Interested in the ongoing debate over the relationship between LOAC and Human Rights Law in general, or the intersection of those bodies of law in relation to non-criminal detention in particular? You won't want to miss this.
Latest in NIAC: Conflict with IHRL
The use of lethal force (whether via armed drone, manned aircraft, cruise missile, helicopter assault, etc.) has been a cornerstone of U.S. counterterrorism policy for many years, both in places where we have ground combat deployments and places where we do not. Throughout this period, the legality, efficacy, wisdom, and morality of this practice has been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate. Nonetheless, the kinetic option has proven remarkably durable over time (especially as compared to its sibling, the use of non-criminal detention).
Judicial imperialism is defeating the British armed forces. At least this is what the authors of a report recently published by the Policy Exchange---an influential British think tank---claim.
Findings, Conclusions and Areas of Dispute Between the SSCI Report, the Minority, and the CIA: Part Four
In this post, we proceed with Lawfare's ongoing, side-by-side comparison of the SSCI Study's key findings, and responses to them by both the SSCI Minority as well as the CIA.
By way of reminder, the SSCI's Study made twenty findings and conclusions about the CIA's detention and interrogation practices after 9/11---twelve of which the blog has summarized so far, along with any corresponding Minority and CIA remarks.
Findings, Conclusions and Areas of Dispute Between the SSCI Report, the Minority and the CIA: Part 2
Below, you will find the second installment in our ongoing effort to identify, in summary form, key areas of dispute as between the SSCI, the SSCI minority, and the CIA with regard the CIA's detention and interrogation program. As you surely know by now, all three today released long-anticipated reports regarding the CIA's post-9/11 detention and interrogation activities.
Marty Lederman and I have been engaged in a debate over the past few weeks, and last Monday he wrote a lengthy and thoughtful “Monday Reflection” over at Just Security concerning some of my arguments here at Lawfare and in my article, Folk International Law. I would like to use this post, my last in this exchange, to raise four of the bigger stakes that I think arise out of our discussion.
Belatedly, I want to join the discussion about the extraterritorial application of the Convention Against Torture (CAT), about which Jack commented on Friday, drawing on an article by Charlie Savage earlier in the week.
The Debate About the Extraterritorial Scope of the Torture Convention’s Provisions on Cruelty is (Almost Certainly) Not About USG Interrogation Policy
A week ago Charlie Savage reported that the Obama administration “is considering reaffirming the Bush administration’s position that the [Convention Against Torture(CAT)] imposes no legal obligation on the United States to bar cruelty outside its borders.” The provision of the Torture Convention in question is Article 16, which provides: “Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its j
Marty Lederman has a thoughtful response over at Just Security to my post from yesterday.
Earlier this year, I published an article called "Folk International Law," in which I argued that there were many unappreciated and little understood costs to the convergence of LOAC and international human rights law.