Detention Operations Research Articles

Building Interrogation and Detention Operations Capabilities in Area of Operations Victory

Building Interrogation and Detention Operations Capabilities in Area of Operations Victory

When identity meets strategy: The development of British and German anti-torture policies since 9/11

Since 9/11, considerable research has been done on US interrogation and detention operations, but comparatively little is known about the involvement of other traditionally liberal states’ intelligence agencies and their evolving perspectives on torture-related policies for foreigners abroad. Particularly, the United Kingdom and Germany provide interesting cases; despite similar levels of public and political pressure regarding their indirect involvement in Central Intelligence Agency’s operations, the two states took different strategic decisions in 2010 on whether to implement new extraterritorial human rights safeguards. While the United Kingdom introduced a new intelligence guidance for interrogations overseas, the German government opted for policy-continuance, which raises the question why the two states embarked on different policy trajectories, even if they found themselves in contextually similar situations and were subjected to the comparable accountability measures. By bridging insights from Rationalist and normative literature, the article addresses this conundrum by clearly outlining the states’ differing strategic preferences, and by dissecting the multi-layered composition of these interests. As a result, the article delineates how strategic constraints pertaining to the states’ national, international, or political elite level affect decision-makers’ policy responses.

“No one cares”: Challenges and possibilities for modernizing juvenile detention operations in mississippi

AbstractThe status of Mississippi's juvenile corrections landscape was the focus of a 2018 federally‐funded study exploring the viability of a comprehensive database of statewide juvenile arrest data. Study findings indicated that the state's juvenile corrections infrastructure was primitive and incapable of sustaining such a database. However, promising elements were found to exist that may drive organizational changes at both the local and state level, and further innovations including adaptation of new technologies are also explored. Qualitative data from the pilot study reveals these indicators of potential change, which are then contrasted with theories on how organizational change can be conceived, implemented, and sustained. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

‘Unpleasant’ but ‘helpful’: Immigration detention and urban entanglements in New Jersey, USA

As a reflection of changing geographies of US migration control, when Essex County, New Jersey’s local government adopted a new immigration detention contract with the federal government, an elected official noted: ‘This is a very unpleasant way of getting revenue…But it’s going to be helpful.’ Despite politically liberal leanings as well as active and expanding resistance to a persistently conservative immigration enforcement agenda from the national level, New Jersey has been a leading provider of detention in the United States, with numerous counties benefiting significantly from immigration crackdowns. This article examines local debates in three New Jersey municipalities alongside public records data that detail financial relationships central to immigration detention operations, to argue that the ensuing relationships intersect and intertwine in ways that make detention economies a critical facet of municipal development. Further, following a 2021 paper by Lauren Martin, we argue that attention to the array of entities that are linked through detention economies demonstrates the usefulness of understanding the migration ‘industry’ as an assemblage. Using a site-specific investigative focus we trace myriad entities’ involvement in immigration detention and reliance on income from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We detail how these multifarious actors, sometimes with opposing views on detention and distinct rationalities, converge in ways that contribute to the further entrenchment of detention in municipal areas. Through this focused case study, our analysis advances a critical migration industries approach and details how detention economies are ‘assembled’ and entangled with urban areas.

Embodying the Anthropocene: Embattled crustaceans, extractivism, and eco-tourism on Christmas Island (Indian Ocean)

Christmas Island, in the north-eastern Indian Ocean, remained uninhabited until 1888 when British entrepreneurs established a phosphate mining operation that has continued to the present. Over the last 132 years, the island has experienced a series of impacts that typify the effects of extractivism globally. Acquired by Australia in 1958, the island has also been the site of a major immigration detention centre, set up in 2006 to process and deter Asian asylum seekers. In recent decades, tourism has also been added to the economic mix in a form primarily orientated to the island’s distinct fauna, an enterprise that co-exists uneasily with established mining and internment operations. In these regards, the island has rapidly experienced a range of transnational pressures that have distorted and compromised its environment. As such, the island’s recent ‘biography’ exemplifies the impact and scale of integrated Anthropocene factors. Drawing on recent work on the nature of human ecodynamics, this article examines the character and role of the island’s eco-assets – and its crustaceans, in particular – in the emerging experience economy of eco-tourism, illustrating the tensions and instability underlying the latter and its awkward co-existence with mining and detention operations. In this manner, the article characterises the Anthropocene as the central determinant of the present and of possible futures for the island.

Detainee Operations in Ukraine

Abstract Detention operations have been a salient feature of the military conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Often referred to as exchanges or swaps of detainees, the operations leading to the simultaneous release and transfer of detainees (srtd) offer fertile terrain for inquiring about the applicability of international humanitarian law (ihl) and international human rights law (ihrl). This article attempts to fill a gap in the literature on detention operations outside the war on terror framework. It offers a chronological review of the detention operations that have taken place in Ukraine since the beginning of the military conflict. This paper then follows a classical two-step analysis first of ihl, ihrl and domestic law provisions applicable to srtds and, second, of the impact of these provisions on the human rights protection of the persons involved. The preliminary conclusions of this analysis indicate that, despite the praise of the international community for the srtds in Ukraine, human rights violations have resulted from srtds. More specifically, the legal framework under which srtds take place appears to be a ‘cocktail’ of ihl and ihrl provisions. Certainly, srtds have attracted international media coverage and support for Ukraine. At the same time, however, the ‘hidden cost’ of these operations begins to be understood as well because the legal status of many participants in the srtds appears to worsen, access to justice appears to be hampered and the independence of justice appears to be threatened as a result of these operations.

Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

Following the events of September 11, 2001, the CIA established “the High-Value Detainee Program,” also known as the Rendition Detention Interrogation Program. On December 14, 2014, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a heavily redacted 500-page Executive Summary of the Committee's “Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program.” The full Committee Study is more than 6,700 pages long and remains classified. The release of the Executive Summary, however, disclosed new facts and provided a significant amount of new information to the European Court of Human Rights—mostly based on CIA classified documents—about the CIA extraordinary rendition and secret detention operations; their foreign partners or cooperators; as well as the plight of certain detainees, including Abu-Zubaydah. Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania is the European Court's first judgment to have taken advantage of the information provided in the Senate Committee's Executive Summary of its Study.

President Trump Issues Executive Order Keeping the Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp Open

On January 30, 2018, President Trump signed Executive Order 13,823, directing officials to keep the Guantánamo Bay detention camp open and permitting additional detainees to be transported to the facility. In announcing his decision during the State of the Union address to Congress, Trump stated, “I am asking Congress to ensure that, in the fight against ISIS and Al Qaida, we continue to have all necessary power to detain terrorists … . And in many cases, for them, it will now be Guantánamo Bay.” Section 2 of the order provides: (a)Section 3 of Executive Order 13492 of January 22, 2009 …, ordering the closure of detention facilities at U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, is hereby revoked.(b)Detention operations at U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay shall continue to be conducted consistent with all applicable United States and international law, including the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.(c)In addition, the United States may transport additional detainees to U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay when lawful and necessary to protect the Nation.

Preventive Detention: A Guide to Pakistan's Operations

The following is an in depth examination of the use of preventive detention or internment in Pakistan's domestic law and practice. Preventive detention is employed as an aid during Armed Forces or counterterrorism operations as an alternative to the greater use of force against persons and groups engaged in violent anti-state or extremist activity. The international and domestic law with respect to preventive detention is equally detailed and vague. In some instances, particularly with regards to international armed conflicts, international humanitarian law (IHL) provides extensive grounds and procedures for depriving persons of their liberty. However, with respect to non-international armed conflicts, IHL is far less forthcoming. In a purely domestic non-armed conflict scenario, human rights law also provides that the deprivation of liberty may not be arbitrary, however, the law is not so extensive so as to preclude the use of preventive detention altogether. Within Pakistan's domestic law, there are several overlapping regimes that provide the basis for preventive detention, along with procedure, which in some instances is quite detailed. To maintain lawful operations, however, is a difficult task, particularly when detention is used outside the context of an armed conflict. This means that international legal obligations vis-a-vis the use of preventive detention must be strictly followed (both in law and practice) to retain both its legality and legitimacy. The Guide is divided into seven chapters with four corresponding appendices and provides and extensive overview of preventive detention operations in Pakistan. Chapter One addresses the legal basis for preventive detention; Chapter Two provides an overview of general detention operations; Chapter Three discusses the justification for use of preventive detention in various contexts; Chapter Four provides procedures for processing detainees from the point of capture; Chapter Five examines the facilities in which detainees are kept and the facilities they are provided; Chapter Six discusses the rehabilitation of detainees through de-radicalization programs; Chapter Seven discusses the end of the preventive detention of a detainee through release or transfer for adjudication.

Interview with Abdoulaye Kaka

AbstractThe Review has chosen to open this edition with an interview with General Abdoulaye Kaka as a representative of State practice in counterterrorism detention. The journal chose to focus on Niger as a State that is affected by an ongoing armed conflict and which arrests, detains and tries suspected members of a non-State armed group under its domestic legal system.General Abdoulaye Kaka has been working as Head of Niger's Central Counterterrorism Agency (Service Central de Lutte Contre le Terrorisme) since 2014. He previously worked for the judicial police in Niger as head of the anti-gang section before opening the first office of the judicial police in Zinder. General Kaka worked for the United Nations (UN) police forces in Ivory Coast between 2006 and 2012, when he became the Commander-in-Chief of the Niger UN police forces.In his current role as Head of the Central Counterterrorism Agency, General Kaka oversees detention operations throughout the country, many of which involve suspected members of the group that calls itself Islamic State's West Africa Province (ISWAP), also known as Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad or, as it is most widely known under its former name, Boko Haram.Niger has suffered the effects of the ongoing conflict between ISWAP and State forces in the Lake Chad region, resulting in casualties, arrests and repeated displacement among civilians. The government of Niger contributes troops to the Multinational Joint Task Force, which conducts operations against the group. At the same time, the government arrests and detains suspected members of ISWAP as part of its counterterrorism efforts. These detention operations are coordinated by the Central Counterterrorism Agency. Established in 2011, the Central Counterterrorism Agency, successor to the counterterrorism section of the judicial police, is made up of representatives from the three primary law enforcement organizations in the country – the national police, the national guard and the gendarmerie – and is principally responsible for counterterrorism investigations in Niger.In Niger, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) helps people affected by conflict in the south-east or fleeing fighting in north-east Nigeria. With the Niger Red Cross, the ICRC delivers aid, treats the wounded, provides water and supports farmers. The ICRC also monitors compliance with international humanitarian law, visits detainees and helps them to maintain contact with their families.The ICRC visits people held by the authorities in at least five places of detention in Niger. After the visits, the ICRC shares its findings on the treatment and living conditions of the detainees confidentially with the authorities and urges them to take steps to address concerns. The ICRC also helps bolster prison management capacities and health services for detainees through technical and material support, and round-table discussions on these topics. The ICRC helps detainees, particularly minors, maintain contact with their families. At the request of foreign detainees, the ICRC informs their families or consular representatives of their detention. Lastly, the ICRC covers transportation costs for security detainees returning home after their release.

Stories from unaccompanied children in immigration detention: A composite account.

In March 2014 we spent a week on Christmas Island as medical consultants to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) Inquiry into the Impact of Immigration Detention on Children. The visit involved three Human Rights Commission staff as well as the authors, paediatrician Karen Zwi and child psychiatrist Sarah Mares, representing the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists respectively. Using interpreters, we spoke to over 40 unaccompanied children and service providers to ascertain processes and policies and to give feedback about detainees of immediate concern. We would like to honour the voices of the detainees; we have used their exact words where possible. In a separate paper, we focus on the families and children detained in immigration acilities on Christmas Island. Unaccompanied children are children under the age of 18 years who are seeking asylum from threatened or experienced danger. They arrive unaccompanied by a parent, legal guardian or adult relative over the age of 21 years. On arrival to Australia, unaccompanied children by law become the legal wards of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP). The role of a legal guardian is commonly regarded internationally as one who ‘stands in loco parentis to the child’, which includes making decisions regarding the best interests of the child and providing for the child’s emotional and material needs. In Australia, the Minister’s role tends to be nominal without practical assistance offered to the children, which has been described as leaving them not only unaccompanied but also unrepresented. A DIPB officer is appointed locally as the children’s ‘Delegated Guardian’ as discussed below. Most unaccompanied children leave their homes as a desperate measure in search of protection, education and employ ment, and to contribute to the welfare of their family. They have often embarked on dangerous journeys, experienced war, the death of family members, persecution, violence, sexual abuse, escape from forced recruitment into armed organisations and forced domestic labour. These experiences occur during critical developmental periods, thus placing them at risk of mental health problems. Research is limited to a few cross-sectional or on-arrival studies, which have shown that around 25–50% have emotional and behavioural problems, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), at higher rates than in accompanied asylum seeker children. However, consistent with other studies on refugee children, the majority of unaccompanied children score below clinical cut-offs for psychiatric disorder, thus displaying a marked resilience. The severity of psychiatric symptoms is likely to increase with more traumatic events experienced prior to forced migration, demonstrating the cumulative impact on well-being of traumatic exposure. Children exposed to adversity following migration, particularly those placed in prolonged detention, are more severely affected. Studies show increased symptoms for those exposed to rioting, fires, violence and self-harm attempts by parents or others in detention. Rapid resolution of asylum claims reduces the duration of uncertainty and associated distress for children, whereas insecure asylum status is associated with a range of psychological problems that can have long-lasting effects. Prompt access to services catering for physical and psychological health is important, as are long-term stability of residence and socially supportive environments. It is also known that PTSD symptoms are increased in lower-support living arrangements suggesting that foster family living and high support may improve outcomes.

Guantanamo: America's Battle Lab

Guantanamo: America's Battle Lab

The Copenhagen Principles on the Handling of Detainees: Implications for the Procedural Regulation of Internment

The Copenhagen Principles on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations were released in October 2012 after a five-year long process involving states and certain organizations. The Principles address a number of issues concerning the handling and transfer of detainees. They apply in military operations conducted by states abroad in the context of non-international armed conflicts and peace operations. This article focuses on those principles that address the procedural regulation of internment (ie preventive, security detention), as it is here that the current law is particularly unclear. On the one hand, the treaty provisions applicable in non-international armed conflicts contain no rules on the procedural regulation of internment, in comparison with the law of international armed conflict. On the other hand, the relevant rules under international human rights law (IHRL) appear derogable in such situations. This article demonstrates that the approach taken to this issue in the Copenhagen Principles is one which essentially draws on the procedural rules applicable to civilian internment in the international armed conflicts. These rules adopt standards that are lower than those under IHRL. Reference is then made to other recent practice, which illustrates that the Copenhagen Principles do not apply in a legal vacuum. In particular, two recent judicial developments highlight the continued relevance of human rights law and domestic law, respectively, in regulating detention operations in the context of international military operations. Compliance with the Copenhagen Principles may not, therefore, be sufficient for detention to be lawful.

Strategic intelligence during coin detention operations – relational data and understanding latent terror networks

One aspect of the global “War on Terror” that has received limited coverage in the academic literature is the problem of detained persons as it relates to intelligence. This is a surprising oversight, given the number of detainees that the USA has been responsible for (over 25,000 were in custody in Iraq alone at one time during its peak). The detention environment offers a prime strategic intelligence opportunity for the US intelligence community to study the tactics and organizations of individuals who have been removed from the overall conflict. In this article an easily implemented collection program is recommended to be deployed in US/coalition detention centers. The primary recommendation is to gather relational data on detainee communication, both authorized and illicit, and to use these data to perform network analyses of terrorist groups and their individual members.

Detention by armed groups: overcoming challenges to humanitarian action

AbstractArmed conflict and deprivation of liberty are inexorably linked. Deprivation of liberty by non-state armed groups is a consequence of the predominantly non-international character of contemporary armed conflicts. Regardless of the nature of the detaining authority or the overarching legality of its detention operations, deprivation of liberty may nonetheless have serious humanitarian implications for the individuals detained. Despite a need for humanitarian action, effective engagement is hampered by certain threshold obstacles, such as the perceived risk of the group's legitimization. Since the formative work of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)'s founder, Henry Dunant, the ICRC has sought to overcome these obstacles. In doing so it draws upon its experience of humanitarian action in state detention, adapting it to the exigencies of armed groups and the peculiarities of their detention practice. Although not without setbacks, the ICRC retains a unique role in this regard and strives to ameliorate the treatment and conditions of detention of persons deprived of liberty by armed groups.

The European Court of Human Rights’ Al-Jedda judgment: the oversight of international humanitarian law

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the Al-Jedda case dealt with the lawfulness of UK detention practice in Iraq under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court's opinion could, however, be read as having broader implications for the ability of states parties to that treaty to conduct detention operations in situations of armed conflict. This article analyzes what the Court did – and did not say – about the application of international humanitarian law.

Detention Operations in Contemporary Conflicts: Four Challenges for The Geneva Conventions and Other Existing Law

In September 2010, President Jakob Kellenberger of the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC) summarized the conclusions of a two-year, internal ICRC study of changes that have occurred in the nature of armed conflict since the signing of the Geneva Conventions in 1949, and he also suggested how international humanitarian law (IHL) should respond to those changes. In a previous address marking the sixtieth anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, Kellenberger had observed that in the place of traditional conflicts between state-sponsored armies on a battlefield, modern conflicts frequently involve nonstate actors, such as terrorist groups—a development that has blurred the line between civilians and combatants, and created challenges for IHL. The ICRC study concluded that IHL generally provides a suitable legal framework for regulating armed conflict.

Detention Operations in Contemporary Conflicts: Four Challenges for The Geneva Conventions and Other Existing Law

Since the 9/11 attacks, States have been scrambling to find answers to difficult questions surrounding the detention of members of non-State groups. Four legal questions in particular have proven vexing to States: (1) who is subject to detention; (2) what process must the State provide to those detained; (3) when does the right of the State to detain terminate; and (4) what legal obligations do States have in connection with repatriating detainees at the end of the conflict? Nearly nine years since 9/11 two factors have prevented development of the law on these questions. First, some States, international organizations, and NGOs continue to insist that existing law adequately answers these questions. Second, where there is agreement that new law is needed, disagreement about how to develop the law has limited progress. This Article, by two former State Department lawyers, crystallizes the existing state of law to create the foundation for development of new law on these important questions. The first objective is to demonstrate that existing law inadequately answers the questions posed. The Article begins by demonstrating why the law of non-international armed conflict, the generally applicable legal regime for armed conflicts between States and non-State groups, does not provide clear answers to these questions. The Article then explains why other legal regimes — international humanitarian law for international armed conflict, municipal law and international human rights law — also fail to provide adequate answers at present. The Article’s second objective is to identify areas of convergence on these four questions that may form the basis for future legal development. The resistance of many to admitting further legal development is necessary is the legitimate fear that States will abuse legal uncertainty to engage in policies inconsistent with the spirit of international law. Immediate work on development of new law may ameliorate these fears. While a new treaty regime may be the ideal vehicle for development of new law, the Article recognizes that agreement on a new treaty is unlikely, and proposes an agreement on common principles by like-minded States as an interim step.

U.S. Monitoring of Detainee Transfers in Afghanistan International Standards and Lessons from the UK & Canada

The US should ensure that detainees it apprehends and transfers to Afghan authorities are treated humanely. Just as long-term detention operations in Afghanistan are politically sensitive and pose a strategic liability to US interests, US detainee transfer practices may undercut the counterinsurgency strategy to win hearts and minds of the Afghan public insofar as they are associated with abuse or collusion with abusers.The US has already committed to supporting institutional reform of the Afghan justice and security sectors - in particular, as an integral part of its plans to transition the Detention Facility in Parwan to Afghan control in 2011. Likewise, the US should take steps to systematically reduce the likelihood of abuse against detainees it transfers to the custody of the National Directorate of Security (NDS), an Afghan intelligence agency. As other human rights groups have urged, the US should consider a moratorium on transfers pending demonstrated improvement in NDS facility conditions, or consider alternative transfer arrangements. It should also conduct capacity-building, including training of NDS personnel. The US should also take steps to deter and detect abuse by the NDS through robust, intrusive and systematic monitoring of NDS facilities where transferred detainees are held. The US should draw on the experiences of Canada and the UK, including their known failures and attempted improvements, and their willingness to declare moratoriums on transfer where there are allegations of abuse and NDS obstructions of access. The US should also establish minimum requirements for monitoring based on international torture prevention monitoring standards. These standards reflect the importance of securing a broad mandate for a monitoring team’s access to detainees. They also reflect the need to design a monitoring protocol that accounts for the ease with which torture can be concealed and the difficulty of achieving deterrence against abuse.

Torture and the inhumane

Exposure to cold weather or water is permissible with appropriate medical monitoring. The use of a wet towel to induce the misperception of suffocation would also be permissible if not done with the specific intent to cause prolonged mental harm, and absent medical evidence that it would. --excerpt from Legal Brief on Proposed Counter-Resistance Strategies. (1) In such circumstances [as the ticking bomb case] interrogators must apply a 'minimum harm' rule by not inflicting more pressure than is necessary to get the desired information. Further, any treatment that causes permanent harm would not be permitted, as this surely constitutes torture. --Final Report of the Independent Panel to Review DoD Detention Operations (August, 2004) (2) This essay presents one of and gives several reasons why it is better than its rivals. The most important of these reasons is that conceiving as a kind of inhumaneness helps to explain why morality--like international law--prohibits absolutely. Inhumane conduct is distinct from ordinary moral categories such as killing, maiming, causing pain, and the like. A moral emergency (as in a ticking bomb case) cannot justify any inhumanity, whether or something involving less suffering. Though much of what I shall say seemed obvious to me (and perhaps most other people) a few years ago, it no longer seems so to many governments, including some, such as that of the United States, from which we might have expected more. We need to put thinking about in better order to make sense of what has become--as the quotations at the head of this essay show--an important public (and not so public) debate. What I will offer here is one conception of torture, not the concept or definition of torture. I am not writing as a lexicographer or doing what philosophers used to call linguistic analysis. What I shall offer is something more useful than a definition or concept; I shall offer advice concerning how best to use a word for the purposes in view. My concern is the use of the word torture when we are making or evaluating decisions about when to torture, whom to torture, and how to torture. I shall not stipulate a definition (that is, choose a definition with no defense but convenience); nor shall I ignore usage (even though I shall try to clean it up). What I claim for the of offered here is that, while staying within the concept, it helps us explain some of our objections to better than rival conceptions or the concept itself. I Mental and Physical Torture On December 10, 1984, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. For the purposes of that document, the term torture was defined as: any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. (3) However useful this definition may be for some purposes (for example, for organizing the prosecution of officials), it does not offer a of torture likely to help us understand what is morally wrong with as such. It leaves too much out. For example, an illegal organization, such as the mafia, is (without official consent or acquiescence) as capable of as any government. Even an individual (such as the Marquis de Sade) can torture. Torture is not even necessarily a relation among humans. …