Congress

Brooklyn Law Review, Dec 2006

By Alison Croessmann, Published on 01/01/06

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&context=blr

Congress

Congress' Preliminar y Response to the Abu Ghirab Prison Abuse: Room for Reform? Alison Croessmann 0 0 Thi s Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Recommended Citation Alison Croessmann, Congress' Preliminary Response to the Abu Ghirab Prison Abuse: Room for Reform?, 71 Brook. L. Rev. (2005). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol71/iss2/7 - Article 7 Congress’ Preliminary Response to the Abu Ghraib Prison Abuses ROOM FOR REFORM? I. INTRODUCTION On July 22, 2004, Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) introduced a bill in response to the prisoner abuses photographed at the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq.1 Divided into three parts, the bill directs the President to require: (1) the videotaping of interrogations and “other pertinent interactions” of detainees in the custody of the United States armed forces as well as intelligence operatives and contractors of the United States;2 (2) “unfettered access” to detainees in the custody of the United States by members of various international human rights organizations;3 and (3) the developing of guidelines by the Judge Advocate General to ensure that the required videotaping in “section 1 is 1 H.R. 4951, 108th Cong. (2d Sess. 2004) [hereinafter Interrogation Bill]. Representative Holt reintroduced the Interrogation Bill to Congress on January 4, 2005, stating that “Congress failed to do [its] job, doggedly investigate how and why [the Abu Ghraib prison] abuses occurred, and put in place new safeguards for interrogations in U.S. military detention facilities . . . .” 151 CONG. REC. E15 (daily ed. Jan. 4, 2005) (statement of Rep. Holt). 2 Specifically, the bill orders the President to act “[i]n accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” and “the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States” when implementing a specific videotaping plan. Interrogation Bill, supra note 1, § 1(a). In addition, the bill also requires that “[v]ideotapes shall be made available . . . to both prosecution and defense to the extent they are material to any military or civilian criminal proceeding.” Id. § 1(b). 3 The human rights organizations mentioned in the bill are The International Federation of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture. Id. § 2. sufficiently expansive to prevent any abuse of detainees” that violates “law binding on the United States, including [international] treaties . . . .”4 Three formal reports evaluate the allegations of abuse at Abu Ghraib.5 The Taguba Report, commissioned by the United States Army and written by Major General Antonio Taguba, has been available to the public since May 2, 2004, despite the fact that it was initially marked SECRET/NO FOREIGN DISSEMINATION.6 The Schlesinger Report, researched and written by an independent panel commissioned by the government, was released to the public on August 24, 2004.7 Finally, the Jones-Fay Army Report, commissioned by the United States Army and compiled by Lieutenant General Anthony R. Jones and Major General George R. Fay, was declassified and released to the public on August 25, 2004.8 While the Taguba, Schlesinger, and Jones-Fay Reports evaluate allegations of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib 4 Id. § 3(a). 5 Although a series of reports address the instances of abuse at Abu Ghraib, it appears that Representative Holt lends a tremendous amount of credence to three of them. See 151 CONG. REC. E15, supra note 1 (stating that “[l]ast year, three reports that were compiled by U.S. Army officers and the bipartisan investigative commission appointed by U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld documented in horrifying detail the egregious human rights abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib Prison . . . .”). From Representative Holt’s description of these reports, it can be inferred that he was referencing the Taguba Report, the Schlesinger Report and the Jones-Fay Report discussed in greater detail above. Accordingly, this paper will refrain from engaging in a lengthy discussion of additional released reports and instead rely on the aforementioned three reports’ findings. For a list of Abu Ghraib investigative reports completed or underway as of August 23 2004, see http://www.cbc.ca/ news/background/iraq/prisonabuse_inquiries.html (last visited Nov. 5, 2005) (follow hyperlinks for specific reports). 6 ANTONIO M. TAGUBA, ARTICLE 15-6 INVESTIGATION OF THE 800TH MILITARY POLICE BRIGADE 1 (2004) [hereinafter TAGUBA REPORT], available at http://www.cbc.ca/news/b (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1391&context=blr

Alison Croessmann. Congress, Brooklyn Law Review, 2006, Volume 71, Issue 2,