Law Commons^™

Removals To Somalia In Light Of The Convention Against Torture: Recent Evidence From Somali Bantu Deportees, Daniel J. Van Lehman, Estelle M. Mckee

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This paper presents the results of a survey of Somali Bantu deported from the United States from 2016 to 2018, to determine whether they were subjected to torture upon arrival in Somalia. Of the 20 deportees interviewed, 55 percent suffered torture at least once, with the highest percentage—66.7 percent—experienced by individuals deported in 2018. The abuse, which included kidnapping, stabbings, and beatings with truncheons and whips, meets the definition of torture under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture. Individuals were intentionally subjected to severe pain and suffering for an unlawful purpose: ransom. Further, most of the abuse was inflicted …

Iqbal And Bad Apples, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In addition to its important implications for federal civil procedure, the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal put the imprimatur of the Supreme Court on a troubling narrative of the excesses carried out by the Bush Administration in the name of fighting terrorism. In this “few bad-apples narrative,” harsh treatment of detainees—especially in the immediate wake of the attacks of September 11th, but also years later in such places as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Guantanamo Bay detention center, and elsewhere—was the work of a small number of relatively low-ranking military and civilian officials who went beyond the limits of the …

The Torture Lawyers, Jens David Ohlin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

One of the longest shadows cast by the Bush Administration’s War on Terror involves the fate of the torture lawyers who authored or signed memoranda regarding torture or enhanced interrogation techniques against detainees. Should they face professional sanction or even prosecution for their involvement? The following Article suggests that their fate implicates some of the deepest questions of criminal law theory and that resolution of the debate requires a fundamental reorientation of the most important areas of justifications and excuses. First, the debate about torture has been overly focused on justifications for torture. This can be explained in part by …

Why Is Torture Different And How Different Is It?, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Almost every serious commentator to address the moral and legal question of torture has taken for granted the proposition that the infliction of torture is a sufficiently grave evil to require a distinctly demanding moral scrutiny, one that categorically sets torture apart from other terrible things (including killing) that human beings do to one another. To borrow from the Supreme Court's death penalty jurisprudence, most people agree that torture is "different. "

Under the Eighth Amendment, the fact that death is different does not rule out its application; it simply alters the relevant procedural and substantive standards. By contrast, many …

The Bounds Of Necessity, Jens David Ohlin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The current controversy surrounding the legality of torture can only be understood through an analysis of the distinction between justified necessity and excused necessity. Although there may be strong prudential reasons for international criminal courts to declare torture unlawful under any circumstance, this would not necessarily prevent a court from recognizing that an excuse may apply. However, the hallmark of the necessity excuse should not be understood, as it is in German law, as an exception that only applies when a defendant breaks the law to save someone close to him. Rather, the basic principle of the excuse ought to …

The Morality Of Prophylactic Legislation (With Special Reference To Speed Limits, Assisted Suicide, Torture, And Detention Without Trial), Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

My subject is the morality of prophylactic legislation. What do I mean by ‘prophylactic’ legislation? Let me illustrate the concept by drawing a contrast with the most famous hypothetical case in the scholarly literature of Anglo-American jurisprudence. During the course of their debate over the relation between law and morality, Lon Fuller and H. L. A. Hart disagreed about what tools are needed to discern the meaning and scope of a rule barring vehicles from a public park. Hart and Fuller clashed over whether legislative purpose and considerations of morality enter into the process of discerning what Hart famously called …

Torture As A Problem In Ordinary Legal Interpretation, Alan Hyde

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

American legal discourse on torture takes for granted some, usually all, of the following propositions, that make discussion of torture more difficult than it should be. Torture is assumed to present unusually difficult problems of definition, full of vague concepts, fine lines, gray areas, murky moral dilemmas, "dirty hands." This vagueness is thought to be even more of a problem for the attendant concept of "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment." The legal sources of either prohibition are assumed to be dubious under American law. Prohibiting torture is, perhaps for these reasons, thought to require moral justification not necessarily required of …