Interrogation or Experimentation? Assessing Non-Consensual Human Experimentation During the War on Terror

The prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation has long been considered sacrosanct. It traces its legal roots to the Nuremberg trials although the ethical foundations dig much deeper. It prohibits all forms of medical and scientific experimentation on non-consenting individuals. The prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation is now well established in both national and international law. Despite its status as a fundamental and non-derogable norm, the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation was called into question during the War on Terror by the CIA’s treatment of “high-value detainees.” Seeking to acquire actionable intelligence, the CIA tested the “theory of learned helplessness” on these detainees by subjecting them to a series of enhanced interrogation techniques. This Article revisits the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation to determine whether the CIA’s treatment of detainees violated international law. It examines the historical record that gave rise to the prohibition and its eventual codification in international law. It then considers the application of this norm to the CIA’s treatment of high-value detainees by examining Salim v. Mitchell , a lawsuit brought by detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. This Article concludes that the CIA breached the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation when it conducted systematic studies on these detainees to validate the theory of learned helplessness

Diplomacy at Sea: U.S. Freedom of Navigation Operations in the Black Sea

Following World War II, the United States began implementing an informal program to protect and promote the rights and freedoms of navigation and overflight guaranteed to all nations under international law

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations: A Study of Rights, Wrongs, and Remedies

This Article reviews U.S. compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the ability of foreign governments to seek redress for treaty violations in federal courts. The Vienna Convention requires signatory states to notify detained foreign nationals of their right to consular access. While the United States has sought to ensure that foreign governments comply with the provisions of the Vienna Convention when they detain U.S. citizens abroad, it has failed to ensure that foreign nationals are provided with comparable protection when they are detained in the United States. The Author examines several cases in which both foreign nationals and foreign governments have sought redress for violations of the Vienna Convention in federal courts. Specifically, the Author focuses on the ability of foreign governments to enforce treaty obligations in U.S. courts. The Author considers when the United States is required to comply with treaty obligations, whether a foreign government can seek redress for treaty violations in federal courts, and what remedies are available for such violations. Finally, the Author makes several recommendations to improve U.S. compliance with the Vienna Convention as well as with other consular agreements

Solving the Settlement Puzzle in Human Rights Litigation

In human rights litigation, there are no formal standards to guide lawyers and their clients when they are considering whether to settle a case. Moreover, there is a paucity of published data on human rights settlements. This Article provides a quantitative assessment of recorded settlements in human rights cases litigated under the Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victim Protection Act. It examines both confidential and public settlements. It then considers how and why these cases settled. Finally, this Article proposes a set of standards for assessing proposed settlements. When cases involve fundamental rights and individuals have suffered immeasurable harms, litigants, lawyers, and judges should know whether the costs of settlement are worth the price

United States v. George Tenet: A Federal Indictment for Torture

This Article addresses the absence of accountability for torture in the War on Terror. Part II examines the U.S. obligation under international law to investigate and prosecute acts of torture regardless of where such acts occurred. It also reviews the domestic legislation that implements this international obligation. Adopted by Congress to implement the Convention against Torture, the Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A) establishes criminal liability for torture committed outside the United States. Part III then reviews the first and only case ever brought under the Torture Statute. Roy Belfast, Jr., a U.S. citizen, was prosecuted and subsequently convicted in 2008 for committing torture in Liberia. The Belfast case addressed several issues relating to the Torture Statute, including the definition of torture, the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, and the viability of potential defenses. Using the Belfast prosecution as a model, Part IV examines the criminal liability of George Tenet, who served as the Director of Central Intelligence during the time when several detainees listed in the SSCI Report were tortured. Tenet was responsible for the development and implementation of the CIA\u27s Detention and Interrogation Program. He personally authorized the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on high value detainees who were held at CIA black sites around the world. Finally, Part V provides a criminal indictment of Tenet based on the treatment of four detainees: Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abd al-Rahim al- Nashiri, and Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh. These detainees were held by the CIA at various facilities around the world during Tenet\u27s tenure as the Director of Central Intelligence. Under the guise of enhanced interrogation techniques, the CIA subjected each detainee to horrific treatment. They were, in fact, tortured