Balkinization  

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Beware the "Augmented" McCain Amendment!

Marty Lederman

The Conference Committee that will consider and reconcile the Senate and House defense appropriations bills is scheduled to meet this coming week. The Senate bill contains the "McCain Amendment," which would prohibit all U.S. personnel from engaging in cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees -- i.e., engaging in conduct that would "shock the conscience" under Due Process Clause doctrine -- anywhere in the world.

It's increasingly clear that the strategy of McCain's opponents -- the Vice President and his congressional supporters -- will be to amend the McCain Amendment in the Conference Committee so as to exempt the CIA from the prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. The Senate delegation to the Conference Committee presumably will include three of the nine Republicans who voted against the McCain Amendment -- Ted Stevens, Thad Cochran and Kit Bond. A recent Congressional Quarterly article, reprinted here, reports Stevens -- who would "lead the Senate's conferees" -- as saying that "he can support McCain's language if it's augmented with guidance that enables certain classified interrogations to proceed under different terms." "'I'm talking about people who aren't in uniform, may or may not be citizens of the United States, but are working for us in very difficult circumstances,' Stevens said. 'And sometimes interrogation and intimidation is part of the system.'"

What this barely veiled statement means is that Senator Stevens will support inclusion of the McCain Amendment in the final bill only once it has been "augmented" to exempt the CIA from the prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. (Stevens's reference to persons who "may not be citizens of the United States, but are working for us" suggests that he also intends to include a carve-out for foreign nationals acting as agents of the CIA, such as the team of the CIA-sponsored Iraqi paramilitary squads code-named Scorpions.) If Stevens (read: Cheney) is successful in this endeavor, and if the Congress enacts the Amendment as so limited, it will be a major step backwards from where the law currently stands. This can't be overemphasized: If Stevens is successful at adding his seemingly innocuous "augment[ation]," it would make the law worse than it currently is.

Those wishing to learn all the details of why this is so are encouraged to read my previous posts (particularly those of January 8, 12, 18 and 25, and May 11) about how the Administration has construed numerous federal laws to make certain that the CIA is permitted to engage in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment -- i.e., to engage in all forms of coercive interrogation short of the small category of conduct denominated "torture." Here's a quick synposis of why the Stevens "CIA carve-out" would make matters worse, the basic gist of which is this: Although the McCain Amendment would helpfully clarify and reaffirm some of the law applicable to military interrogations, it would not impose any substantive limitations on the Armed Forces that are not already in current law. The McCain Amendment would, however, emphatically reject the Administration's view that the CIA may engage in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in certain locations outside the U.S. -- a very significant development, but one that the Stevens "augmentation" would eviscerate.

The McCain Amendment has two provisions:

The first provision is, by its terms, limited to detainees in the custody or effective control of the Department of Defense (or in a DoD facility). It would provide that all such detainees could be subjected only to those interrogation techniques listed in the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation. This first provision would be a good and helpful clarifying statute, because it would once again signal to military personnel that there are established and uniform rules for interrogation and that such rules can be found in one place. But this first provision would not effectively prohibit cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of military detainees, for two reasons. First, even though the current version of the Manual has long been understood to incorporate the most protective rules applicable to prisoners of war under the Third Geneva Convention, the Pentagon has recently concluded that the Manual actually authorizes degrading and humiliating treatment, such as having female interrogators physically seduce and taunt a Muslim detainee; forcing him to wear a bra and placing a thong on his head during interrogation; tying him to a leash, leading him around the room and forcing him to perform a series of dog tricks; stripping him naked; and pouring water on his head during interrogation 17 times. This interpretation of the Manual is preposterous; but nothing in the McCain Amendment would stop the Pentagon from adopting such a reading. Second, and more importantly, the McCain Amendment does not itself establish any substantive rules, because (as Senator McCain acknowledges) the Pentagon would be able to amend the Army Field Manual anytime it wishes. In fact, such an amendment is currently in the works, and the soon-to-be amended Manual will contain a "classified Annex" that apparently will permit coercive forms of interrogation of certain categories of detainees that the Manual has previously long prohibited.

The second, and more important, provision of the McCain Amendment is not limited to detainees in DoD custody. It would provide that "[n]o individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."

This provision would set a baseline prohibition for military interrogators -- but it would not materially alter the law under which such military personnel currently operate. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) already prohibits the Armed Forces from engaging in cruelty and maltreamtent, as well as assault and the threat of assault. Moreover, the federal assault statute (18 U.S.C. 113) prohibits assault within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and this prohibition applies even outside the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction when committed by persons employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces (by virtue of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA)).

For approximately 14 months, from November 2002 until at least December 2003, the military acted on the view that it was not bound by such statutes, presumably based upon an OLC conclusion (in, e.g., a March 2003 memorandum of John Yoo) that such laws unconstitutionally impinge on the President's powers as Commander in Chief. Most of the atrocities within the military that have come to light -- including at GTMO and in Abu Ghraib -- occurred during this 14-month period. But it now appears that OLC rescinded its key advice in December 2003, and that subsequently the Administration has conceded that military personnel are bound by the UCMJ and these other federal statutes. It's unlikely that the McCain Amendment would go further to restrain the military than do these pre-existing statutes. And to the extent the Administration would continue to assert the authority of a Commander-in-Chief override, such a presidential override would also be asserted vis-a-vis the McCain Amendment.

But where the McCain Amendment truly would have bite is with respect to the CIA. That's because the UCMJ, the federal assault statute and the MEJA do not apply to the CIA's interrogation of detainees outside the U.S. and outside the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. -- i.e., at the "secret facilities" at which the CIA is detaining certain suspects. [UPDATE: An astute reader notes that in late 2001, the PATRIOT Act amended the SMTJ statute (18 U.S.C. 7) so that the definition now includes "the premises of United States diplomatic, consular, military or other United States Government missions or entities in foreign States, including the buildings, parts of buildings, and land appurtenant or ancillary thereto or used for purposes of those missions or entities, irrespective of ownership." I'm not sure why this amended definition of the SMTJ wouldn't include CIA "special facilities" -- whatever and wherever they may be. And if the CIA "secret" facilities in foreign lands are covered as within the SMTJ, then I'm not quite sure how it is that DOJ could have given the CIA a green light to engage in, e.g., waterboarding (any version of it), or mock burial: Wouldn't such acts be unlawful assaults?]

Moreover, in a very important legal move, the Department of Justice has determined that the CIA also is not bound by the requirement of Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture that the U.S. act to prevent acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in any territory under U.S. jurisdiction -- because, in DOJ's (untenable but operative) view, Article 16 does not apply outisde the U.S.

What this means, as a practical matter, is that the Administration has given the CIA the green light to engage in all forms of coercive interrogation short of "torture" proper.

-- That's why, in the infamous 2002 "Torture Memo," OLC's objective was only to inform the CIA of what the federal anti-torture statute prohibited, and why OLC believed it could ignore all other legal constraints and specifically distinguish "torture" from conduct that is "merely" cruel, inhuman and degrading (DOJ having concluded that the CIA could employ the latter).

-- That's why, in his confirmation proceeedings, the Attorney General represented that "some" techniques from among waterboarding, use of dogs to induce stress, forced nudity, hooding, sensory deprivation, food and sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, a face or stomach slap, the forcible injection of mood-altering drugs, mock executions, and threatening to send detainees to countries where they would be tortured, "might . . . be permissible in specific circumstances, if appropriately limited, depending on the nature of the precise conduct under consideration"; and why Judge Gonzaels could not ensure the Senate that reported practices such as forced enemas, infliction of cigarette burns, and binding detainees hand and foot and leaving them in urine and feces for 18-24 hours, are legally off-limits.

-- That's why, just a few weeks ago, Tim Flanigan (then the nominee to be Deputy Attorney General) wrote to the Senate that he was unwilling to say whether waterboarding -- "intentionally inducing a detainee's perception of suffocation" -- is unlawful, because that "depends on all of the relevant facts and circumstances."

-- That's why DOJ reportedly has informed the CIA that it may, outside the U.S., lawfully use extreme methods such as waterboarding, the threat of live burial, and threatening rendition to sadistic interrogators in other nations -- and why the CIA reportedly has used at least some of these techniques in its interrogations.

-- And that's apparently why the CIA believed that it was entitled, along with a small team of the CIA-sponsored Iraqi paramilitary squads code-named Scorpions, to assault a detainee with fists, a club, a length of rubber hose, and the handle of a sledgehammer. (Senator Stevens apparently intends to exempt foreign agents of the U.S. such as the Scorpions, from the McCain prohibition, too: they are, in his words, persons who "may not be citizens of the United States, but are working for us.")

The Congress has not, to this point, ever specifically approved of the Administration's view that the CIA is entitled to engage in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment overseas (outisde the special military and territorial jurisdiction). Of course, that hasn't stopped the Administration from acting in accord with that legal conclusion -- but it has meant that the legal landscape is somewhat uncertain, and such uncertainty (in John Yoo's words) "muddies the water," which in turn may make the CIA somewhat more reticent about engaging in conduct that might, after all, be unlawful. [UPDATE: In the original posting, I added a parenthetical suggesting that a violation of the McCain Amendment would be a war crime. It wouldn't -- not, anyway, unless the conduct also violated Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Nevertheless, I assume the CIA would be unwilling to engage in conduct that is clearly prohibited by statute -- and apparently Vice President Cheney agrees, or else he wouldn't be fighting the McCain Amendment with such vigor.]

But if Senator Stevens has his way, and successfully exempts the CIA from the McCain Amendment's otherwise unequivocal ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the Congress will for the first time have ratified the Administration's view that such cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is not uniformly off-limits, and will have given a green light to the CIA to engage in such conduct. Moreover, as explained above, that very unfortunate result would not be offset by any meaningful improvement in the law as it applies to the Armed Forces.

Accordingly, it is imperative that those Senators and Representatives supporting the McCain Amendment must resist any effort to "augment" the Amendment with a CIA carve-out.

Comments:

Professor Lederman, your blogs on U.S. policy with regard to humane treatment of detainees have been an immense service to our country and to human decency. In a noble cause, they combine crucial information, clear reasoning and passionate concern. Many thanks, and please stay on the case! Posted 10/15/05
 

Professor Lederman, your blogs on U.S. policy with regard to humane treatment of detainees have been an immense service to our country and to human decency. In a noble cause, they combine crucial information, clear reasoning and passionate concern. Many thanks, and please stay on the case! Posted 10/15/05
 

Let me second that: you've done some really fine work on this topic Marty, and please keep it up.

But there is one thing missing from this analyis, and from the general debate: 18 USC 2441 (War crimes), the War Crimes Act of 1996 and Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997. Any grave breach of Geneva, any violation of Geneva Common Article 3, or any violation of the Hague IV (1907) Annnex of Regulation Concering the Laws and Customs of Land Warfare arts. 23, 25, 27 or 28 is a federal felony whenever such an act is committed by or against a US national or service member anywhere in the world. The Geneva Conventions are non-derogable for the duration of hostilities, there is no staute of limitations, and war crimes exclude any form of immunity.

The Bush administration is already guilty of literally thousands of counts, their "interpretations" of the laws are patently fraudulent, and their current efforts are just further evidence of their already fully obvious crimes.

Any member of Congress who votes to authorize those crimes will themselves be guilty of violating 18 USC 2441 -- in fact, I believe there is already probable cause to believe that Senators Stevens, Cornyn, and Sessions (among others) are actively aiding and abetting those crimes.

This administration and the party that that spawned it are an absolute disgrace to our nation. There is only one real issue here, and indeed, only one real issue in US politics and law: defending the Constituion of the United States and making sure that these outrageous criminals are punished to the full extent of the law for their crimes -- even if it takes 30 years or more to do it.

Regards,

Charles Gittings
PEGC

//http://pegc.no-ip.info/
 

I believe Mr. Gittings is on the mark. I don't know how we can restore decency after the Bush regime without accountability and severe punishment. Such as been the success of the Neocons' propaganda campaign to ingrain a nihilistic relativism in the public that I would go further and say that some sort of national Truth Commission (or soul-searching -- to include the heart with the brain) is crucial if we hope to reverse our plunge into barbarism and divisiveness.
 

Marty Lederman is as usual right on target in assessing the threat of the Stevens "augmentation" and the considerations that lurk behind it. We should all keep in mind that, even though the public eye has been kept focused on Abu Ghraib and various courtmartials coming out of it, the most serious abuses have consistently been linked to CIA and special forces operatives. A large part of the uniformed military's problem has related to CIA techniques which have "migrated." Indeed, even the recent account provided by Capt Ian Fishback about the 82d Airborne at Camp Mercury shows that the most abusive techniques were "taught" by CIA and special ops forces. Acceptance of the Stevens amendment is acceptance of torture as an officially sanctioned US practice. This must be vigorously opposed.
 

The Minds Limit Today

In Jean Amery's, The Minds Limit, his capture and descent into torture by German Nazi’s, starts by pointing out that his torturers showed no “banality of evil” in their faces. First there is the "laugh" and then the "first blow". The prisoner then realizes that they are "helpless". Lost is the “trust in the world.” Certainly there is no “mutual aid in nature.” No. It is time for the “business room.” But before describing his own torture the author makes “good on a promise I gave.” Not that they where not specialists in torture, but more so his conviction that “torture was the essence of Nationalist Socialism – more accurately stated, why it was precisely in torture that the Third Reich materialized in all the density of its being.” I ask you dear citizens should we also "codify" that the detainees at Camp Xray can also be children as recently reported in the news? Not only does that sound slightly like the rule of antiman but I do believe antichild included. And if that is so then the rule practiced as such has “expressly established it as a princple.” So just what else in "essence" does go on at Camp Xray – "tricks"? Plead mercy, pray tell? Refuse Himmlers offer for a Certificate of Maturity in History I would suggest. Nay, to forsake the Constitution and be depraved of our humanity would be more painful in the end Mr Rumsfeld. Slavery to torture is all you will get. Go tell that to the Marines Mr. Rumsfeld after you have tendered your resignation.

I am Citizen Michael John Keenan
 

But then, this is *only* (pseudo) torture. How about directly legalizing assassination? Yep, that’s what John – Voodoo Jurist - Yoo hinted a month ago (in the front page of the Wall Street Journal, no less):

YOUNG LAWYER PROPOSES ASSASINATING MORE SUSPECTED TERRORISTS
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05255/570140.stm
“(…) Asked after his AEI talk whether there is a classified Justice Department opinion justifying assassinations, Mr. Yoo hinted that he'd written one himself. "You would think they -- the administration -- would have had an opinion about it, given all the other opinions, wouldn't you?" he said, adding, "And you know who would have done the work."
 

Can the law makers who allow our government to perform crimes against humanity like torturing citizens of another country be held accountable in the World court.
 

I can hardly bear to read this - it makes me sick to my stomach -- waterboarding? live burial?
What kind of people do this? The Bush administration is dragging America into slime, turning the shining city on the hill into a cesspool. What you have become is a tragedy for the world.
 

Nice blog. Check out my cat litter box blog.
 

I don't like the idea of U.S. forces (or CIA) torturing anybody. But you guys all seem to think we can "beat these bullies" without getting our hands dirty. Do you ever think what the consequences will be if you're wrong?

I listened to Jennifer Harbury's recent C-SPAN2 talk (Book TV), on her book Truth, Torture, and The American Way, and responded to it today in my blog, Robosoldiers. Most of you will doubtless think me Neanderthal, but try to use some analysis. The Harvard article I mention (on using game theory vis-a-vis our declared policy of non-assassination of foreign leaders) also, I believe, applies to questions of torture. Basic point of military history: if your enemy is willing to go to lengths that you aren't, you may be in for a badass wake-up call.

No need to respond. Not expecting any real analysis, just more and more platitudes from the moral high ground. Merely hoping someone will mark my words.

Jonathan
 

what baddies? The US war on 'terra' is, at least in major part, a myth promulgated by the neocons to ensure perpetual war and, eventually, perpetual fascism. If it were not for peak oil and the location of most of the remaining oil in the world, we wouldn't be in Iraq nor salivating about Iran. I cannot wonder that much of the world regards the US as its enemy now or to be. And the fact that we torture folks -- and kill them in detention makes me ashamed to be American and ashamed for America. We can be tough and committed without torturing and without sinking into fascism. But will we? Not if the neocons and corporatists remain in power. And frankly, there is little opposing them right now. So you are probably witnessing the end of the America that was decent and worthy of admiration and the beginning of the abomination, the American Empire.
 

Basic point of military history: if your enemy is willing to go to lengths that you aren't, you may be in for a badass wake-up call.

I don't see how that 'basic point,' if it is one, applies here. Flying planes into buildings is one extreme length to go to, torture is an entirely different one. They're apples and oranges. I support shooting down a plane on its way into the (occupied) Capitol or the Sears Tower, or turning Afghanistan upside down to wreck AQ infrastructure. There's no need to support torture to keep a retaliatory arrow in your quiver, if that's your concern.
 

Great blog, it very nice. To found additional information about kittens visit Cute Kitten Pictures
 

cash advances online cash advances online cash advances online paycheck cash advance cash advances online paycheck cash advance fast payday loans cash advances online cash advances online paycheck cash advance online cash advances paycheck cash advance paycheck cash advance online cash advances payday online paycheck cash advance online cash advances online cash advances payday online payday online fast payday loans payday online best payday fast payday loans best payday payday online online cash advances same day payday same day payday best payday fast payday loans same day payday faxless cash advance faxless cash advance fast payday loans payday online best payday faxless cash advance no fax cash advance no fax cash advance cash advances online paycheck cash advance online cash advances payday online fast payday loans best payday same day payday faxless cash advance no fax cash advance pay day loan easy payday fast payday instant payday quick payday faxless payday online payday loan payday loan online cash advance loan cash advances loan no fax payday cash advances payday loans payday loan cash advance payday cash advances online paycheck cash advance online cash advances payday online fast payday loans best payday same day payday faxless cash advance no fax cash advance pay day loan easy payday fast payday instant payday quick payday faxless payday online payday loan payday loan online cash advance loan cash advances loan no fax payday cash advances payday loans payday loan cash advance payday cash advances online paycheck cash advance online cash advances payday online fast payday loans best payday same day payday faxless cash advance no fax cash advance pay day loan easy payday fast payday instant payday quick payday faxless payday online payday loan payday loan online cash advance loan cash advances loan no fax payday cash advances payday loans payday loan cash advance payday cash advances online paycheck cash advance online cash advances payday online fast payday loans best payday same day payday faxless cash advance no fax cash advance pay day loan easy payday fast payday instant payday quick payday faxless payday online payday loan payday loan online cash advance loan cash advances loan no fax payday cash advances payday loans payday loan cash advance payday cash advances online paycheck cash advance online cash advances payday online fast payday loans best payday same day payday faxless cash advance no fax cash advance pay day loan easy payday fast payday instant payday quick payday faxless payday online payday loan payday loan online cash advance loan cash advances loan no fax payday cash advances payday loans payday loan cash advance payday cash advances online paycheck cash advance online cash advances payday online fast payday loans best payday same day payday faxless cash advance no fax cash advance pay day loan easy payday fast payday instant payday quick payday faxless payday online payday loan payday loan online cash advance loan cash advances loan no fax payday cash advances payday loans payday loan cash advance payday cash advances online paycheck cash advance online cash advances payday online fast payday loans best payday same day payday faxless cash advance no fax cash advance pay day loan easy payday fast payday instant payday quick payday faxless payday online payday loan payday loan online cash advance loan cash advances loan no fax payday cash advances payday loans payday loan cash advance payday cash advances online paycheck cash advance online cash advances payday online fast payday loans best payday same day payday faxless cash advance no fax cash advance pay day loan easy payday fast payday instant payday quick payday faxless payday online payday loan payday loan online cash advance loan cash advances loan no fax payday cash advances payday loans payday loan cash advance payday cash advances online paycheck cash advance online cash advances payday online fast payday loans best payday same day payday faxless cash advance no fax cash advance pay day loan easy payday fast payday instant payday quick payday faxless payday online payday loan payday loan online cash advance loan cash advances loan no fax payday cash advances payday loans payday loan cash advance payday cash advances online paycheck cash advance online cash advances payday online fast payday loans best payday same day payday faxless cash advance no fax cash advance pay day loan easy payday fast payday instant payday quick payday faxless payday online payday loan payday loan online cash advance loan cash advances loan no fax payday cash advances payday loans payday loan cash advance payday
 

You said you will love me wow gold the whole life, but WoW Gold you marry her. You said you will wow power leveling,come to marry me, but this will not be carried out forever.WoW Gold I am trying my best to forget you and do not love you anymore. wow leveling But I failed and I still love you. Maybe wow leveling she needs you more compared wow leveling with me. So I tell you that world of warcraft power leveling you should love world of warcraft power leveling her and take good world of warcraft leveling care of her. You said I was so kind.world of warcraft leveling Yes, because I love you,world of warcraft leveling I hope you will be power leveling happy forever.
 

In a noble cause, they combine crucial information, clear reasoning and passionate concern. Many thanks, and please stay on the case! Posted Dissertations | Essays | Research Papers
 

they combine crucial information, clear reasoning and passionate concern. Many thanks,
Term Papers | Theses
 

Many institutions limit access to their online information. Making this information available will be an asset to all.

Research Papers Writing
 

hi,You have a very good blog that the main thing a lot of interesting and useful! payday loans ,thanks
 

Thanks for the information. I really enjoyed, I would like get more
information about this,because is very beautiful, thanks for sharing
Saç Ekimi
 

Post a Comment

Home