Power, Pragmatism, and Prisoner Abuse: Amnesty and Accountability in the United States

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

America’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law has long been an integral part of the nation’s self-image as an idealistic and inspirational society. It has been substantiated in the United States’ promotion of the rule of law around the world. However, as has been extensively scrutinized in recent years, the lackluster pursuit of accountability for the widespread abuses committed by American personnel during the so-called “War on Terror” illustrates a disjuncture within domestic and international discourse between the dual perceptions of the United States as a law-abiding nation, and America as a law-breaking state. This article seeks to explore this disjuncture through investigating the rationales of the Department of Justice (DOJ) for limiting accountability for the widespread torture of detainees by CIA interrogators. The article begins in Section II by providing an overview of the nature and extent of the prisoner abuse and the efforts by the Bush administration to avoid respecting domestic and international prohibitions on torture and degrading treatment. In Section III, the article explores the domestic law governing the Federal government’s use of leniency for political offenses, and given the international dimensions of the systematic prisoner abuse, U.S. unilateral and multilateral involvement in the decisions of foreign governments grant leniency for serious human rights violations. Section IV examines the DOJ decisions by analyzing extensive data compiled in two unique datasets relating to the United States’ enactment of domestic amnesty laws and pardons, and its involvement in foreign amnesty negotiations. That analysis is grouped under the following themes: amnesty, empire and hegemony; amnesty, denial and justificatory claimsmaking; law, politics and pragmatism in the use of amnesties; and amnesty, mercy and the public welfare. The article will argue that although amnesties and pardons are products of and regulated by law, their use creates exceptions to the law that are motivated by a range of inter-related political concerns, such as power, sovereignty, legitimacy, and national security. These concerns have been evident in America’s historical engagement with amnesty laws and continue to be central to contemporary debates on accountability for prisoner abuse.
LanguageEnglish
Pages307-376
JournalOregon Review of International Law
Volume14
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2012

Fingerprint

amnesty
pragmatism
prisoner
abuse
responsibility
Law
torture
constitutional state
justice
human rights violation
state law
national security
hegemony
Federal Government
self-image
sovereignty
terrorism
personnel
legitimacy
human rights

Keywords

  • United States
  • torture
  • accountability
  • prisoner abuse

Cite this

@article{61534a6af0524baea75ebc56bd7b6e92,
title = "Power, Pragmatism, and Prisoner Abuse: Amnesty and Accountability in the United States",
abstract = "America’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law has long been an integral part of the nation’s self-image as an idealistic and inspirational society. It has been substantiated in the United States’ promotion of the rule of law around the world. However, as has been extensively scrutinized in recent years, the lackluster pursuit of accountability for the widespread abuses committed by American personnel during the so-called “War on Terror” illustrates a disjuncture within domestic and international discourse between the dual perceptions of the United States as a law-abiding nation, and America as a law-breaking state. This article seeks to explore this disjuncture through investigating the rationales of the Department of Justice (DOJ) for limiting accountability for the widespread torture of detainees by CIA interrogators. The article begins in Section II by providing an overview of the nature and extent of the prisoner abuse and the efforts by the Bush administration to avoid respecting domestic and international prohibitions on torture and degrading treatment. In Section III, the article explores the domestic law governing the Federal government’s use of leniency for political offenses, and given the international dimensions of the systematic prisoner abuse, U.S. unilateral and multilateral involvement in the decisions of foreign governments grant leniency for serious human rights violations. Section IV examines the DOJ decisions by analyzing extensive data compiled in two unique datasets relating to the United States’ enactment of domestic amnesty laws and pardons, and its involvement in foreign amnesty negotiations. That analysis is grouped under the following themes: amnesty, empire and hegemony; amnesty, denial and justificatory claimsmaking; law, politics and pragmatism in the use of amnesties; and amnesty, mercy and the public welfare. The article will argue that although amnesties and pardons are products of and regulated by law, their use creates exceptions to the law that are motivated by a range of inter-related political concerns, such as power, sovereignty, legitimacy, and national security. These concerns have been evident in America’s historical engagement with amnesty laws and continue to be central to contemporary debates on accountability for prisoner abuse.",
keywords = "United States, torture, accountability, prisoner abuse",
author = "Louise Mallinder",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "307--376",
journal = "Oregon Review of International Law",
issn = "1543-9860",
number = "2",

}

Power, Pragmatism, and Prisoner Abuse: Amnesty and Accountability in the United States. / Mallinder, Louise.

In: Oregon Review of International Law, Vol. 14, No. 2, 12.2012, p. 307-376.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Power, Pragmatism, and Prisoner Abuse: Amnesty and Accountability in the United States

AU - Mallinder, Louise

PY - 2012/12

Y1 - 2012/12

N2 - America’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law has long been an integral part of the nation’s self-image as an idealistic and inspirational society. It has been substantiated in the United States’ promotion of the rule of law around the world. However, as has been extensively scrutinized in recent years, the lackluster pursuit of accountability for the widespread abuses committed by American personnel during the so-called “War on Terror” illustrates a disjuncture within domestic and international discourse between the dual perceptions of the United States as a law-abiding nation, and America as a law-breaking state. This article seeks to explore this disjuncture through investigating the rationales of the Department of Justice (DOJ) for limiting accountability for the widespread torture of detainees by CIA interrogators. The article begins in Section II by providing an overview of the nature and extent of the prisoner abuse and the efforts by the Bush administration to avoid respecting domestic and international prohibitions on torture and degrading treatment. In Section III, the article explores the domestic law governing the Federal government’s use of leniency for political offenses, and given the international dimensions of the systematic prisoner abuse, U.S. unilateral and multilateral involvement in the decisions of foreign governments grant leniency for serious human rights violations. Section IV examines the DOJ decisions by analyzing extensive data compiled in two unique datasets relating to the United States’ enactment of domestic amnesty laws and pardons, and its involvement in foreign amnesty negotiations. That analysis is grouped under the following themes: amnesty, empire and hegemony; amnesty, denial and justificatory claimsmaking; law, politics and pragmatism in the use of amnesties; and amnesty, mercy and the public welfare. The article will argue that although amnesties and pardons are products of and regulated by law, their use creates exceptions to the law that are motivated by a range of inter-related political concerns, such as power, sovereignty, legitimacy, and national security. These concerns have been evident in America’s historical engagement with amnesty laws and continue to be central to contemporary debates on accountability for prisoner abuse.

AB - America’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law has long been an integral part of the nation’s self-image as an idealistic and inspirational society. It has been substantiated in the United States’ promotion of the rule of law around the world. However, as has been extensively scrutinized in recent years, the lackluster pursuit of accountability for the widespread abuses committed by American personnel during the so-called “War on Terror” illustrates a disjuncture within domestic and international discourse between the dual perceptions of the United States as a law-abiding nation, and America as a law-breaking state. This article seeks to explore this disjuncture through investigating the rationales of the Department of Justice (DOJ) for limiting accountability for the widespread torture of detainees by CIA interrogators. The article begins in Section II by providing an overview of the nature and extent of the prisoner abuse and the efforts by the Bush administration to avoid respecting domestic and international prohibitions on torture and degrading treatment. In Section III, the article explores the domestic law governing the Federal government’s use of leniency for political offenses, and given the international dimensions of the systematic prisoner abuse, U.S. unilateral and multilateral involvement in the decisions of foreign governments grant leniency for serious human rights violations. Section IV examines the DOJ decisions by analyzing extensive data compiled in two unique datasets relating to the United States’ enactment of domestic amnesty laws and pardons, and its involvement in foreign amnesty negotiations. That analysis is grouped under the following themes: amnesty, empire and hegemony; amnesty, denial and justificatory claimsmaking; law, politics and pragmatism in the use of amnesties; and amnesty, mercy and the public welfare. The article will argue that although amnesties and pardons are products of and regulated by law, their use creates exceptions to the law that are motivated by a range of inter-related political concerns, such as power, sovereignty, legitimacy, and national security. These concerns have been evident in America’s historical engagement with amnesty laws and continue to be central to contemporary debates on accountability for prisoner abuse.

KW - United States

KW - torture

KW - accountability

KW - prisoner abuse

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 307

EP - 376

JO - Oregon Review of International Law

T2 - Oregon Review of International Law

JF - Oregon Review of International Law

SN - 1543-9860

IS - 2

ER -