Falange de la JONS, which is an acronym for Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, Phalanx of the Assemblies of the National Syndicalist Offensive - a Neo-Francoist set-up, and by lawyers connected with gaoled persons who had been involved in wide-spread corruption mainly for the advantage of people in the Popular Party, and by other lawyers who were accusing Judge Garzón of corruption. The specific charge against Judge Garzón is: delito de prevaricacion - which means the use by a judge of his authority intentionally to subvert the course of justice, and that in violation of art. 446.3 of the Criminal Code. This is a very serious criminal offence punishable by suspension from any judicial activity for up to twenty years.
  • Cryptome Messages 1

    Cryptome Messages 1

    Cryptome 27 February Timothy Felix Miltz (BillCaseyHoneyPot) A sends: Re: http://cryptome.org/2015/02/wapo-BillCaseyHoneyPot.htm The commenter "BillCaseyHoneyPot" has made other postings dating back to 2010. I saved them as text files. Publish them if you're interested. FYI, a commenter on this blog post - http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-billcaseyhoneypot- mystery.html - claims that "BillCaseyHoneyPot" is Timothy Felix Miltz, "a software engineer who first started working for CIA in the 'Bush Sr era', which would've been 1975-1976. He says he left the Agency before 'Homeland (Security)' was created, i.e. before 2002." Messages 1 http://business.time.com/2013/01/14/mit-orders-review-of-aaron-swartz-suicide- as-soul-searching-begins/ [article omitted] paindeer Jan 14, 2013 I wonder what US DoD projects at MIT are pretty much a waste bin now. This Prosecutor needs to step down before this evolves into some serious repercussions. Ollie North ? gets off - Aaron gets 35 years. Wow - really ? DOJ is LIKELY going to be getting some very angry calls from the DoD on this one - I suspect it's HIGHLY LIKELY - YOU NEVER CAN TELL. Little surprises here and there PROBABLY- ALL EXPLICITLY TAGGING BACK TO Aaron. Hey- maybe those hypothetical people will get FIFTY YEARS ! Actually, it's probably a GOOD IDEA to reveal just what kind of KILLING IS GOING ON - and who built what and and who Say- southern tribal region in Waziristan ? REAL SMART MOVE ON THIS ONE DOJ - 35 years for abusing a LIBRARY'S NETWORK SERVICES - wow - I signed the petition to get this clown out of office, I'm making some calls and going to see if the heat can be turned up on Ortiz.
  • Palestinian Manipulation of the International Community

    Palestinian Manipulation of the International Community

    PALESTINIAN MANIPULATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY Ambassador Alan Baker (ed.) Palestinian Manipulation of the International Community Edited by Amb. Alan Baker ISBN: 978-965-218-117-6 © 2014 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 13 Tel Hai Street, Jerusalem, Israel Tel. 972-2-561-9281 Fax. 972-2-561-9112 Contents Overview: Palestinian Manipulation of the International Community Amb. Alan Baker................................................................................................. 5 Manipulating International Law as Part of Anti-Israel “Lawfare” Prof. Robbie Sabel...............................................................................................13 Universal Jurisdiction: Learning the Costs of Political Manipulation the Hard Way Dr. Rephael Ben-Ari...........................................................................................23 The Demonization of Israel at the United Nations in Europe Mr. Hillel Neuer.................................................................................................47 The Role of NGOs in the Palestinian Political War Against Israel Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg...................................................................................65 Politicizing the International Criminal Court Prof. Eugene Kontorovich....................................................................................79 Degrading International Institutions: The United Nations Goldstone Report Amb. Dore Gold .................................................................................................91
  • Response to the Submission from the United States In

    Response to the Submission from the United States In

    RESPONSE TO THE SUBMISSION FROM THE UNITED STATES IN RELATION TO THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT PENDING AGAINST DAVID ADDINGTON, JAY BYBEE, DOUGLAS FEITH, ALBERTO GONZALES, WILLIAM HAYNES AND JOHN YOO IN THE AUDIENCIA NACIONAL, MADRID SPAIN CASE N˚ 134/2009 April 2011 I. Background On 17 March 2009, a complaint was filed by the Association for the Dignity of Male and Female Prisoners of Spain against six former officials of the United States government, namely David Addington, former Counsel to, and Chief of Staff for, former Vice President Cheney; Jay S. Bybee, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); Douglas Feith, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense (DOD); Alberto R. Gonzales, former Counsel to former President George W. Bush, and former Attorney General of the United States; William J. Haynes, former General Counsel, DOD; and John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, OLC, DOJ, in the Spanish high court, the Audiencia Nacional.1 The defendants are alleged to have materially contributed to a systematic plan of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of persons detained by the United Sates in the context of the so-called “War on Terror.” The complaint contains charges that include torture and violations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. This case was assigned to Judge Eloy Velasco. On 4 May 2009, Judge Velasco issued Letters Rogatory to the United States, in accordance with the 1990 US-Spain Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, asking it “whether the acts referred to in this complaint are or are not being investigated or prosecuted,” and if so, to identify the prosecuting authority and to inform the Court of the specific procedure by which to refer the complaints for joinder.
  • “The Gloves Are Coming Off”: a Mixed Method Analysis of the Bush Administration’S Torture Memos

    “The Gloves Are Coming Off”: a Mixed Method Analysis of the Bush Administration’S Torture Memos

    “THE GLOVES ARE COMING OFF”: A MIXED METHOD ANALYSIS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S TORTURE MEMOS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY DANERYL MAY NIER-WEBER DISSERTATION ADVISOR: DR. LINDA HANSON Ball State University Muncie, Indiana April 2011 © Copyright by Daneryl May Nier-Weber All rights reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures and Tables v Acknowledgments vi Dear Reader vii Ch. I: The Great Divide 1 Research Questions/Rationale 6 Ch II: Review of the Literature 14 Ch. III: Methods and Methodology 36 Mixed Methods Approach: Grounded Theory and Critical Discourse Analysis 40 Previous Study I: “In Your Face” 42 Previous Study II: “Psycho vs. Sockpuppet” 47 Methods Chosen For This Study 50 Ch. IV: The Scene, The Agents, Their Agency, and Their Purpose: Conceptions of Power and the Torture Debate 62 The Memos 71 Memos as Agency: Authorization for Torture 74 The Actors: The Men Behind the Memos 87 Conceptions of power 95 Ideological Provenance of the Memos 97 To Protect and Defend 102 Linguistic and Semantic Masking 113 Ch. V: Torture and the Law 122 Semantic Shifts and their Material Enactments 131 “Civilization’s fight” 135 An Act of War 143 Ch. VI: Thirty-Nine Documents 148 Exceptionalism and the Rhetoric of Crisis 150 National Security 158 Defense 174 War/Not War 184 iv Ch. VII: The “Semantic Tap-Dance”: Discursive, Rhetorical, and Lexico- Grammatical Strategies in the Torture Memos 187 Authoritarianism and the Torture Memos 191 Framing 199 Argument Structure 201 Conflation 202 Elisions and Substitutions 212 Intertextuality 216 War/Not War, Continued 227 Hyperlexicalization and the Ideological Square 233 Ch.
  • Getting Away with Torture RIGHTS the Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees WATCH

    Getting Away with Torture RIGHTS the Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees WATCH

    United States HUMAN Getting Away with Torture RIGHTS The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees WATCH Getting Away with Torture The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees Copyright © 2011 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 1-56432-789-2 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA Tel: +1 212 290 4700, Fax: +1 212 736 1300 [email protected] Poststraße 4-5 10178 Berlin, Germany Tel: +49 30 2593 06-10, Fax: +49 30 2593 0629 [email protected] Avenue des Gaulois, 7 1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (2) 732 2009, Fax: + 32 (2) 732 0471 [email protected] 64-66 Rue de Lausanne 1202 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 738 0481, Fax: +41 22 738 1791 [email protected] 2-12 Pentonville Road, 2nd Floor London N1 9HF, UK Tel: +44 20 7713 1995, Fax: +44 20 7713 1800 [email protected] 27 Rue de Lisbonne 75008 Paris, France Tel: +33 (1)43 59 55 35, Fax: +33 (1) 43 59 55 22 [email protected] 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel: +1 202 612 4321, Fax: +1 202 612 4333 [email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org July 2011 ISBN: 1-56432-789-2 Getting Away with Torture The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 12 I. Background: Official Sanction for Crimes against Detainees .......................................... 13 II. Torture of Detainees in US Counterterrorism Operations ............................................... 18 The CIA Detention Program .......................................................................................................
  • Torture and Its Consequences in American History Jeffrey Sawyer Western Oregon University

    Torture and Its Consequences in American History Jeffrey Sawyer Western Oregon University

    Western Oregon University Digital Commons@WOU Student Theses, Papers and Projects (History) Department of History 2008 Torture and its Consequences in American History Jeffrey Sawyer Western Oregon University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/his Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Sawyer, Jeffrey, "Torture and its Consequences in American History" (2008). Student Theses, Papers and Projects (History). 189. https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/his/189 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of History at Digital Commons@WOU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Theses, Papers and Projects (History) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@WOU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 Thesis Paper Jeffrey Sawyer Torture and its Consequences in American History The popularity of the TV show “24,” since it first aired in November of 2001 and lack of public indignation after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal clearly demonstrate a change in the American psyche regarding torture. It used to be incompatible with America’s values to engage in such immoral acts. If Americans were really upset and infuriated by the pictures seen after Abu Ghraib, they would have done more than offer a simple protest and call for those responsible to come to justice, especially after former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger claimed that, "We believe that there is institutional and personal responsibility right up the chain of command as far as Washington is concerned."1 If Americans still were a people who loved freedom and human rights, “24” would not be nearly as popular as it is.