DOCSLIB.ORG

Partners in Crime: an Empirical Evaluation of the CIA Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Program Averell Schmidt and Kathryn Sikkink

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Partners in Crime: an Empirical Evaluation of the CIA Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Program Averell Schmidt and Kathryn Sikkink Article Partners in Crime: An Empirical Evaluation of the CIA Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Program Averell Schmidt and Kathryn Sikkink In the years following the attacks of 9/11, the CIA adopted a program involving the capture, extraordinary rendition, secret detention, and harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists in the war on terror. As the details of this program have become public, a heated debate has ensued, focusing narrowly on whether or not this program “worked” by disrupting terror plots and saving American lives. By embracing such a narrow view of the program’sefficacy, this debate has failed to take into account the broader consequences of the CIA program. We move beyond current debates by evaluating the impact of the CIA program on the human rights practices of other states. We show that collaboration in the CIA program is associated with a worsening in the human rights practices of authoritarian countries. This finding illustrates how states learn from and influence one another through covert security cooperation and the importance of democratic institutions in mitigating the adverse consequences of the CIA program. This finding also underscores why a broad perspective is critical when assessing the consequences of counterterrorism policies. he surprising ascendance of President Donald J. appeared designed to allow the Trump administration to Trump has disrupted U.S. politics and public return to the Bush-era policy of secret kidnapping, detention, T 2 policy. From immigration to health care, President and interrogation of suspected terrorists. One of the key Trump is blunt in his intention to revise fundamentally the sections in the draft order requests a “policy review” to policies of his predecessor. This is certainly true when it “recommend to the President whether to reinstate a program comes to counterterrorism policy. On the campaign trail of interrogation of high-value alien terrorists to be operated President Trump insisted that “torture works” and advo- outside the United States and whether such a program should cated for the resumption of waterboarding “and hell of a lot include the use of detention facilities operated by the Central worse.”1 Since assuming office, President Trump has signaled Intelligence Agency.” Although the Trump administration that he intends to fulfill this campaign promise. Amidst the later publicly backed away from some aspects of the draft flurry of Executive Orders issued by President Trump during order, given the mixed signals coming from the administra- his first weeks in office, a draft order on the “Detention and tion on torture, it remains important to examine the Interrogation of Enemy Combatants” was leaked, which consequences of such a decision.3 Based on a detailed A list of permanent links to Supplementary Materials provided by the authors precedes the References section. *Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CC8VFT Averell Schmidt is a Doctoral Candidate in Public Policy at Harvard University and a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government ([email protected]). Kathryn Sikkink is the Ryan Family Professor of Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and the Carol K. Pforzheimer Professor at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study ([email protected]). The authors would like to thank Dara Cohen, Max Goplerud, Robert Keohane, Gary King, Leslie Vinjamuri, Kala Viswanathan, Steven Worthington, David Yanagizawa-Drott, Ista Zahn, and three anonymous reviewers, as well as participants in the conference on the Strategic Consequences of the U.S. Use of Torture at the Harvard Kennedy School and the annual meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association, for their valuable feedback. They also thank Douglas Johnson, Alberto Mora, Nicole Deitelhoff, Lisbeth Zimmermann, Richard Price, and Henry Farrell for their contributions to the broader research project. Meg Kumar and Jessica Tueller provided excellent research assistance. Any and all errors are our own. doi:10.1017/S1537592717004224 1014 Perspectives on Politics © American Political Science Association 2018 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Harvard-Smithsonian Centerfor Astrophysics, on 07 Dec 2018 at 15:06:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592717004224 empirical evaluation of the Bush administration policy, we instrument of international security policy that is not often argue here that one consequence would be a worsening in the amenable to rigorous research and evaluation. We refer to human rights practices of the countries that aid the Trump the process of states learning from one another through administration in implementing this policy. participation in policy implementation as “learning by Public and academic debate concerning the Bush-era doing.” There is a shortage of systematic analysis in policy, known as the Rendition, Detention, and Interro- international relations about the impact of specific covert gation (RDI) program, has been both heated and narrowly activity, due in part to the difficulties in securing data.11 construed.4 Academic research has focused on the pro- This is the first quantitative analysis of the impact of covert gram’s legality and morality, rather than assessing its policy on human rights practices, illustrating the possibil- broader policy impact.5 Policy debates, on the other hand, ity of such research. Covert action continues to be a central have focused primarily on the program’s “effectiveness” in part of international politics, as evidenced by the rise of terms of whether it generated intelligence that disrupted cyber attacks and the Russian covert intervention in terrorist plots and saved American lives. In 2014, for foreign elections; therefore, it is imperative that we better instance, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence understand the policy consequences of covert action. released a major report concluding that the RDI program Practitioners have long been concerned with how U.S. had not produced unique intelligence that prevented foreign and security policy can advance human rights; our terrorist attacks; a response to the report by some of the findings suggest that covert interventions like the RDI Republican senators on the committee contended that it program can undermine core human rights.12 Not surpris- had. Several former high-ranking CIA officials published ingly, U.S. behavior has more influence than its discourse, concurrently a website defending themselves, citing the especially if it has direct bearing on agents of government program’s lifesaving results.6 Despite their differences, all repression. Our analysis shows how scholars can, and should, shared a narrow definition of the program’sefficacy: it apply their toolset to international security problems in “worked” if it generated actionable intelligence. a manner that spotlights the larger consequences of policies Assessing whether or not the RDI program worked like the RDI program, in addition to continuing the crucial requires a broader evaluation of its policy consequences.7 legal and normative critiques of policy.13 A recent article argues that the strategic costs of the U.S. The remainder of this article proceeds in four sections. decision to use torture far outweigh any possible benefits First, we provide a brief overview of past U.S. positions on obtained.8 Similar research by Robert Pape explores the human rights and international law and of the RDI program consequences of U.S. torture in the Iraq War, including itself in order to demonstrate that the program marked how U.S. torture fueled suicide bombing in Iraq and a historic break in U.S. policy and practice. Second, we undermined support for the war among the U.S. public.9 review the relevant theoretical and empirical literature on We investigate the human rights impact of the RDI the impact of U.S. foreign and security policy on the program, exploring how the security practices of the CIA’s repression of human rights. We then conduct a series of partner governments changed following their cooperation statistical analyses, which reveal a clear association between in the RDI program. By assessing statistically the repressive participation in the RDI program and worsening govern- behavior of 168 independent countries during the period ment human rights practices. We conclude with a discussion from 1992 to 2011, we show that countries that collab- of the impact of these findings for research and policy, orated actively with the CIA adopted worse human rights anticipating the possibility that President Trump will be practices in comparison to countries that were not in- able to return to these Bush-era policies and the likely volved. This pattern is especially strong for non- consequences if he proves successful in doing so. democratic partners of the CIA, and appears consistently across a variety of different ways of measuring human Rendition, Detention, and rights. Ongoing litigation and political opposition to Interrogation a policy of torture and black sites will make it difficult From September 2001 until January 2009, the CIA ran for Trump to revive the secret CIA prison system. Yet if the RDI program, which involved the disappearance, Trump succeeds, the consequences for human rights may extrajudicial detention, and torture of suspects in the so- be worse than those of the Bush administration’s policy. called war on terror.14 This program was global in scope These findings have implications for practitioners and and involved the cooperation of a multitude of foreign scholars alike. They highlight how U.S. policies can shape governments. For example, Abu Zubaydah, the first the domestic security practices of the country’s allies in individual targeted by the program, was captured in a joint ways that are at odds with broader U.S. foreign policy raid by U.S. and Pakistani officials in Faisalabad, Pakistan, objectives, a critical problem in any situation involving the in 2002.
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]
  • United States District Court Eastern District Of
    Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ ECF No. 239 filed 08/07/17 PageID.9393 Page 1 of 43 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 5 SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM, et al., ) ) 6 ) No. CV-15-0286-JLQ Plaintiffs, ) 7 ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 8 vs. ) JUDGMENT ) 9 ) JAMES E. MITCHELL and JOHN ) 10 JESSEN, ) ) 11 Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) 12 BEFORE THE COURT are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13 169), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 178), and Defendants’ 14 Motion to Exclude (ECF No. 198). Response and Reply briefs have been filed and 15 considered. The parties have submitted a voluminous record of over 4,000 pages of 16 evidentiary exhibits. The court heard oral argument on the Motions on July 28, 2017. 17 James Smith, Henry Schuelke, III, Brian Paszamant, and Christopher Tompkins appeared 18 for Defendants James Mitchell and John Jessen. Hina Shamsi, Steven Watt, Dror Ladin, 19 Lawrence Lustberg, and Jeffry Finer appeared for Plaintiffs Suleiman Abdullah Salim, 20 Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, and Obaid Ullah. The court issued its preliminary oral 21 ruling. This Opinion memorializes and supplements the court’s oral ruling. 22 I. Introduction and Factual Allegations from Complaint 23 The Complaint in this matter alleges Plaintiffs Suleiman Abdullah Salim (“Salim”), 24 Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud (“Soud”), and Gul Rahman (“Rahman”)1(collectively herein 25 Plaintiffs) were the victims of psychological and physical torture. Plaintiffs are all 26 27 1Obaid Ullah is the personal representative of the Estate of Gul Rahman. 28 ORDER - 1 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ ECF No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jihadi Industry: Assessing the Organizational, Leadership And
    The Jihadi Industry: Assessing the Organizational, Leadership, and Cyber Profiles Report to the Office of University Programs, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security July 2017 National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Led by the University of Maryland 8400 Baltimore Ave., Suite 250 • College Park, MD 20742 • 301.405.6600 www.start.umd.edu National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence About This Report The authors of this report are Gina Ligon, Michael Logan, Margeret Hall, Douglas C. Derrick, Julia Fuller, and Sam Church at the University of Nebraska, Omaha. Questions about this report should be directed to Dr. Gina Ligon at [email protected]. This report is part of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) project, “The Jihadi Industry: Assessing the Organizational, Leadership, and Cyber Profiles” led by Principal Investigator Gina Ligon. This research was supported by the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate’s Office of University Programs through Award Number #2012-ST-061-CS0001, Center for the Study of Terrorism and Behavior (CSTAB 1.12) made to START to investigate the role of social, behavioral, cultural, and economic factors on radicalization and violent extremism. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism
    Journal of Strategic Security Volume 2 Number 2 Volume 2, No. 2: May 2009 Article 1 Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism Thomas Byron Hunter Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the Portfolio and Security Analysis Commons pp. 1-52 Recommended Citation Hunter, Thomas Byron. "Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism." Journal of Strategic Security 2, no. 2 (2010) : 1-52. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.2.2.1 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol2/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Strategic Security by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism Abstract This paper assesses the parameters and utility of “targeted killing” in combating terrorism and its role within the norm of state self-defense in the international community. The author’s thesis is that, while targeted killing provides states with a method of combating terrorism, and while it is “effective” on a number of levels, it is inherently limited and not a panacea. The adoption and execution of such a program brings with it, among other potential pitfalls, political repercussions. Targeted killing is defined herein as the premeditated, preemptive, and intentional killing of an individual or individuals known or believed to represent a present and/or future threat to the safety and security of a state through affiliation with terrorist groups or individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Complaint for of the Estate of MARIE COLVIN, and Extrajudicial Killing, JUSTINE ARAYA-COLVIN, Heir-At-Law and 28 U.S.C
    Case 1:16-cv-01423 Document 1 Filed 07/09/16 Page 1 of 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CATHLEEN COLVIN, individually and as Civil No. __________________ parent and next friend of minors C.A.C. and L.A.C., heirs-at-law and beneficiaries Complaint For of the estate of MARIE COLVIN, and Extrajudicial Killing, JUSTINE ARAYA-COLVIN, heir-at-law and 28 U.S.C. § 1605A beneficiary of the estate of MARIE COLVIN, c/o Center for Justice & Accountability, One Hallidie Plaza, Suite 406, San Francisco, CA 94102 Plaintiffs, v. SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC, c/o Foreign Minister Walid al-Mualem Ministry of Foreign Affairs Kafar Soussa, Damascus, Syria Defendant. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Cathleen Colvin and Justine Araya-Colvin allege as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. On February 22, 2012, Marie Colvin, an American reporter hailed by many of her peers as the greatest war correspondent of her generation, was assassinated by Syrian government agents as she reported on the suffering of civilians in Homs, Syria—a city beseiged by Syrian military forces. Acting in concert and with premeditation, Syrian officials deliberately killed Marie Colvin by launching a targeted rocket attack against a makeshift broadcast studio in the Baba Amr neighborhood of Case 1:16-cv-01423 Document 1 Filed 07/09/16 Page 2 of 33 Homs where Colvin and other civilian journalists were residing and reporting on the siege. 2. The rocket attack was the object of a conspiracy formed by senior members of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (the “Assad regime”) to surveil, target, and ultimately kill civilian journalists in order to silence local and international media as part of its effort to crush political opposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Preservation: Reconstructing Sites of Slavery, Reconstruction, and Segregation Charlotte Adams University of South Carolina
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Theses and Dissertations 2018 Beyond Preservation: Reconstructing Sites Of Slavery, Reconstruction, And Segregation Charlotte Adams University of South Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd Part of the Public History Commons Recommended Citation Adams, C.(2018). Beyond Preservation: Reconstructing Sites Of Slavery, Reconstruction, And Segregation. (Master's thesis). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4880 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you by Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND PRESERVATION: RECONSTRUCTING SITES OF SLAVERY, RECONSTRUCTION, AND SEGREGATION by Charlotte Adams Bachelor of Arts University of South Carolina, 2016 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts in Public History College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2018 Accepted by: Robert Weyeneth, Director of Thesis Lana A. Burgess, Reader Cheryl L. Addy, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School © Copyright by Charlotte Adams, 2018 All Rights Reserved. ii Abstract The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties define reconstruction as “the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.”1 Reconstruction is a controversial treatment method among historic preservationists, so this thesis seeks to answer the question of why stewards of historic sites still choose to reconstruct nonextant buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraordinary Rendition: a One-Way Ticket to the U.S
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 41 Issue 1 Fall 1991 Article 9 1991 Extraordinary Rendition: A One-Way Ticket to the U.S.... Or Is It? Jacqueline A. Weisman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Jacqueline A. Weisman, Extraordinary Rendition: A One-Way Ticket to the U.S.... Or Is It?, 41 Cath. U. L. Rev. 149 (1992). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol41/iss1/9 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION: A ONE-WAY TICKET TO THE U.S.... OR IS IT? A treaty is an agreement or contract between two or more sovereigns or nations,1 signed and ratified by the states' lawmaking authorities.2 In the United States, the President has the power "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."3 The United States Constitution declares that a treaty is the law of the land,4 and a treaty is regarded by the courts as equivalent to a statute. 5 If a treaty and a statute are inconsistent, the last in time will pre- vail.6 Treaties are also a source of international law and bind the signatory parties to carry out their obligations.7 Extradition is a formal process through which a person is surrendered by one state to another by virtue of a treaty.' The person surrendered is usually a fugitive from justice wanted for prosecution or sentencing in the requesting country for a crime committed there.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraordinary Rendition in U.S. Counterterrorism Policy: the Impact on Transatlantic Relations
    EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION IN U.S. COUNTERTERRORISM POLICY: THE IMPACT ON TRANSATLANTIC RELATIONS JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION APRIL 17, 2007 Serial No. 110–28 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 34–712PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS TOM LANTOS, California, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa ELTON GALLEGLY, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey DANA ROHRABACHER, California BRAD SHERMAN, California DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ROBERT WEXLER, Florida EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RON PAUL, Texas DIANE E. WATSON, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ADAM SMITH, Washington JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California JOE WILSON, South Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas RUBE´ N HINOJOSA, Texas J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon CONNIE MACK, Florida BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska LINDA T.
    [Show full text]
  • Extrajudicial Killing with Near Impunity: Excessive Force by Israeli Law Enforcement Against Palestinians
    \\jciprod01\productn\B\BIN\35-1\BIN104.txt unknown Seq: 1 7-FEB-17 13:24 EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING WITH NEAR IMPUNITY: EXCESSIVE FORCE BY ISRAELI LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST PALESTINIANS Emily Schaeffer Omer-Man* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 116 R II. RECENT ALLEGED EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS IN ISRAEL- PALESTINE ................................................ 119 R III. A PATTERN OF EXCESSIVE FORCE AGAINST PALESTINIANS ............................................. 135 R A. Arenas of Excessive Violence against Palestinians ...... 136 R B. The Disparity in Law Enforcement Responses to Palestinians versus Jews ............................... 140 R * The author holds a JD from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt), and is an American-Israeli human rights attorney at the Michael Sfard Law Office in Tel Aviv, where she currently serves as senior counsel and acting director. She has been a member of the legal team of Israeli human rights NGO, Yesh Din, for over a decade, and for the last eight years has served as Legal Director of the organization’s Accountability of Security Personnel project. In that capacity, she has represented over 500 Palestinian victims of alleged crimes committed against them or their property by Israeli police, soldiers, and other security personnel. The author is also a legal advisor to Israeli NGOs Breaking the Silence and Peace Now, among others, and represents individuals and communities in bringing human rights claims before the Israeli courts, specializing in International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law and their application to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. The author wishes to express her gratitude to Shelley Cavalieri, Miri Sharon and Michael Schaeffer Omer-Man for their excellent comments and feedback on previous drafts of this Article, as well as to the remarkable editors of the Boston University International Law Journal for their collaboration on this project and their dedication to bringing this important issue to light.
    [Show full text]
  • Torture by Proxy: International and Domestic Law Applicable to “Extraordinary Renditions”
    TORTURE BY PROXY: INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC LAW APPLICABLE TO “EXTRAORDINARY RENDITIONS” The Committee on International Human Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, New York University School of Law © 2004 ABCNY & CHRGJ, NYU School of Law New York, NY Association of the Bar of the City of New York The Association of the Bar of the City of New York (www.abcny.org) was founded in 1870, and since then has been dedicated to maintaining the high ethical standards of the profession, promoting reform of the law, and providing service to the profession and the public. The Association continues to work for political, legal and social reform, while implementing innovating means to help the disadvantaged. Protecting the public’s welfare remains one of the Association’s highest priorities. Center for Human Rights and Global Justice The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at NYU School of Law (http://www.nyuhr.org) focuses on issues related to “global justice,” and aims to advance human rights and respect for the rule of law through cutting-edge advocacy and scholarship. The CHRGJ promotes human rights research, education and training, and encourages interdisciplinary research on emerging issues in international human rights and humanitarian law. This report should be cited as: Association of the Bar of the City of New York & Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Torture by Proxy: International and Domestic Law Applicable to “Extraordinary Renditions” (New York: ABCNY & NYU School of Law, 2004). - This report was modified in June 2006 - The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on International Human Rights Martin S.
    [Show full text]
  • Extraordinary Rendition and Torture What the Narratives of Victims Reveal and Require
    Extraordinary Rendition and Torture What the Narratives of Victims Reveal and Require UNC School of Law Joshua R. Bennett Isabelle Chammas Siya Hegde Hillary Li Jeffrey S. Nooney Matt Norchi Seth Proctor Tyler J. Walters Deborah M. Weissman Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of Law Faculty Advisor http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/academics/humanrights/narrativethemes.pdf November 2017 Extraordinary Rendition and Torture What the Narratives of Victims Reveal and Require Table of Contents I. History of the Extraordinary Rendition Program 1 II. Torture and its Long-Term Effects 7 III. The Role of Islamophobia in the Extraordinary Rendition and Torture Program 15 IV. The Cost of Torture 23 V. The Link Between Domestic Criminal Justice Reform and International Human Rights 28 VI. Government Contractor Liability 37 VII. The United States’ Legal and Moral Obligations to Provide Fair and Adequate Compensation for Released Detainee 43 VIII. Relief for Torture Victims and its Barriers 52 I. History of the Extraordinary Rendition Program Extraordinary rendition, as it was practiced post-September 11, 2001, and as it is described in the pages that follow, connotes the latest iteration of a program that has a much longer history. Before briefly surveying the program’s history, it is helpful to consider its definition. According to the Open Society Justice Initiative, no official U.S. government definition of the program exists,1 despite the fact that it is the U.S. government that was responsible for designing and implementing it. The Open Society formulated its own definition as “the transfer—without legal process—of a detainee to the custody of a foreign government for purposes of detention and interrogation.”2 1 OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE, GLOBALIZING TORTURE: CIA SECRET DETENTION AND EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION 13 (2013), https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/globalizing-torture-20120205.pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey and War in Iraq: Avoiding Past Patterns of Violation
    Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-290-4700 Fax: 212-736-1300 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://hrw.org/europe/turkey.php March 2003 Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper Turkey and War in Iraq: Avoiding Past Patterns of Violation Summary and Recommendations Looming war in Iraq and recent discussion of Turkey’s potential role in Northern Iraq raise serious human rights concerns. Human Rights Watch takes no position on the legal justifiability of war, including possible U.S.-led military action in Iraq. Its work on Iraq focuses on continuing human rights abuses and, if there is a war, the compliance by all parties with international humanitarian law and protections for Iraqi civilians. However, if very large numbers of Turkish armed forces enter Northern Iraq there is a risk that they will resort to the mass detention and torture, political killings, “disappearances,” and village burning that they used when fighting over similar terrain in southeastern Turkey. This briefing paper elaborates possible concerns about Turkey’s potential role in Iraq and recommends action that Turkey and its allies should take to ensure that any Turkish operations in Iraq comport with international human rights and humanitarian law. In negotiating terms for allowing U.S. troops access to Northern Iraq via Turkey, the Turkish government is not only looking for compensation for loss of trade and tourism income. It is also trying to obtain assurances about the future of the Kurdish-run enclave in Northern Iraq. The Turkish government believes that if Iraqi Kurdish forces were to capture the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, then the Iraqi Kurds would have the financial independence to establish a separate Kurdish state.
    [Show full text]