This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Memorandum from President Bush to Vice President Cheney et al. (February 7, 2002), reprinted in M. Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (2004), p. 106.
See Memorandum from Alberto Gonzales to President Bush (January 25, 2002), reprinted in M. Danner, supra note 1, p. 83; Memorandum from William H. Taft IV to Alberto Gonzales (February 2, 2002), reprinted in M. Danner, supra note 1, p. 94; Memorandum from Jay S. Bybee to Alberto R. Gonzales (February 7, 2002), reprinted in M. Danner, supra note 1, p. 96. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General were themselves part of the correspondence: Memorandum from Colin Powell to Alberto Gonzales (January 26, 2002), reprinted in M. Danner, supra note 1, p. 88; Letter from John Ashcroft to President Bush (February 1, 2002), reprinted in M. Danner, supra note 1, p. 92. The memoranda in question are also reproduced in K. J. Greenberg and J. L. Dratel (eds.), The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (2005).
M. Danner, supra note 1, p. 33, quotes an email from an unnamed captain in Military Intelligence: “The gloves are coming off gentlemen regarding these detainees, Col. Boltz has made it clear that we want these individuals broken.”
See generally Memorandum from Jay S. Bybee to Alberto Gonzales (August 1, 2002), reprinted in M. Danner, supra note 1, p. 115 (hereinafter 2002 Interrogation Memorandum).
See Department of Defense, Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations (April 2, 2003), reprinted in K. J. Greenberg and J. L. Dratel, supra note 2, p. 286; 151 Cong. Rec. S8772, S8794–96 (daily ed. July 25, 2005) (statement of Sen. Lindsey Graham), available at http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/pdf/jag-memos-072505.pdf (noting the OLC opinion does not incorporate concern for military service members).
See Memorandum from Daniel Levin to James B. Comey (December 30, 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm (hereinafter 2004 Interrogation Memorandum).
It is reported that the Department of Defense is revising its Army Field Manual in respect of interrogation methods, see New York Times, April 28, 2005, at A4.
See, e. g., M. E. O’Connell, Ohio State Law Journal 2005, pp. 1231, 1235; A. N. Guiora and E. M. Page, The Unholy Trinity: Intelligence, Interrogation and Torture (Case Western Reserve University Research Paper Series in Legal Studies Working Paper 05-13, July 2005), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=758444.
Albeit only of those at the lowest level, caught on camera. The extent of the practices has been documented in three official reports: Major General A. M. Taguba, Article 15–6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade (2004), reprinted in M. Danner, supra note 1, pp. 290–296; Lieutenant General A. R. Jones, AR 15–6 Investigation of the Abu Ghraib Detention Facility and 205th Military Intelligence Brigade 4–6 (2004), reprinted in M. Danner, supra note 1, pp. 412–414; Major General G. R. Fay, AR 15–6 Investigation of the Abu Ghraib Detention Facility and 205th Military Intelligence Brigade 68–137 (2004), reprinted in M. Danner, supra note 1, pp. 504–573; Final Report of the Independent Panel to Review Department of Defense Detention Operations (2004), reprinted in M. Danner, supra note 1, pp. 363–373 (hereinafter Schlesinger Report).
See Schlesinger Report, supra note 9, at app. E, pp. 393 et seq. (providing a list of approved interrogation techniques).
One OLC memorandum argues that the United States “may, consistent with Article 49 [of the Fourth Geneva Convention], (1) remove ‘protected persons’ who are illegal aliens from Iraq pursuant to local immigration law; and (2) relocate ‘protected persons’ (whether illegal aliens or not) from Iraq to another country to facilitate interrogation, for a brief but not indefinite period, so long as adjudicative proceedings have not been initiated against them.” (Memorandum from Jack I. Goldsmith III to Alberto Gonzales (March 19, 2004), reprinted in K. J. Greenberg and J. L. Dratel, supra note 2, pp. 367–368). Article 49, first paragraph, states that “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.” (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War Art. 49, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, hereinafter Fourth Convention). The reader is invited to consult the memorandum to discover by what juridical alchemy its author can assert that even protected persons who are not illegal aliens may be removed, albeit “for a brief, but not indefinite period.” (Memorandum from Jack I. Goldsmith III to Alberto Gonzales, see above).
Prosecutor v. Tadić, ICTY Case No. IT-94-1-I, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction of October 2, 1995, para. 134.
See Elements of Crimes, ICC Doc. ICC-ASP/1/3, p. 126 (September 9, 2002), available at http://www.un.org/law/icc/asp/1stsession/report/english/part_ii_b_e.pdf (hereinafter Elements of Crimes).
See Memorandum from John Yoo to William J. Haynes II (January 9, 2002), pp. 1–2, 7, 10, available at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.01.09.pdf.
See Memorandum from Jay S. Bybee to Alberto Gonzales (January 22, 2002), pp. 9–11, available at http:/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/012202bybee.pdf. For the ICRC and many others, the Taliban, if not prisoners of war, must be protected civilians. There is no third category. Of course, persons in either category may be tried for criminal activity.
Id., at p. 10.
Wall Street Journal, June 28, 2004, at A10.
J. Pictet, Geneva Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Commentary (1960), p. 38, available at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590006?Open-Document (emphasis added).
J.-M. Henckaerts and L. Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1 (2005), p. 315.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), ICJ Reports 1986, pp. 113–114.
Col. T. Johnson, Operational Law Handbook (2003), p. 11, available at https://www.jagcnet.army.mil.
M. J. Matheson, American University International Law Review 1987, pp. 419, 420; see also Department of Defense Memorandum from W. Hays Parks (Chief, Int’l Law Branch, DAJA-IA), Lt. Commander Michael F. Lohr (JAGC, USN), Lt. Col. Dennis Yodek (USAF-AF/JACI), and William Anderson (USMC/JAR) to John J. McNeill, Assistant General Counsel (International), OSD (May 8, 1986) (on file with author). This document states the joint view of the legal branches of the four armed services that certain provisions of Protocol I, including Article 75, “are already part of customary international law.”
Bybee Memorandum, supra note 25, p. 32.
War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2441 (1996).
Prosecutor v. Tadić, supra note 18, paras. 128–137.
D. Thürer, in S. Baldini and G. Ravasi (eds.), Humanitarian Action and State Sovereignty. International Congress on the Occasion of its XXXth Anniversary, San Remo 31 August–2 September 2000 (2003), pp. 46–58.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 5., G.A. Res. 217A (III), UN Doc A/810 at 71 (1948).
American Convention on Human Rights Art. 5, November 22, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 3, November 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222 (note the word “cruel” is absent), hereinafter European Convention on Human Rights.
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Art. 5, June 27, 1981, 21 I.L.M. 58.
See N. S. Rodley, The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law, 2nd ed. (1999), pp. 110–112.
Id., pp. 114–115.
Id., pp. 116–120.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 39/46, Art. 2, para. 2, UN Doc A/39/51, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (June 26, 1987), hereinafter CAT.
Id., at Art. 2, para. 3.
Id., Art. 1.
Id., Art. 4.
Id., Arts. 4–7.
Id., Art. 14.
Id., Art. 15.
Id., Art. 3.
Id., Art. 16, para. 1.
Id., Art. 10.
Id., Art. 11.
Id., Art. 13.
Id., Art. 12.
Id., Art. 16, para. 2.
2004 Interrogation Memorandum, supra note 6, p. 1.
Id., p. 2.
New York Times, January 5, 2005, at A1.
Ireland v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at para. 246 (1978).
Id., para. 96.
Id., para. 167.
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 3452(XXX), Art. 1, para. 2, UN Doc. A/10034 (December 9, 1975).
See Selmouni v. France, 1999-V Eur. Ct. H.R. at 16.
Id., at 29; Ireland, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. at 59. See also Tomasi v. France, 241 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 22 (1992); Ribitsch v. Austria, 336 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 21 (1995).
Selmouni, supra note 68, at 31.
2004 Interrogation Memorandum, supra note 6, p. 6.
Id., p. 6 n.14.
Id.
N. S. Rodley, in M. D. A. Freeman (ed.), Current Legal Problems 2002 (2003), pp. 467, 470, 475; Elements of Crime, supra note 20, Art. 8(2)(c)(i)-4.
U. S. Declarations and Reservations: Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. I, (1) 136 Cong. Rec. S17486-01 (daily ed. October 27, 1990).
2002 Interrogation Memorandum, supra, Jay S. Bybee to note 4, pp. 12–13.
2004 Interrogation Memorandum, supra note 6, pp. 1–2 (quoting 2002 Interrogation Memorandum).
Id., p. 17.
L. Carroll, Alice Through the Looking Glass (1940), p. 125. As Professor Paust has it, “moderate coercion to extract information from unwilling human beings and to create a sense of hopelessness in the minds of detainees is as lawful as moderate rape.” (J. J. Paust, Wayne Law Review 2004, pp. 81–82).
2004 Interrogation Memorandum, supra note 6, p. 2 n. 8. Even as he rescinded the list of approved techniques referred to in the text (accompanying note 10 supra), the secretary of defense reinstated some of them, including sleep adjustment, false flag, and isolation for up to 30 days or more and indicated that others could be authorized on an ad hoc basis: Memorandum from Department of Defense to Commander, US Southern Command, Counter-Resistance Techniques in the War on Terrorism (April 16, 2003), reprinted in M. Danner, supra note 1, pp. 199–204.
G. A. Res. 39/46, UN Doc. A/RES/39/46 (December 10, 1984) (emphasis added).
Prosecutor v. Furundzija, ICTY Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, judgment of December 10, 1998, paras. 144, 153–156; Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 3), [2000] 1 A.C. 137, 198; Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Arg., 965 F.2d 699, 714 (9th Cir. 1992). A rule of jus cogens is a rule of general international law that is considered peremptory and incapable of being varied even by treaty.
E. g., Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States Sec. 702 (1987).
2004 Interrogation Memorandum, supra note 6, p. 1 n. 2. In December 2005, the Detainee Protection Act (the McCain Amendment), Section 1403, expressly prohibited all US personnel from engaging in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as reflected in the US reservations, declarations and understandings to the CAT. However, it created no new crime or civil cause of action, but it did provide a new defense to any criminal charge or civil suit (Section 1404).
Bybee Memorandum, supra note 25, p. 32.
Working Group Report, supra note 5, p. 6.
In Harvard Law Review 1897, p. 461 (reprinted in S. J. Burton (ed.), The Path of the Law and Its Influence: The Legacy of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (2000), p. 336), he states, “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law.”
See reports cited supra note 9. In the words of the Schlesinger Report, “The damage these incidents have done to U.S. policy, to the image of the U.S. among populations whose support we need in the Global War on Terror and to the morale of our armed forces, must not be repeated.” (pp. 18–19).
The Special Rapporteur, Statement by the Special Rapporteur, 14, delivered to the Third Committee of the General Assembly, UN Doc. E/CN.4./2002/76 (November 8, 2000).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Rodley, N.S. (2007). The Prohibition of Torture: Absolute Means Absolute. In: Kaleck, W., Ratner, M., Singelnstein, T., Weiss, P. (eds) International Prosecution of Human Rights Crimes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46278-1_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-46278-1_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-36648-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46278-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)