Abstract
ABSTRACTThe United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been abducting individuals from across the world and flying them to other states with the knowledge, and even intent, that they are tortured in order to collect intelligence. Placing blame on the USA, or at least the CIA, in this case is therefore unproblematic. The capture, transportation or housing of an individual with the intent to inflict harm means that the USA has placed itself as a key actor and so can be directly blamed. However, claims can also been made against other states who aided in these rendition programmes by sharing intelligence, by allowing the use of their facilities or simply by being aware and not acting. Ascribing blame to these states is difficult as their involvement is often unclear, unnecessary or far removed from the activity itself. To better understand their involvement this paper will argue that complicity, and therefore blame, should not be considered so strictly, and that instead it is better to think of a spectrum of involvement. This allows a more flexible understanding of blame, making it possible to evaluate those who are more removed from the torture and in doing so argue that more states should be implicated than originally thought.
Highlights
It is important to start with the position that torture is prohibited absolutely
The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been abducting individuals from across the world and flying them to other states with the knowledge, and even intent, that they are tortured in order to collect intelligence
To better understand their involvement this paper will argue that complicity, and blame, should not be considered so strictly, and that instead it is better to think of a spectrum of involvement
Summary
Those whose actions have a high proximity to the harm caused, where someone has a specific duty to ensure those harmed were protected and knew how their actions would contribute, should face a greater degree of blame than those who were a contributory but non-causal factor and were only vaguely aware or in a general position of responsibility; but those at the latter level would still face a greater level of blame than those who were on the bottom rung of the institutional ladder with little knowledge, impact or opportunity to protest (see Table 3) Compared to those easy cases where an actor has directly involved himself in the renditions process – the apprehension, transfer or end point, for example59 – the cases discussed here are where the duty of care, expectation of knowledge or relationship to the harm is unclear. The impact of these findings is that these individuals subjected to torture as a result of the rendition process have recourse to retributions from each of these states, meaning that each state must act to redress the balance of its own contribution (see Table 5)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
