Sosa V. Alvarez-Machain and Abu Ghraib-Civil Remedies for Victims of Extraterritorial Torts by U.S. Military Personnel and Civilian Contractors

By Borrowman, Scott J. | Brigham Young University Law Review, January 1, 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Sosa V. Alvarez-Machain and Abu Ghraib-Civil Remedies for Victims of Extraterritorial Torts by U.S. Military Personnel and Civilian Contractors


Borrowman, Scott J., Brigham Young University Law Review


I. INTRODUCTION

The Abu Ghraib prison in central Baghdad has been called "one of the world's most notorious prisons" because it is where Saddam Hussein's regime tortured and executed countless Iraqi civilians.1 Unfortunately, it has also become notorious because of the abuse Iraqi prisoners received at the hands of U.S. military personnel and civilian contractors.2 Pictures of stripped prisoners forced into humiliating positions or threatened with dogs have become an all too familiar sight on the news and Internet.3

Many of the soldiers and reservists involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib have been reprimanded,4 a number have pleaded guilty to various crimes,5 and Specialist Charles A. Graner Jr., the alleged ringleader, was recently convicted by a court martial and sentenced to ten years in prison for his participation in the abuse.6 All of this is certainly a necessary response to what happened at Abu Ghraib. Still, because court martial proceedings are essentially criminal in nature, they generally do not provide a civil remedy for victims.7 Not only would providing a civil remedy satisfy the victim's interest in being compensated for a horrible wrong committed against him,8 but because winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is essential to the success of the United States' efforts in Iraq, providing a remedy for the victims of misconduct by U.S. personnel should be important to the United States.9 And given evidence of similar abuses by U.S. military personnel and civilian contractors10 at other locations throughout Iraq, in Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay,11 the availability of civil relief for similar victims should be an important part of the United States' prosecution of the larger war on terror.

On the other hand, providing civil relief against U.S. soldiers or civilian contractors accompanying the military is also problematic. After all, the United States really is at war, and some damage and disruption are inevitable. This Comment will argue that the United States should provide relief for the victims of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and will discuss the potential avenues that should be available to the victims and the limitations on those theories. Specifically, it will discuss the Foreign Claims Act (FCA), a quasiadministrative remedy created by Congress to provide compensation for damage arising from the noncombat operations of the United States military operating in foreign countries.12 Because there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that the FCA is often inadequate, and because the soldiers and contractors are immune under Iraqi law,13 it will also discuss remedies potentially available under U.S. law, including the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Alien Tort Statute, and the Bivens doctrine.

Any discussion of civil remedies under U.S. law for extraterritorial torts by U.S. government employees or their agents is significantly informed by the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Mdckain, a case arising out of the kidnapping of a Mexican doctor by bounty hunters employed by the Drug Enforcement Agency,14 and brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Alien Tort Statute (ATS).15 Not only did this decision specifically limit the availability of the FTCA and ATS to remedy extraterritorial tortious conduct, but in intriguing dicta, Justice Souter suggested that the ATS should not "supplant[] the actions under . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents16 . . . that now provide damages remedies for . . . violations" of the federal constitution.17 Of the statutory theories presented in Sosa and the constitutional theories hinted at in Justice Souter's opinion, the FTCA will not provide relief against the United States in its sovereign capacity, but the ATS and Bivens doctrine should provide a remedy against the individual soldiers and contractors who participated in the abuse.

Part II will discuss remedies available under U.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Sosa V. Alvarez-Machain and Abu Ghraib-Civil Remedies for Victims of Extraterritorial Torts by U.S. Military Personnel and Civilian Contractors
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?