Thesis advisor: Marc Landy / This thesis serves to clarify and concretize the controversy surrounding the debate on torture as it pertains to the War on Terror during the Bush Administration years. It argues that policy and rhetoric decisions made at the top of the political food chain contributed to the instances of abuse and torture that occurred in the various arenas of the war (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, and CIA “black sites”). Such an argument is made through an analysis of what defines interrogation and torture, what techniques were in fact authorized, what factors went into determining which techniques to use, and what influence these techniques had on abuses that occurred. This thesis concludes with policy updates based on lessons learned and briefly addresses the efforts made by the Obama Administration in regards to torture, interrogation, and terrorism. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2010. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Political Science Honors Program. / Discipline: College Honors Program. / Discipline: Political Science Honors.

It has been two decades since the terrorist attacks on September 11. These events were the starting shot for the US war on terrorism, which has resulted in extreme challenges for human rights treaties. Several people have fallen victim to the US protection measures, which have included a detention and interrogation program and extraordinary renditions. The US protection measures have resulted in military invasions, kidnappings, detentions, and acts of torture. Even though black sites are no longer secret, has nobody ever been held responsible for these crimes. The question of who should be held responsible for the systematic violations of the United States is therefore necessary to discuss as this is a problem that characterizes the international legal system still today. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether the US legal argument for justifying enhanced interrogation techniques and extraordinary renditions is consistent with the human rights treaties. The study examines the extent to which the US exercises jurisdiction over people who are subject to extraordinary renditions. Furthermore, it is also important to investigate if extraordinary renditions conflict with two treaties that have been approved in the United States and consequently the legitimacy of the arguments will be tested against CAT and ICCPR. The problem has been analysed in the light of jurisdiction. The interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction in general international law and human rights treaties constitutes an essential issue regarding states’ responsibilities to uphold and respect the human rights within the research area and research questions. The study focuses primarily on the question of when a state has obligations under human right treaties outside of its own territory. The issue of jurisdiction has been discussed primarily in international courts since Bankovic. The investigation shows that people that have been subject to extraordinary renditions as well as the detention and interrogation program fall under US jurisdiction. According to case law, the study establishes that the United States exercises effective control over the people in the event of extraordinary renditions. Moreover, the study claims that state responsibility can be attributed to the US for having failed in its obligations to respect and protect human rights in the war on terrorism.

Syftet med denna studie är att analytiskt granska och undersöka de legala aspekter som uppstått i samband med kriget mot terrorismen. Bush-administrationens juridiska argumentation kring praktikerna indefinite detentions och enhanced interrogation techniques står i fokus. Genom att använda en juridisk metod undersöks det huruvida argumentationen är förenlig med internationell rätt för att fastställa praktikernas legala status. Vidare utrönas det genom detta förfarande huruvida praktikerna kan uppnå en juridisk kodifiering internationellt och på sätt bringa ett paradigmskifte av rättfärdiga metoder inom den moderna krigsföringen. Den juridiska analysen påvisar att praktikerna ej är förenliga med internationell rätt och strider mot regleringar inom både den humanitära rätten och mänskliga rättigheter. Slutsatsen är att den amerikanska juridiska argumentationen av indefinite detentions och enhanced interrogation techniques ej kan uppnå någon juridisk kodifiering internationellt och således ej heller bringa något paradigmskifte av rättfärdiga metoder inom den moderna krigsföringen. / The purpose of this study is to analytically review and examine the legal aspects arising in connection with the war on terrorism. The Bush-administration’s legal arguments on the practices indefinite detentions and enhanced interrogation techniques are in focus. By using a legal method it will be examined whether the arguments is consistent with international law to determine the practices legal status. Furthermore, it is ascertained thru this procedure whether the practices can achieve a legal codification internationally and in that way bring a paradigmatic shift of righteous methods in modern warfare. The legal analysis demonstrates that the practices are inconsistent with international law and in conflict with regulations in both humanitarian law and human rights. The conclusion is that the American legal reasoning regarding indefinite detentions and enhanced interrogation techniques cannot achieve any legal codification internationally and thus not bring any paradigmatic shift of righteous methods in modern warfare.