Torture Prosecutions In Federal Law
Legal Framework Governing Torture Prosecutions
The primary statute for prosecuting torture under U.S. federal law is the Torture Act (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted as part of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998.
Key Provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2340A:
It criminalizes torture committed outside the United States.
Defines torture as an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.
The statute requires specific intent—the accused must have intended to cause severe pain or suffering.
It applies to U.S. nationals and those present in the U.S. regardless of nationality.
Punishable by fines and imprisonment up to life.
Other related laws:
War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441): criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including torture during armed conflict.
Alien Tort Statute (ATS): sometimes invoked in civil suits involving torture abroad.
War Crimes Tribunal and Military Commissions: also prosecute torture committed during wartime.
Case Law: Detailed Analysis of Key Federal Torture Prosecutions
1. United States v. Hamdan (2006) — Guantanamo Bay detainee case
Summary:
Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver and bodyguard, was charged before a military commission with conspiracy and material support for terrorism. Although not convicted of torture, the case raised legal questions about the treatment of detainees and the definition of torture under U.S. and international law.
Legal Importance:
The Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions as established violated both U.S. and international law, including the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit torture and cruel treatment.
Significance:
Though not a direct torture prosecution, this case shaped the landscape for how detainees suspected of torture or mistreatment are handled and prosecuted.
2. United States v. Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri (2009)
Summary:
Al-Marri, a Qatari citizen and legal U.S. resident, was arrested on terrorism-related charges and allegedly subjected to harsh interrogation techniques.
Legal Conflict:
While no direct torture charges were filed against interrogators, the case raised issues of due process and allegations of cruel and inhuman treatment under the Torture Act and constitutional protections.
Significance:
The case is important for demonstrating legal limits on interrogation techniques and protections against torture under U.S. law.
3. United States v. Lynndie England (2005) — Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse
Summary:
Lynndie England, a U.S. Army reservist, was convicted for abusing detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, including acts that constituted cruel and degrading treatment.
Charges:
England was convicted of conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees, and committing an indecent act; although not charged under the Torture Act, her actions fit within the broad definition of torture.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Legal Significance:
This case highlighted military personnel liability for torture and abuse under federal law and military regulations, affirming that low-level operatives could be prosecuted for such acts.
4. United States v. Charles Graner (2005)
Summary:
Charles Graner, a U.S. Army reservist, was convicted for his role in torture and abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib.
Charges:
He faced conspiracy, assault, maltreatment of detainees, and other related offenses.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Importance:
Graner’s prosecution was one of the highest-profile torture prosecutions in the military justice system, demonstrating accountability for systemic torture and abuse.
5. United States v. David Passaro (2006)
Summary:
Passaro, a CIA contractor in Afghanistan, was charged and convicted of assault resulting in serious bodily injury to a detainee he allegedly tortured during interrogation.
Charges:
Convicted under federal assault statutes, his actions, although not prosecuted under the Torture Act, constituted torture.
Outcome:
Sentenced to over 8 years in prison.
Significance:
First criminal prosecution of a CIA contractor for detainee abuse, showing that contractors can be held criminally liable for torture.
6. United States v. Al-Bahlul (2012)
Summary:
Said Al-Bahlul, a detainee at Guantanamo, was convicted of conspiracy to commit war crimes, including torture and inhumane treatment.
Legal Conflict:
The case involved complex issues about prosecuting detainees for torture-related offenses under the Military Commissions Act.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Importance:
A landmark military commission case affirming the prosecution of torture as a war crime.
7. United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. (Ongoing)
Summary:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, faces trial by military commission, including charges related to torture, murder, and war crimes.
Legal Conflict:
The case has raised extensive legal debates about torture, detainee rights, and admissibility of evidence allegedly obtained under torture.
Significance:
Ongoing, but significant as the most high-profile federal terrorism and torture prosecution in modern U.S. history.
8. United States v. Binyam Mohamed et al. (Civil, 2010s)
Summary:
This civil case involved allegations that Binyam Mohamed, a British resident, was tortured by U.S. and British agents.
Legal Conflict:
Though civil, the case focused on enforcing the Torture Act and international human rights law, with significant implications for accountability and reparations.
Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Year | Defendant | Charges | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Hamdan | 2006 | Salim Hamdan | Military commission charges | Supreme Court ruled commissions invalid | Impact on detainee rights and torture definitions |
| United States v. Lynndie England | 2005 | Lynndie England | Maltreatment, conspiracy | 3 years imprisonment | Military personnel accountability |
| United States v. Charles Graner | 2005 | Charles Graner | Torture, maltreatment | 10 years imprisonment | High-profile Abu Ghraib case |
| United States v. David Passaro | 2006 | David Passaro | Assault, detainee abuse | 8+ years imprisonment | First CIA contractor convicted |
| United States v. Al-Bahlul | 2012 | Said Al-Bahlul | War crimes, torture | Life imprisonment | Military commissions prosecution |
| United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed | Ongoing | K.S. Mohammed | Terrorism, torture, war crimes | Trial ongoing | Most high-profile terrorism/torture case |
| United States v. Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri | 2009 | Ali Al-Marri | Terrorism charges; interrogation issues | Case unresolved on torture | Highlights limits on torture/interrogation |
Conclusion
Federal prosecutions for torture in the U.S. rely heavily on the Torture Act (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), military law, and other statutes related to war crimes and detainee abuse. The cases above demonstrate:
The prosecution of both military personnel and contractors.
The difficulties in prosecuting torture, especially with national security and due process issues.
The ongoing tension between national security interests and human rights protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments