Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: U.S. domestic law enacted to enable the enforcement of international treaty obligations prohibiting torture has consistently evaded criminalizing some practices properly denominated torture. These practices have been preserved for use in national security interrogations. U.S. legislation and policy on torture of the Global War on Terrorism era therefore represents continuity not rupture, although the evasive objectives are less artfully concealed. The law and practice of the United States, and the practice if not the law of other democratic powers, never yielded to the ideals embodied in the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and other post-WWII expressions of the supposed universal legal prohibition of torture. The rhetorical and legal ploy at the heart of the evasion is defining torture down; i.e., torture light” (or torture lite or touchless torture or psychological torture) is classified as (mere) inhuman and degrading treatment, which, while prohibited by international treaties, is not required by them to be subject to the serious criminal penalties prescribed for torture. The author traces the history of U.S. domestic legislation and policy on torture from the ratification of the CAT in 1994 to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and also examines some episodes in the practice of the U.S. and some other democracies during the post-WWII period.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: After using torture committed by others as a moral justification for international aggression, the United States faces accusations of torture and inhumane practices—plausible accusations, not just secretive rumors. While the U.S. denies such allegations, theorists come to her defense, citing the need to gain information about future terrorist attacks. Indeed, when moral justifications are given for torture, such justifications generally are based on a utilitarian analysis of the greater good. Such justifications are potentially effective only if torture is used as a technique of interrogation.

Torture is however, a malleable tool. The meanings of torture, truth, pain and body-knowledge are culturally created, and thus never static. Historically, torture has moved from a focus on interrogation to internal social control, and now, this article proposes, to a function of performance or international social control. In light of the current cultural context, the historical failure of torture as an interrogational technique, and the high level of disclosure of the U.S.’s activities, torture by the U.S. is better explained as a performance than an interrogational technique. Performance of torture—and thus its social construction—does not occur in isolation, but rather exists in the context of social, political, cultural and religious meaning. By viewing performance rather than interrogation as the function of torture, it is possible to better understand why modern states would adopt the use of torture in pursuing international political goals, as well as to understand how the nature of torture and its practice are changing.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This is a content analysis of the travaux préparatoires of the 1984 Convention Against Torture (CAT). The paper examines the contentious issues that emerged during the drafting process and focuses on US concerns over the definition of torture and cruel,

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: “We are all torturers now.” So read the title of an op-ed essay written by Mark Danner and published in the New York Times in January, 2005. The gist of Danner’s argument, which was prompted by revelations of the U.S. military’s engagement in torture at the Abu Ghraib prison complex and elsewhere, is as follows: “By using torture, the country relinquishes the very ideological advantage—the promotion of democracy, freedom and human rights—that the president has so persistently claimed is America’s most powerful weapon in defeating Islamic extremism…By using torture we Americans transform ourselves into the very caricature our enemies have sought to make of us.” But how exactly are Americans implicated, and what sort of accountability is at stake when U.S. military personnel commit atrocities, quoting Danner, “in their name”? Danner’s response to these questions, implicit in his essay’s title, presupposes a specific representation of democracy and, more particularly, of the constitution of popular sovereignty in a democratic political order. If, however, this representation is anachronistic, as I believe it is, then derivative claims regarding the character of democratic accountability for torture will prove flawed as well. My aim in this essay, accordingly, is to show how a more adequate understanding of the contemporary U.S. regime might modify our understanding of what is involved in affirming that “we are all torturers now.”

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Small arms are used for repressive purposes around the world, ascampaigners have tried to bring to the attention of state leadersrecently. But does the amount of weapons coming in to a country make anydifference? This study uses a unique data set on small arms importsthat contain data for over 100 countries to test the proposition thatcountries with high political repression require higher level of smallarms imports for fighting dissent. This goes straight to the heart ofthe debate over arms use and the importance of norms versusavailability. The relationship between human rights, democracy and militaryspending is debated in the literature. Small arms imports, however, areonly one part of military spending in general and may serve as toolsthat have a far more sinister purpose than national defence. Sincecountries with high repression may need to dampen domestic dissent,small arms rather than overall military imports may be the decidingfactor. We will test whether small arms imports leads to higherrepression, and whether repressive regimes show a higher demand forthese particularly deadly tools, holding constant the level of domesticconflict and other sundry controls. We use different datasets andtheoretically informed models of repressive states and the latest testing procedures for pooled data. There are clear normative and practical implications for the policy community to consider if in fact there is a systematic connection between human rights abuses, autocratic states and the demand for small arms.