The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill UNC Immigration and Human Rights Policy Clinic Prepared for North Carolina Stop Torture Now Obligations and Obstacles: Holding North Carolina Accountable for Extraordinary Rendition and Torture Prepared By: Andrea Davis, Jennifer Jiang, Derek Loh, and Theresa Viera Faculty Advisor: Professor Deborah Weissman 2012-2013 http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/clinicalprograms/obligationsandobstaclesncreport.pdf Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 PART ONE: The Legal Application of International Treaties to State and Local Governments: International Human Rights and Remedies .................................................................................... 10 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 10 I. International Human Rights Treaties and Principles .................................................. 16 A. International Treaties and Declarations.................................................................... 16 B. Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing Treaties ...................................................... 28 II. Why Do These Principles Apply to North Carolina; its Subdivisions; and Aero?: Addressing International Law and the U.S. Federal System .............................................. 35 A. International Law and the U.S. Federal System ....................................................... 35 B. Federal Law ................................................................................................................. 39 III. Executive Branch Directives: States and Localities ................................................. 68 A. ICCPR Report ............................................................................................................. 68 B. Universal Periodic Review Process: U.S. Implementation of Accepted Recommendations................................................................................................................ 74 IV. Addressing North Carolina’s Refusal to Implement Human Rights Obligations . 76 A. North Carolina’s Refusal to Act: State versus Federal Matter ............................... 77 B. North Carolina’s Refusal to Investigate .................................................................... 80 V. Remedies ........................................................................................................................... 82 A. Increasing State and Local implementation of Human Rights Laws ..................... 83 B. Pursuing Violations of North Carolina Criminal and Civil Law ............................ 88 C. Commission of Inquiry.............................................................................................. 107 VI. Conclusion to PART ONE ........................................................................................ 109 PART TWO: Failure to take Responsibility for Human Rights: State Secrets ...................................114 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 114 II. Historical Background .............................................................................................. 116 A. The Totten Bar ........................................................................................................... 116 B. Evidentiary ............................................................................................................... 120 III. Current Application of the Totten Bar and the Reynolds Privilege ....................... 121 B. El-Masri Misinterprets and Misapplies the State Secrets Doctrine defined by U.S. Supreme Court Precedent .................................................................................................... 124 1. Background ................................................................................................................ 124 2. Erosion of Distinction between Totten and Reynolds .............................................. 128 3. Determining When a Risk to Exposure of Privileged Information is Considered “Acceptable” or “Unreasonable” ...................................................................................... 131 1 4. What El-Masri add to Totten and Reynolds ............................................................. 134 1. Background ................................................................................................................ 135 2. Jeppesen Misinterprets the State Secrets Doctrine ................................................. 138 D. Jeppesen Misapplies the State Secrets Doctrine ...................................................... 153 IV. The State Secrets Doctrine as a Whole Violates International law ....................... 159 V. New Developments......................................................................................................... 163 A. Executive Modification of Invoking the State Secrets Doctrine ............................ 163 B. International Responses to the U.S. Extraordinary Rendition Program ............. 165 C. Richmor Aviation, Inc. v. Sportsflight Inc. ................................................................ 170 VI. Remedies ..................................................................................................................... 172 A. Remedies Suggested by Jeppesen (and why none are fully appropriate) ............. 173 B. Other Potential Domestic Remedies ........................................................................ 176 C. Use of Regional and International Human Rights Tribunals ................................ 182 VII. Conclusion to PART TWO ....................................................................................... 184 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 188 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 193 Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 198 Appendix C .................................................................................................................................. 198 2 Executive Summary Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States dramatically expanded the use of extraordinary rendition, an intelligence-gathering program through which individuals suspected of terrorism were abducted and transported beyond the reach of the law, held incommunicado and interrogated by torture. Detained for years, many victims of the extraordinary rendition program were never formally charged with any crime, never given the opportunity to contact their families or an attorney, and were eventually just discarded once the CIA realized that these individuals had nothing to do with the actual terrorist threat against the United States. These acts of kidnapping and torture occurred despite international treaties, federal statutes, and judicial precedents that prohibit such acts under any and all circumstances. Although the victims have sought redress in the federal courts of the United States for the harms they have suffered, they have been denied their day in court. North Carolina is a hub for extraordinary rendition. In a report released in January 2012 and endorsed by international human rights experts, the ways in which North Carolina, its political subdivisions, and Aero, a corporation based in Johnston County, NC were directly and indirectly responsible for carrying out the kidnapping and torture have been demonstrated. 3 This policy brief builds on the January 2012 report. Part One of this report establishes the legal basis for North Carolina’s obligation to investigate Aero Contractors and for its own accountability for facilitating extraordinary rendition: • In addition to the U.S. federal government’s complicity in the extraordinary rendition program and the torture, North Carolina, as well as Aero Contractors should and can be held liable for either involvement in or the facilitation of the CIA extraordinary rendition program. • It reviews the applicable laws, including binding international treaty provisions, federal constitutional and statutory principles, as well as laws that operate at the state and local levels that provide the basis for holding North Carolina and Aero responsible. • It identifies the directives issued by the Executive Branch of the United States that make clear that states and localities are not preempted from preventing, investigating, and seeking accountability for torture, and more, that they are obligated to do so. • It reviews North Carolina’s refusal to investigate Aero’s involvement in extraordinary rendition and demonstrate the lack of legal basis for such refusal. • In light of North Carolina’s legal obligations, Part One offers recommendations to improve accountability outcomes including o Expanding opportunities for local implementation of human rights obligations o Pursuing state criminal and civil remedies o Establishing a Citizens’ Commission of Inquiry 4 Part Two demonstrates that