A Framework for Impunity
(Originally posted on Daily Kos.)
Since 2003, the ACLU and other U.S. human rights organizations have filed dozens of cases relating to the abuse and torture of prisoners. Some of these cases seek to enforce requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Others seek to impose civil liability on those who authorized or perpetrated the abuse.
Since 2005, the ACLU has also advocated for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to examine issues of criminal responsibility. Since a prosecutor was appointed in August, we have advocated for an expansion of the prosecutor's mandate.
These efforts have been intended to serve several ends: To create a public record of the Bush administration's policies and their consequences; to obtain recognition and compensation for torture victims; to ensure that government officials who violated the law are held to account; and to reduce the likelihood that the abuses of the last administration are repeated by the current administration, or by a future one.
We had hoped, and expected, that the Obama administration would share our commitment to most if not all of these ends. The administration promised accountability, and initially it seemed ready to deliver. Immediately after taking office, President Obama disavowed torture and shuttered the CIA's black sites. Two months later, he agreed to release the Justice Department legal memos that sought to authorize torture.
But notwithstanding those early decisions, the administration has not made good on its promise of accountability. Now the administration is suppressing the evidence rather than disclosing it, and protecting torturers instead of investigating them. It is shielding Bush administration officials from civil liability, criminal investigation, and even public scrutiny.
- In FOIA suits, the administration is withholding key documents relating to the CIA's rendition, detention, and interrogation program. And it affirmatively supported new legislation to suppress photographs depicting the abuse of prisoners in defense Department custody.
- In civil damages suits, the administration has urged courts not to allow torture victims to bring claims under the Constitution. It has argued that officials should be immune from suit because it was not "clearly established" between 2002 and 2004 that torturing prisoners at Guantanamo was illegal. And in cases relating to the CIA, it has invoked the state secrets privilege to shut down lawsuits at the very outset.
- With respect to the criminal investigation initiated in August, the administration has offered a kind of immunity to interrogators who relied on the torture memos while also declining, at least so far, to investigate those who wrote the memos or authorized torture.
The Bush administration constructed a legal framework for torture, but the Obama administration is constructing a legal framework for impunity.
The issue of accountability will come to the fore once again over the next few weeks. On December 15th, the ACLU will argue before an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit in Mohamed, et al. v. Jeppesen, a case concerning the CIA's rendition program. On December 16th and 23rd, the CIA is due to hand over to the ACLU documents relating to secret prisons overseas. And the Justice Department is expected imminently to release a report, written by the Office of Professional Responsibility, that examines the conduct of the lawyers who wrote the torture memos.
It's not too late for the Obama administration to reconsider the positions it has taken in court. And it's not too late for the Justice Department to expand the scope of the criminal investigation it initiated in August. But if the administration doesn't change course, it will accomplish something that the Bush administration never managed: It will institutionalize a sweeping immunity doctrine for torturers.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
Related Content
-
News & CommentaryOct 2025
National Security
How NSPM-7 Seeks to Use "Domestic Terrorism" to Target Nonprofits and Activists
What President Donald Trump’s latest memorandum targeting civil society does, does not, and cannot doBy: Hina Shamsi -
Press ReleaseOct 2025
National Security
Rights Groups Demand Legal Memo on Caribbean Boat Strikes
NEW YORK – The Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking the Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) guidance and other related documents regarding President Trump’s lethal strikes on alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean. Testifying last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to confirm the existence (or nonexistence) of such guidance. But the same day, in a different hearing, Charles Young, who is nominated to serve as the U.S. Army’s general counsel, acknowledged the existence of this opinion in an exchange with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, explaining that the "opinion was derived through an interagency lawyers working group" including representatives from the White House and several executive branch agencies. Public reporting also indicates that the OLC has issued an opinion, and that it asserts sweeping, unprecedented claims of presidential authority to use military force against people alleged to be affiliated with drug cartels. "All available evidence suggests that President Trump’s lethal strikes in the Caribbean constitute murder, pure and simple," said Jeffrey Stein, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. "The public deserves to know how our government is justifying these attacks as lawful, and, given the stakes, immediate public scrutiny of its apparently radical theories is imperative." Since early September, President Trump has ordered five strikes on private boats traveling in international waters, reportedly killing at least 27 people. Attempting to defend the legality of the strikes, the administration has stated that drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations are "non-state armed groups" whose "actions constitute an armed attack against the United States." But the United States is not in an armed conflict with drug cartels, and the people the government’s strikes have killed are civilians under international law. For this reason, members of Congress from across the political spectrum, former government officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations, legal experts, civil society groups, and international bodies say the attacks appear to violate both international and domestic law. "In a constitutional system, no president can arbitrarily choose to assassinate individuals from the sky based on his whim or say-so," said Baher Azmy, legal director of Center for Constitutional Rights. "The Trump administration is taking its indiscriminate pattern of lawlessness to a lethal level. The public understanding of any rationale supporting such unprecedented and shocking conduct is essential for transparency and accountability." -
Press ReleaseOct 2025
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU and ACLU of Illinois Slam President Trump’s Imminent Activation of 300 Troops to Chicago
CHICAGO — Today, Governor J.B. Pritzker announced that "in the coming hours" the Trump administration intends to federalize 300 members of the Illinois National Guard over his objections. For months, President Trump and his senior-most officials have been threatening to send troops into Chicago using the pretext of protecting ICE facilities and operations. He has repeatedly stated his desire for the Governor of Illinois and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to request his help to "clean up" the city. And just last week, President Trump gave an unprecedented partisan address to the nation’s top military leaders in which he urged using Chicago and other cities as "training grounds." "This is the latest escalation of attacks on people in the Chicago area," said Colleen K. Connell, executive director of the ACLU of Illinois. "From federal officers’ attack on Black and Brown residents — including children — living in an apartment building on the City’s South Side, to the indiscriminate firing of pepper balls and projectiles in our neighborhoods and against protesters, Trump is targeting Chicago. The president clearly despises the reality that Chicago rejects his cruel policies, but we will not be intimidated." This mobilization would be the latest attempt by the Trump administration to scare the millions of people living in American cities. Since June, he has sent armed federal agents and military troops to Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis, and Portland. He has also threatened to do the same in New York City, Baltimore, and San Francisco. "Yet again President Trump is escalating tensions with a National Guard deployment, just as he has in other American cities," said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. "We see the president’s strategy for what it is — placing National Guard troops in legal and ethical jeopardy in an attempt to create conflict, sow fear in our communities, and intimidate people from exercising their constitutional rights. But we can’t let this president normalize military and armed federal policing in our country and must remember that no matter what uniform they wear, federal agents and troops are bound by the Constitution and must be held accountable if they violate our rights." If President Trump federalizes troops under Title 10, they are likely to be activated under 10 USC § 12406, which the President also invoked in California and Oregon. Troops activated in this status are prohibited under the centuries-old Posse Comitatus Act from "direct enforcement of the law." A federal judge in California recently found that Defense Department orders given to California National Guard troops forcibly deployed under this provision in support of immigration enforcement and other operations caused them to violate that law. Federal agents and troops are generally not trained in local policing or de-escalation. Yesterday, a federal judge in Oregon heard arguments in the state and City of Portland’s challenge to the President’s activation of 200 members of the Oregon National Guard over the governor’s objections.Affiliate: Illinois -
Press ReleaseSep 2025
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU and ACLU of Missouri Condemn Governor Kehoe's Authorization to Deploy State National Guard to Assist ICE
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Missouri today condemned Governor Mike Kehoe's authorization of Missouri National Guard troops to provide administrative, clerical and logistical support at ICE processing facilities in Missouri. Gov. Kehoe’s move comes in response to a request for assistance from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Department of Defense. "Despite denying the deployment of troops in Missouri just days ago, Governor Kehoe's announcement threatens people and businesses across the state and ignores the needs of the St. Louis community that is still in the midst of clean up from a devastating tornado," said Luz María Henríquez, executive director at the ACLU of Missouri. "The Governor failed to provide basic information, including an order defining the parameters and objective, to prepare Missourians for this unprecedented act. With the backdrop of masked immigration agents breaking apart our families and communities, it is particularly concerning that the Governor is asking Guard members to voluntarily participate in this agenda. At the same time, he is failing to provide resources to the communities impacted by a natural disaster. These politicized actions embolden the administration in D.C. – they do not protect communities in Missouri." According to a news release issued by Gov. Kehoe’s office, Missouri National Guard members will assist with tasks such as data entry, case management and logistical support. They are authorized to provide ICE support until September 30, 2026. Governor Kehoe’s authorization comes just hours after Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landy requested 1,000 National Guard troops to assist with law enforcement. Already, the Trump administration has deployed armed federal agents and National Guard troops to Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Memphis, and Portland under false and inflammatory justifications and to crackdown on protesters exercising their First Amendment rights. To date, the use of the military and the National Guard for immigration-related purposes has been limited to border operations, such as wall construction, and monitoring, detection, and logistical support for civilian agencies. "National Guard troops should be reserved for genuine emergencies, not deployed to suit the president’s political whims," said Naureen Shah, director of policy and government affairs for the ACLU’s Equality Division. "Deploying state National Guard troops to further the Trump administration's deportation of our loved ones and neighbors is a waste of taxpayer resources that will harm entire communities."Affiliate: Missouri