The rule of law and basic human rights principles have also been casualties of the past decade, which has seen the waging of aggressive war, policies of rendition and torture, indefinite and arbitrary detentions, increasing secrecy and even targeted, extra-judicial killings through the use of drones far beyond the context of armed conflict. Indeed, most efforts to seek redress or accountability within the U.S. for harms resulting from these policies and practices have met dead ends judicially and repeated roadblocks politically. Moreover, it is concerning that the U.S. government is using tactics honed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in its ever-expanding “war on drugs” throughout Latin America. The reverse is also true, since it has been documented that violent tactics notoriously used by U.S. military and civilian officials in covert counter-insurgency operations in the 1980’s and 1990’s in Central America have been applied in Iraq.
The following is a brief explanation of the legal paradigm governing war-making in the U.S. and some of the failed efforts to bring accountability and seek redress domestically for the human rights violations arising out of the past decade of war.
War-making in the United States and Obstacles
to Enforcement and Accountability
The U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress. The constitutional delegation of this particular power to Congress was intended to give that body “the power to decide whether the United States should initiate any offensive military hostilities, however big or little, or for whatever purposes.” Because of Congressional concern about executive drift into its constitutionally mandated authority and involvement of U.S. forces in situations of conflict in Korea and Vietnam without Congressional declarations of war, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The resolution was intended to put a limit on presidential power to commit U.S. forces to armed conflict without Congressional authorization. The resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to any military action and prohibits the commitment of forces for more than 60 days without congressional authorization or a declaration of war.
Even with what many viewed as an unconstitutional concession or partial delegation of Congressional authority, the tensions and power struggles between the executive and legislative branches have resulted in repeated violations of even this constitutionally-mandated separation of power. In 1981, in a situation that is still relevant to and has a number of direct implications for the situation in Iraq, the War Power Resolution’s requirements were ignored by President Ronald Reagan when he committed U.S. military forces to El Salvador and later to support the Contras in Nicaragua. Eleven members of Congress, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, challenged the U.S. military intervention in El Salvador as violating the War Powers Resolution in Crockett v. Regan. While sympathetic to the aims of the litigation, the court dismissed the case on the grounds that it presented “unmanageable standards” for fact-finding on such claims. Later in 1990, fifty-four members of Congress, also represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, sought to challenge President George H.W. Bush’s initiation of a military offensive in Iraq without first obtaining a declaration of war from Congress in Dellums v. Bush. The court denied their request to enjoin Bush’s actions holding that such relief must be sought by a majority of the Congress.
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which granted sweeping war-making powers to the President to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against “nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” In addition to allowing the President to exercise military force virtually anywhere in the world, this “authorization” was considered by many legal experts to be an unconstitutional delegation of the power to declare war by Congress to the President, who then would decide whether and when to wage war. The AUMF quickly became the purported basis and justification for administration policies of: extraordinary renditions, which often involved kidnapping and illegal and often secret detention of hundreds of persons declared to be suspects – many of whom were later found to have had no connection to terrorist activity; the use of “black sites” and torture methods; indefinite and prolonged detentions; the use of military commissions at Guantánamo Bay; secret electronic surveillance without a warrant as required by the Constitution; and later for the use of drones to commit purportedly “targeted” killings of alleged or suspected terrorists outside of armed conflict and without evidence of an imminent threat. As described below, efforts to seek justice and accountability for violations of the human rights of victims of these policies have encountered obstacles judicially and politically. What is more worrying are reports that the current administration is debating whether the AUMF authorizes the use of all “necessary and appropriate force” to go after groups with little or no connection whatsoever to the organization responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Less than two years after the passage of the AUMF, Congress passed the similar Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq on October 16, 2002, which cited as a key factor Iraq’s alleged development of weapons of mass destruction. The theme of weapons of mass destruction was used to galvanize Congressional and political support for invading Iraq, though at the time there was a wealth of evidence that Iraq did not possess and was not close to possessing such weapons, a fact later proven incontrovertibly during the course of the war. On June 10, 2008, twelve members of Congress introduced thirty-five articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush to the House of Representatives. Included among the articles of impeachment were the false justification for the invasion of Iraq, the illegalities around the conduct of the war, the treatment, kidnapping and detention of detainees as part of the global “war on terror,” and the warrantless surveillance program. The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration, but the Committee took no action on it. Bush’s second term ended with no accountability whatsoever for the false representations justifying the invasion of Iraq.
As the judiciary has closed itself off in past cases like Crockett and Dellums as a mechanism for challenging a president’s unilateral decision to enter into armed conflict in violation of the Constitution, and as impeachment efforts have been unsuccessful even once it has been established that a Congressional authorization for the use of military force was obtained through false representations, there is no viable means domestically through which to challenge and check decisions that can have such far-reaching and egregious ramifications. Moreover, the United States has rejected other international mechanisms that could serve as independent arbiters of these situations. In 1986, the United States withdrew from the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice just prior to that court’s ruling that the U.S.’s covert war against Nicaragua, including the mining of its harbors, was in violation of international law. More recently, the U.S. has not only refused to ratify the statute of the International Criminal Court, but also actively sought under the Bush administration to undermine that court’s effectiveness and capacity by pressuring other countries not to ratify the treaty.
Torture and Killing
When reports began to surface about the U.S.’s extraordinary rendition program, indefinite detention and use of torture methods upon detainees at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, efforts were undertaken to seek redress for some of the victims of these policies and practices with no success to date. Recently, a report issued by a bi-partisan 11-member task force that conducted a lengthy investigation into detainee treatment at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, Bagram and other detention centers and black sites, found that “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and that the discussions and decisions about the use of torture were undertaken at the highest levels of government.
Abu Ghraib and Other Torture Centers in Iraq. When photos depicting torture and humiliating and degrading treatment by U.S. servicemembers of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib first surfaced, high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense and Bush administration rushed to lay the blame on lower level enlisted and non-commissioned officers, claiming that this was aberrant behavior. However, in a report of the investigation into the situation at Abu Ghraib, Major General Antonio Taguba concluded that the torture and humiliating and degrading treatment were the product of structural and command failures or decisions made at higher levels and especially faulted the decision of command to make military intelligence officers and civilian contractors responsible for the military police units conducting detainee operations.
Similar reports later surfaced about torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment at Guantánamo Bay and a detention facility at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. In 2004, three memos were leaked to the press that were drafted and signed by high-ranking staff at the U.S. Office of the Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice advising the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, and Office of the President on the use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which included various forms of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that the authors advised could be regarded as legally permissible. Later, a report by the Senate Armed Services Committee, released in full in 2009, further confirmed that the legal memos had served to “redefine torture,” “distorted the meaning and intent of anti-torture laws, [and] rationalized the abuse of detainees” and led to the torture of detainees in U.S.-run facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay and to the killings of two detainees in Afghanistan. The Committee additionally concluded that senior administration officials were responsible for the torture program:
The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of “a few bad apples” acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.
In addition to the Senate Armed Services Committee’s finding that the deaths of Mullah Habibullah and Dilawar were the result of serious ill treatment at Bagram, a recent report by The Constitution Project of an investigation by a bi-partisan task force into detainee treatment looked at the military and government response to their deaths. The Constitution Project’s report found that in terms of accountability for the killings: “One after one, military court-martial panels were reluctant to punish comrades who had been following the operating procedures in place and listening to the instructions of their leadership.”
Similarly, there are reports of deaths of detainees at Guantánamo Bay under highly suspicious circumstances. In June 2006, Yasser Al-Zahrani and Salah Ali Abdullah Ahmed Al-Salami were reported as having been found dead in their cells. Government officials described the deaths as suicides by hanging but a military whistleblower who served at the Guantánamo detention facility described their deaths as the result of their cruel and inhuman treatment at a black site located at the base. To date, there has been no full investigation into their deaths in light of the accounts by whistleblowing guards. Moreover, a civil case brought by the relatives of the deceased was dismissed.
More recently, a joint investigation undertaken by The Guardian and BBC-Arabic has surfaced evidence that shows that high-ranking officials in the Bush Administration were closely involved in and linked to secret detention and torture centers in Iraq and other serious human rights abuses. The investigation revealed that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appointed retired Colonel James Steele to help organize paramilitaries and commando units from 2003 to 2005 and again in 2006. Steele reported directly to Rumsfeld and reportedly “knew everything that was going on there…the torture, the most horrible kinds of torture.” The appointment of Steele for service in Iraq was extremely controversial as he had previously worked as a military advisor from 1984-1986 in El Salvador where he reportedly trained counter-insurgency commandos who were documented as having committed serious human rights abuses there.
Despite clear and still emerging evidence of a policy and practice by the Bush administration that encouraged and facilitated the torture and serious ill-treatment that led to the deaths of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere, no high-level administration or military officials have been held accountable for these serious human rights violations. Due to the complete failure by the competent authorities to hold Bush and other senior administration officials accountable for violations resulting from these programs, efforts have been undertaken to use international law and other national jurisdictions to seek justice. In February 2011, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the International Federation for Human Rights and the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights announced they would be filing complaints on behalf of torture victims with the Swiss government urging an investigation and prosecution of former President George W. Bush when it was learned that Bush would be traveling to Switzerland. His trip was cancelled on the eve of filing the complaints, which meant that the complaints could not be pursued since the basis of Swiss jurisdiction depended on his presence there.
Subsequently, a similar complaint was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Canadian Centre for International Justice with the Canadian Attorney General upon learning of Bush’s plans to speak at an event there. Canada failed to act on the request while Bush was present in the country, and a complaint was subsequently filed with the United Nations Committee Against Torture citing Canada’s failure to act in accordance with its obligations under the Convention. The Committee has subsequently requested that the government of Canada respond to the complaint. Similarly, with regard to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the Center for Constitutional Rights and its partners have undertaken efforts in France and Germany to initiate criminal investigations into his responsibility for torture and war crimes under their laws requiring their authorities to investigate and prosecute complaints when a suspected torturer or war criminal is on their territory.
Since 2009, the Center for Constitutional Rights and other human rights organizations have been engaged in efforts in Spain to address the U.S.’s torture program. One of those cases was brought against Bush administration lawyers, collectively known as the “Bush Six,” including the authors of the aforementioned “Torture Memos,” for their role in the torture program and for aiding and abetting the torture and other serious abuses of persons detained at U.S.-run facilities at Guantánamo and other overseas facilities. In April 2011, the presiding judge issued a ruling staying the case temporarily in Spain, transferring it to the U.S. Department of Justice for further proceedings. Victims’ representatives appealed the decision and the case will next go before the Spanish Constitutional Court. There has been no further action in the United States with regard to these charges. In another case pending in Spain that is investigating the torture program, the judge ruled in January 2012 that the court has jurisdiction over the case and in January 2013 formally admitted the Center for Constitutional Rights and the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights into the case as representatives of two former Guantánamo detainees.
Private Military Contractors. As noted in the Taguba report, private contractors played a significant role in the torture and ill treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib. To date, there have been no domestic prosecutions of employees of the contractors who were involved in the egregious mistreatment of detainees. Victims of torture at Abu Ghraib have brought civil cases against contractors who were involved in the unlawful treatment of detainees, including torture and other war crimes, as interrogators and interpreters. After nearly years of struggling to maintain their cases, a class action suit was dismissed in 2009, a suit brought on behalf of 72 detainees recently settled outside of court, and another brought on behalf of four detainees, which was on track to go to trial in 2013, was recently dismissed and is currently on appeal.
The Case of Maher Arar: Extraordinary Rendition and Torture. In January 2004, Maher Arar brought a case in New York against high-ranking administration officials seeking accountability and redress for his rendition to Syria where he was tortured, forced to falsely confess and then released after one year without ever being charged. His detention and arrest occurred when he was traveling through a New York airport on his way home to Canada. The government of Canada later officially apologized for having provided erroneous information to the United States that led to his detention and subsequent rendition, but to date the United States government has refused to provide an apology for the horrific violations of Mr. Arar’s fundamental rights. Mr. Arar fought for six years to keep the case alive until the U.S. Supreme Court allowed an appellate court’s decision dismissing the case to stand. The appellate court found that allowing Mr. Arar’s claims to proceed would interfere with national security and foreign policy. A dissenting judge observed that the court’s decision gave federal officials license to “violate constitutional rights with virtual impunity.”
Kill Lists and Drones. In 2010, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit on behalf of Dr. Nasser Al-Aulaqi against President Barack Obama, the Secretary of the Department of Defense, and the Director of the CIA challenging and seeking to enjoin their decision authorizing the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi, in violation of the U.S. Constitution and international law. Dr. Al-Aulaqi’s case was dismissed on the grounds that he did not have legal standing to challenge the targeting of his son and that the case raised “political questions” that were not subject to judicial review. On September 30, 2011, U.S. drone strikes killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, along with U.S. citizen Samir Khan and three others. Two weeks later, on October 14, 2011, the U.S. launched another drone strike at an open-air restaurant in Yemen, killing Anwar Al-Aulaqi’s 16-year-old U.S. citizen son, Abdulrahman, and six other civilian bystanders, including another minor. On July 18, 2012, the Center for Constitutional Rights again brought a case seeking accountability and redress for the unconstitutional killings of three U.S. citizens, Anwar and Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi and Samir Khan.
Punishing Whistleblowers. In May 2010, Private First Class Chelsea Manning, a U.S. Army analyst, was arrested and charged with a number of offenses based on her now admitted leak of classified information to Wikileaks. During the course of her detention, she was held in so-called prevention-of-injury status, which amounted to months-long periods of solitary confinement during which she was often forced to remain without clothing and her eyeglasses, conditions of confinement that prompted an international outcry as forms of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Manning pled guilty to 10 of the 22 charges against her on Feb. 28, 2013. She was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses and sentenced to 35 years confinement with the possibility of parole in eight years.
Among the revelations resulting from Manning’s efforts to “blow the whistle” was the now-infamous video of footage taken in July 2007 in Baghdad from a U.S. helicopter firing upon journalists and other civilians as well as a van that was attempting to come to the aid of those who had been fired upon. Ultimately, two children riding in the van were wounded and their father was killed along with at least eleven others. But the leaks also led to the lengthy investigation mentioned above by The Guardian and BBC-Arabic into the role and involvement of retired Col. James Steele and former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in the detention centers in Iraq where torture and other forms of serious ill-treatment were utilized. At the time of her guilty plea, Manning told the court: “I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained [in the released documents] this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general…as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.”
* * *
It is against this backdrop of multi-dimensional and grave harms on all sides of the war and utter impunity and lack of any means of real redress that OWFI, IVAW and FWCUI present the following report on the trauma and harms shared by those most affected – the people in communities where these wars were fought and those sent to do the fighting. Through this report, as a part of a broader campaign, the organizations seek to surface the lasting harms their communities have suffered, and seek acknowledgment, accountability and reparations for those harms as violations of human rights and the U.S.’s duties under international law.
 In all cases brought by victims or their families for torture, rendition and killing programs, the U.S. government has consistently sought to block those cases in the courts, asserting defenses of immunity, political question, special factors and/or state secrets as reasons why courts should not allow the cases to proceed. And for the most part, courts have gone along with the government’s line. Recent cases for accountability and redress which the U.S. Department of Justice has opposed include Padilla v. Yoo, 678 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2012) (granting immunity to defendant John Yoo from suit filed by torture victim); Doe v. Rumsfeld, 683 F.3d 390 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (finding lower court erred in not dismissing case brought by a U.S. citizen and former detainee in part on the basis of the “special factor” that “litigation of Doe’s case would require testimony from top military officials as well as forces on the ground, which would detract focus, resources, and personnel from the mission in Iraq.”); Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (granting immunity to then-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld from suit brought by Afghan and Iraqi victims of torture); Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 614 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding lower court’s finding that, “‘allegations’ of covert U.S. military or CIA operations in foreign countries against foreign nationals — [are] clearly a subject matter which is a state secret,” and therefore dismissing the case). See also Lisa Magarrell and Lorna Peterson, International Center for Transitional Justice, After Torture: U.S. Accountability and the Right to Redress, Aug. 2010, available at http://www.ictj.org/publication/after-torture-us-accountability-and-right-redress (“a number of cases have been dismissed without ever reaching a hearing on the merits because courts have repeatedly declined to hear cases in which the government asserts that state secrets, classified evidence, evaluations of foreign policy, or national security issues are involved.”).
 Thom Shanker, Lessons of Iraq Help U.S. Fight a Drug War in Honduras, New York Times, May 5, 2012, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/world/americas/us-turns-its-focus-on-drug-smuggling-in-honduras.html?pagewanted=all.
 See Mona Mahmood et al., Revealed: Pentagon’s Link to Iraqi Torture Centres: General David Petraeus and ‘Dirty Wars’ Veteran Behind Commando Units Implicated in Detainee Abuse, The Guardian, Mar. 6, 2013, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link.
 U.S. Const. Art I, Section 8, Clause 11.
 See Testimony of Professor Jules Lobel before the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, War Powers for the 21st Century: The Constitutional Perspective, Apr. 10, 2008, available at http://democrats.foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/lob041008.htm.
 War Powers Resolution of 1973, 50 U.S.C. 1541-1548.
 See Testimony of Professor Jules Lobel to House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee, supra note 62.
 See Crockett v. Reagan, 558 F. Supp. 893 (D.D.C. 1982), available at http://openjurist.org/720/f2d/1355/crockett-v-reagan.
 See Dellums v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 1141 (D.D.C. 1990), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16581780212178521116&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr.
 Id. at 1151.
 See Authorization for the Use of Military Force, Public Law 107-40, 107th Congress (2001), Sec. 2. available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf.
 See, e.g., Center for Constitutional Rights, Restore. Protect. Expand. Amend the War Powers Resolution, 2009, available at http://ccrjustice.org/files/CCR_White_WarPowers.pdf; see also Seth Weinberger, Presidential War Powers in a Never-Ending “War”, 13 ILSA J. of Int’l & Comp. L. 1 (2006).
 See, e.g., International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC Report on Treatment of Fourteen ‘High Value’ Detainees’ in CIA Custody (2007); Association of the Bar of the City of New York & Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, Torture by Proxy: International and Domestic Law Applicable to “Extraordinary Renditions,(2004); Evan Perez, Rendition Case Under Bush Gets Obama Backing, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 2009, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123422915277565975.html; Marian Wang, Under Obama Administration, Renditions – and Secrecy Around Them – Continue, ProPublica, Sept. 6, 2011, available at http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/as-rendition-controversy-reemerges-obama-admin-policies-murky; Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Alleged Secret Detentions and Unlawful Inter-State Transfers of Detainees Involving Council of Europe Member States, Resolution 1507 (2006), available at http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/ERES1507.htm; Scott Horton, New CIA Docs Detail Brutal ‘Extraordinary Rendition’ Process, Huffington Post, Sep. 28, 2009, available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/28/new-cia-docs-detail-bruta_n_271299.html.
 See, e.g., Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf.
 U.S. Department of Justice White Paper on NSA Legal Authorities, Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President, Jan. 19, 2006, available at http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB178/surv39.pdf.
 Scott Shane and Charlie Savage, Report on Targeted Killing Whets Appetite for Less Secrecy, New York Times, Feb. 5, 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/us/politics/obama-slow-to-reveal-secrets-on-targeted-killings.html. The leaked White Paper referred to in the story can be accessed here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf.
 Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung, Administration Debates Stretching 9/11 Law to Go After new al-Qaeda Offshoots, Washington Post, Mar. 6, 2013, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/administration-debates-stretching-911-law-to-go-after-new-al-qaeda-offshoots/2013/03/06/fd2574a0-85e5-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_print.html.
 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted Oct. 16, 2002, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/pdf/PLAW-107publ243.pdf.
 See Sidney Blumenthal, Bush Knew Saddam Had No Weapons of Mass Destruction: Exclusive: Two Former CIA Officers Say the President Squelched Top-secret Intelligence, and a Briefing by George Tenet, Months Before Invading Iraq, Salon, Sept. 6, 2007, available at http://www.salon.com/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/; Don Van Natta Jr., Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says, New York Times, Mar. 27, 2006, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
 “Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors,” H.Res. 1345, Jun. 11, 2008, available at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE01258:@@@P.
 See The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, Int’l Court of Justice, Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, 1986 I.C.J. 14, Jun. 27, 1986, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=367&code=nus&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&k=66&p3=5.
 See Pam Spees, The International Criminal Court in Rule of Power or Rule of Law?: An Assessment of U.S. Policies and Actions Regarding Security-Related Treaties (Nicole Deller, Arjun Makhijani, John Burroughs, eds., 2002).
 For a sample of analyses of these practices by United Nations bodies and experts and other international legal scholars, see, e.g., United Nations Committee Against Torture, Consideration of Reports submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention – Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture – United States of America, CAT/C/USA/CO/2, Jul. 25, 2006, at ¶ 24, available at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/e2d4f5b2dccc0a4cc12571ee00290ce0/$FILE/G0643225.pdf (recommending that the U.S. “rescind any interrogation technique, including methods involving sexual humiliation, ‘water boarding,’ ‘short shackling’ and using dogs to induce fear, that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”); United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Situation of Detainees at Guantánamo Bay – Report of the Chairperson of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Ms. Leila Zerrougui; the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Mr. Leandro Despouy; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Mr. Manfred Nowak; the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ms. Asma Jahangir and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Mr. Paul Hunt, E/CN.4/2006/120, Feb. 27, 2006, at ¶ 87, available at http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=E/CN.4/2006/120. See also M. Cherif Bassiouni, The Institutionalization Of Torture By The Bush Administration – Is Anyone Responsible? (2010).
 The Report of The Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment, The Constitution Project (2013), available at http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/684407/constitution-project-report-on-detainee-treatment.pdf.
 See Seymour M. Hersh, Torture at Abu Ghraib: American Soldiers Brutalized Iraqis. How Far Up Does the Responsibility Go?, New Yorker, May 10, 2004, available at http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact.
 See, e.g., Editorial: The Abu Ghraib Spin, New York Times, May 12, 2004, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/opinion/12WED1.html?th; William Saletan, Rape Rooms: A Chronology: What Bush Said as the Iraq Prison Scandal Unfolded, Slate, May 5, 2004, available at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2004/05/rape_rooms_a_chronology.5.html.
 A. Taguba, Art. 15-6: Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade (2004), available at http://www.npr.org/iraq/2004/prison_abuse_report.pdf (citing instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuse” at Abu Ghraib) [hereinafter Taguba Report].
 See Tim Golden, In U.S. report, Brutal Details of Two Afghan Inmates’ Deaths, New York Times, May 20, 2005, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?ref=bagramairbaseafghanistan; see also Center for Constitutional Rights, Report on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment of Prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Jul. 2006, available at http://ccrjustice.org/files/Report_ReportOnTorture.pdf.
 See A Guide to the Memos on Torture, New York Times, available at http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html. See also David Johnston and James Risen, The Reach of War: The Interrogations; Aides Say Memo Backed Coercion Already in Use, New York Times, Jun. 27, 2004, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/world/reach-war-interrogations-aides-say-memo-backed-coercion-already-use.html; Joint Expert Opinion: Liability of the Six Defendants, submitted in the Central Court for Preliminary Criminal Proceedings No. 6, Summary Procedure 134/2009, available at http://www.ccrjustice.org/files/FINAL%20English%20Lawyers%20Responsibility%20Submission.pdf.
 Report by the Senate Armed Services Committee on Detainee Treatment, 110th Congress, 2nd Session, Nov. 20, 2008 at xv, available at http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=1.
 Id. at xxvii.
 Id. at 152.
 Id. at xii.
 The Constitution Project, supra note 83 at 72.
 Scott Horton, The Guantánamo “Suicides”: A Camp Delta Sergeant Blows the Whistle, Harper’s (Mar. 2010), available at http://harpers.org/archive/2010/03/the-guantanamo-suicides.
 See Al-Zahrani v. Rumsfeld, Civil Action No. 09-0028, Memorandum Opinion of Feb. 16, 2010 (D.D.C.), available at http://www.ccrjustice.org/files/Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf.
 Mahmood, supra note 60.
 Rumsfeld famously told the press that “the Salvador Option” was needed for Iraq. See Michael Hirsch and John Barry, “The Salvador Option”: The Pentagon May Put Special-Forces-Led Assassination or Kidnapping Teams in Iraq, Newsweek, Jan. 9, 2005, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20050110030928/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/. Steele was also implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal, in which senior officials in the administration of then President Ronald Reagan secretly facilitated arms sales to Iran in order to fund the Nicaraguan Contras, as official government funding had been prohibited by Congress. See Christopher Drew, Testimony on Contras Still Haunts Colonel, Chicago Tribune, Jul. 7, 1991, available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-07-07/news/9103170482_1_iran-contra-james-steele-special-prosecutor-lawrence-walsh; see also Peter Maass, The Way of Commandos, New York Times Magazine, May 1, 2005, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/magazine/01ARMY.html?pagewanted=all&position.
 See Preliminary “Indictment for Torture” of George W. Bush: Brought Pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, available at http://www.ccrjustice.org/files/FINAL%207%20Feb%20BUSH%20INDICTMENT.pdf.
 See Letter of Ibrahim Salama, Director of the Human Rights Treaties Division, to Katherine Gallagher, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, Jan. 22, 2013, available at http://www.ccrjustice.org/files/UN%20CAT%20Response.pdf.
 See German War Crimes Complaint Against Donald Rumsfeld, et al., available at http://www.ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/german-war-crimes-complaint-against-donald-rumsfeld%2C-et-al. See French War Crimes Complaint Against Donald Rumsfeld, et al., available at http://www.ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/french-war-crimes-complaint-against-donald-rumsfeld%2C-et-al.
 For more information and copies of the filings, see The Spanish Investigation Against the “Bush Six” at http://ccrjustice.org/spain-us-torture-case.
 See Preliminary Report, Summary Proceedings 0000134/2009 of Court for Preliminary Criminal Proceedings No. 006, Apri 13, 2011, available at http://ccrjustice.org/files/13%20April%202011%20Order%20ENG.pdf; (Español) http://ccrjustice.org/files/13%20April%202011%20Order%20SPAN.pdf.
 Al Shimari v. CACI International, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-00827 (E.D. Va.). For more information, see the Center for Constitutional Rights’ case page, available at http://www.ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/al-shimari-v-caci-et-al.
 Arar v. Ashcroft, Case No. No. 04-CV-0249 (E.D.N.Y.). For more information, please see the Center for Constitutional Rights’ case page, available at http://www.ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/arar-v-ashcroft.
 Harper Apologizes for Canada’s Role in Arar’s ‘Terrible Ordeal’, CANWEST News Service, Jan. 27, 2007, available at http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=54e0c760-750d-4b18-9f6d-15501296a7b2&k=69081.
 Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft, et al., Case No. 09-923, Supreme Court of the United States, cert denied June 14, 2010.
 Maher Arar v. John Ashcroft, et al., Case No. 06-4216-cv, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Opinion Affirming Dismissal of Case, 532 F. 3d 157 (2d. Cir. 2008), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4195309659193362053&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr. See also, Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F. 3d 559 (2d Cir. 2009) (en banc) available at http://ccrjustice.org/files/Decision%20on%20Plaintiff’s%20Petition%20for%20Rehearing%20En%20Banc%2011.02.09.pdf.
 Arar v. Ashcroft, 532 F. 3d 157 (2d Cir. 2008), available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4195309659193362053&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr at 88.
 Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, Case No. 1:12-cv-01192 (D.D.C.). For more information, please see the Center for Constitutional Rights’ case page, available at http://www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings.
 See Juan Mendez, Addendum to Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to the United Nations General Assembly, A/HRC/19/61/Add.4, Feb. 29, 2012, at 74; Ed Pilkington, Bradley Manning’s Treatment Was Cruel and Inhuman, UN Torture Chief Rules, The Guardian, Mar. 12, 2012, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un; Letter from Amnesty International to Robert M. Gates, Jan. 19, 2011, available at http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7975698-amnesty-criticizes-conditions-of-bradley-mannings-confinement.
 See Glenn Greewald, Wikileaks Releases Video of Slaughter in Iraq, Salon, Apr. 5, 2010, available at http://www.salon.com/2010/04/05/iraq_49/; Elisabeth Bumiller, Video Shows U.S. Killing of Reuters Employees, New York Times, Apr. 5, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html.
 See Mahmood, supra note 60.
 Bradley Manning: A Whistleblowing Hero?, Al Jazeera, Mar. 5, 2013, available at http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2013/03/20133591256924844.html.