Leahy Law: Difference between revisions

The '''Leahy Laws''' or '''Leahy amendments''' are U.S. [[human rights]] laws that prohibit the U.S. [[Department of State]] and [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] from providing military assistance to foreign security force units that violate human rights with [[impunity]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2378d|title=22 U.S. Code § 2378d - Limitation on assistance to security forces|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en|access-date=2020-02-27}}</ref> It is named after its principal sponsor, Senator [[Patrick Leahy]] (D-Vermont).<ref name="leahy.senate.gov">{{Cite web | url=http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/human-rights | title=Human Rights &#124; U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont}}</ref>

To implement this law, the U.S. embassies, the [[Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor]], and the appropriate regional bureau of the U.S. Department of State vet potential recipients of security assistance.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.humanrights.gov/2013/07/09/an-overview-of-the-leahy-vetting-process/ |title=ArchivedAn copyOverview of the Leahy Vetting Process « humanrights.gov |access-date=2013-07-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140626002618/http://www.humanrights.gov/2013/07/09/an-overview-of-the-leahy-vetting-process/ |archive-date=2014-06-26 |url-status=dead }}</ref> If a unit is found to have been credibly implicated in a serious abuse of human rights, assistance is denied until the host nation government takes effective steps to bring the responsible persons within the unit to justice. While the U.S. Governmentgovernment does not publicly report on foreign armed forces units it has cut off from receiving assistance, press reports have indicated that security force and national defense force units in [[Australia]], [[Bangladesh]], [[Bolivia]], [[Colombia]], [[Guatemala]], [[Mexico]], [[Nigeria]], [[Turkey]], [[Indonesia]], [[Lebanon]], and [[Saint Lucia]] have been denied assistance due to the Leahy Law.{{Citation needed|date=November 2023}} On the other hand, [[Israel]] has never been denied assistance under this law.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Beinart |first=Peter |date=August 18, 2024 |title=Harris Can Change Biden’s Policy on Israel Just by Upholding the Law |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/18/opinion/biden-israel-policy-harris.html |work=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref>

Senator Leahy first introduced this law in 1997 as part of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. It [http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/pl104_208.pdf initially referred] only to counter-narcotics assistance for one year.{{cn|date=September 2021}} The next year, with his leadership, Congress expanded it to cover all State Department funded assistance. This provision was included in all annual Foreign Operations budget laws until 2008. At that time Congress made the law permanent by amending it into the [[Foreign Assistance Act]].<ref>Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act.</ref> In 2011, Congress revised the law substantially, seeking to enhance its implementation.

The United States government has long been a major, if not the largest, provider of assistance—fundingassistance—including funding, training, non-lethal equipment, and/or weaponry---toweaponry—to foreign military and other security forces.<ref>{{Cite webmagazine|url=http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66224/robert-m-gates/helping-others-defend-themselves|title=Helping Others Defend Themselves|last=|first=|date=18 May 2010|website=Foreign Affairs|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-02-27|last1=Gates|first1=Robert M.}}</ref> In 2012 it spent $25 billion on training and equipping foreign militaries and law enforcement agencies of more than 100 countries around the world.<ref>International Security Advisory Board, [https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/isab/202710.htm Report on Security Capacity Building], January 7, 2013, p. 15</ref> Security assistance is driven by overriding U.S. national security objectives, including a desire to challenge/overturn communist regimes during the Cold War, counter drug trafficking in the 1990s, or counter anti-Western terrorism in the 2000s. Throughout the United States' long history of providing assistance to foreign armed forces, some portion of this assistance has been provided to forces that repress and abuse their own populations. {{Citation needed|date=November 2023}}

U.S. assistance to foreign armed forces comes from two different budgets; therefore, two separate versions of the Leahy amendment have been enacted into law. One covers assistance to foreign forces funded through the State Department foreign assistance budget, and another covers assistance funded out of the Department of Defense budget.

The law covering State Department funded aid is found in Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as amended most recently in January 2014).<ref>22 USC § 2378d</ref> It states:

(b) EXCEPTION. –The– The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply if the Secretary determines and reports to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations that the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.

(5) ensure that when an individual is designated to receive United States training, equipment, or other types of assistance the individual's unit is vetted as well as the individual.;

{{quote||quote=(a) In General.—

(A) the information relating to the gross violation of human rights;<br>

(B) the extraordinary circumstances that necessitate the waiver;<br>

(C) the purpose and duration of the training, equipment, or other assistance; and<br>

There are several key differences between the two versions of the law. First, the Department of Defense version includes a waiver that allows the Secretary of Defense -– after consulting with the Secretary of State -– to waive the requirements of the provision if "extraordinary circumstances" warrant it.<ref name="US Government Accountability Office 2013, p. 7">US Government Accountability Office, "Human Rights: Additional Guidance, Monitoring, and Training Could Improve Implementation of the Leahy Laws,", September 2013, GAO-13-866, p. 7</ref>

Another difference concerns what steps a government must take to resume assistance once a security force unit has been flagged for gross human rights violations. The Foreign Assistance Act version requires that the government of the country in question "is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice" while the Defense Department version prohibits assistance "unless all necessary corrective steps have been taken.".<ref name="US Government Accountability Office 2013, p. 7"/>

Leahy Law provisions are sometimes confused with human rights conditionality that applies to overall Foreign Operations aid packages to a specific country, suchwhich asis Colombia,governed Mexico,by orthe GuatemalaForeign Assistance Act.<ref>Section 502B of the FAA (22 U.S.C. 2304).</ref>

The Leahy Law applies only to assistance to specific units, and does not necessarily affect the level of assistance to a country, even when implemented. Human rights conditionality, on the other hand, typically requires a percentage of assistance to a country to be withheld until the Department of State certifies progress on certain human rights conditions.

The U.S. government (via the State Department) implements the law through a process known as "Leahy vetting.".<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.humanrights.gov/issues/leahy-vetting/ |title=ArchivedLeahy copyvetting |publisher=Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, US State Department |access-date=2013-09-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131207080529/http://www.humanrights.gov/issues/leahy-vetting/ |archive-date=2013-12-07 |url-status=dead }}</ref> A prospective aid recipient's unit is searched for evidence of past commission of gross human rights violations. The State Department has interpreted "gross human rights violations" to mean a small number of the most heinous acts: murder of non-combatants, torture, "disappearing" people, and rape as a tactic.{{Citation needed|date=November 2023}}

Vetting is done at several points in the approval process and by several elements of the State Department, starting at the U.S. embassy in the particular country and occurring at the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) and the appropriate regional bureau. When a vetter finds credible derogatory information, the information is entered into INVEST, triggering a review with all relevant bureaus. All assistance remains on hold until a final decision is reached.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.humanrights.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Leahy-Vetting-Law-Policy-and-Process.pdf |title=ArchivedLeahy copyVetting: Law, Policy, Process |accessdate=2013-09-05 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140611062958/http://www.humanrights.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Leahy-Vetting-Law-Policy-and-Process.pdf |archivedate=2014-06-11 |df= }}</ref>

If credible information is found implicating a unit in a gross violation of human rights, the unit will be prohibited from receiving assistance until remediation steps are taken. The law requires the U.S. government to offer assistance to the country's government in bringing those responsible to justice and remediate the sanctioned unit.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43361.pdf#page=15|title="'Leahy Law"' Human Rights Provisions and Security Assistance: Issue Overview|last=|first=|date=January 29, 2014|website=|publisher=Congressional Research Service|access-date=August 31, 2016}}</ref>

The process is, in general, not transparent; in June 2016, State Department Spokesperson John Kirby said department officials do not "speak to specific cases on Leahy vetting. We don't do that."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2016/06/258467.htm|title=Daily Press Briefing -– June 14, 2016|websitepublisher=U.S. Department of State|access-date=2016-06-15}}</ref>

While there is no exact definition of what constitutes "credible" information, the State Department's standard is that it need not reach the same standard as would be required to admit evidence in a U.S. court of law. Vetters rely on a wide array of sources including the annual DepartDepartment of State Country Reports on Human Rights, US government agency records, NGO human rights reports, and information garnered from the media.

Certain countries known as "Fast Track" countries are only required to be vetted at the embassy level.<ref name=":0">{{Cite webcn|url reason=WikiLeaks https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE87762_a.html|titleis =an Cable:unreliable 09STATE87762_a|websitesource, =see wikileaks.org[[WP:RS/P]]|access-date =September 2016-03-03|date = August 24, 2009 2021}}</ref> The State Department's Leahy Working Group determines by consensus which countries are eligible for Fast Track vetting. A Fast Track country has a "favorable human rights record, including no serious or systemic problems in the country's security forces and no widespread problems with impunity."<ref name=":0" /> The State Department's "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices" is the primary source for Fast Track determination.<ref{{Citation nameneeded|date=":0"June /> The Fast Track list is updated annually via State Department diplomatic cable. As of 2009 the list of Fast Track countries is as follows:2023}}

The U.S. government rarely publicizes decisions to deny cease assistance under the Leahy Law. The vast majority of requests for assistance are cleared immediately; in 2011, only 1,766 units and individuals out of approximately 200,000 were barred from receiving aid because of gross violations of human rights.<ref name="Schmitt">{{Cite news|last=Schmitt|first=Eric|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/politics/military-says-law-barring-us-aid-to-rights-violators-hurts-training-mission.html|title=Military Says Law Barring U.S. Aid to Rights Violators Hurts Training Mission|date=2013-06-20|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-02-27|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

In 2010 outrage over extrajudicial killings committed by the armed forces of [[Pakistan]] led to the suspension of aid to "about a half-dozen" units of the Pakistani army.<ref>{{Cite news|lastlast1=Schmitt|firstfirst1=Eric|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/world/asia/22policy.html|title=Pakistani Troops Linked to Abuses Will Lose Aid|date=2010-10-21|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-02-27|last2=Sanger|first2=David E.|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

A 2013 report by [[Freedom House]] described the Leahy Law as "an invaluable tool in preventing U.S. assistance to military or police units that commit human rights abuses" and added that "it is invoked sparingly and only in egregious cases of specific violence.".<ref>Sarah Trister, "Investing In Freedom: Democracy Support in the U.S. Budget,", Freedom House Policy Brief, July 22, 2013.</ref>

In 2014, Major General [[Paul Eaton]](retired) spoke in support of the law, saying, "the value of the Leahy Law is that it serves as a moral guide to the application of U.S. military engagement. Some in the U.S. armed forces have argued that the law frustrates U.S. partnership at precisely the moment we need most to influence better behaviors. This dilemma has a solution embedded in the amendment itself, which provides that if human rights remediation has begun, U.S. assistance can be brought to bear."<ref>http://nsnetwork.org/critical-issues-in-the-senate-defense-appropriations-bill/<nowiki/> {{DeadWebarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141028134504/http://nsnetwork.org/critical-issues-in-the-senate-defense-appropriations-bill/ |date=2014-10-28 link}}</ref>

Senator Leahy said of the law: "This is a law that works, if it is enforced," Senator Leahy was quoted as stating in the New York Times&nbsp;... "We can help reform foreign security forces, but they need to show they are serious about accountability. If not, we are wasting American taxpayers' money and risk prolonging the abusive conduct that we seek to prevent."<ref>{{Cite news|lastname="Schmitt|first=Eric|url=https:"//www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/politics/military-says-law-barring-us-aid-to-rights-violators-hurts-training-mission.html|title=Military Says Law Barring U.S. Aid to Rights Violators Hurts Training Mission|date=2013-06-20|work=The New York Times|access-date=2020-02-27|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

Most criticism, however, has been that the law is too weak and is not enforced robustly enough.<ref>Winifred{{Cite journal|last=Tate, "|first=Winifred|date=2011|title=Human Rights Law and Military Aid Delivery: A Case Study of the Leahy Law," |journal=PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, Volume |language=en|volume=34, Issue |issue=2, |pages =337–354, November 2011; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/|doi/=10.1111/j.1555-2934.2011.01169.x|issn=1555-2934|url=https:/abstract; and U/digitalcommons.Scolby. Government Accountability Office, "Human Rights: Additional Guidance, Monitoring, and Training Could Improve Implementation of the Leahy Laws," September 2013, GAO-13-866edu/faculty_scholarship/71}}</ref> For instance, in 2011 [[Human Rights Watch]] reported that the U.S. "continued to aid and train Cambodia's armed forces including units with records of serious human rights violations such as Brigade 31, battalion 70 and Airborne Brigade 911- – in violation of the '''Leahy Law'''"."<ref>HRW World Report 2011,{{Cite book|url=https://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-/2011/country-chapters/cambodia|title=World Report 2011: Rights Trends in World Report 2011: Cambodia|chapter=World Report 2011: Cambodia |date=2011-01-24|website=Human Rights Watch|language=en|access-date=2020-02-27}}</ref>

A number of observers have complained that the Leahy Act has not been enacted in response to what they've have claimed are [[Human rights in Israel|human rights abuses]] by the Israeli[[Israel]]i military. In 2011, HaartezHaaretz reported that veteran U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a long-time human rights defender, after being approached by constituents in Vermont, was pushing clauses that would bar aid to three elite Israeli military units that have been accused of human rights violations in the [[Israeli-occupied territories|occupation]] of the [[West Bank]] and [[Gaza Strip|Gaza]].<ref>{{Cite news | url=http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-senator-seeks-to-cut-aid-to-elite-idf-units-operating-in-west-bank-and-gaza-1.378800 | title=U.S. Senator Seeks to Cut Aid to Elite IDF Units Operating in West Bank and Gaza| newspaper=Haaretz| date=2011-08-16}}</ref> A spokesman for Senator Leahy denied this.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0811/Leahy_says_legislation_doesnt_aim_at_Israel_but_could_hit_it.html | title=Leahy says legislation doesn't aim at Israel, but could hit it| website=[[Politico]]}}</ref> Sen. Leahy's Senate pagewebpage<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.leahy.senate.gov/issues/policies-by-region | title=Policies by Region &#124; U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont}}</ref> repeats his views that while "he has supported Israel's right to self-defense", "he disagrees with restrictions on imports of goods into Gaza as it amounts to collective punishment, with Israel's use of excessive force in Gaza which has caused the deaths of hundreds of civilians, and with home demolitions and settlement construction in the West Bank." In February 2016, 11 members of Congress, including Senator Leahy, sent a letter to the State Department demanding a review of the Leahy Act be conducted after reports of [[extrajudicial killingskilling]]s by Israeli and Egyptian[[Egypt]]ian military forces.<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/patrick-leahy-senate-israel-egypt-state-221366 | title=Leahy asked State Dept. To investigate Israeli human rights 'violations'| website=[[Politico]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000153-c56c-d662-a75b-cfecc6be0000|title=Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-1004|last=|first=|date=|website=[[Politico]]|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-02-27}}</ref>

* [[Child Soldiers Protection Act]]

*{{cite journal|url= https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-06-29/getting-leahy-law-right |title=''Getting the Leahy Law Right'' |journal=Foreign Affairs |date=2017-06-29 |last1=Leonard |first1=Andrew M. }} by Andrew M. Leonard in ''[http://www.foreignaffairs.com Foreign Affairs]''

*{{cite web|url= http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug07/McFate.pdf |title=''The Art and Aggravation of Vetting in Post-Conflict Environments'' }}&nbsp;{{small|(1.55&nbsp;[[Mebibyte|MiB]])}} by Sean McFate in ''[http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/index.asp Military Review]'', July–August 2007. Also in {{cite web |url= http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/Spanish/NovDec07/mcfatespanovdec07.pdf |title= ''Spanish translation.'' |url-status=dead |archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20110718193715/http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/Spanish/NovDec07/mcfatespanovdec07.pdf |archivedate= 2011-07-18 |df= }}&nbsp;{{small|(1.29&nbsp;[[Mebibyte|MiB]])}}

[[Category:1997 in American law]]