View source for Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

==Legal issues==
===International law===
Since much of the abuse took place while Iraq was occupied by the United States under the [[Coalition Provisional Authority]] (CPA), Common Article Two of the [[Geneva Conventions]] (which governs rules applicable to international armed conflict) applied to the situation. Common Article Two states:

<blockquote>
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. 

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ae6b3694.pdf|title=Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field|publisher=Refworld}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b37927.html|title=Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea|publisher=Refworld}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36c8.html|title=Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War|publisher=Refworld}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36d2.html|title=Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War|publisher=Refworld}}</ref>
</blockquote>

The United States has ratified the [[Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907|1907 Hague Convention]] ''IV - Laws and Customs of War on Land'' and the [[Third Geneva Convention|Third]] and [[Fourth Geneva Convention]]s,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32395.html#TOC1_2|title=U.S. Treatment of Prisoners in Iraq: Selected Legal Issues|date=May 24, 2004 – October 27, 2005|website=EveryCRSReport.com}}</ref> as well as the [[United Nations Convention against Torture]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32395.html#TOC2_4|title=U.S. Treatment of Prisoners in Iraq: Selected Legal Issues|date=May 24, 2004 – October 27, 2005|website=EveryCRSReport.com}}</ref> The [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush Administration]] took the position that: "Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States recognizes that these treaties are binding in the war for the 'liberation of Iraq{{'"}}.<ref>Alberto Gonzales, OP-ED: "The Rule of Law and the Rules of War", ''The New York Times'', May 15, 2004</ref>
[[File:Abu Ghraib 22.jpg|thumb|Detainee after dog bite]]

The Convention Against Torture defines [[torture]] in the following terms:
{{Blockquote|For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.|[[United Nations Convention Against Torture]]|(Article 1)}}
[[File:Abu Ghraib 29.JPG|thumb|upright=0.5|A prisoner with wounds, possibly from non-lethal ammunition.]]

According to [[Human Rights Watch]]:
{{blockquote|Al-Qaeda detainees would likely not be accorded [[Prisoner of War]] (POW) status, but the Conventions still provide explicit protections to all persons held in an international armed conflict, even if they are not entitled to POW status. Such protections include the right to be free from coercive interrogation, to receive a fair trial if charged with a criminal offense, and, in the case of detained civilians, to be able to appeal periodically the security rationale for continued detention.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.hrw.org/en/node/12123/section/3 |title=The Road to Abu Ghraib |publisher=Human Rights Watch |date=June 9, 2004 |access-date=April 3, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121011111447/http://www.hrw.org/en/node/12123/section/3 |archive-date=October 11, 2012 }}</ref>}}

The [[International Committee of the Red Cross]] (ICRC) concluded in its confidential February 2004 report to the Coalition Forces (CF) that it had documented "serious violations" of international law in connection with prisoners held in Iraq. The ICRD added that its report "establishes that persons deprived of their liberty face the risk of being subjected to a process of physical and psychological coercion, in some cases tantamount to torture, in the early stages of the internment process".<ref name="ICRC04report"/> There were several major violations described in the ICRC report. These included brutality against protected persons upon capture and initial custody, sometimes causing death or serious injury; absence of notification of arrest of persons deprived of their liberty to their families causing distress among persons deprived of their liberty and their families; physical or psychological coercion during interrogation to secure information; prolonged solitary confinement in cells devoid of daylight; excessive and disproportionate use of force against persons deprived of their liberty resulting in death or injury during their period of internment.<ref name="ICRC04report">{{cite web|url=http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/us/doc/icrc-prisoner-report-feb-2004.pdf |title=Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on the Treatment by the Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and Other Protected Persons by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq During Arrest, Internment and Interrogation (section 3.1) |publisher=International Committee of the Red Cross |date=February 2004 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080513090151/http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/us/doc/icrc-prisoner-report-feb-2004.pdf |archive-date=May 13, 2008 }}</ref>

Some legal experts have said that the United States could be obligated to try some of its soldiers for [[war crime]]s.{{Citation needed|date=January 2013}} Under the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war and civilians detained in a war may not be treated in a degrading manner, and violation of that section is a "grave breach". In a November 5, 2003 report on prisons in Iraq, the Army's provost marshal, Major General Donald J. Ryder, stated that the conditions under which prisoners were held sometimes violated the Geneva Conventions.{{Citation needed|date=January 2009}}

===United Nations resolution 1546===
In December 2005, John Pace, human rights chief for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), criticized the U.S. military's practice of holding Iraqi prisoners in Iraqi facilities such as Abu Ghraib. Pace stated that this practice was not mandated by UN Resolution 1546, according to which the U.S. government has claimed a legal mandate permitting its ongoing occupation of Iraq. Pace said, "All except those held by the Ministry of Justice are, technically speaking, held against the law because the Ministry of Justice is the only authority that is empowered by law to detain, to hold anybody in prison. Essentially none of these people have any real recourse to protection and therefore we speak&nbsp;... of a total breakdown in the protection of the individual in this country."<ref>{{cite news |work=[[The Age]] |date=December 6, 2005 |first=Paul |last=Tait |url=https://www.theage.com.au/world/america-abusing-mandate-in-iraq-20051206-ge1dia.html |title=America 'abusing' mandate in Iraq |access-date=June 23, 2006 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060516033839/http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/america-abusing-mandate-in-iraq/2005/12/05/1133631201911.html |archive-date=May 16, 2006 }}</ref>

===Torture Memos===
[[Alberto Gonzales]] and other senior administration lawyers argued that detainees at the [[Guantanamo Bay detention camp]] and other similar prisons should be considered "[[unlawful combatant]]s" and were not protected by the [[Geneva Conventions]]. These opinions were issued in multiple memoranda, known today as the "[[Torture Memos]]", in August 2002, by the [[Office of Legal Counsel]] (OLC) in the [[United States Department of Justice|U.S. Justice Department]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2006/02/23/yoo_8/ |first=Walter |last=Shapiro |title=Parsing pain |date=February 23, 2006 |access-date=September 16, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080307223219/http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/23/yoo/index_np.html |archive-date=March 7, 2008 }}</ref> They were written by [[John Yoo]], deputy assistant attorney-general in the OLC, and two of three were signed by his boss [[Jay Bybee|Jay S. Bybee]]. (The latter was appointed as a federal judge in 2003, starting March 21, 2003.) An additional memo was issued on March 14, 2003, after the resignation of Bybee, and just prior to the American invasion of Iraq. In it, Yoo concluded that federal laws prohibiting the use of torture did not apply to U.S. practices overseas.<ref name="Haynes">{{cite news|last=Isikoff|first=Michael|authorlink=Michael Isikoff|date=April 5, 2008|title=A Top Pentagon Lawyer Faces a Senate Grilling On Torture|work=[[Newsweek]]|url=https://www.newsweek.com/justice-torture-memo-fallout-85899|url-status=live|access-date=January 18, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120115012641/http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/05/a-top-pentagon-lawyer-faces-a-senate-grilling-on-torture.html|archive-date=January 15, 2012}}</ref> Gonzales observed that denying coverage under the Geneva Conventions, "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the [[War Crimes Act of 1996|War Crimes Act]]."<ref name="Holtzman"/> Congresswoman [[Elizabeth Holtzman]] wrote that Gonzales's statement suggested that policy was crafted to ensure that the actions of U.S. officials could not be considered [[war crime]]s.<ref name="Holtzman">{{cite news |url=https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/torture-and-accountability/ |first=Elizabeth |last=Holtzman |authorlink=Elizabeth Holtzman |title=Torture and Accountability |work=[[The Nation]] |date=June 28, 2005 }}</ref><ref>{{cite interview |url=https://www.democracynow.org/2005/6/30/fmr_ny_congressmember_holtzman_calls_for |date=June 30, 2005 |first=Elizabeth |last=Holtzman |interviewer=[[Amy Goodman]] |title=Former NY Congress member Holtzman Calls For President Bush and His Senior Staff To Be Held Accountable for Abu Ghraib Torture |work=[[Democracy Now!]] |access-date=September 16, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071114040412/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05%2F06%2F30%2F1333214 |archive-date=November 14, 2007 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.newsweek.com/memos-reveal-war-crimes-warnings-128415 |first=Michael |last=Isikoff |title=Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings |work=Newsweek |date=May 19, 2004 |authorlink=Michael Isikoff }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://archive.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0128uslawyers.htm |date=January 28, 2003 |first=Grant |last=McCool |title=US Lawyers Warn Bush on War Crimes|access-date=September 16, 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150718210406/https://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0128uslawyers.htm|archive-date=July 18, 2015 }}</ref>

===Other legal proceedings===
In ''[[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]]'' (2006), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applied to all detainees in the [[War on Terror]]. It said that the [[Guantanamo military commission|military tribunals]] used to try these suspects were in violation of U.S. and international law. It said that the president could not unilaterally establish such tribunals, and that Congress needed to authorize a means by which detainees could confront their accusers and challenge their detention.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.newsweek.com/gitmo-fallout-112933 |first1=Michael |last1=Isikoff |authorlink=Michael Isikoff | first2=Stuart Jr. |last2= Taylor |title=The Gitmo Fallout: The fight over the Hamdan ruling heats up—as fears about its reach escalate |work=[[Newsweek]] |date=July 17, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060718003322/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13773997/site/newsweek/ |archive-date=July 18, 2006 }}</ref> At the time of the court's ruling, the U.S. fought in cooperation with recognized territorial governments (including the [[Islamic Republic of Afghanistan]] and the [[Federal government of Iraq|Iraqi federal government]]) in the War on Terror against [[violent non-state actor]]s, and therefore Common Article Three was binding upon the U.S. rather than Common Article Two.

On June 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals of lawsuits from a group of 250 Iraqis who wanted to sue [[CACI]] International Inc. and [[Titan Corporation|Titan Corp.]] (now a subsidiary of [[L3 Technologies|L-3 Communications]]), the two private contractors at Abu Ghraib, over claims of abuse by interrogators and translators at the prison. The suits had been dismissed by the lower courts on the grounds that the companies held a derivative sovereign immunity from suits based on their status as government contractors pursuant to a battle-field preemption doctrine.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.politico.com/story/2011/06/scotus-nixes-iraqis-lawsuit-057840 | work=[[Politico]] |first=Jennifer |last=Epstein | title=SCOTUS nixes Iraqis' lawsuit |date=June 27, 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170519025713/http://www.politico.com/story/2011/06/scotus-nixes-iraqis-lawsuit-057840 |archive-date=May 19, 2017 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2011/06/28/us-supreme-court-refuses-to-allow-abu-ghraib-torture-victims-to-sue-military-contractors/ |date=June 28, 201 |title=US Supreme Court Refuses to Allow Abu Ghraib Torture Victims to Sue Military Contractors |first=Andy |last=Worthington |work=[[Andy Worthington]] |access-date=April 3, 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120502195241/http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2011/06/28/us-supreme-court-refuses-to-allow-abu-ghraib-torture-victims-to-sue-military-contractors/ |archive-date=May 2, 2012 }}</ref>
[[File:AbuGhraibScandalGraner55.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Charles Graner]] poses over [[Manadel al-Jamadi]]'s corpse, after he was tortured to death by CIA personnel.<ref name="New Yorker 2005"/><ref name="Salon 2006"/>]]
[[File:Sabrina-Harman.jpg|thumb|[[Sabrina Harman]] poses over the corpse of [[Death of Manadel al-Jamadi|Manadel al-Jamadi]], after he was tortured to death by CIA personnel.<ref name="New Yorker 2005"/><ref name="Salon 2006"/>]]

On November 14, 2006, legal proceedings invoking [[universal jurisdiction]] were begun in Germany against [[Donald Rumsfeld]], [[Alberto Gonzales]], [[John Yoo]], [[George Tenet]] and others for their alleged involvement in [[prisoner abuse]] under the [[command responsibility]].<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html |first=Adam |last=Zagorin |title=Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse |date=November 10, 2006|magazine=Time|access-date=September 16, 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130823130831/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html|archive-date=August 23, 2013 }}</ref><ref>{{cite interview |url=https://www.democracynow.org/2006/11/9/war_crimes_suit_prepared_against_rumsfeld |subject-link=Michael Ratner |first=Michael |last=Ratner |title=War Crimes Suit Prepared against Rumsfeld |work=[[Democracy Now!]] |access-date=September 16, 2014 |url-status=live |date=November 9, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071114081906/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F11%2F09%2F1444246 |archive-date=November 14, 2007 }}</ref> On April 27, 2007, the German [[Public Prosecutor General (Germany)|Public Prosecutor General]], [[Monika Harms]], announced that the government would not pursue charges against Rumsfeld and the 11 other U.S. officials, stating the accusations did not apply, in part because there was insufficient evidence that the acts occurred on German soil, and because the accused did not live in Germany.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=a3ZI8uTWUHVo&refer=germany|title=German Prosecutor Won't Set Rumsfeld Probe Following Complaint|access-date=September 16, 2014|work=Bloomberg|date=April 27, 2007|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930043357/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=a3ZI8uTWUHVo&refer=germany |first=Patrick |last=Donahue |archive-date=September 30, 2007 }}</ref>

In June 2011, the [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] announced it was opening a grand jury investigation into CIA torture which killed a prisoner.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.dnj.com/article/20110614/NEWS01/110614017/CIA-errors-falling-under-scrutiny-again |work=Daily News Journal |date=June 14, 2011 |title=CIA errors falling under scrutiny again }}{{Dead link|date=July 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first1=Adam |last1=Goldman |first2=Matt |last2=Apuzzo |url=https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/1626475 |agency=Associated Press |title=Justice opens grand jury on CIA detainee's death |work=taiwannews.com.tw |date=June 14, 2011 |access-date=June 14, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120122043325/http://www.newsday.com/news/justice-opens-grand-jury-on-cia-detainee-s-death-1.2956098 |archive-date=January 22, 2012 }}</ref>

In June 2014, the U.S. court of appeals in Richmond, Virginia, found that an 18th-century law known as the [[Alien Tort Statute]], allowed non-US citizens access to U.S. courts for violations of "the law of nations or a treaty of the United States". This would enable abused Iraqis to file suit against contractor CACI International. Employees of CACI International are being accused of encouraging torture and abuse as well as taking part in it as the four Iraqis contend that they were "repeatedly shot in the head with a taser gun", "beaten on the genitals with a stick", and forced to watch the "rape [of] a female detainee", during their time at the prison.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/30/iraq-lawsuit-defense-contractor-torture-abu-graib |date=June 30, 2014 |title=Abu Ghraib torture suit against contractor revived by federal court |author=Spencer Ackerman|work=The Guardian|access-date=September 16, 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140805225638/http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/30/iraq-lawsuit-defense-contractor-torture-abu-graib|archive-date=August 5, 2014 }}</ref>  

As of April 2024, an [[Alexandria, Virginia]] federal civil jury was deliberating whether to hold CACI liable for its employees' torture of three Iraqi citizens at Abu Ghraib.<ref>{{cite news |title=20 Years Later, a Jury Weighs Claims of Abuse at Abu Ghraib |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/us/iraq-prison-lawsuit-abu-ghraib-abuse.html |author=Mattathias Schwartz |date=April 23, 2024 |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=April 29, 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Deadlocked US jury in Abu Ghraib torture case told to continue deliberations |url=https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2024/04/29/deadlocked-us-jury-in-abu-ghraib-torture-case-told-to-continue-deliberations/ |date=April 29, 2024 |publisher=[[The National (Abu Dhabi)]] |access-date=April 29, 2024}}</ref> The case ended in a [[hung jury]], with the majority of jurors believing that CACI should be held responsible, and a second trial began on October 30.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/ap-abu-ghraib-iraq-virginia-b2638585.html |title=Retrial begins in civil suit against contractor accused in Abu Ghraib prison scandal |newspaper=The Independent |date=30 October 2024 |first=Matthew |last=Barakat}}</ref> On November 12, 2024, the federal court found CACI Premier Technology liable for its involvement in the torture and ordered CACI to pay $3 million in compensatory damages to each of the three plaintiffs, plus $11 million each in punitive damages, for a total of $42 million.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Abu Ghraib Verdict: Iraqi Torture Survivors Win Landmark Case as Jury Holds Private Contractor CACI Liable |url=https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/abu-ghraib-verdict-iraqi-torture-survivors-win-landmark-case-jury |date=2024-11-12 |access-date=2024-11-17 |website=[[Center for Constitutional Rights]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=Jury says defense contractor must pay $42 million over Abu Ghraib abuses |last=Rizzo |first=Salvador |date=2024-11-12 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/11/12/caci-international-abu-ghraib-damages/ |access-date=2024-11-17 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref> Although the court found that CACI employees did not directly take part in the human rights abuses, it concluded that interrogators had instructed the military police to "soften up" prisoners for questioning by mistreating them.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://apnews.com/article/abu-ghraib-civil-trial-iraq-virginia-3a2841ec2892fb111b4e26a70e761208 |title=Jury awards Abu Ghraib detainees $42 million, holds contractor responsible |newspaper=AP News |publisher=Associated Press |date=12 November 2024 |first=Matthew |last=Barakat}}</ref>

===Military Commissions Act of 2006===
Critics consider the [[Military Commissions Act of 2006]] an amnesty law for crimes committed in the War on Terror by retroactively rewriting the War Crimes Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/ratner|title=Michael Ratner, Center for Constitutional Rights|date=October 16, 2006|access-date=September 16, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070428083852/http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061016/ratner|archive-date=April 28, 2007|url-status=live }}</ref> It abolished [[habeas corpus]] for foreign detainees, effectively making it impossible for detainees to challenge crimes committed against them.<ref>Military Commissions Act of 2006</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/why-the-military-commissions-act-is-no-moderate-compromise.html |first=Michael C. |last=Dorf |title=Why The Military Commissions Act is No Moderate Compromise |access-date=September 16, 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140810054408/http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20061011.html |work=Findlaw.com |archive-date=August 10, 2014 }}</ref><ref name="VillageVoice2006-12-08">{{cite news| url=http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0650,hentoff,75255,2.html| title=Bush's War Crimes Cover-up| author=Nat Hentoff| work=[[Village Voice]]| date=December 8, 2006| access-date=April 2, 2007| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080617075536/http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0650,hentoff,75255,2.html| archive-date=June 17, 2008| url-status=dead |authorlink=Nat Hentoff}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.alternet.org/rights/42414/|title=Republican Torture Laws Will Live in History|work=Alternet|access-date=September 16, 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120208100049/http://www.alternet.org/rights/42414/|archive-date=February 8, 2012 }}</ref>