The War Crimes Act: Current Issues

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

The War Crimes Act of 1996, as amended, makes it a criminal offense to commit certain
violations of the laws of war when such offenses are committed by or against U.S. nationals or
Armed Service members. Among other things, the act prohibits certain violations of Common
Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which sets out minimum standards for the treatment
of detainees in armed conflicts of a non-international character. Common Article 3 prohibits
protected persons from being subjected to violence, outrages upon personal dignity, torture, and
cruel, humiliating, or degrading treatment. In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme
Court rejected the Bush Administration’s long-standing position that Common Article 3 was
inapplicable to the present armed conflict with Al Qaeda. As a result, questions have arisen
regarding the scope of the War Crimes Act as it relates to violations of Common Article 3 and the
possibility that U.S. personnel may be prosecuted for the pre-Hamdan treatment of Al Qaeda
detainees.
As amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA, P.L. 109-366), the War Crimes Act
now criminalizes only specified Common Article 3 violations labeled as “grave breaches.”
Previously, any violation of Common Article 3 constituted a criminal offense. This report
discusses current issues related to the War Crimes Act. This report also briefly describes ^th
legislation introduced in the first session of the 110 Congress that would amend the War Crimes
Act.

The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 2441)...................................................................................1
Implications of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld........................................................................................1
Application of Common Article 3 to Al Qaeda...................................................................2
Scope of Prohibited Conduct under the War Crimes Act Relating to Common
Article 3 Violations..........................................................................................................3
Liability under the War Crimes Act for U.S. Personnel on Account of Pre-
Hamdan Activities...........................................................................................................3
Amendments made by the Military Commissions Act..............................................................4
Post-MCA Developments Regarding the Treatment of Detainees............................................8
Recent Legislative Developments.............................................................................................9
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................9

he 1949 Geneva Conventions proscribe certain conduct by High Contracting Parties ¹
toward specified categories of vulnerable persons during armed conflict. High
Contracting Parties are also required to provide effective penal sanctions against any T

person who commits (or orders the commission of) a “grave breach” of one of the Conventions,
which is defined to include the wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, and the causing of ²
great suffering or serious injury to body or health of protected persons. Congress approved the
War Crimes Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-192) specifically to implement the Conventions’ penal ³
requirements.
The War Crimes Act imposes criminal penalties against persons who commit certain offenses
under the laws of war, when those offenses are either committed by or against a U.S. national or
member of the U.S. Armed Forces. The act applies regardless of whether the offense occurs
inside or outside the United States. Offenders are subject to imprisonment for life or any term of
years and may receive the death penalty if their offense results in death to the victim.
At the time of enactment, the War Crimes Act only covered grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva
Conventions. During congressional deliberations, the Departments of State and Defense
suggested the act be crafted to cover additional war crimes, but these recommendations were not ⁴
immediately followed. However, Congress amended the War Crimes Act the following year to
cover additional war crimes that had been suggested by the State and Defense Departments,
including violations under Article 3 of any of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Common Article 3).
Common Article 3 is applicable to armed conflicts “not of an international character” and covers
persons taking no active part in hostilities, including those who have laid down their arms or been
incapacitated by capture or injury. Such persons are to be treated humanely and protected from
certain treatment, including “violence to life and person,” “cruel treatment and torture,” and
“outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”
There has been controversy concerning whether activities by military and intelligence personnel
relating to captured Al Qaeda suspects might give rise to prosecution under the War Crimes Act, ⁵
particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The

¹^G^e^nev^a^C^onv^eⁿ^tion^f^o^r^the^A^m^e^l^ior^a^tio^{n of}^the^C^oⁿ^d^iti^on^of^the^W^ounde^d^aⁿ^d^Sic^k^{in A}^r^m^e^{d For}^c^e^s^{in the}^Fie^l^d,⁶
^U^.^S.T^.³¹^14;^G^e^ne^v^a^C^onv^eⁿ^tion^f^o^r^the^A^m^e^lior^a^{tion of}^the^C^oⁿ^dⁱ^tion^of^W^oun^de^d,^Sic^k^a^{nd S}^hⁱ^p^w^r^e^c^k^e^d^Mem^b^e^r^s
^of^A^r^m^e^{d For}^c^e^s^a^t^Se^a^,^{6 U}^.^S^.^T^.³²¹^{7; G}^e^ne^v^a^C^onv^eⁿ^tio^{n R}^e^la^tiv^e^{to t}^h^e^T^r^e^a^t^m^e^{nt of}^P^r^is^oⁿ^e^r^s^of^W^a^r^,^{6 U}^.^S.T^.
³³¹^{6 [}^he^r^e^inafte^r^“^T^hird^G^e^ne^v^a^Conv^eⁿ^tio^n”^]^;^G^e^ne^v^a^Conv^eⁿ^tioⁿ^Re^la^tiv^e^{to t}^h^e^P^r^o^t^e^c^tion^of^Civ^iliaⁿ^P^e^{rsons i}ⁿ
^Tⁱ^m^e^o^f^W^a^r^,^{6 U}^.^S.T^.³⁵^16.^A^{ll f}^our^C^onv^eⁿ^ti^ons^eⁿ^te^r^e^{d i}ⁿ^{to f}^o^r^c^e^f^o^r^the^Uⁿ^ite^{d S}^t^a^t^e^s^on^Fe^br^u^a^r^y^{2, 19}⁵⁶^.
²^E.g.^,^T^h^ir^d^G^e^ne^va^C^onv^eⁿ^tio^n,^s^upr^a^f^o^o^tⁿ^o^te^1,^a^t^A^r^tic^le^s^129-¹³⁰^.
³^W^h^eⁿ^the^Co^nv^eⁿ^ti^{ons w}^e^re^ra^tifie^{d in}¹⁹⁵⁵^{, t}^h^e^Se^na^te^F^o^re^ig^{n R}^e^la^{tions Com}^m^itte^e^be^lie^ve^{d tha}^t^the^o^b^lig^a^tions
ⁱ^m^p^o^s^ed^b^y^t^h^{e Co}ⁿ^v^en^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{’ “grave b}^r^each^{” p}^r^o^vⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^s^w^e^re^m^e^t^b^y^e^xⁱ^s^tⁱⁿ^{g f}^e^d^e^ral^l^a^w^an^dⁿ^o^f^u^r^t^h^e^{r l}^e^gi^sl^atⁱ^oⁿ^w^a^s
^r^e^quir^e^d.^H^.^R^e^pt.¹^04-⁶⁹^{8, a}^t^3-⁴⁽¹⁹⁹⁶⁾⁽^qu^otiⁿ^g^Se^n.^Ex^e^c^.^R^e^p.^N^o^{. 9}^,^a^t²⁷⁽¹⁹⁵⁵⁾⁾^.^H^o^w^e^v^e^r^,^{in 199}^{6 t}^h^e^H^o^us^e
^Co^mmⁱ^t^t^{ee o}ⁿ^t^h^{e Jud}ⁱ^ci^ary^f^o^uⁿ^d^t^h^atⁱⁿ^s^o^m^e^cas^{es t}^h^{e Un}ⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^at^es^w^a^{s l}^e^g^a^l^l^y^uⁿ^a^b^l^{e t}^o^p^r^o^s^ecu^t^e^p^e^rsoⁿ^s^f^o^{r t}^h^e
^co^mmⁱ^ssi^oⁿ^o^f^{grave b}^r^each^{es o}^f^t^h^{e Con}^v^en^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^,ⁱⁿ^cl^u^dⁱⁿ^{g w}^h^en^me^m^b^{ers o}^f^t^h^{e ar}^m^e^d^f^o^rc^es^w^e^r^e^f^{ound t}^o^ha^v^e
^c^o^m^m^itte^d^w^a^{r c}^rⁱ^m^e^s^only^a^f^te^{r the}ⁱ^{r m}^ilita^r^y^disc^ha^rg^e^.^Id^.^at⁵^.
⁴^Id^.^a^t^12-¹⁶^.
⁵^H^a^m^d^aⁿ^v^.^R^u^m^s^f^e^{ld, 12}^{6 S.C}^t^.²⁷⁴^{9 (}²⁰⁰⁶⁾^.

following sections provide relevant background and briefly discuss possible implications that the
Court’s ruling may have on issues relating to the War Crimes Act.
At least since early 2002 and lasting until the Court’s ruling in Hamdan, the Bush Administration
had taken the position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to members of Al Qaeda
captured in the global “war on terror.” Specifically, the Administration argued that the
Conventions were applicable to international armed conflicts between High Contracting Parties
and States that complied with Convention provisions, and therefore do not cover non-State actors
such as Al Qaeda. The Administration further claimed that the conflict with Al Qaeda is
international in scope, and Common Article 3 accordingly was inapplicable to the conflict ⁶
because it only covers armed conflicts “not of an international nature.”
The issue in Hamdan primarily concerned military tribunals convened by Presidential order to try
detainees for violations of the laws of war. The Court held that such tribunals did not comply with
the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the laws of war, including the Geneva Conventions.
However, the Court’s interpretation of Common Article 3 had broader implications for U.S.
policy towards captured Al Qaeda suspects. The Court rejected the Administration’s interpretation
of Common Article 3 as not covering Al Qaeda members, concluding that the provision affords
“some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to [any] ⁷
individuals ... who are involved in a conflict in the territory of a signatory.” In the aftermath of
the Court’s ruling, the Department of Defense issued new treatment guidelines concerning
military detainees (including Al Qaeda members) that required, at minimum, application of the ⁸
standards articulated by Common Article 3. Subsequently, fourteen high-level Al Qaeda
operatives who had been held abroad by the CIA and subjected to aggressive interrogation ⁹
techniques were transferred to DOD custody in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

⁶^Se^e^W^h^ite^H^ous^e^Me^m^o^r^a^ndum^,^Humane^Tre^a^tmeⁿ^t^{of T}^a^li^ba^{n a}ⁿ^d^{Al Q}^a^e^d^a^De^taine^e^s^(F^eb^r^u^ary⁷^,²⁰⁰²^),^avai^l^a^b^l^e
^a^t^http^://w^w^w^.peg^c^.^us^/a^rc^hiv^e^/^W^hite^_H^o^u^s^e^/^bus^h_m^em^o_20⁰²⁰²^07_e^d.p^d^f^.
⁷^Ha^md^an^,¹²^{6 S}^.^{Ct. a}^t²⁷⁹⁶⁽ⁱⁿ^t^e^r^na^{l q}^uota^tⁱ^ons^om^itte^{d). In}^inte^r^p^r^e^ting^Com^m^{on A}^r^tic^le^{3 a}^s^eⁿ^suri^ng^de^mⁱ^nimⁱ^s
^p^r^o^t^ectⁱ^oⁿ^s^o^f^A^l^Qaed^a^m^e^m^b^ers^cap^t^u^red^b^y^t^h^{e Un}ⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^at^{es i}ⁿ^Afgh^anⁱ^s^t^aⁿ^,^t^h^{e Co}^u^r^t^no^t^e^{d t}^h^at^t^h^{e o}^f^fⁱ^ci^al
^co^mmen^t^ari^e^{s acco}^m^p^an^yⁱⁿ^g^Co^mm^oⁿ^A^r^tⁱ^c^l^e³^m^a^d^e^cl^e^a^{r t}^h^at^“t^h^e^sco^p^e^o^f^t^h^{e A}^r^tⁱ^c^l^e^m^u^st^b^e^{as w}ⁱ^d^e^{as p}^o^ssi^b^l^e.^”
^Id^.⁽^qu^otin^g^C^o^m^m^eⁿ^ta^r^y^:^G^e^ne^va^C^onv^eⁿ^tio^{n R}^e^la^tiv^e^to^the^T^r^e^a^t^m^e^{nt of}^P^r^is^one^r^s^of^W^a^r^{36 (}¹⁹⁶⁰⁾⁾^.^Iⁿ^dis^s^e^nt,
^Ju^stⁱ^{ce T}^h^o^m^a^s^(j^oⁱⁿ^e^{d b}^y^Ju^stⁱ^{ce S}^calⁱ^a^{) d}ⁱ^spu^t^ed^t^hⁱ^s^readⁱⁿ^g,^arguⁱⁿ^{g t}^h^at^t^h^{e rel}^e^van^t^co^m^m^en^t^a^ryⁱⁿ^dⁱ^cat^ed^t^h^at^t^h^e
^pur^pos^e^of^C^o^m^m^{on A}^r^tic^le^{3 w}^a^s^pr^incⁱ^pa^lly^{to f}^u^rⁿ^is^h^pr^ote^c^tioⁿ^s^{to pe}^r^s^onsⁱⁿ^v^o^lv^e^dⁱⁿ^a^cⁱ^v^{il w}^a^r^,^r^a^the^r^t^h^aⁿ
^eⁿ^titie^{s of}^inte^rna^tⁱ^ona^l^sc^ope^suc^h^a^s^A^l^Qa^e^d^a^.^Id^.^a^t²⁸⁴⁶⁽^T^hom^a^s^{, J}^{., dis}^s^e^ntiⁿ^g⁾^{. H}^o^w^e^v^e^r^,^the^C^our^{t a}^ppe^a^r^e^d^t^o
^l^{eave u}ⁿ^r^eso^l^ved^w^h^et^h^e^{r t}^h^{e G}^eⁿ^e^{va Co}ⁿ^v^en^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^app^l^y^wⁱ^t^h^resp^e^c^t^t^o^A^l^Qaed^{a su}^sp^ect^{s cap}^t^u^redⁱⁿ^p^l^{aces w}^h^{ere n}^o
^a^r^m^e^{d c}^onf^lic^{t is}^oc^c^u^r^rⁱ^ng^.^For^b^a^c^k^g^r^ound^oⁿ^t^h^e^Ha^mdaⁿ^de^cⁱ^sⁱ^{on, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^t^R^S²²⁴⁶⁶^,^Hamd^aⁿ^v.^Ru^msfel^d^:
^M^ilitary^Commissioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^the^“Gl^oba^{l W}^a^{r o}ⁿ^Te^rrorism”^{, by}^J^e^nnif^e^r^K^.^Els^e^a^.
⁸^Dep^t^.^o^f^Def^eⁿ^s^{e Detain}^{ee Dire}^ctive,^De^finitio^{ns, Tre}^a^tmeⁿ^{t P}^o^lic^y^,^an^{d C}^o^mpli^anc^e^wit^h^L^a^{ws o}^f^W^a^r^{, Se}^pte^m^be^r^5,
²⁰⁰^6,^av^ai^la^ble^at^htt^p^://^ne^w^s^.^f^indla^w^.c^o^m^/^h^d^o^c^s^/^doc^s^/^do^d/^de^ta^ine^e⁹⁰⁵⁰⁶^dir^e^c^tiv^e^.^htm^l^.
⁹^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^tia^{l A}^ddre^{ss Cre}^a^tio^{n of}^Milita^ry^Com^mⁱ^ssions^{to T}^r^y^Suspe^c^t^e^d^T^e^{rrorists, Se}^pte^m^be^{r 6, 2}⁰⁰⁶^,^av^ail^able^at
^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^ne^w^s^/r^e^l^e^a^s^e^s^/²⁰⁰^6/^09/²⁰⁰⁶⁰⁹^06-^3.^ht^m^l^[^he^r^e^inafte^r^“^P^re^sideⁿ^tia^{l A}^d^d^r^e^ss”^]^.

The United States has apparently never prosecuted a person under the War Crimes Act.¹⁰ Perhaps
as a result, there is some question concerning the act’s scope. In the aftermath of the Court’s
ruling in Hamdan, some suggested that the War Crimes Act be amended to specify whether
certain forms of treatment or interrogation constitute a punishable offense. They argued that the
scope of the War Crimes Act was ambiguous, particularly as it related to offenses concerning
violations of Common Article 3. In a September 2006 address, President Bush suggested that
some provisions of Common Article 3 provided U.S. personnel with inadequate notice as to what
interrogation methods could permissibly be used against detained Al Qaeda suspects, and
requested legislation listing “specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes ¹¹
under the War Crimes Act.” On the other hand, some argued that amending the War Crimes Act
to cover specific acts would overly restrict the act’s scope, making certain unspecified conduct
legally permissible even though it was as severe as conduct that was expressly prohibited.
Although some types of conduct prohibited by Common Article 3 are easily recognizable (e.g.,
murder, mutilation, the taking of hostages), it might not always be obvious whether conduct
constitutes impermissible “torture,” “cruel treatment,” or “outrages upon personal dignity, in
particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” For discussion of U.S. and international
jurisprudence and agency interpretations concerning the scope of these terms, particularly as they
relate to interrogation techniques, see CRS Report RL32567, Lawfulness of Interrogation
Techniques under the Geneva Conventions, by Jennifer K. Elsea; CRS Report RL33655,
Interrogation of Detainees: Overview of the McCain Amendment, by Michael John Garcia; and
CRS Report RL32438, U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and Application to
Interrogation Techniques, by Michael John Garcia.
Prior to the Court’s ruling in Hamdan, the Bush Administration did not apply Common Article 3
protections to captured Al Qaeda agents. In some cases, such persons were allegedly subject to
harsh treatment, especially in the context of interrogation, that might not have complied with
Common Article 3 requirements. As a result, some have raised questions as to whether U.S.
personnel might be criminally liable under the War Crimes Act for the pre-Hamdan treatment of
some Al Qaeda detainees.
Although not immune from prosecution, U.S. personnel who could be charged with violating the
War Crimes Act would have several possible defenses to criminal liability, so long as their
activities were conducted with the authorization of the Administration and under the reasonable
(though mistaken) belief that their actions were lawful. Section 1004(a) of the Detainee Treatment
Act of 2005 (DTA, P.L. 109-148), enacted several months prior to the Hamdan decision, provides
that

¹⁰^W^hⁱ^t^e^Ho^u^s^e^P^r^{ess Rel}^ease,^M^y^t^h^/Fac^t:^The^A^d^minⁱ^strati^on’s^Le^gⁱ^slatio^{n t}^o^Cre^a^te^M^ilit^ary^Comm^issions^,
^Se^pte^m^be^r^{6, 20}⁰⁶^{; h}^ttp:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^h^ous^e^.^g^o^v^/^ne^w^s^/^r^e^l^e^a^s^e^s^/²⁰⁰⁶^/^09/²⁰⁰⁶⁰⁹^06-^5.^htm^l^.
¹¹^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^tia^l^A^ddre^ss,^sup^r^a^f^o^ot^no^t^e⁹^.

^In^any^{civil action}^{or cri}^mⁱⁿ^a^l^pros^ecu^tion^ag^aⁱ^ns^{t an}^o^f^fⁱ^c^e^{r, em}^plo^y^ee,^m^e^m^b^{er of}^th^e
^A^r^m^e^{d F}^o^rces^{, or}^ot^h^e^{r ag}^en^t^of^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^e^s^G^o^v^e^rnm^e^nt^w^h^{o i}^s^{a U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d S}^t^at^e^s
^pers^on^{, aris}^ing^ou^{t o}^f^th^{e o}^f^fic^e^{r, em}^plo^y^ee,^m^e^m^b^{er of}^th^e^A^r^m^e^{d Forces}^{, or oth}^e^{r ag}^en^t^’^s
^en^g^a^gⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^s^p^eci^fⁱ^{c operational practices}^{, t}^h^{at i}ⁿ^v^o^l^v^{e dete}ⁿ^t^ion^an^dⁱⁿ^terrog^a^tⁱ^on^o^f^alieⁿ^s
^w^{ho t}^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t^{or hi}^s^de^si^gⁿ^e^e^s^h^a^v^e^det^e^r^mⁱⁿ^{ed are}^belⁱ^e^v^e^{d t}^o^{be e}ⁿ^g^a^g^e^{d i}ⁿ^or
^asso^ciated^wⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l t}^e^r^r^o^r^{ist activ}^it^y^th^a^t^p^o^s^es^a^se^rⁱ^o^u^{s, co}ⁿ^tⁱⁿ^uⁱⁿ^g^t^h^r^{eat to}^th^e
^Un^{ited Sta}^t^es^{... an}^{d t}^h^at^w^e^re^of^fⁱ^cia^l^l^y^a^u^t^h^{orized an}^{d determ}ⁱⁿ^{ed to be la}^w^f^u^l^{at t}^h^{e ti}^m^e
^th^at^th^e^y^w^e^re^con^d^u^c^{ted, i}^t^s^h^{all be a}^def^eⁿ^s^e^th^a^t^{... [th}^e^]^ag^eⁿ^{t did}ⁿ^o^t^kⁿ^o^w^th^a^t^t^h^e
^practⁱ^ces^w^e^{re un}^l^a^w^f^u^l^aⁿ^{d a pers}^on^of^ordiⁿ^a^ry^s^eⁿ^s^{e an}^{d un}^ders^t^aⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^w^o^u^l^{d n}^o^t^kⁿ^o^w
^t^h^{e pract}ⁱ^ces^w^e^{re un}^l^a^w^f^ul^{. G}^{ood f}^aⁱ^t^h^relⁱ^aⁿ^{ce on}^advⁱ^{ce of}^couⁿ^s^el^s^h^ou^l^d^b^e^aⁿⁱ^m^p^o^r^t^aⁿ^t
^f^act^{or, a}^m^ong^ot^h^e^rs^{, t}^o^consi^d^{er i}ⁿ^ass^e^s^sⁱⁿ^g^w^h^et^h^e^{r a p}^e^rs^on^of^ordiⁿ^a^r^y^s^eⁿ^s^e^an^d
^uⁿ^d^ers^t^aⁿ^di^ng^w^o^u^l^d^h^a^v^e^kn^o^w^{n t}^h^{e pract}ⁱ^{ces t}^o^be^uⁿ^l^a^w^ful^.^N^o^t^hⁱⁿ^{g i}ⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^s^ectⁱ^oⁿ^sh^al^l
^{be con}^s^tru^e^d^{to li}^m^{it or e}^x^ti^ng^uⁱ^s^h^aⁿ^y^def^eⁿ^s^{e or protection}^ot^h^e^r^w^is^{e a}^v^ailable^{... or to}¹²
^p^r^o^v^id^{e im}^m^uⁿⁱ^t^y^f^r^o^m^p^r^o^s^ec^u^tioⁿ^f^o^r^an^y^crⁱ^mⁱⁿ^{al o}^f^f^eⁿ^s^e^b^y^t^h^{e p}^r^o^p^e^r^au^th^o^r^ities.
In addition to this statutory defense, a number of other legal defenses could be raised by U.S.
personnel charged with War Crimes Act offenses based on conduct that had been authorized,
assuming the defendants acted with government sanction and/or had been erroneously informed ¹³
by responsible authorities that their conduct was legal. Similar defenses may exist for military ¹⁴
personnel in courts martial proceedings.
In response to the Court’s ruling in Hamdan, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of

2006 (P.L. 109-366), which was enacted into law on October 17, 2006. Among other things, the ¹⁵

Military Commissions Act (MCA) made several amendments to the War Crimes Act.

¹²^P^r^ior^to^the^eⁿ^a^c^t^m^e^{nt of}^the^Mili^ta^r^y^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^ons^A^c^{t of}^{2006 (}^P^.L^{. 109-}³⁶⁶⁾^,^{it w}^a^s^a^r^g^u^a^b^l^y^unc^le^a^r^w^h^e^t^he^r^a
^r^e^vⁱ^ew^ing^c^our^{t w}^ould^ha^v^e^inte^r^p^r^e^te^{d t}^h^is^de^f^e^ns^e^{to a}^p^ply^r^e^tr^oa^c^tiv^e^l^y^{to c}^ond^uc^{t oc}^c^u^r^rⁱ^ng^be^f^o^r^e^the^D^T^A^’^s
^en^act^m^eⁿ^tⁱⁿ^Decem^b^e^r^2005.^T^h^e^Milita^ry^Com^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^ons^A^c^{t s}^p^e^c^if^ie^{d tha}^t^this^de^f^e^ns^e^w^a^s^av^a^ila^ble^{to U}^.^S^.^pe^rs^oⁿ^s
^c^h^a^r^g^e^{d w}^{ith a}ⁿ^of^f^e^ns^e^unde^r^t^h^e^W^a^r^C^rⁱ^m^e^s^A^c^{t on}^a^c^c^ount^of^c^ond^uc^{t c}^o^m^m^itte^{d be}^tw^e^eⁿ^Se^pte^m^be^{r 11, 2}⁰⁰¹^aⁿ^d
^the^eⁿ^a^c^t^m^e^{nt of}^the^D^T^A^.^P^.^L^.¹^09-³⁶^6,^{§ 8(}^b)⁽²⁰⁰⁶⁾^.
¹³^A^lthoug^{h “}^m^is^ta^k^e^o^f^law^”^def^e^ns^e^s^a^r^e^ge^ne^r^a^ll^y^r^e^je^c^t^e^d^{, s}^u^c^h^de^f^e^ns^e^s^ha^ve^be^eⁿ^r^e^c^o^gⁿ^iz^e^d^by^cour^tsⁱⁿ^c^e^r^taⁱⁿ
^c^a^s^e^s^w^h^e^r^e^def^e^nda^nts^ha^v^e^a^c^t^{ed w}^{ith g}^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^e^{nt s}^a^nc^{tion or}^a^f^te^r^be^ing^e^r^r^one^ous^ly^inf^o^r^m^e^d^by^r^e^s^ponsⁱ^b^le
^a^u^thor^itie^{s tha}^t^theⁱ^{r c}^o^nd^uc^{t w}^a^{s le}^g^a^{l. T}^h^e^s^e^de^f^e^nse^s^c^a^{n be}^divⁱ^de^{d i}ⁿ^to^thre^e^ov^e^r^la^pp^ing^c^a^t^e^g^orie^{s: (1)}^de^fe^ns^e^of
^eⁿ^tr^apm^eⁿ^t^by^e^s^to^ppe^l^,^avai^l^a^b^l^{e w}^h^en^{a d}^e^f^eⁿ^d^aⁿ^tⁱ^sⁱⁿ^f^o^rm^ed^b^y^{a go}^vern^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^fⁱ^ci^al^t^h^at^cert^aⁱⁿ^coⁿ^d^u^c^tⁱ^s^l^e^gal^,
^a^{nd t}^h^e^r^e^a^f^te^{r c}^o^m^m^its^w^h^a^t^w^{ould o}^t^he^rw^ise^c^onstitute^a^c^r^imⁱⁿ^a^l^of^fe^nse^{in re}^a^s^ona^ble^re^lia^nc^e^of^t^h^{is re}^pre^s^eⁿ^ta^tio^n;
⁽²⁾^de^fe^ns^e^of^pu^blic^a^u^th^ority^{, a}^v^a^ila^ble^w^h^eⁿ^a^de^f^e^nda^{nt r}^e^a^s^ona^bly^r^e^lie^s^{on the}^a^u^t^hor^ity^of^a^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^e^{nt of}^fⁱ^cⁱ^a^l
^{to a}^u^t^horiz^e^othe^rw^is^e^ille^g^a^{l c}^onduc^{t, a}^{nd t}^h^e^of^fⁱ^cⁱ^a^l^ha^s^a^c^t^ua^{l a}^u^th^ority^{to s}^a^nc^tio^{n t}^h^e^de^f^e^nda^nt^to^pe^rf^orm^s^u^c^h
^c^ond^uc^{t; a}ⁿ^{d (}³⁾^de^fe^ns^e^{of a}^p^p^a^r^e^{nt p}^ublic^au^th^or^ity^{, w}^h^ic^{h is}^r^e^c^o^gⁿ^iz^e^d^by^s^o^m^e⁽^but^no^{t a}^{ll) f}^e^de^ra^{l c}ⁱ^rc^{uits, a}ⁿ^d^is
^sⁱ^m^ila^r^{to the}^de^f^e^ns^e^of^public^a^u^thor^ity^{, e}^x^c^e^p^{t tha}^t^the^of^fⁱ^cⁱ^a^l^only^ne^e^d^s^{to ha}^v^e^a^ppa^r^e^{nt a}^u^t^hor^it^y^{to s}^a^nc^{tion t}^h^e^th
^de^f^e^nda^nt’^s^c^oⁿ^duc^{t. U}ⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^v^.^B^a^ptis^ta^-^R^odr^ig^ue^z^,¹⁷^F.^3d¹³⁵^4,¹³⁶⁸^n.¹⁸⁽¹¹^Cⁱ^r^.¹⁹⁹⁴⁾^.^Un^lⁱ^k^{e t}^h^{e ot}^h^e^r
^de^f^e^ns^e^s^{, the}^de^f^e^ns^e^of^eⁿ^tr^a^p^m^e^{nt by}^e^s^toppe^{l s}^t^e^m^s^f^r^o^m^the^due^pr^oc^e^s^sⁿ^o^tio^ns^of^f^a^ir^ne^s^s^,^r^a^the^r^thaⁿ^f^r^om^th
^co^mm^oⁿ^l^a^w^coⁿ^cernⁱⁿ^g^co^nt^ract^,^eq^uⁱ^t^y^,^o^r^agen^cy^.^Unⁱ^t^e^d^S^t^at^{es v.}^A^u^stⁱⁿ^,⁹¹⁵^F^.^2d³⁶^3,³⁶^{6 (8}^Cⁱ^r^.¹⁹⁹⁰⁾^.
¹⁴^W^h^ile^ig^nor^aⁿ^c^e^or^mⁱ^s^t^a^k^e^of^law^,^inc^l^udi^ng^g^e^ne^r^a^{l or}^de^r^s^or^r^e^g^u^la^tio^ns^{, is}^not^g^e^ne^r^a^lly^av^a^ila^bl^e^a^s^a^de^f^e^ns^e^,
^“m^is^ta^ke^of^law^m^a^y^be^a^de^f^e^ns^{e w}^h^eⁿ^the^mⁱ^s^t^a^k^e^r^e^s^u^lts^f^r^o^m^r^e^lⁱ^aⁿ^c^e^{on t}^h^e^de^cⁱ^sⁱ^oⁿ^or^pr^on^ou^nc^em^eⁿ^{t of}^aⁿ
^a^u^thor^iz^e^d^p^ubl^ic^of^fⁱ^cⁱ^a^l^or^a^g^eⁿ^cy^.”^Ma^nua^{l f}^o^r^C^our^ts^Ma^rtia^{l, R}^u^le^{s f}^o^{r Courts-}^M^a^r^tia^{l rule}⁹¹^6(l⁾^(disc^u^ssioⁿ^{). I}ⁿ
^t^h^{e case o}^f^w^a^{r cri}^m^e^s^,^{a d}^e^f^eⁿ^s^e^b^a^sed^oⁿ^sup^e^ri^o^r^o^r^d^e^{rs i}^s^avai^l^a^b^l^{e on}^l^y^wⁱ^t^h^resp^ect^t^o^dⁱ^rect^an^{d sp}^eci^fⁱ^{c o}^r^d^e^{rs t}^o
^c^o^m^m^{it a}ⁿ^a^c^t^c^onstituti^ng^a^w^a^r^c^r^im^e^,^a^{nd the}^de^f^e^nda^nt^m^u^{st de}^m^onstra^t^e^both^the^e^x^is^te^nc^e^of^th^e^orde^{r a}ⁿ^{d h}ⁱ^s
^sⁱ^nc^e^r^e^a^{nd r}^e^a^s^ona^ble^be^lie^f^tha^t^the^or^de^r^w^a^s^law^f^ul.^Se^e^D^AV^I^D^A.^S^C^H^LE^U^T^ER^,^M^IL^ITA^R^Y^C^RI^MI^N^A^L^J^US^T^I^C^E^{§ 2-}^th
⁴⁽^F)⁽⁵^ed^.¹⁹⁹⁹⁾⁽^c^itin^g^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^v^.^H^u^e^t^-^V^a^u^g^hⁿ^,⁴³^M.J^.¹^{05 (}¹⁹⁹⁵⁾⁾^.
¹⁵^A^num^be^{r of}^bills^w^e^re^introduc^e^dⁱⁿ^the¹⁰⁹^th^C^ong^r^e^s^s^{in r}^e^s^p^ons^e^{to t}^h^e^Ha^mdaⁿ^de^cⁱ^sion^{, pa}^rtic^u^l^a^r^ly^a^s^the
^de^cⁱ^sⁱ^{on re}^la^te^d^to^the^e^s^ta^blis^hm^eⁿ^{t of}^m^ilita^r^y^tribuna^ls^t^o^try^de^ta^ine^e^s^f^o^{r v}ⁱ^ola^tions^of^the^la^w^s^of^w^a^{r. Som}^e^of
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

The MCA amended the War Crimes Act provisions concerning Common Article 3 so that only
specified violations would be punishable (as opposed to any Common Article 3 violation, as was
previously the case), including committing, or attempting or conspiring to commit
• torture (defined in a manner similar to that used by the Federal Torture Statute, 18
U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A, in criminalizing torture);
• cruel treatment;
• the performing of biological experiments;
• murder;
• mutilation or maiming;
• intentionally causing serious bodily injury;
• rape;
• sexual assault or abuse; and
• the taking of hostages.
Prior to the enactment of the MCA, there was some debate concerning the scope of cruel ¹⁶
treatment that should be subject to criminal penalty under the War Crimes Act. The MCA
defined “cruel treatment” prohibited by the War Crimes Act in a similar manner to the definition
of “torture” contained in the Federal Torture Statute. However, whereas a person is criminally
liable for torture only if he specifically intends to cause severe mental or physical pain and

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^the^s^e^{bills c}^o^ntaⁱ^ne^{d pr}^ov^isions^a^m^e^ndi^ng^the^W^a^{r Crim}^e^s^A^c^{t to m}^o^re^f^u^ll^y^prote^c^t^U.S.^pe^rso^nne^l^f^r^o^m^c^rⁱ^m^ina^l
^lia^bility^{. On Se}^pte^m^be^{r 6,}²⁰^06,^t^h^e^{Bush A}^d^mⁱ^nistra^tion^subm^itte^{d dra}^f^{t le}^gⁱ^sla^{tion t}^o^C^ong^re^{ss a}^u^t^horizⁱⁿ^g^m^ilita^r^y
^c^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^ons^to^tr^y^de^ta^ine^e^s^{, am}^e^nding^t^h^e^W^a^r^C^r^im^e^s^A^c^{t, a}^{nd s}^p^e^cⁱ^f^y^ing^c^onduc^{t c}^o^m^p^ly^ing^wⁱ^t^h^C^o^m^m^{on A}^r^tic^le
³^.^W^hⁱ^t^e^Hou^s^e^P^r^{ess Rel}^ease,^Fac^t^She^e^t^{: T}^h^e^Admi^nistratⁱ^oⁿ^{’s Le}^gi^slati^oⁿ^to^Cre^a^te^M^ilitary^C^o^mmissions
^(S^ep^t^e^m^b^{er 6}^,²⁰⁰⁶^),^av^ail^able^at^htt^p^://w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/^ne^w^s^/re^l^e^a^s^e^s^/²⁰⁰^6/^09/²⁰⁰⁶⁰⁹^06-^6.ht^m^{l; D}^r^af^t
^L^e^gⁱ^s^l^a^{tion, M}^ilita^ry^Com^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^ons^A^c^{t of}^2006,^av^ail^able^at^htt^p^://^w^w^w^.law^.^g^e^o^r^g^e^t^o^w^n.e^du/^f^a^c^u^lt^y^/^nk^k^/^doc^um^eⁿ^ts^/
^Milita^ry^Co^m^m^is^sⁱ^ons^.pdf^{. In re}^s^p^ons^e^,^s^e^v^e^ra^{l le}^gⁱ^s^l^a^tiv^e^propos^a^l^s^w^e^re^the^r^e^a^f^t^e^r^intro^duc^e^d^c^o^nc^e^r^ning^t^h^e^s^e
^m^a^tte^{rs, inc}^l^udi^ng^S.³⁹⁰¹^{, t}^h^e^M^ilita^ry^Co^m^m^{issions Ac}^{t of}²⁰⁰^6,^intro^duc^e^d^by^Se^na^{tor Jo}^{hn W}^a^rn^e^r^{; S. 3}⁸⁶¹^,^the
^B^r^ingⁱ^ng^T^e^r^r^o^rⁱ^s^t^s^{to J}^u^s^t^ic^e^A^c^t^of²⁰⁰^{6 a}ⁿ^{d S.}³⁸⁸⁶^{, t}^h^e^T^e^r^r^o^rⁱ^s^t^T^r^a^c^kⁱ^ng^{, I}^d^eⁿ^tif^ic^a^{tion, a}^nd^Pr^o^s^e^c^u^{tion A}^c^{t of}
²⁰⁰^6,^bo^th^intr^od^uc^e^d^by^Se^na^tor^{Bill Fris}^t;^aⁿ^d^H^.^R.⁶⁰^54,^the^M^ili^ta^r^y^Com^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^ons^A^c^{t of}^2006,ⁱⁿ^trod^uc^e^d^by
^Rep^r^esen^t^a^tⁱ^v^{e Du}ⁿ^can^Hu^nt^er.^S^.³⁸⁶¹^,^S^.³⁸⁸⁶^,^and^H.^R.⁶⁰⁵⁴^w^e^{re l}^a^rgel^yⁱ^d^en^tⁱ^cal^t^o^t^h^{e d}^r^af^t^l^e^gi^sl^atⁱ^oⁿ^p^r^op^o^s^ed
^by^the^{Bush A}^d^mⁱ^nistra^{tion, w}^h^il^e^{S. 3}⁹⁰¹^som^e^w^h^a^t^dif^f^e^r^e^{d. So}^oⁿ^the^r^e^a^f^te^{r, thre}^e^othe^r^{bills w}^e^re^intr^od^uc^e^d^{: S.}
³⁹²^{9 a}ⁿ^{d S}^.³⁹³⁰^{, w}^h^ic^{h w}^e^r^e^bo^{th e}ⁿ^ti^tle^{d t}^h^e^Mil^ita^r^y^C^o^m^m^is^sⁱ^ons^A^c^{t of}²⁰⁰^{6 a}ⁿ^{d w}^e^r^e^intr^od^u^c^e^d^by^Se^na^tor
^Mitc^{h Mc}^C^oⁿⁿ^e^{ll; a}ⁿ^{d H.R.}⁶¹⁶⁶^{, a}^l^{so e}ⁿ^ti^tle^{d t}^h^e^Mil^ita^ry^Co^m^mⁱ^{ssions A}^c^{t of}²⁰⁰^{6, w}^h^ic^{h w}^a^{s introd}^uc^e^d^by
^Rep^r^esen^t^a^tⁱ^v^{e Du}ⁿ^can^Hu^nt^er.^R^e^p^o^r^t^e^d^l^y^,^S^.³⁹²⁹^/^S^.³⁹³⁰^and^H.^R.⁶¹⁶⁶^ref^l^ect^ed^an^agree^m^en^t^reach^ed^b^y^t^h^{e Bu}^sh
^A^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^{tion a}ⁿ^{d c}^e^r^ta^{in la}^w^m^ak^e^r^s^{to r}^e^s^o^lv^e^dif^f^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^s^{in the}^a^ppr^oa^c^h^ta^k^e^{n by}^{S. 39}^{01 a}^nd^th^a^t^ta^k^e^{n by}^S.
³⁸⁶^1,^S.³⁸⁸⁶^{, a}ⁿ^d^H^.^R^.⁶⁰^54.^K^a^te^Ze^rⁿ^ik^e^&^She^r^y^l^G^a^y^Stolbe^r^g^,^Diffe^re^nc^e^s^Se^ttle^{d i}ⁿ^De^al^Ov^e^r^De^taine^e
^T^r^ea^t^m^en^t^{, N}^Y^T^IM^ES^{, Se}^pte^m^be^r^23,²⁰⁰⁶^{, a}^t^A⁹^{. H}^.^R^.⁶¹⁶⁶^w^a^s^pa^s^s^e^{d by}^the^H^ous^e^on^Se^pte^m^be^r^27,²⁰⁰⁶^{; S}^.³⁹³⁰
^w^a^s^pa^s^s^e^{d by}^the^Se^na^te^on^Se^pt^em^be^r^28,²⁰⁰⁶^aⁿ^d^by^the^H^ous^e^on^Se^pte^m^be^r^29,²⁰⁰⁶^{. A}^ltho^u^g^h^the^pr^ov^isⁱ^ons^of
^{S. 3}⁹²⁹^/S^{. 3}⁹³⁰^aⁿ^{d H.R.}⁶¹⁶⁶^w^e^r^e^la^rg^e^l^y^si^m^ila^{r, the}^r^e^w^e^r^e^initia^lly^som^e^diff^e^r^eⁿ^c^e^s^be^t^w^e^e^{n the}^b^{ills. How}^e^v^e^r,
^the^v^e^r^s^ion^of^{S. 3}⁹³⁰^t^h^a^t^w^a^s^pas^s^e^{d by}^the^Se^na^te⁽^S^.A^m^d^{t. 50}⁸⁵⁾^a^{nd H}^ous^e^w^a^s^am^e^nde^{d s}^o^tha^t^{it c}^ontaⁱ^ne^{d t}^h^e
^s^a^m^e^pr^ov^is^ions^a^s^H^ous^e^-^pa^s^s^e^d^H^.^R^.⁶¹⁶⁶^.
¹⁶^Se^v^e^ra^{l of}^the^{bills c}^o^nside^r^e^d^by^the¹⁰⁹^th^C^o^ng^r^e^s^s^w^{ould ha}^v^e^a^m^e^nde^{d the}^W^a^r^C^r^im^e^s^A^c^{t to c}^r^im^ina^liz^e^only
^s^o^m^e^t^y^pe^s^o^f^c^r^ue^{l tr}^e^a^t^m^e^{nt. Fo}^r^e^x^am^ple^,^{S. 38}⁶¹^{, S}^.³⁸⁸⁶^{, a}ⁿ^d^H^.^R^.⁶⁰⁵⁴^w^ould^oⁿ^ly^ha^v^e^c^rⁱ^mⁱⁿ^a^liz^e^d^c^r^ue^l
^t^r^eat^m^eⁿ^t^ri^siⁿ^g^t^o^t^h^{e l}^evel^o^f^t^o^r^t^u^r^e^{, w}^h^ile^S.³⁹^{01 w}^oul^d^ha^v^e^m^o^r^e^br^oa^dly^c^rⁱ^m^ina^liz^e^d^c^r^ue^{l tr}^e^a^t^m^e^{nt tha}^t
^vⁱ^olate^d^the^s^t^an^dar^ds^of^the^M^c^C^aⁱⁿ^Am^e^ndm^eⁿ^t⁽ⁱ^.e^{., c}^r^ue^{l, i}ⁿ^h^u^m^a^{n, or}^de^g^r^a^d^ing^tr^e^a^t^m^e^{nt of}^the^kⁱ^{nd pr}^oh^ibite^d
^unde^r^the^Fⁱ^f^t^{h, Eig}^h^t^h^{, a}ⁿ^{d F}^our^t^e^eⁿ^{th A}^m^e^ndm^eⁿ^ts⁾^.^T^h^e^s^c^ope^o^f^c^onduc^{t c}^r^im^ina^liz^e^d^by^the^MC^A^a^ppe^a^r^s^{to f}^a^ll
^so^m^e^w^h^er^{e b}^e^t^w^e^eⁿ^t^h^{ese t}^w^o^st^an^d^a^rd^s.

suffering, pursuant to the amendments made the MCA, a person is criminally liable for inflictions ¹⁷
of cruel treatment if he generally intended to cause serious mental or physical pain and
suffering to a person protected under Common Article 3.
The MCA further defined “serious mental pain and suffering” and “serious physical pain and
suffering” rising to the level of cruel treatment punishable under the War Crimes Act. “Serious
mental pain and suffering” is defined by reference to the Federal Torture Statute’s definition of
“severe mental pain and suffering” rising to the level of torture. Serious mental pain and suffering
constituting cruel treatment refers to pain and suffering arising from
• the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
• the administration, application, or threatened administration or application of mind-
altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the
personality;
• the threat of imminent death; or
• the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical
pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other
procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
The type of mental pain and suffering constituting cruel treatment generally differs from the type
rising to the level of torture, in that it only needs to be of a serious and non-transitory nature
which need not be prolonged, as opposed to being of a severe and prolonged nature. However, the
War Crimes Act, as amended, provides that with respect to conduct occurring before enactment of
the MCA, such pain and suffering must be of a prolonged nature.
As amended by the MCA, the War Crimes Act defines “serious physical pain or suffering”
constituting cruel treatment as actual bodily injury involving
• a substantial risk of death;
• extreme physical pain;
• a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or
bruises); or
• significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental
faculty.
Under U.S. jurisprudence, most or all of these activities are likely considered to be of such ¹⁸
severity as to constitute torture, at least in certain contexts, and could give rise to criminal

¹⁷^S^p^eci^fⁱ^{c i}ⁿ^t^eⁿ^tⁱ^s^“t^h^eⁱⁿ^t^eⁿ^t^t^o^acco^m^p^lⁱ^s^h^t^h^{e p}^r^eci^{se cri}^mⁱⁿ^al^act^t^h^at^on^{e i}^s^l^a^t^e^{r ch}^arged^wⁱ^t^h^.^”^G^eⁿ^e^ralⁱⁿ^t^eⁿ^t
^u^s^u^a^l^l^y^“t^ak^{es t}^h^{e f}^o^r^m^o^f^rec^k^l^e^s^sⁿ^e^{ss (i}ⁿ^v^o^l^viⁿ^g^act^u^a^l^aw^aren^ess^o^f^{a ri}^{sk an}^d^t^h^{e cul}^p^abl^e^t^a^kiⁿ^g^o^f^t^h^at^ri^{sk) o}^r^th
ⁿ^e^glⁱ^g^en^{ce (i}ⁿ^v^o^l^viⁿ^g^b^l^am^e^w^o^r^t^h^yⁱⁿ^ad^vert^en^ce).^”^B^LA^C^K^’^S^L^AW^D^IC^T^I^O^N^A^R^Y^813-⁸¹⁴⁽⁷^e^d^.¹⁹⁹⁹^).
¹⁸^E.g.^,^A^l^-^S^a^h^e^r^v^.^I^.^N^.^S.^{, 2}⁶⁸^F.^3d¹¹⁴³⁽⁹^th^Cⁱ^r^.²⁰⁰¹⁾⁽^f^indⁱ^ng^t^h^a^t^r^e^g^u^la^r^,^s^e^v^e^r^e^be^a^ting^s^a^{nd c}ⁱ^g^a^r^e^tte^bur^ns
^inf^lic^te^{d up}^on^aⁿ^Ira^qi^a^lieⁿ^by^Ir^a^q^{i pris}^{on g}^u^a^r^{ds c}^onsti^tute^d^“^t^ort^u^re^,”^qua^lif^yⁱ^ng^the^a^lie^{n f}^o^{r re}^lie^f^f^r^o^m^re^m^o^v^a^l
^unde^r^im^mⁱ^g^r^a^{tion r}^e^g^u^la^tio^ns^im^ple^m^eⁿ^ting^U^.^N^.^C^onv^eⁿ^ti^{on a}^g^aⁱ^ns^{t T}^o^r^t^ur^e^r^e^q^u^ir^e^m^eⁿ^ts⁾^;^Me^hin^o^vⁱ^c^v^.^Vuc^k^ov^ic^,
¹⁹⁸^F.^Su^pp^{. 2}^d¹³^{22 (N}^.D^.^G^a^{. 2002}^{) (f}^indi^ng^tha^t^B^o^sⁿ^ia^n-^Se^{rb s}^o^ldie^r^ha^{d c}^o^m^m^itte^{d “}^t^orture^”^a^g^aⁱ^ns^{t n}^on-Se^r^b^iaⁿ
^plaⁱ^ntif^f^s^w^{ho br}^oug^{ht s}^u^it^un^de^r^the^T^o^r^t^ur^e^Vic^tim^s^P^r^ote^c^tion^A^c^{t, 28}^U^.^S.C^.^§¹³⁵⁰ⁿ^o^te^{, a}^s^he^h^a^{d s}^ubje^c^t^e^d^the^m
^{to a}^c^t^{s of}^bruta^l^ity^inc^l^udi^ng^to^oth^-^pulli^ng^aⁿ^d^se^v^e^re^be^a^tin^g^s^re^sultingⁱⁿ^brok^eⁿ^bo^ne^{s a}ⁿ^d^disf^ig^ure^m^eⁿ^{t). In a}²⁰⁰²
^m^e^m^o^r^a^ndum^inte^r^p^r^e^ting^t^h^e^Fe^de^r^a^{l T}^o^r^t^ur^e^Sta^t^ute^,^t^h^e^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^J^u^s^tic^e^s^u^g^g^e^s^t^e^d^tha^t^ph^y^s^ic^a^l^paⁱⁿ
^am^ountiⁿ^g^{to t}^o^r^t^ur^e^m^u^s^t^be^“^e^quiv^a^le^{nt in}^inte^ns^ity^{to the}^paⁱⁿ^a^c^c^o^m^p^aⁿ^yⁱ^ng^s^e^rⁱ^ous^phy^sⁱ^c^a^l^inju^r^y^{, s}^u^c^h^a^s^or^g^aⁿ
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

prosecution if the offender specifically intended to cause such injury. However, such persons may
now also be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act for such conduct (presuming it was directed
against persons protected under Common Article 3), when they caused such injury through ¹⁹
reckless or criminally negligent action.
The amendments made by the MCA to the War Crimes Act applied retroactively, possibly
precluding prosecution of personnel for some (but not all) conduct falling under the more general ²⁰
scope of the earlier version of the War Crimes Act. The MCA also provided that the statutory
defense contained in DTA § 1004 covers any criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act
against U.S. personnel relating to the sanctioned treatment of detainees, if such conduct occurred ²¹
between September 11, 2001, and December 30, 2005 (i.e., the date the DTA was enacted). It
also amended the DTA to require the federal government to provide or employ counsel and pay
fees related to any prosecution or civil action against U.S. personnel for authorized detention or ²²
interrogation activities. The MCA also specified that certain provisions of the War Crimes Act, ²³
as amended, are inapplicable with respect to collateral damage or a lawful attack. In addition,
the provision of the War Crimes Act, as amended, relating to hostage taking does not apply to
prisoner exchange during wartime. The MCA also prohibited U.S. courts from using foreign or
international sources to serve as the basis for interpreting the provisions of the War Crimes Act, as ²⁴
amended, defining “grave breaches” of Common Article 3.
Additionally, the MCA prevents persons from invoking the Geneva Conventions as a source of
rights in certain judicial proceedings. The Conventions are prohibited from being invoked in
habeas or civil proceedings to which the United States or a current or former agent of the United ²⁵
States is a party.

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^f^a^ilur^e^{, im}^pa^ir^m^e^{nt of}^bo^dily^f^unction^,^or^e^v^eⁿ^de^a^t^h.”^Me^m^o^r^a^ndu^m^f^r^o^m^the^O^f^fⁱ^ce^of^Le^g^a^{l C}^ouns^e^l^{, D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}
^J^u^s^tic^e^,^{to A}^l^be^r^t^{o R}^.^G^onz^a^l^e^s^{, C}^ouns^e^l^{to t}^h^e^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^t,^Re^:^St^an^d^a^r^d^s^o^f^C^o^nd^uc^{t f}^o^r^Iⁿ^te^r^r^o^gati^oⁿ^un^de^r¹⁸^U^.^S^.^C^.
^{§§ 23}^40-²³^40A⁽^A^ug^us^{t 1,}²⁰⁰²⁾^,^av^ail^able^at^htt^p^://w^ww^.^w^a^s^hing^ton^post.c^o^m^/^w^p^-srv^/ⁿ^a^tio^n/^doc^u^m^eⁿ^ts/
^dojiⁿ^te^r^r^o^g^a^tio^nm^em^o2002⁰⁸^01.^pdf^{, a}^t^1.^T^h^is^m^e^m^o^r^a^ndum^w^a^s^s^upe^r^s^e^d^e^d^by^a^nothe^r^D^O^J^m^e^{mo in}²⁰⁰⁴^{. T}^h^e²⁰⁰⁴
^D^O^J^m^e^m^o^r^a^ndum^r^e^je^c^t^e^d^the^e^a^r^lie^r^m^e^m^o^’^s^fⁱ^nding^s^{to t}^h^e^e^x^te^{nt t}^h^a^t^{it tr}^e^a^t^e^d^s^e^v^e^r^e^phy^sⁱ^c^a^l^suf^f^e^r^ing^a^s
^ideⁿ^tic^a^l^t^o^se^v^e^re^phy^sic^a^l^pa^{in, a}^{nd c}^o^nc^lu^de^{d t}^h^a^t^“^s^e^v^e^r^e^phy^sic^a^l^suff^e^r^ing^”^m^a^y^c^onstitute^tor^t^ure^un^de^{r t}^h^e
^f^e^de^r^a^{l tor}^t^ur^e^s^t^a^t^ute^e^v^eⁿ^if^s^u^c^h^s^u^f^f^e^r^ing^doe^s^no^{t i}ⁿ^v^o^lv^e^“^s^e^v^e^r^e^phy^sⁱ^c^a^l^pa^in.”^Me^m^o^r^a^ndum^f^r^om^the^O^f^fⁱ^ce^of
^L^e^g^a^{l C}^ouns^e^l^{, D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^J^u^s^tic^e^,^{to J}^a^m^e^s^B^.^C^o^m^e^y^,^D^e^puty^A^ttorⁿ^ey^G^e^ne^r^a^l,^Re^:^Le^{gal Sta}ⁿ^dar^ds^Ap^plic^a^b^le
^U^nde^r¹⁸^U^.^S^.^C^.^§§²³^40-²³⁴⁰^A^(Dece^m^b^{er 3}⁰^,²⁰⁰⁴^),^av^ail^able^a^t^htt^p^://w^w^w^.us^doj.g^ov^/olc^/^18us^c²³⁴⁰²³⁴^0a^2.^htm^,
^a^t^10.
¹⁹^Se^e^s^upr^a^{, f}^oot^note¹⁷^.
²⁰^P^.^L^.¹⁰^9-³⁶⁶^,^§⁶⁽^b)^.
²¹^Id^.^,^§⁸⁽^b)^.
²²^Id^.^,^§⁸⁽^a⁾^.
²³^Id^.^,^§⁶⁽^b)^.
²⁴^Id^.^,^§⁶⁽^a)(2^).
²⁵^Id^.^,^§^5(a⁾^{. T}^h^e^Mili^ta^ry^Co^m^m^is^{sion A}^c^{t a}^l^{so re}^v^o^k^e^{d U.S.}^c^o^urts^{’ jurisd}^ic^tio^{n t}^o^he^a^r^ha^be^a^s^c^o^rpu^s^pe^titio^{ns by}
^alⁱ^eⁿ^sⁱⁿ^U.^S^.^cu^st^o^d^y^{as en}^e^m^y^c^o^m^b^at^an^t^s^.^Id^.^,^§^{7. T}^h^e^c^o^nstitutⁱ^ona^lity^of^the^MCA^’^{s prov}^{isions l}ⁱ^m^iting^ha^be^a^s
^j^u^ri^sdⁱ^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d p}^r^o^hⁱ^bⁱ^tⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e G}^eⁿ^e^{va Co}ⁿ^v^en^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^r^o^m^b^eⁱⁿ^{g i}^nvo^ked^{as a so}^u^r^{ce o}^f^ri^gh^t^sⁱⁿ^j^u^di^ci^al^p^r^o^ceedⁱⁿ^gs
^ha^s^be^eⁿ^s^u^bje^c^t^to^le^g^a^{l c}^h^a^lle^ng^e^.^For^ba^c^k^g^r^{ound a}^nd^de^v^e^lopm^{ent of}^r^ecen^{t litig}^atioⁿ^,^{see g}^eⁿ^e^rally^{CRS Rep}^o^r^t
^R^L³³¹⁸^0,^Eⁿ^e^m^y^C^o^m^b^ataⁿ^{t D}^e^t^a^ine^e^s^:^H^abe^as^C^o^r^pus^C^halle^ng^e^s^{in Fe}^de^r^a^{l C}^our^t^{, by}^J^e^nnif^e^r^K^.^Els^e^a^a^nd
^K^e^nne^{th R}^.^T^hom^a^s^.

The MCA authorizes the President, acting pursuant to an Executive Order published in the
Federal Register, to more restrictively interpret the meaning and application of Common Article 3
of the Geneva Convention, and promulgate administrative regulations implementing this ²⁶
interpretation, so long as these rules do not authorize conduct subject to criminal penalty under
the War Crimes Act.
On July 20, 2007, President Bush signed an Executive Order interpreting Common Article 3, as
applied to the detention and interrogation of certain alien detainees by the CIA, when those aliens
(1) are determined to be members or supporters of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated
organizations; and (2) likely possess information that could assist in detecting or deterring a
terrorist attack against the United States and its allies, or could provide help in locating senior ²⁷
leadership within Al Qaeda or the Taliban. The Executive Order does not specifically authorize
the use of any particular interrogation techniques with respect to detainees, but instead bars any
CIA detention and interrogation program from employing certain practices. Specifically, the
Order prohibits the use of
• torture, as defined under the Federal Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340);
• cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, as defined under the McCain Amendment
and the MCA;
• any activities subject to criminal penalties under the War Crimes Act (e.g., murder,
rape, mutilation);
• other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to the kind
expressly prohibited under the War Crimes Act;
• willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or
degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering
the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such
as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the
individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with
sexual mutilation, or using the individual as a human shield; or
• acts intended to denigrate the religion, religious practices, or religious objects of the
individual.
The scope of activity prohibited by the Order is not immediately apparent. Although some types
of conduct barred by the Order are easily recognizable (e.g., murder, rape, the performance of
sexual acts), it is not readily apparent as to what interrogation techniques would fall under the
Order’s prohibition against acts deemed to be “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” or “beyond the
bounds of human decency.” Certain interrogation techniques that have been the subject of
controversy and are expressly prohibited from being used by the military under the most recent
version of the Army Field Manual—waterboarding, hooding, sleep deprivation, or forced
standing for prolonged periods, for example—are not specifically addressed by the Order.
Whether or not such conduct is deemed by the Executive to be barred under the more general

²⁶^P^.^L.¹⁰⁹^-³⁶^6,^{§ 6}⁽^a)⁽³⁾^.
²⁷^T^h^e^Ex^e^c^u^tiv^e^O^r^de^r^m^a^y^be^vⁱ^ew^e^d^a^t^http://w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^gov/ⁿ^e^w^s^/^r^el^eas^es/²⁰⁰^7/0⁷^/²⁰⁰⁷⁰⁷²⁰^-⁴^.^h^t^m^l^.

restrictive language of the Order, such as the restriction on treatment comparable to the kind
expressly prohibited by the War Crimes Act, remains unclear. In a public address on September 7,
2007, CIA Director Michael Hayden stated that “no one ever claimed that the Army Field Manual
exhausted all the lawful tools that America could have to protect itself,” and suggested that
additional interrogation techniques may be employed by the CIA than are permitted to be used by ²⁸
DOD personnel.
Legislation was introduced in the first session of the 110^th Congress to amend the scope of the
War Crimes Act. S. 576, introduced by Senator Dodd on February 13, 2007, and a companion
bill, H.R. 1415, introduced by Representative Nadler on March 8, 2007, would modify MCA and
the War Crimes Act provisions concerning the interrogation of detainees. Among other things,
both bills would amend the War Crimes Act to criminalize treatment of protected persons which
violated McCain Amendment standards, or which denied such persons the right to be tried for war
crimes before a regularly constituted court. The bills would also amend the War Crimes Act to
make it an offense for any person not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (USMJ) to
commit any offense of Common Article 3, if such an offense is listed under the USMJ as
punishable by death or at least one year’s confinement. The two bills would also amend the MCA
by requiring the President to notify Geneva Convention parties that the United States expects U.S.
persons detained in a conflict not of an international character to be treated in a manner consistent
with U.S. interpretation and application of Common Article 3.
^Mich^{ael J}^o^hⁿ^Garcia
^L^e^gⁱ^s^l^at^iv^{e A}^t^torn^e^y
^m^g^arci^a^@^crs^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,^7-³⁸⁷³

²⁸^T^r^aⁿ^sc^{ript of}^Re^m^a^{rks by}^Ce^ntra^{l Inte}^llig^eⁿ^c^e^A^g^eⁿ^c^y^Dire^c^t^{or G}^e^{n. Mic}^h^a^e^l^{V. Ha}^y^d^eⁿ^a^t^the^Co^uⁿ^c^{il o}ⁿ^F^o^re^igⁿ
^R^e^la^tions^{, Se}^pte^m^be^r^{7, 2}⁰⁰⁷^,^av^aila^ble^a^t^h^t^tp^s://w^ww^.cia.g^o^v^/ⁿ^ew^s-in^f^o^rmatioⁿ^/^sp^eech^es-testi^m^oⁿ^y^/^g^en^eral-
^ha^y^d^eⁿ^s^-^r^e^m^a^r^k^s^-^a^t^-^t^he^-^c^ounc^il-^oⁿ^-^f^or^eⁱ^gⁿ^-^r^e^la^tions^.h^tm^{l (}^r^u^s^h^tr^aⁿ^s^c^rⁱ^pt)^.