(Un)Accountable: Rethinking US Security Sector Accountability Across the Domestic-International Divide

Accountable state security institutions are a cornerstone of good governance. For civilian victims and survivors of harm, accountability can reaffirm their humanity, promote healing, and reduce the likelihood that harm will recur in the future. Yet all too often, accountability for harm remains elusive

This report explores how shortcomings in the accountability practices of US security institutions, from domestic law enforcement to military operations abroad, can both enable harm and undercut the credibility of democratic governance.

The report, produced by Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) in partnership with the Stimson Center, is based on in-depth research and interviews with impacted communities, civil society leaders, academics, and policymakers. It details the shared causes and consequences of unaccountability across US security sectors, as well as recommendations for improving accountability practices. The report addresses but also goes beyond questions about criminal accountability for individual unlawful conduct in order to reimagine what comprehensive accountability for harm might and should entail, regardless of legality or perpetrator and with victims and survivors at the center.

Download


Executive Summary

Accountable state security institutions are a cornerstone of good governance. Accountability can serve as an important check on the power of these institutions, which are uniquely tasked with enforcing the government’s will with force. It can also reaffirm the humanity of victims and survivors of harm, promote healing, and reduce the likelihood that harm will recur in the future. When governments fail to hold themselves or their security institutions accountable, or when external and internal sources of accountability fail, public trust begins to fray, cycles of harm continue, and democracies begin to fracture. In just the last few years, governments and societies across the world have been tested by a variety of stress factors, including but not limited to unaccountable and politicized security institutions and practices, which reflect a pervasive and under-recognized threat to democracy.

For its part, US history contains a range of accountability failures, from the enforcement of slavery and racial segregation domestically to the atrocities committed during the Vietnam War. While American institutions have undergone valuable reforms in the intervening years, ample evidence suggests that accountability continues to fall short for those who are harmed as a result of US security policy and practices across the domestic-international divide. Domestically, the continued and disproportionate killings of Black Americans and other people of color by law enforcement, as well as abuses against migrants at the US-Mexico border, have gone largely unaddressed. Internationally, the US military has caused significant civilian harm across a range of post-9/11 conflicts without recognition or accountability, and the legacy of torture at Guantánamo Bay and US “black sites” remains.

The contexts within which law enforcement and military servicemembers operate are undeniably different, as are the domestic and international legal frameworks that govern their conduct. This report does not seek to suggest that they are the same. Despite these notable differences, however, we see significant commonalities in victims’ and survivors’ experiences seeking accountability for harm, regardless of whether or not the security force conduct in question was lawful or unlawful. For example, people inside and outside of the United States seeking recognition or remedy for their harm face significant access barriers to reporting and accountability mechanisms, high transaction costs, and disparities in which cases are granted attention. And across the domestic-international divide, those who are harmed do not enjoy the same degree of political influence, power, or the ability to absorb the high costs of accountability that have been transferred to them. As a result, many variables work to favor the perspectives of governments and armed actors, while too few work in favor of those harmed. This report therefore addresses but also goes beyond questions about criminal accountability for individual unlawful conduct in order to reimagine what comprehensive accountability for harm might and should entail, regardless of legality or perpetrator and with victims and survivors at the center.

When done well, accountability has a wide range of benefits—first and foremost for the victims and survivors of state violence. Yet accountability also brings benefits for governments and broader societies. For example, investing in accountability domestically could build trust and legitimacy around democratic governance at a time when many, both in and outside of the United States, are understandably questioning democracy’s ability to “deliver” for all.1Note: “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2022,” Pew Research Center, June 6, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/ Reckoning with both unlawful and lawful harm resulting from recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Somalia could provide some measure of dignity and humanity to survivors, while also helping to separate the future of American national security policy the more troubling aspects of its past; such reckoning should be a crucial component of any effort to finally end the US “forever wars”. Further, ensuring accountability for the US government’s own actions would strengthen the credibility of the United States when promoting human rights, civilian protection, and democracy abroad. And although the very term “accountability” can conjure pejorative connotations for some, data suggests that the American public considers accountability as critical for both police and the military, across both domestic and foreign policy.2Note: YouGov. (n.d.). YouGov panel rewards

No matter which of these perspectives the reader assumes, strengthening accountability is both an urgent and worthwhile endeavor. Based on this premise, the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) and the Stimson Center (Stimson) launched a research project in 2021 designed to evaluate the current state of accountability for US security institutions, policies, and practices across the domestic-international divide. Centered heavily on the perspectives of those who have a claim on accountability, this study aimed to generate feasible options for strengthening accountability at every level of government, not only for the many benefits doing so could provide, but in response to the needs of those most affected by accountability failures.

Key Findings

Our key findings, further elaborated in Chapter VI, include:

  • Accountability takes a variety of forms, serves a variety of purposes, and provides undeniable benefits to those harmed, as well as to broader society and for maintaining good governance. Accountability should be designed with the perceptions and experiences of all stakeholders in mind. It need not and should not be limited to holding specific perpetrators to account for unlawful conduct. Sources consulted for this project, including a poll conducted among a sample of the American public, see many benefits to accountability, such as justice and healing for those harmed, the prevention of future harm, and improved public trust in democratic institutions.
  • Despite its benefits, and in spite of certain advances in certain forms of procedural accountability, satisfactory accountability for harm caused by US security institutions remains elusive in both domestic and international contexts. People in the United States and abroad experience common challenges in their pursuit of accountability, which include barriers to access and high transaction costs. Meanwhile, both the US military and law enforcement institutions exhibit a tendency to focus disproportionately on select cases, often as a result of media scrutiny or public outcry.
  • Accountability failures incur significant costs. For the victims and survivors of harm, these costs include threats to their physical safety, psychological harm, economic hardship, and the risk of future harm. Accountability failures also erode public trust in democratic governance domestically. Internationally, these failures can fuel cycles of violence and complicate efforts to promote accountability for the actions of other states.
  • While accountability gaps and failures stem from a broad range of factors and depend on context, certain factors help to explain commonalities across US security institutions operating domestically and internationally. These include, for example, competing demands for different forms of accountability, social and cultural norms, and an aversion to constraints on freedom of action within security institutions.
  • Impacted communities in the United States and around the world envision a comprehensive system of accountability that encompasses various elements centered on victims’ needs and desires. These elements can include acknowledgement, explanation, and apologies; taking responsibility and making amends; legal liability and disciplinary action; and non-repetition.

Key Recommendations

In light of these findings, we make the following recommendations for the US government, also elaborated in Chapter VI:

  • Embrace a comprehensive, systemic approach to accountability across US security institutions that offers a range of options centered around the needs and preferences of victims and survivors.
  • Prioritize non-repetition, or the prevention of future or repeated harm, as a key facet of accountability.
  • Recognize and take responsibility for harm through public acknowledgment and apologies as well as tangible steps to repair harm where possible, including but not limited to monetary amends, compensation, and/or reparations.
  • Ensure individual accountability through both civil and criminal penalties when applicable, as well as non-legal disciplinary measures.
  • Enact legislation tackling legal barriers to accountability.
  • Develop accessible, transparent, and context-specific pathways for reporting harm.
  • Conduct independent, comprehensive, and transparent investigations with embedded bias checks.
  • Boldly reckon with past harms, including by re-investigating cases that were likely erroneously dismissed due to shortcomings in past investigatory practices.
  • Inculcate an internal culture of accountability in US security institutions.
  • Be consistent about US support for and promotion of accountability abroad.
  • Consult with impacted communities and center the needs and preferences of victims and survivors in designing accountability mechanisms.

Read the full report.

Notes

  • 1
    Note: “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2022,” Pew Research Center, June 6, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/
  • 2
    Note: YouGov. (n.d.). YouGov panel rewards

Recent & Related

Commentary
Elias Yousif • Rachel Stohl

Subscription Options

* indicates required

Research Areas

Pivotal Places

Publications & Project Lists

38 North: News and Analysis on North Korea