Georgetown Law Journal 108 (2) (2019)

Authors
David Luban
Georgetown University
Abstract
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 on the dozen or so “enhanced interrogation techniques” short-listed in government “torture memos,” and far too little emphasis on other forms of physical violence, psychological stressors, environmental manipulations, and abusive conditions of confinement that are crucial to the question of whether the detainees were tortured. Furthermore, we dispute one of the standard narratives about the origins of the program: that it was the brainchild of civilian contractor psychologists because— in the CIA’s words—“[n]on-standard interrogation methodologies were not an area of expertise of CIA officers or of the US Government generally.” This narrative ignores the CIA’s role in devising these methods, in spite of the decades of prior CIA research and doctrine about forcing interrogation subjects into a state of extreme psychological debilitation, and about how to do so—by making them physically weak, intensely fearful and anxious, and helplessly dependent. By neglecting this history and focusing on the contractors and the EITs they devised, this narrative contributes to the misunderstanding that the torture debate is about EITs and nothing else. In effect, a “torture debate” about EITs and the torture memos neglects the purloined letter in front of our eyes: the abusive conditions the CIA inflicted on prisoners even when they were not subject to EITs, including abuses that the torture memos never bothered to discuss. Unpacking what this debate is really about turns out to be crucial to understanding that such interrogation methods are torture under existing U.S. law. The U.S. Torture Act includes a clause in its definition of mental torture that was intended to ban exactly the kind of interrogation methods the CIA had researched, out of concern that our Cold War adversaries were using them: mind-altering procedures “calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.” That is precisely the “non-standard interrogation methodology” the CIA employed after 9/11.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,512
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

When Is Torture Right?Douglas McCready - 2007 - Studies in Christian Ethics 20 (3):383-398.
Just Torture?Shunzo Majima - 2012 - Journal of Military Ethics 11 (2):136-148.
The Ethics of Torture-Lite.Ross W. Bellaby - 2015 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (2):177-190.
The Myth of" Torture Lite".Jessica Wolfendale - 2009 - Ethics and International Affairs 23 (1):47-61.
An Empirical Critique of Interrogational Torture.Richard Matthews - 2012 - Journal of Social Philosophy 43 (4):457-470.
Torture, Dignity, and Humiliation.Jan-Willem van der Rijt - 2016 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 54 (4):480-501.
Evidence Gained From Torture: Wishful Thinking, Checkability, and Extreme Circumstances.James Franklin - 2009 - Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 17:281-290.
A Utilitarian Argument Against Torture Interrogation of Terrorists.Jean Maria Arrigo - 2004 - Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (3):543-572.
Does Torture Work?John W. Schiemann - 2015 - Oxford University Press USA.
Empathy and Interrogation.Mavis Biss - 2014 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (2):277-288.
Understanding Torture.Jeremy Wisnewski - 2010 - Edinburgh University Press.
Tragic Choices: Reaffirming Absolutes in the Torture Debate.Christopher W. Tindale - 2005 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 19 (2):209-222.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-01-27

Total views
13 ( #772,900 of 2,520,895 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #405,457 of 2,520,895 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes