Memorandrom for ATbuto R Gomales
Counsel to the gresldemt

Carter, 530 US.at 2.68 (citing I W.W a v e & k Scoit, Substantive Crimiaa Law 8 35,
at 315 (t986))-

As a thcadcal mattct, thmforc, knowkdgt alonc that a particnlu redl is
certa5n to acctxr does not constitute 3pccitic in=
A s the Saprcmt Court crpin
drecontzxtofmmda,~..-cofnrwnlwrrofhomicidedisrimp;ni~.-.bctweena

'

*-

.-

~

~

dif5aendy, the law lawguishes isbes t a k a
*inspite of their dmtcnded but f
m
Yocw v, Qrdll, 521 US. 793, 80243 (1997).
e ~ e nif the

BUS.

dclcadantlaurwsthatsevat~~~fmm~acti~~if~sachharmisnat
wen thou&-tbt

his objective he lacks the rapkite H f i c in-

juries rrepamittedtbin6erhmtkfktnaicirarmSt;maS

thatsuch~isyrcsaa

&e cg., W e d Safes v. Gahvin, 272 F3d 659.666 (4th Cir- 2001); United Sfaftz vXmro, -257 F3d 112,118 f?d Cir-2001); &it& Sues v. W d 207 F.3d 1222,1232
(10th Cu- 2000); H&on
v. Unitai mes, 202 F2d 400, 403 (6tb Cu.1953).
Thediarr, whcn a dcficdlant k w s that bis actims will produce thc prohibited raalt a
jury will in all EkeHmd cond9de that tho defiadarmt acted *th specific in-

B.

UScvcrePain or Suff#ing"

Notodymustthsmcntaiharmbeprohmgedtoamnmt to ~ r n d p a i p a n d
safferiag, but* itmpst becsnrstdbyordt hmoncoftheactslkted in tbcstatutc
In th~absenceofacadcbaa~oa
the m o s t ~ ~ o f t acts
hW
e ~
i r r S a c t i ~ m 2 3 4 0 ( 2 ~ ~ ) - ( D ) i s t b a i C o n ~ ~l a~kt oowbr td ~s ,
othcraets~tincM~SCCfiQO2340(2~s~~~ollaronot~tbs~
p b l b i t i ~ p ,See Ltmkmm v. Tanmt
Mwcotb M g e n a e & CumVnir,507 US. 163.168 (1993) ('ZrpfesnfeSno
tmhte5t eachrSiO &Hits.");
Numan Singrr,
2A Sutbaiand on Statu@ry Cmsaudion 4 4723 (6th d 2000) Crovprerc a h n of
coddad, the m a m a of its pa6ormmce and operation, and the penans and dings to
whi* it rtf- are desi5mted, thcrc is an XUUICC
that all omissims
be
mdemmd as exclusions.?) (footmes omitted). We cmclodt tbat torture within the
m~anin~ofthrtatrac~~tbtspcdhciat~to~~~~edmmgllurmb~o
of theacts list#l in Saction 2340(2).
A
,
defkdam must d c a l t y intend to cause
dcfadant to have dtt&m
It~
umId bc atgued t4at a defeadaprt nexds to b e
specmcmtent a ~ y t commit
o
thepredicateactsthat g i ~ e r i s e t o p t o n g + d ~ b a r m ,
Umierthatvk~,sa Iongas the dtf&spedficallylntsndedto,
fkrscarnpte, thearm a
victim with imminent dtath, he would havc had sdXdent mens r m for a convicticm.
~ t o ~ v i e w , i t ~ l d k f m r h a n e c e s s a r y f o r a ~ n v i c t i o n t o s h o w ~.t h a t
the victim i;icatally suff;aed p1ongtd m d hanr~,rather than that the Mendant
intended b came i t Wc belime that &is approach is contraryta the m
t of the statute
statute ,requires that the M ' t specifically inteodto itrftjct severe mental uaia or

.+kiqg.

Because~cst;rtu~~thism~statewithrcrpattothc~onof
d pain, and b a a ~ s tit exprssly & h c s scverc mental pain in tcnns of
prolonged mmtal hann, t h a t - m d state must be prrsent with nspect to pmtonged
mcatal ham. To mad the statute othawise woddmdthe phrase "rho prolmgd r n d
ham catrsed by or resulting b*
out of the definition of " s e v a c mmtaf pain or
suffaing
severe m

tbat his

acrions

d
l not d

t in prolonged m

steps mdd show that he bas dadm on the

d harm, bc lacks the mcatat sbts

body of know1cdgt concQning tht

result pm'btd that th&tamte, namely plokmged mea&l hiam. Bcofllse the prrscacc
of good faith d d negate tbe s p S c inturt elemcat of tarme, it is a campleta dafiPsc
to such a charge. See, eg., United S t a e v. W& 130 F a 739, 746 (6th Cir. 1991);
&ifid Stntes v. G q e r s o n , 773 F2d 2l6,2t2-t3 (8th Ci.
l985),

i n w t r i c h i t ~ c v ~ t h i s ~ o f t b e p h r a 5skce g. , C a L P d C o d e
~ 3 5 0 0 ( c ) ( w e s t S u p p - 2 0 0 ( 1 ) ( " P s j r t b o t r a p i c h g s ~ i n d u d t m i o 0..'Imp.
-~.
2002) ("chemical dependency
treatmentrndefine as program designed to gicdpF(c] the risk of the use of alcohol,-drugs

. . ."); Mirm Stat. Arm 5 2M]B201@) mest S q p
or other mind-altaing subrtan&")-

d

a whole" to asxmb a statute's meaning)- Ea& tomoasent
of& dcdrrition
--is
nctthe rnczciilaictionofpain arsulkhgan awtha.bntisbstteadastep
4removed. The victim must eqmcnce intaut mh or suffering of tht kiud that is
~ u i v a l a r ttbepainthatwouldbe
?~
auociatedwithserioas
SO semrc ttlar . dcata,kiurt,or pcnaantnt ctamqp resulting -cant
bodP fimcrion
e
l
1 likcly d
t
.
If that pain or sa&ring iSpJycho1ugicd, thart snffering ilrpst result

.

F
a an the hazy's rapknent of "scvcrity,"
cod@ed,
Tbe
extreme nature of tartarc is finthtr
tfitme m p m in [rhfs] reqninmcPtn S. Treaty Doc- No. 100-20, at 3 (1988); S-Exec. Rep,
10130,at 13 (1990). The b g a u arlmmistratioa also dennniacd that CATSdefUFEitiaa
S. Treaty Doc,No,
. 100-20, at 4-5.

-

ofbwtmcfi~lmlincwi0h"uni~cd~tatcs
andintmatidusage, [t~baeitlisamally
reserved h r cxtmnc d e h i and rmusaaEly cruel mces,
far example, slzstaintd
m a t i c beatins, q p l i 4 0 n of d d c cmicmts to scasjtive parts 6f the body and
tying up or hanging in p&tians that cause extmme pain.'' S.
Rep. No. 101-30, at

(C

Sum-

a

28 US.C
twa-

1350 note 5 3@). Tbis definition diffcfs fipm Section 2340's de-

io
F~r~t,theTVP~dttiniti~m~~~&~aa-anstrttivetist~fpzurposesfbr
whichsuchpainrnayhiwebceaidlicttd Seeid, S e c a n d t h e ' I V P A ~ r h c p h r a s e
nadsinganly~mm~t~minci~to~s~n;by~ntrast,~&
2340rdasonlyt0painor~'cin&ddto~sanctiT
~d~ B C G U S G ~ ~ ~
purpose of our d y s h bere is to asexbin acts that koald emds the Uxc&oId of
pmd\ac;ing "severt physical ar menad pain or -"
the list of inusfsztivf pmpascs
far *mhich k is inflicted, g d y wadd not affect this analysis.'Z S k d d y , tothe c r t d
that&eabscactof~p~*arisingonly~ar~~~6tomSccti0~12340mipht
dcct the question of whether gain or suffeting was pazt ofl a w 4-and thus ngt
tartmr;-the ckmnsbuces with whit& vc am amasqai bac are solciy tbat of
~
~ not tht imnnsftion
n
ofqplBLkbma lsU?SaqPent to judgment lbca
diff~[ttl~t~
bctweeo the TVPAand S d m 2340 are t h d 0 1 t not sufficiently signidcant
to mdenninc the us&lnus ofTVPA cases h c ~ e ' ~

Vu&c
repeatedly beat Kemd Mehiaovc with a Yariety o f blunt objects and
boots,intcatiOaallydcfiveringblatvstoa~eas-6elmewm~ybebadlyinjmtd,
including Mehinovicssgdtals. Id ;b.t 1333-34 On m e o d o n s be was tied ap and
hung against windows during k a i u & r hi. Mehinovic, was subjected to the game of
YRussian m&tW S& id Vuckwic, dong u d b other guards, also farced Mchinovic to
nm in a circle =liltthe g u d s swpag woodcn planks at him. I d

Lilct Mehinovic, Muhamcd Bicic v ~ a bcatm
r
npwsdfy with blunt objects, to the
point of loss of a~~cioosness,
See Id 1335. Re witnessed the scvcrc heahgs of&a
priin&dmg his awn brother. "On onc occasion, Vwkavic ondered BkSc to get on
all fhm w M e amofhex saldia stbod or Iode on his back and beat hkn with a batgame the soldiers called 'horse'" Id Bicic, & Mehiwvic, was s u b j e d to the p n c
of Russian d d t c ~dditionally,Vuckovic aad thc other gmds forcibly cxtrattcd a
numbcr ofBicic's teeth Id at 1336Safkt HadziAijqgie was subjected to daily beatings with %,d
pipes, bats, sticks,
and weapons" Id at 13374e was also snbjedcd to Rrrssiw rouIerte See id at 1 3 S 3 7 .

Has;m Subasic was brutally beaten and wim&

the be8tiags of otba prisonen,
including the beating and death of one of bis M a w prismmi and rbt bating of
. Hadzidijagic in wfrich hc was tied upside dawn and beaten. See id-at 133S39. Id at
1338- Subasic also ~as~subjected
@ the tettb p u b g inddcnt, Vuckovic personally beat
S u M c two times, punching him and kicking him withhis miIitay boo= In m e csftbese
bahgs, "Subaslc had beem fbrced into a beeling position when Vuchvic lcidtcd him in
the stomach." Id.

- -

The distlict mtxt concluded
torture ac the hands of ~uckovic-"
outlmcd with rcspect ta each p l a i n t . the acts in which Vur]u,vic had been at Icomplicit d that it fad rose to tbe l e d of tcwxe Rtgarding Mehkvk., tbc coart
daetmined Gist Vudcovic's beatings of Mebiaovi~ifl which he LidEd aad de&md
other blows to M ~ o v i c ' sface, gcnkak, and others body parts, constitutedtartme. 'Iht
corn noted chat these beatings left Mehimvic disfigured, may have broken nibs, ahnost
cased Mchbtovic to lose c o D S C i o m ~
aad r d c d him d l e b eat fba a period of
time. As to Bicic, the corn farmd-that Bieic had s d k e d scvae physical pain and
d e r i n g as a result of Vuckovic's repeated htatings of fiin in which V d m k used
various b e a b to inflict blows, the "horse"game, and the
@ k g indSite
id at 1346. In hding that Vuckcwic Micted sevcrr:physical pain an -agic,
the
corn mmqnishgly focused on the beating in wkkh Vuckovit tied Hadzial.ija& npdde
down-andbeat him. See id, The court pointed out that in this S a l t , Vdoviic atmad
killed Hhdzialijagic See id The court fintherc ~ ~ ~ l u-that
d a!Mx&c
l
e x p a i dm

physical pain and &us was 6wnned basal an &e beatbig m which Vuckovic kkkd
Subasic in the stanach. Siz id

(1) Wall S-5
The p s h x x ~stauds sprwd eagle against thc wail, with fingers
high above Iris head, and f k t back so tbat he is standing an his toos such that bis
inofhis weight fatIs on his fingers.
(2) Hooding- A black or nny boad is placed over the prisoner's head and kept
thst except during the iatarogation.
(3) Subjection to Noise. Pusding inttm,gation, the prisoner is kcpt in a lrwm with
a loud and oonrinuous hissing noise.
(4)Slaep &!pliMtioxk. Prisonas are deprived of sleep peading interrogdo~~
(5) Deprivation of F d and Drink. prisoners receive a mind diet dnring

d d o n ;arad persdiag iotmgazio~

C

I'

3%.

.-

Israeli soplzme Court

m c thc kmdi Supoanc Camt conctudcd that lhese acts amomtai IO mcl. and
i n b m a u ~ c n t , t h e ~ d i d n o t ~ y W t Tobe
b a t ~
smq such a COIlCIusim was mmassaybecause even if the acts vlaMmted only to crud
aud~trcalmcnttbGSSfackcdamthon'tytousethefivcmctbds.
Nonetfidcss,
thededsionkstillbea~~indicatingtbatthca~~issacdidnot~nsti~tetampe,
l l c court's descriptions of and amdusicm~abut & method indicate that the cow
Viewtdtficmatlil~r~~aacfiPhmnanord~butnotofthe~ucnt~tyto
rCyb the thrtshold of'Whik its kcziptiom disam ll#:cdyZ diguity,
~ ~ ~ a m d p ~ t h t ~ a m t ~ d d c d d e ~ c a ' basbauing
i n ~ s a y n f ~ ~
the #vcsitp of-*
or saffaip% indicative of tDt.tutt, SBt id at w24-29. hdccd, in
asstssingthc~asawhale,&e~m&rclicd~the~Comtof
Rr~nanRi~s~~op~rsupportandit~dnattvi=Ctcfisagrrcm~1twitbthat
dccisicda cozrckion tbat the
d d a a d thcFtindid not constitute tortlat, See id. 1
30,
Q

-

h sum, both the Eampeau Comt aa HumanRights and the Isradi Suprime Comt
have nxomr;7ea a wide may of acts &at coustitutc duel, inhman, or degrading
treatnm or
but & not amount to tortmt, Thus, they appear to p&
under intartati~~~al
law, an aggressive mtaptcmtion as m what amounts to t o m
leaving that label to be applied only wbae aneme CL +%aces adst
V.

T h e Pnsidcnt's Commander-ia-Cbjef Power

E m if an interrogation method arguably were to violate
statute would be d n m o n a l

Sean 2340A, tbc

if it iinprPaiSSt'bly encroached on the Prrsident's

~~

morning of Septemba 11, 2001. These
werc aimed at aitical govemnent
buildings in the Nation's capital and landmark buildings in its & a x i a l center- These
meats rezcha different xale of destmdivcness than &-a terrorist epkiodq such as the
desimdon of the Munah Buildkg m Okkhma City in 1994- They caused t h o ~ s t i of
s
deaths. Air f l c and commmricaIions w i t b k t
k = t d Statcs wtrc dsropttd, d o n a l
stock exchanges were shut for scver;al days; and damage
the aaack has been
estimated to nm into thd tens of bini~clsof dollars. Moteover, these attacks are part of a
violent campaign against the United States that is believed to irtclade au mmcmssM
attempt to destroy an a i k in 1 3 c c d q r 2001; a suicide bombing attack in Yeznen on
the U3.S Cole in 2000; the bambings of thc Uaited States Embassies m Kenya arrd m
Tarzania in 1998; a truck bomb attadc on a US. mr'fitary housing complex in Saudi
Arabia in 1996; an umccssfnl attarrpt to destroy the W d d Trade Center in 199% and .
the ambush of US-sexvicemen in Somalia in 1993. The United States and its ovaseas
pasoand and imtahtims have bcth attachd as a rcmk ofUsma Bin Laden's call fbr a

In nqonsc, the Govhas =gaged m a broad &kt at home and abroad ta
counter t d s m . pursuaOt to his authities as C--ip.chief;
the Pnsidmt in
October, 2001, ordkred the Armed Forces to ;btadc a1 Qaeda pummel and assets in
Afghanistan, d the T&ian militia that harbored them. That military campaign appezs
to be nearing its dme with the retreat of d Qada a d Taliban f o m dnm their
sfm&olds and tbe hstdhtion of a Gedy pmvizioaal govermpmt m A&b&aa
Congress has provided its sappaa for the use of forces against those linked to the
September 11 attacks, and bas recognkd the Pnsidart's constitutional power to use
foxe to prevent and deter f&m attacks both within and oaside the United Sbtes, S. 3R- 23, Pub. L NO.107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001)-]

B.

Iattrpretatim to Avoid Constttadond Problems

-

the m8ract of opexations dnring a war. Seq ag., Memomdm for Daniel J- Bryant,
Assistant AftGenaai, mctofLegisla* Afb& &Jar Patlick F. Ptrilb*
Assistant Attorney General, M c c ofLq# Coimd, Re-- Sd$ Justice A&-on
Au
(Apr. 8,2002);M
for T k L y E Ranima Deputy Counsel to the W - d w

Acudk&, we would constme Seetian 2340A O amid this constitntid difficulty,
and w~Eodethat it does nut ~ I to Yfhc PtxzSdent'1 dctrntiaa and -gation
of
csemy ~ambztants
pursuant to his Cammaader-inae-

This appmach b corskknt with '@ow decisions of our Ofice involving thc
applidm of Mad crimiaai law. For exampk, we have previously amstrucd the
cangressianaf mntcmpt stahrte not to apply to ex&e
brancfi officials wbo r e h e to
camply with m o n a l buause of an assertion of excnrtive privilege- In a
publiskd 1984 opinion, we fiemdudtd that

it must be ;pdmittEb as a netessay conscqucnc~~,
that there can be w

limitation of that admity* which is to cfividc for the M i and
pr4m of &S -ty,
i~
m;rtter
to its effica~y-

One of the

a

carr functions of tht Co-&

in a d is

that of cap-

--

4

J

It 2s wdl d e d &at

the

Phsikt may seize ;rbd dr?tain enemy

J

In the foreg@ipzdsof this m@mormkm, w e bviz dunonstrated that the baa on
torture in W o a 2340A is W t e d to onfy the most cxtrcmt htms of physicat and
m d harm. Wc have alto deznoosaafed thar Section 23404 as appEtd to
inrcrrogatians of enemy cornbmts ordtrcd by the President pursuant to his
Cammandez-in-chiefpower would be ~ 1 1 ~ t u t i o l l Even
a . ifan interrogatiaq m e t i d
h~wwcr,might arguably aass the line dxawn in Sccticm 2340, and application of the
stdhdt was not held to be an -al
Mbganeat of the P d d s
danth - we believe^^^
j U d o t l defe~sr,m@
i%
available &at -te
aimkd

*necessity
ddknse_maypmvc espuidly rtfcvant in the cmrmttkmmaes
it bas bem dtscn'bed in the case law and litthe purpose behind necessity is
dne of public policy. Accarding to LaFave and Scott, ''the law oaght to promote the
;ochicpanmt of bi@q values at thc ~xparrt
of lessa yaiues, and swm~mtsthe greater
gbod fir society will be accamplishe!d by violating the Ekral language of the criminal
law." LaFzwe & Scots at 629. h pxtjcufar, the necessity defmse can justLfy the
i n t a t i d killing of one pasan to save two others bec;uw Yt is bdter that two iives be
saved and one lost than that two be lost a d one savcd" Id Or,put in the language ofa
choice ~fevils, "the cvil imroLved in viobting the tanis of* aiminal law (, ,.eoea
taking motha's life) may be 1 5 than that which would d t h n lhxai courpwiththelaw(,,.two~veslost)." Id

E.

.m

determination of 4 ~liC "at 629. Tbas, if Congress
cxplidtly has made clear tbm M'alation of a statute cannot be outweighed by the hann
avoided,coaHs carmot ~ t c o p i z the
c aEcessity ddcast. LaFave and Lsratl provide-asan
exam@lcan abortion sbtute
made dear that abortions awn to save thc life of thc

c h h a l - e m;lde a

~waufdstillbea~t;insachca+esihenectssi~de~wontdberma~k
12. at 630. Hae, howcver, C u n p s bas not qLicitlymade a d e t e r m i d o n of vabs
* 8 , v i r ~ In~Cangrcsse39,~~~ovtddortsto~ovttoma~~
weighing ofvalues permitted by the necessity d&knseZf

Please let us know ifwe can be of fbther assktmcc.

a

Plaintiffaras beaten idb t by government tmops while protesting the
dcsmdon of herpropaty. See W " i v. Byd Dur& PexmIem, 2002 W L
,
3 19887 at '7 (S3S.Y. FA-28,2002).

D c # d a a t w a s ~ e d w i t h~s~~
~
aedrrfitatEdlyhitintheheadw-hh
the butt of a gun as he runained trapped in his truck by his attackers- 'Zhe
attackem then doustd the vehicle with gasoline. Although he managed to get out

I)axdat was abducted, alang with fivc ctthas- He and the o m were scPcrdy
beaten and he was fixed to drink diesel oil He was thes snmmady exaxzed.
Taciiiano v. Mqpbe, No. 00 Cip.6646vEAJCF, 2 0 2 2 1424598 at +4
(SDJ4.Y. July 1,ZOM).