FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Dissertations, online materials

Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 12 |

«U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Washington, D.C. 20530 Office of the Assistant Attorney General August 1,2002 Memorandum for ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Legal Counsel

Washington, D.C. 20530

Office of the Assistant Attorney General

August 1,2002

Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales

Counsel to the President

Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogationunder 18 U.S. C. §§ 2340-2340A

You have asked for our Office's views regarding the standards of conduct under

the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or

Punishment as implemented by Sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of the United States Code. As we understand it, this question has arisen in the context of the conduct of interrogations outside of the United States. We conclude below that Section 2340A proscribes acts inflicting, and mat are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical. Those acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture within the meaning of Section 2340A and the Convention. We further conclude that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fa 1 within Section 2340A's proscription against torture. We conclude by examining possible defenses that would negate any claim that certain interrogation methods violate the statute.

In Part I, we examine the criminal statute's text and history. We conclude that for an act to constitute torture as defined in Section 2340, it must inflict pain that is difficult to endure. Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to torture under Section 2340, it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years. We conclude that the mental harm also must result from one of the predicate acts listed in the statute, namely: threats of imminent death;

threats of infliction of the kind of pain that would amount to physical torture; infliction of such physical pain as a means of psychological torture; use of drugs or other procedures designed to deeply disrupt the senses, or fundamentally alter an individual's personality;

or threatening to do any of these things to a third party. The legislative history simply reveals that Congress intended for the statute's definition to track the Convention's definition of torture and the reservations, understandings, and declarations that the United States submitted with its ratification. We concludethat the statute, taken as a whole, makes plain that it prohibits only extreme acts.

In Part II, we examine the text, ratification history, and negotiating history of the Torture Convention. We conclude that the treaty's text prohibits only the most extreme acts by reserving criminal penalties solely for torture and declining to require such penalties for "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." This confirms our view that the criminal statute penalizes only the most egregious conduct. Executive branch interpretations and representations to the Senate at the time of ratification further confirm that the treaty was intended to reach only the most extreme conduct.

In Part III, we analyze the jurisprudence of the Torture Victims Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note (2000), which provides civil remedies for torture victims, to predict the standards that courts might follow in determining what actions reach the threshold of torture in the criminal context. We conclude from these cases that courts are likely to take a totality-of-the-circumstances approach, and will look to an entire course of conduct, to determine whether certain acts will violate Section 2340A. Moreover, these cases demonstrate that most often torture involves cruel and extreme physical pain. In Part IV, we examine international decisions regarding the use of sensory deprivation techniques. These cases make clear that while many of these techniques may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, they do not produce pain or suffering of the necessary intensity to meet the definition of torture. From these decisions, we conclude that there is a wide range of such techniques that will not rise to the level of torture.

In Part V, we discuss whether Section 2340A may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations undertaken of enemy combatants pursuant to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers. We find that in the circumstances of the current war against al Qaeda and its allies, prosecution under Section 2340A may be barred because enforcement of the statute would represent an unconstitutional infringement of the President's authority to conduct war. In Part VI, we discuss defenses to an allegation that an interrogation method might violate the statute. We conclude that, under the current circumstances, necessity or self-defense may justify interrogation methods that might violate Section 2340A.

–  –  –

Section 2340A makes it a criminal offense for any person "outside the United States [to] commit[] or attempt[] to commit torture."1 Section 2340 defines the act of

torture as an:

If convicted of torture, a defendant faces a fine or up to twenty years' imprisonment or both. If, however, the act resulted in the victim's death, a defendant may be sentenced to life imprisonment or to death. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2340A(a). Whether death results from the act also affects the applicable statute of limitations. Where death does not result, the statute of limitations is eight years; if death results, there is no statute of limitations. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3286(b) (West Supp. 2002); id. § 2332b(g)(5XB) (West Supp.

2002). Section 2340A as originally enacted did not provide for the death penalty as a punishment. See Omnibus Crime Bill, Pub. L. No. 103-322, Title VI, Section 60020, 108 Stat. 1979 (1994) (amending section 2340A to provide for the death penalty); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 103-711, at 388 (1994) (noting that the act added the death penalty as a penalty for torture).

Most recently, the USA Patriot Act, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001), amended section 2340A to expressly codify the offense of conspiracy to commit torture. Congress enacted this amendment as part of a broader effort to ensure that individuals engaged in the planning of terrorist activities could be prosecuted irrespective of where the activities took place. See H. R. Rep. No. 107-236, at 70 (2001)

–  –  –

18 U.S.C.A. § 2340(1); see id. § 2340A. Thus, to convict a defendant of torture, the prosecution must establish that: (1) the torture occurred outside the United States; (2) the defendant acted under the color of law; (3) the victim was within the defendant's custody or physical control; (4) the defendant specifically intended to cause severe physical or mental pain or suffering; and (5) that the act inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering. See also S. Exec. Rep. No. 101-30, at 6 (1990) ("For an act to be 'torture,' it must... cause severe pain and suffering, and be intended to cause severe pain and suffering."). You have asked us to address only the elements of specific intent and the infliction of severe pain or suffering. As such, we have not addressed the elements of "outside the United States," "color of law," and "custody or control."2 At your request, we would be happy to address these elements in a separate memorandum.

A. "Specifically Intended"

To violate Section 2340A, the statute requires that severe pain and suffering must be inflicted with specific intent. See 18 U.S.C. § 2340(1). In order for a defendant to have acted with specific intent, he must expressly intend to achieve the forbidden act.

See United States v. Carter, 530 U.S. 255, 269 (2000); Black's Law Dictionary at 814 (7th ed. 1999) (defining specific intent as "[t]he intent to accomplish the precise criminal act that one is later charged with"). For example, in Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S.

135, 141 (1994), the statute at issue was construed to require that the defendant act with the "specific intent to commit the crime." (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As a result, the defendant had to act with the express "purpose to disobey the law" in order for the mens rea element to be satisfied. Ibid, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) Here, because Section 2340 requires that a defendant act with the specific intent to inflict severe pain, the infliction of such pain must be the defendant's precise objective.

If the statute had required only general intent, it would be sufficient to establish guilt by showing that the defendant "possessed knowledge with respect to the actus reus of the crime." Carter, 530 U.S. at 268. If the defendant acted knowing that severe pain or (discussing the addition of "conspiracy" as a separate offense for a variety of "Federal terrorism offense[s]").

We note, however, that 18 U.S.C. § 2340(3) supplies a definition of the term "United States." It defines it as "all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in" 18 U.S.C. §§ 5 and 7, and in 49 U.S.C. § 46501(2). Section 5 provides that United States "includes all places and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." By including the definition set out in Section 7, the term "United States" as used in Section 2340(3) includes the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Moreover, the incorporation by reference to Section 46501(2) extends the definition of the "United States" to "special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States."

suffering was reasonably likely to result from his actions, but no more, he would have acted only with general intent. See id. at 269; Black's Law Dictionary 813 (7th ed. 1999) (explaining that general intent "usu[ally] takes the form of recklessness (involving actual awareness of a risk and the culpable taking of that risk) or negligence (involving blameworthy inadvertence)*'). The Supreme Court has used the following example to

illustrate the difference between these two mental states:

[A] person entered a bank and took money from a teller at gunpoint, but deliberately failed to make a quick getaway from the bank in the hope of being arrested so that he would be returned to prison and treated for alcoholism. Though this defendant knowingly engaged in the acts of using force and taking money (satisfying "general intent"), he did not intend permanently to deprive the bank of its possession of the money (failing to satisfy "specific intent").

Carter, 530 U.S. at 268 (citing 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.5, at 315 (1986)).

As a theoretical matter, therefore, knowledge alone that a particular result is certain to occur does not constitute specific intent. As the Supreme Court explained in the context of murder, "the,.. common law of homicide distinguishes... between a person who knows that another person will be killed as a result of his conduct and a person who acts with the specific purpose of taking another's life[.]" United States v.

Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 405 (1980). "Put differently, the law distinguishes actions taken 'because of a given end from actions taken 'in spite of their unintended but foreseen consequences." Vacco v. Quill, 521 US. 793, 802-03 (1997). Thus, even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith. Instead, a defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his custody or physical control. While as a theoretical matter such knowledge does not constitute specific intent, juries are permitted to infer from the factual circumstances that such intent is present.

See, e.g., United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 666 (4th Cir. 2001); United States v.

Karro, 257 F.3d 112, 118 (2d Cir. 2001); United States v. Wood, 207 F.3d 1222, 1232 (10th Cir. 2000); Henderson v. United States, 202 F.2d 400, 403 (6th Cir.1953).

Therefore, when a defendant knows that his actions will produce the prohibited result, a jury will in all likelihood conclude that the defendant acted with specific intent.

Further, a showing that an individual acted with a good faith belief that his conduct would not produce the result that the law prohibits negates specific intent. See, e.g., SouthAtl.Lmtd. Ptrshp. of Tenn. v. Reise, 218 F.3d 518, 531 (4th Cir. 2002). Where a defendant acts in good faith, he acts with an honest belief that he has not engaged in the proscribed conduct. See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202 (1991); United States v. Mancuso, 42 F.3d 836, 837 (4th Cir. 1994). For example, in the context of mail fraud, if an individual honestly believes that the material transmitted is truthful, he has not acted with the required intent to deceive or mislead. See, e.g., United States v. Sayakhom, 186 4 F.3d 928, 939-40 (9th Cir. 1999). A good faith belief need not be a reasonable one. See Cheek, 498 U.S. at 202.

Although a defendant theoretically could hold an unreasonable belief that his acts would not constitute the actions prohibited by the statute, even though they would as a certainty produce the prohibited effects, as a matter of practice in the federal criminal justice system it is highly unlikely that a jury would acquit in such a situation. Where a defendant holds an unreasonable belief, he will confront the problem of proving to the jury that he actually held that belief. As the Supreme Court noted in Cheek, "the more unreasonable the asserted beliefs or misunderstandings are, the more likely the jury...

will find that the Government has carried its burden of proving" intent. Id. at 203-04.

As we explained above, a jury will be permitted to infer that the defendant held the requisite specific intent. As a matter of proof, therefore, a good faith defense will prove more compelling when a reasonable basis exists for the defendant's belief.

B. "Severe Pain or Suffering"

The key statutory phrase in the definition of torture is the statement that acts amount to torture if they cause "severe physical or mental pain or suffering." In examining the meaning of a statute, its text must be the starting point. See INS v.

Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 12 |

Similar works:

«FEDERAL HIGHWAYS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Control of Federal highways 1. Minister to control, etc., Federal highways.2. Power to erect toll gates, etc.3. Power to acquire land for Federal highway.4. Drainage and other works. Offences 5. Causing death by reckless or dangerous driving.6. Reckless, etc., driving on Federal highway. 7. Careless and inconsiderate driving. 8. Driving under influence of drink: power to disqualify from driving in certain cases. 9. Power of arrest in certain cases....»


«ADMINISTRATIVE LETTERS An Administrative Letter is the method by which the Commissioner of Financial Institutions formally communicates with entities regulated by the Bureau of Financial Institutions. Administrative Letters are not regulations or law, but are positions that the Bureau of Financial Institutions has taken on issues affecting financial institutions. Administrative Letters are often issued after the Bureau of Financial Institutions identifies or receives a number of questions or...»

«PROFESSIONAL FITTING GUIDE FOR THE EXTREME H2O® 54% (hioxifilcon D) Soft Contact Lens for Daily Wear CAUTION: FEDERAL LAW RESTRICTS THIS DEVICE TO SALE BY OR ON THE ORDER OF A LICENSED PRACTITIONER Please read this guide carefully and follow the instruction so that you receive full satisfaction from your lenses. DESCRIPTION OF LENS Extreme H2O® 54% (hioxifilcon D) soft contact lenses are hemispherical shells and are available as spherical lenses of the following dimensions: Extreme H2O 54%...»

«Avoiding Sand Traps and Moguls: A Refresher Course for In-House Counsel InPresented by: Fern C. Bomchill, Partner Mayer Brown LLP 312-701-7331 fbomchill@mayerbrown.com Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited...»

«FRAUD ON THE COURT REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC INQUIRY Rt Hon Michael Gove MP and Sent Also to: Rt Hon Michael Gove MP Justice Rt Hon Theresa May MP Ministry of Justice House of Commons 102 Petty France London – SW1A 0AA London – SW1H 9AJ Also via email to: michael.gove.mp@parliament.uk, mayt@parliament.uk and general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk 10th April 2016 Dear Mr Gove and Mrs May, LEGAL NOTICE AND REQUEST RE: REPORTING FRAUD ON THE COURT AND REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC INQUIRY Prima facie evidence...»

«CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ROCKFORD JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS MARCH 17, 2008 COUNCIL CONVENED AT 6:09 P.M.1. The invocation was given by Chaplain David Sorrel, First Church of the Nazarene/Police Chaplain and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Karla Centeno, Council Page.2. Roll Call: Mayor Lawrence J. Morrissey Aldermen: Sosnowski, Curran, Mark, Wasco, Bell, Johnson, Beach, Holt, Beck, Conness -10Absent: Jacobson, Thompson-Kelly, Timm, McNeely –43. Alderman Mark moved to accept the Journal of...»

«The Family Project Sermon Series Part 1 You Are Here Introduction We are natural-born question askers. Before children leave home, they will ask more than 250,000 questions. Question asking is hardwired into our hearts from birth. Questions such as.Where do I belong?Where do I fit?What is my purpose?Is my life significant? The home is the first place where we find answers to our deepest questions. So where did your home receive the authority to take on such a big job? How does a home answer...»

«VISION CARE INSURANCE EyeMed Vision Care provides comprehensive vision care benefits to help ensure you and your dependents receive quality eye care from a network of professional eye care providers. Eligibility Employee Faculty and staff are eligible for group vision care insurance coverage if they are employed in a Regular” position with an FTE of.5 or greater or in a Temporary” position for more than six months with an FTE of.5 or greater. Dependents Spouse  Husband or wife, as...»

«Computer Science & Information Technology 47 David C. Wyld Natarajan Meghanathan (Eds) Computer Science & Information Technology Seventh International Conference on Networks & Communications (NETCOM 2015) Sydney, Australia, December 26~27, 2015 AIRCC Publishing Corporation Volume Editors David C. Wyld, Southeastern Louisiana University, USA E-mail: David.Wyld@selu.edu Natarajan Meghanathan, Jackson State University, USA E-mail: nmeghanathan@jsums.edu ISSN: 2231 5403 ISBN: 978-1-921987-44-1 DOI...»

«Version 15.03.2016 Pool Billiards The Rules of Play (Effective 15/3/16) Contents Table of Contents Pool Billiards The Rules of Play (Effective 15/3/16) Contents 1. General Rules 1.1 Player’s Responsibility 1.2 Lagging to Determine Order of Play 1.3 Player’s Use of Equipment 1.4 Spotting Balls 1.5 Cue Ball in Hand 1.6 Standard Call Shot 1.7 Balls Settling 1.8 Restoring a Position 1.9 Outside Interference 1.10 Prompting Calls and Protesting Rulings 1.11 Concession 1.12 Stalemate 2. Nine Ball...»

«Conference Agenda 4th ATTA Mid Year Conference, 17 – 18 June 2016 The Continent Hotel Bangkok, 413 Sukhumvit Road, Bangkok 10110, Thailand Friday 17 June Registration at GMT Meeting Room, 33rd Floor 12:00 Lunch at Medinii Restaurant, 35th Floor 13:15-13:30 Welcome Russell Brown, Chairman of ATTA and Managing Partner of LehmanBrown GMT Meeting room, 33rd Floor 13:30-15:30 Trends in intra-regional FDI in Southeast Asia John Marsden, Departmental Managing Partner – Commercial of Mayer Brown...»

<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.dissertation.xlibx.info - Dissertations, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.