Law Commons^™

Personality Disruption As Mental Torture: The Cia, Interrogational Abuse, And The U.S. Torture Act, David Luban, Katherine S. Newell

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Article is a contribution to the torture debate. It argues that the abusive interrogation tactics used by the United States in what was then called the “global war on terrorism” are, unequivocally, torture under U.S. law. To some readers, this might sound like déjà vu all over again. Hasn’t this issue been picked over for nearly fifteen years? It has, but we think the legal analysis we offer has been mostly overlooked. We argue that the basic character of the CIA’s interrogation of so-called “high-value detainees” has been misunderstood: both lawyers and commentators have placed far too much emphasis …

Toward A Science Of Torture?, Maxwell Gregg Bloche

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Does torture “work?” Proponents, including President Trump and the architects of CIA “Enhanced Interrogation” say it does, by breaking terrorists' resistance to revealing information that saves lives. Torture's foes typically dismiss this claim as false to the point of fraud--fortuitous coincidence with torture's unlawfulness. Neither view, I argue herein, rests firmly on evidence. Rival anecdotes, not data, have, so far, driven this debate. And a scientific answer is beyond our reach, since: (1) rigorous comparison between interrogation methods that do and don't involve torture isn't possible, and (2) studies of this sort would be transparently unethical. This hasn't stopped the …

The Taint Of Torture: The Roles Of Law And Policy In Our Descent To The Dark Side, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Was the Bush administration’s decision to employ “enhanced interrogation techniques” a mistake of policy, a violation of law, or both? This essay responds to Philip Zelikow’s insider account of how the decision to use these techniques was reached. The author suggests that while Zelikow makes a strong case that the decision to authorize the CIA to use coercive interrogation tactics was a mistaken policy judgment, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that it was also illegal. The latter conclusion demands a different response than the former. In particular, it underscores the necessity for accountability. The author …

Mental Torture: A Critique Of Erasures In U.S. Law, David Luban, Henry Shue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Both international and federal law criminalize mental torture as well as physical torture, and both agree that “severe mental pain or suffering” defines mental torture. However, U.S. law provides a confused and convoluted definition of severe mental pain or suffering—one that falsifies the very concept and makes mental torture nearly impossible to prosecute or repress. Our principal aim is to expose the fallacies that underlie the U.S. definition of mental torture: first, a materialist bias that the physical is more real than the mental; second, a substitution trick that defines mental pain or suffering through a narrow set of causes …

They Did Authorize Torture, But..., David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

No abstract provided.

The Sacrificial Yoo: Accounting For Torture In The Opr Report, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

When the Justice Department finally released the report of its Office of Professional Responsibility on the “torture memos,” recommending that the initial torture memo’s authors, John Yoo and Jay Bybee, be referred for bar discipline, John Yoo declared victory in op-eds in the Wall Street Journal and Philadelphia Inquirer. The report itself concluded that Yoo and Bybee had acted unethically, and quoted many of Yoo’s successors in office as condemning the memos as, among other things “slovenly,” “riddled with error,” and “insane.” But Yoo claimed victory because Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis vetoed its recommendation that he be referred …

What Went Wrong: Torture And The Office Of Legal Counsel In The Bush Administration: Hearing Before The Subcomm. On Administrative Oversight And The Courts Of The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 111th Cong., May 13, 2009 (Statement Of David Luban, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), David Luban

Testimony Before Congress

The mission of the Office of Legal Counsel is to give the President advice to guide him in fulfilling an awesome constitutional obligation: to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Faithful execution means interpreting the law without stretching it and without looking for loopholes. OLC's job is not to rubber-stamp administration policies, and it is not to provide legal cover for illegal actions.

Unfortunately, the interrogation memos fall far short of professional standards of candid advice and independent judgment. They involve a selective and in places deeply eccentric reading of the law. The memos cherry-pick sources of law …

From The Department Of Justice To Guantanamo Bay; Administration Lawyers And Administration Interrogation Rules, Part I: Hearing Before The Subcomm. On The Constitution, Civil Rights And Civil Liberties Of The H. Comm. On The Judiciary, 110th Cong., May 6, 2008 (Statement Of David Luban, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), David Luban

Testimony Before Congress

Government lawyers have an awesome responsibility. Office of Legal Counsel opinions bind the entire executive branch. They have the force of law inside that branch. The idea that unelected lawyers are writing secret legal opinions that spin the law makes a mockery of democratic government. It means the executive branch is governed by a secret constitution - a constitution written by activist lawyers instead of the constitution written by the Framers.

Without getting too deeply into technicalities which, quite frankly, only a lawyer could love, let me summarize in a bit more detail just how spun the torture memos were.

Torture And The Professions, David Luban

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This paper examines the roles played by the learned professions in torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment carried out by the United States in the war on terrorism. It takes lawyers, physicians, psychologists, and anthropologists as its case studies. It originated as the keynote speech at the Association of Practical and Professional Ethics annual meeting in 2007.

Tinkering With Torture In The Aftermath Of Hamdan: Testing The Relationship Between Internationalism And Constitutionalism, Catherine Powell

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Bridging international and constitutional law scholarship, the author examines the question of torture in light of democratic values. The focus in this article is on the international prohibition on torture as this norm was addressed through the political process in the aftermath of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Responding to charges that the international torture prohibition--and international law generally--poses irreconcilable challenges for democracy and our constitutional framework, the author contends that by promoting respect for fundamental rights and for minorities and outsiders, international law actually facilitates a broad conception of democracy and constitutionalism. She takes on the question of torture within …

Rendition To Torture: The Case Of Maher Arar: Hearing Before The H. Comm. On Foreign Affairs,, 110th Cong., Oct. 18, 2007 (Statement Of David D. Cole, Geo. U. L. Center), David Cole

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.

Liberalism, Torture, And The Ticking Bomb, David Luban

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Torture used to be incompatible with American values. Our Bill of Rights forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and that has come to include all forms of corporal punishment except prison and death by methods purported to be painless. Americans and our government have historically condemned states that torture; we have granted asylum or refuge to those who fear it. The Senate ratified the Convention Against Torture, Congress enacted antitorture legislation, and judicial opinions spoke of "the dastardly and totally inhuman act of torture.” Then came September 11.

Torture's Truth, Louis Michael Seidman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this Article, I argue that the obstacles to having a serious conversation about torture are exacerbated by a truth that torture teaches us - a truth that we cannot afford fully to know and, so, frantically try to obscure. Law is about respect for commitments and limits, and the existence of torture challenges the possibility of such respect. If we are prepared to torture, then, it would seem, we are prepared to do anything, and the restraint that law purports to impose upon us is a fraud. Torture's truth, then, is that all of our promises to ourselves and …

Protecting Rights In The Age Of Terrorism: Challenges And Opportunities, Rosa Brooks

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Depending on whom you speak to these days (and the mood in which you find them), international law is either practically moribund, or it's more vibrant and important than it has been for years. To take the good news story first, international law issues have been at the forefront of public discourse over the past few years. Pick your issue: the U.N. Charter and the international law on the use of force? The Convention Against Torture? The Geneva Conventions? You'll find it on the front page these days. Journalists are phoning international law professors for background briefings, and students are …