US oks gaining evidence through torture

[cbacon 0]

So much for international law. The US naval base in Guantanamo Bay has 550 "enemy combatants" (read POW)

 

Some prisoners have tried to file lawsuits against the US government for being detained in Guantanamo Bay for as long as three years, based solely on evidence induced by torture, and without any charges being laid, or trial.

 

Recently at a district court, a US military panel fought to have a 70-year old supreme court decision overturnerd and won. While the act of torture itself remains illegal, evidence gained from torture is admissible in militant courts, and can be used to decide to hold prisoners in Cuba indefinatly.

 

Boyle (The Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General who fought for the american right to use torture evidence) said that the United States never would adopt a policy that would have barred it from acting on evidence that could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks even if the data came from questionable practices like torture.

 

 

Published on Friday, December 3, 2004 by the Associated Press

Evidence Gained Through Using Torture OK, US Officials Say

by Michael J. Sniffen

 

 

WASHINGTON -- Evidence gained by torture can be used by the U.S. military in deciding whether to imprison a foreigner indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an enemy combatant, the government says.

 

 

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has accused the U.S. military of using tactics 'tantamount to torture' on prisoners at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, The New York Times reported on November 30, 2004. An ICRC inspection team that spent most of June at Guantanamo Bay reported the use of psychological and sometimes physical coercion on the prisoners, the newspaper said.

 

Statements produced under torture have been inadmissible in U.S. courts for about 70 years. But the U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of 550 foreigners as enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are allowed to use such evidence, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle acknowledged at a U.S. District Court hearing Thursday.

 

Some of the prisoners have filed lawsuits challenging their detention without charges for up to three years so far. At the hearing, Boyle urged District Judge Richard J. Leon to throw their cases out.

 

Attorneys for the prisoners argued that some were held solely on evidence gained by torture, which they said violated fundamental fairness and U.S. due process standards. But Boyle argued in a similar hearing Wednesday that the detainees "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court."

 

Leon asked whether a detention based solely on evidence gathered by torture would be illegal, because "torture is illegal. We all know that."

 

Boyle replied that if the military's combatant status review tribunals "determine that evidence of questionable provenance were reliable, nothing in the due process clause (of the Constitution) prohibits them from relying on it."

 

Leon asked whether there were any restrictions on using torture-induced evidence.

 

Boyle replied that the United States never would adopt a policy that would have barred it from acting on evidence that could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks even if the data came from questionable practices like torture by a foreign power.

 

Several arguments underlie the U.S. court ban on products of torture.

 

"About 70 years ago, the Supreme Court stopped the use of evidence produced by third-degree tactics largely on the theory that it was totally unreliable," Harvard Law Professor Philip B. Heymann, a former deputy U.S. attorney general, said in an interview. Subsequent high court rulings were based on revulsion at "the unfairness and brutality of it and later on the idea that confessions ought to be free and uncompelled."

 

Leon asked whether U.S. courts could review detentions based on evidence from torture conducted by U.S. personnel.

 

Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline." He added, "I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo" but noted that some U.S. soldiers there had been disciplined for misconduct, including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning.

 

The International Committee of the Red Cross said Tuesday it has given the Bush administration a confidential report critical of U.S. treatment of Guantanamo detainees. The New York Times reported the Red Cross described the psychological and physical coercion used at Guantanamo as "tantamount to torture."

 

The combatant status review tribunals comprise three colonels and lieutenant colonels. They were set up after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the detainees could ask U.S. courts to see to it they had a proceeding in which to challenge their detention. The panels have reviewed 440 of the prisoners so far but have released only one.

 

The military also set up an annual administrative review which considers whether the detainee still presents a danger to the United States but doesn't review enemy combatant status. Administrative reviews have been completed for 161.

 

Boyle argued these procedures are sufficient to satisfy the high court.

 

Noting that detainees cannot have lawyers at the combatant status review proceedings and cannot see any secret evidence against them, detainee attorney Wes Powell argued "there is no meaningful opportunity in the (proceedings) to rebut the government's claims."

 

Leon suggested that if federal judges start reviewing the military's evidence for holding foreign detainees there could be "practical and collateral consequences ... at a time of war."

 

And he suggested an earlier Supreme Court ruling might limit judges to checking only on whether detention orders were lawfully issued and review panels were legally established.

 

Leon and Judge Joyce Hens Green, who held a similar hearing Wednesday, said they would try to rule soon on whether the 59 detainees may proceed with their lawsuits.

 

Evidence Gained Through Using Torture OK, US Officials Say

 

New photographs have arisen, depicting abuse in Iraq. Makes you wonder how what else has yet to be seen or what's going on right now...

 

oronado, Calif. - The U.S. military has launched a criminal investigation into photographs that appear to show Navy SEALs in Iraq sitting on hooded and handcuffed detainees, and photos of what appear to be bloodied prisoners, one with a gun to his head.

 

    Some of the photos have date stamps suggesting they were taken in May 2003, which could make them the earliest evidence of possible abuse of prisoners in Iraq. The far more brutal practices photographed in Abu Ghraib prison occurred months later.

 

    An Associated Press reporter found more than 40 of the pictures among hundreds in an album posted on a commercial photo-sharing Web site by a woman who said her husband brought them from Iraq after his tour of duty. It is unclear who took the pictures, which the Navy said it was investigating after the AP furnished copies to get comment for this story.

 

    These and other photos found by the AP appear to show the immediate aftermath of raids on civilian homes. One man is lying on his back with a boot on his chest. A mug shot shows a man with an automatic weapon pointed at his head and a gloved thumb jabbed into his throat. In many photos, faces have been blacked out. What appears to be blood drips from the heads of some. A family huddles in a room in one photo and others show debris and upturned furniture.

 

    "These photographs raise a number of important questions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) and detainees," Navy Cmdr. Jeff Bender, a spokesman for the Naval Special Warfare Command in Coronado, said in a written response to questions. "I can assure you that the matter will be thoroughly investigated."

 

    The photos were turned over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which instructed the SEAL command to determine whether they show any serious crimes, Bender said Friday. That investigation will determine the identities of the troops and what they were doing in the photos.

 

    Some of the photos recall aspects of the images from Abu Ghraib, which led to charges against seven soldiers accused of humiliating and assaulting prisoners. In several of the photos obtained by the AP, grinning men wearing U.S. flags on their uniforms, and one with a tattoo of a SEAL trident, take turns sitting or lying atop what appear to be three hooded and handcuffed men in the bed of a pickup truck.

 

    A reporter found the photos, which since have since been removed from public view, while researching the prosecution of a group of SEALs who allegedly beat prisoners and photographed one of them in degrading positions. Those photos, taken with a SEAL's personal camera, haven't been publicly released.

 

    Though they have alarmed SEAL commanders, the photographs found by the AP do not necessarily show anything illegal, according to experts in the laws of war who reviewed photos at AP's request.

 

    Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps prosecutor and judge who teaches at the United States Military Academy, said the images showed "stupid" and "juvenile" behavior - but not necessarily a crime.

 

    John Hutson, a retired rear admiral who served as the Navy's Judge Advocate General from 1997 to 2000, said they suggested possible Geneva Convention violations. Those international laws prohibit souvenir photos of prisoners of war.

 

    "It's pretty obvious that these pictures were taken largely as war trophies," Hutson said. "Once you start allowing that kind of behavior, the next step is to start posing the POWs in order to get even better pictures."

 

    At a minimum, the pictures violate Navy regulations that prohibit photographing prisoners other than for intelligence or administrative purposes, according to Bender, the SEALs spokesman.

 

    All Naval Special Warfare personnel were told that prior to deployment, he said, but "it is obvious from some of the photographs that this policy was not adhered to."

 

    The images were posted to the Internet site Smugmug.com. The woman who posted them told the AP they were on the camera her husband brought back from Iraq. She said her husband has returned to Iraq. He does not appear in photos with prisoners.

 

    The Navy goes to great lengths to protect the identities and whereabouts of its 2,400 SEALs - which stands for Navy Sea, Air, Land - many of whom have classified counterterrorist missions around the globe.

 

    "Some of these photos clearly depict faces and names of Naval Special Warfare personnel, which could put them or their families at risk," Bender said.

 

    Out of safety concerns, the AP is not identifying the woman who posted the photos.

 

    The wife said she was upset that a reporter was able to view the album, which includes family snapshots. Hundreds of other photos depict everyday military life in Iraq, some showing commandos standing around piles of weapons and waving wads of cash.

 

    The images were found through the online search engine Google. The same search today leads to the Smugmug.com Web page, which now prompts the user for a password. Nine scenes from the SEAL camp remain in Google's archived version of the page.

 

    "I think it's fair to assume that it would be very hard for most consumers to know all the ways the search engines can discover Web pages," said Smugmug spokesman Chris MacAskill.

 

    Before the site was password protected, the AP purchased reprints for 29 cents each.

 

    Some men in the photos wear patches that identify them as members of Seal Team Five, based in Coronado, and the unit's V-shaped insignia decorates a July Fourth celebration cake.

 

    The photos surfaced amid a case of prisoner abuse involving members of another SEAL team also stationed at Coronado, a city near San Diego.

 

  Navy prosecutors have charged several members of SEAL Team Seven with abusing a suspect in the bombing a Red Cross facility. According to charge sheets and testimony during a military hearing last month, SEALs posed in the back of a Humvee for photos that allegedly humiliated Manadel al-Jamadi, who died hours later at Abu Ghraib.

 

    Testimony from that case suggest personal cameras became increasingly common on some SEAL missions last year.

 

  -------

 

AP: Navy Probes New Iraq Prisoner Photos

[Vern Gagne 0]

Good. Terrorist Swine should be so lucky they don't have a fucking bullet in their brain.

[cbacon 0]

You just adovacted torture, disregard for international law, and displayed profound ignorance in one full swoop. Congratulations.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Yes. Yes. If treating poor little terrorist scum like human being is your cup of tea..than Yes.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

My take: I think if one of them says "Hey, just you wait and see, I know of a huge plot that will kill and destroy and your country will never be the same!" and presenting a threat, then you really have no choice but to get it out of them however you can.

 

Torturing someone when you have no solid proof that they have anything useful to give you is uncalled for, though.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I'm actually in agreement on the second statement. The first one i didn't read. While i won't shed tears if Akbar the Terrorist is tortured. I do think there's better ways to get information. Torturing does run the risk, of someone saying something that's not true just so the torturing stops.

[Vyce 0]

My take: I think if one of them says "Hey, just you wait and see, I know of a huge plot that will kill and destroy and your country will never be the same!" and presenting a threat, then you really have no choice but to get it out of them however you can.

 

Torturing someone when you have no solid proof that they have anything useful to give you is uncalled for, though.

I'm in total agreement with Jobber here.

 

......wow, that wasn't as hard to say as I thought it'd be.

 

But yeah - sorry to break your bleeding little heart, C-Bacon, but if some terrorist asshole has intell that we need, and he ain't giving it up, I'm not above making the guy suffer to get what we need. You have to look at the big picture....if they possess information which, down the line, will protect / save lives by us having it, then quite frankly I have no problem torturing the man to obtain that information. Conventional means of interrogation should be used first, of course, but if they fail.....

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You just adovacted torture, disregard for international law, and displayed profound ignorance in one full swoop. Congratulations.

Add me to the club. Move aside, Vern, or I'll put you in the thumb-screw device...

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

International law doesn't apply to terrorists.

[Guest Cerebus]

Congratulations! YOU showed you don't know jack shit as usual!

 

First, these aren't federal courts, they are military tribunals and Combatant Review Panels. These have much looser standard of evidence and no exclusionary rule. While I know that you must know this being an International Law scholar, I'll explain to people who aren't that the exclusionary rule prevents evidence gained illegally from being heard in court (coercive interrogations for example).

 

This is actually not new news. In May it came out that Al-Queda's #2, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was the victim of some kinds of "torture" such as water boarding by military interrogators. This would most likely make any trial against him almost not worth having since that kind of evidence WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. Same thing with Jose Padilla if he ever gets out the legal maze that Bush and the outdated Geneva Conventions has created. And if any of these clowns get a successful writ of habeas corpus to a federal court, the evidence will be thrown out anyway. Simply put, using torture is a DUMB idea even speaking from JUST a legal point of view since it will almost always get thrown out. Let alone that there is a big body of literature out there to suggest strongly that evidence gained through torture is not very reliable at all anyway.

 

Still, like said before in this thread, if gathering critical HUMINT (Human Intelligence) from a high ranking, zealous, and half-crazy terrorist is more important than getting a conviction, you simply HAVE to do what needs to be done. Former Army Intelligence officer Philip Carter writes about this in detail at the Washington Monthly, not exactly a neo-con rag, and I agree with him.

 

Oh wait, why am I arguing with you? YOU read the Geneva Conventions online! I apologize.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I agree with Jobber. They should be allowed to do it, but it doesn't mean they should unless they have reason to believe that American lives are in jeopardy.

 

And no, these aren't POWs, they are criminals. There is a big difference.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Living in sunny beautiful Cuba doesn't sound like torture to me

[Justice 0]

You aren't the only one who can pump out an opinion article.

 

I'm not a big fan of torture for the reasons cited before: It's very likely to be inaccurate when used too often, but there are certain cases where it is necessary. Just ask the Israelis, who've used it more than a few times to stop a terrorist attack before it happened.

[Guest Cerebus]

For those who are interested beyond the usual media garbage, here's a Congressional Research Service research paper on torture, interrogations, etc. published after the Abu Gharib photos were released (which, by the way, was technically a violation of the Geneva Conventions)

[NoCalMike 0]

The problem though is, when you are holding people and not charging them with anything, then how can you say they are a terrorist. For all we know, they matched a description and thus were detained for precautionary measures, and haven't even been interrogated are just sitting in a cell for no reason. If they ARE terrorist swine, then that is a different story, but how can you justify holding people that are not being charged?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

For those who are interested beyond the usual media garbage, here's a Congressional Research Service research paper on torture, interrogations, etc. published after the Abu Gharib photos were released (which, by the way, was technically a violation of the Geneva Conventions)

Taking the photos, publishing the photos, or what was going on in the photos?

 

 

NoCalMike: Usually, the guy sitting in a cell overnight because he was considered cause for suspicion does not present any kind of threat that justifies torture. Usually he'll shout something like "I want my lawyer!" and not "Down with America!"

[NoCalMike 0]

NoCalMike: Usually, the guy sitting in a cell overnight because he was considered cause for suspicion does not present any kind of threat that justifies torture. Usually he'll shout something like "I want my lawyer!" and not "Down with America!"

I dunno, after a couple of years you might start to doubt this "great justice system" of ours. Like I said, if they are terrorists, then fine, charge them with something and then we can discuss further, but just holding people for a few years does not seem justified.

[cbacon 0]

Exactly, if its well established that such prisoner's are terrorists, then you could argue there's a case, although I do not agree with torture against anyone under any cirucmstances due to it's obvious violation of human rights and the fact that it dosen't really work anyway.

 

To say all detainee's are terrorists isn't exactly true either. There are many detainees in Guantanamo Bay who have no affiliation with al Qaeda, many of which were merely assisting civilians in war torn Afghanistan and Iraq as well as fighting against US troops.

 

The US has had it's fair share of human rights violation, namely on the 'war on terror/islam' in recent years. All you have to do is look at what happened to Maher Arar, a telecommunications engineer living in Canada who was interrogated by US police and then sent to Syria for to be tortured for a year.

 

But hey, condoning actions such as this helps gullible minds sleep better at night dosen't it?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The US has had it's fair share of human rights violation

Again, it depends on what is at stake and what proof you have. In the case of the link you posted, I don't think that man could have any kind of information that would be considered critical enough to warrant it.

 

And at the same time, you're making us sound much more brutal than we really are. Let me know when we're cutting off hands or doing a fraction of the shit China does, and call me and I'll get my protesting clothes out and join in.

 

 

NoCalMike: Well, yeah, but that's why I think we should have a limit on how long we can hold people without charging them of something.

[NoCalMike 0]

NoCalMike: Well, yeah, but that's why I think we should have a limit on how long we can hold people without charging them of something.

Agreed.

[Guest INXS]

It is a worry that these suspected terrorists or suspected enemy combatants are being held without charge and in many cases, with torture to boot. It is highly illegal, immoral and just plain wrong. It's a shame that no one has stood up to the US and demanded that conditions improve and that people are either charged or released.

[Guest PlatinumBoy]

It is a worry that these suspected terrorists or suspected enemy combatants are being held without charge and in many cases, with torture to boot. It is highly illegal, immoral and just plain wrong. It's a shame that no one has stood up to the US and demanded that conditions improve and that people are either charged or released.

Man... being held with torture must suck. I heard that guy smells bad and is a real jerk.

[Guest Cerebus]

For those who are interested beyond the usual media garbage, here's a Congressional Research Service research paper on torture, interrogations, etc. published after the Abu Gharib photos were released (which, by the way, was technically a violation of the Geneva Conventions)

Taking the photos, publishing the photos, or what was going on in the photos?

 

 

NoCalMike: Usually, the guy sitting in a cell overnight because he was considered cause for suspicion does not present any kind of threat that justifies torture. Usually he'll shout something like "I want my lawyer!" and not "Down with America!"

The publishing of photos of Prisoners of War is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Although, the government didn't publish them, the New Yorker did.

 

P.S. It should be noted that taking pictures of prisoners that aren't for records IS strictly forbidden by the military, especially during an interrogation.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

So let me get this straight.... Cuba + torture = BAD. Saddam + Torture = Invasion.

 

The USA + Torture = making everything right with the world?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The above post is a .8 INXS for it's inabilty to operate beyond simple, childish logic.

 

Generally, I would not consider dropping bombs indiscriminately on people and things without good reason why to be a good thing. However, just because doing so ill-intentioned is a bad thing, that doesn't mean that there's never a time ever to bomb a place that it isn't considered wrong.

 

Torture has it's positives and negatives. We've already discussed about how sketchy the information you'll get from it is (after all, most people would say anything to get out of torture), but just because it's bad when used as aggressively and indiscriminately as evil dictators use it, and even though it's bad in almost every situation, doesn't discount the situation where it is the right thing to do.

 

There's a difference between some third world nation cutting off a finger for showing too much skin in the public square and, say, preventing an attack. And there is no hypocracy in that.

[iggymcfly 0]

I guess the serious argument over the substance of the article is kind of interesting, but here's what really caught my eye.

 

Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline." He added, "I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo" but noted that some U.S. soldiers there had been disciplined for misconduct, including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning.

 

Under what circumstances exactly, does a female interrogator remove her blouse during questioning? Is she trying to say "join with America, we've got plenty of whores?" Does she think that she'll get him to betray his country if she shows him her boobs? What exactly is the goal here? This is one part of the article that I thought could have really used a lot more detail.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

That's hot.