# Bush Admin wants to narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979 "2006-08-16T17:44:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/41 "2006-08-17T21:50:17Z")
[QUOTE=Avenger] Just ‘terrorism detainees’? This would not have covered a good portion, if not most, of the prisonners at Abu Gharab however? [/QUOTE] I include in that broad category the men that are found to be unlawful combatants. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/42 "2006-08-17T21:54:04Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] We have one side looking for justification ,legal and moral ,to humiliate and abase human beings. These are not convicted people and many are innocent. [/quote] Yes, they are not “convicted”. But under the rules of war, it does not require a “conviction” to detain a prisoner of war, just to chose an example. So it’s unclear to me why you would suggest that “conviction” is somehow necessary – even if we disregard the “unlawful combatant” designation, we may legitimately imprison a POW without the need for a criminal trial replete with the guarantees provided by the Fitfth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. Right? > [@](#): > > Not to forget ,that many experts say torture doesnt work. Under torture, like in Marathon Man, you will likely say anything to make the pain stop. Mikitary experts I have read say ingratiating yourself to them slowly is more effective technique. Well, I certainly would ask everyone in this thread who has advocated torture to read your words. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/43 "2006-08-17T21:54:51Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] I include in that broad category the men that are found to be unlawful combatants. [/QUOTE] And civilian prisonners who may have been arrested for civil crimes totally unrelated to any ‘combat’ at all and just happen to be held at a jail that is being manned by US troops? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/44 "2006-08-17T22:09:00Z")
[QUOTE=Avenger] And civilian prisonners who may have been arrested for civil crimes totally unrelated to any ‘combat’ at all and just happen to be held at a jail that is being manned by US troops? [/QUOTE] Two answers: A person arrested inside the United States for a “civil” crime – by which I assume you mean an ordinary federal or state criminal offense – should be entitled to the full panoply of Constitutional protections. A person arrested overseas, in an area policed by US armed forces and held in a facility manned by US armed forces, is NOT entitled to the full panoply of Constitutional protections. ---
**Author:** ![Avenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de0a6/32.png) [@Avenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avenger)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/45 "2006-08-17T22:21:14Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] A person arrested overseas, in an area policed by US armed forces and held in a facility manned by US armed forces, is NOT entitled to the full panoply of Constitutional protections. [/QUOTE] Well, this is the one that we’re particularly discussing. So, not ‘terrorism detainees’, but any people who happen to be held in prison for whatever crimes can be acceptably placed on a dog leash. How about non-detained civilians in an occupied country? Is there any legal reason why US soldiers should have different obligations of standards of behaviour towards a civilian on the street then to one who has been arrested on suspicion of burglary, say? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/46 "2006-08-17T22:46:21Z")
[QUOTE=Avenger] Is there any legal reason why US soldiers should have different obligations of standards of behaviour towards a civilian on the street then to one who has been arrested on suspicion of burglary, say? [/QUOTE] Of course. In many instances where soldiers are patroling the streets the area will be under Martial Law, or more commonly it will be under some form of curfew. I would be more concerned about adhering to the laws of that country rather than ours. For example: In the US you cannot hold someone for more than 48 hours without charging them with a crime. What if country X has a legal ruling (like Britain) that allows for a longer detention time? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/47 "2006-08-17T22:57:13Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] Not to forget ,that many experts say torture doesnt work. Under torture, like in Marathon Man, you will likely say anything to make the pain stop. Mikitary experts I have read say ingratiating yourself to them slowly is more effective technique. [/QUOTE] Awesome. “Just 9 more months of hugs and flowers and this terrorist is sure to tell me something!” In a perfect world, I’d much rather use butterfly kisses and rainbows to get information out of terrorists. But 1) these so-called “military experts” you’re speaking of haven’t managed to convince anyone of note, including the militaries and intelligence agencies of any countries around the world, that holding hands and singing is more effective; 2) even if those methods are _eventually_ more effective, the most highly sought-after information is typically time-sensitive, like information on attacks that will be executed soon. So we don’t have 9 months to chat about our feelings before the detainees start opening up; and 3) anyone who says “torture doesn’t work” is selling something. Of course torture works. It’s not 100% effective, but neither is it 0% effective. The argument you want to make is that torture is barbaric and illegal. The idea that “torture doesn’t work” is just a bunch of malarkey. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/48 "2006-08-17T23:20:07Z")
Then you ought to be able to provide just oodles of examples where it \*has \* worked. Where it \*has \* made people give useful information not readily available otherwise. Things they didn’t say just to make the pain end, irrespective of its factuality. Or where the people being tortured really were “terrorists”. If what you just said isn’t “a bunch of malarkey”, that is. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/49 "2006-08-17T23:22:16Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Well, it certainly has nothing to do with the Constitution. [/QUOTE] Only to the extent that it represents the same basic claim we make to being civilized, the same morality, that the Constitution puts into practice, however imperfectly. Do you believe in such a thing? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/50 "2006-08-17T23:27:51Z")
I’ve got a question. If a suspect is forced to undergo leashing, wearing women’s clothing, forced nakedness, etc etc but are subsequently found innocent, would they be able to bring some sort of legal case against the U.S. Military? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2006, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/51 "2006-08-17T23:47:07Z")
Sure! He can tell it to the Marines. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/52 "2006-08-18T00:16:46Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Then you ought to be able to provide just oodles of examples where it \*has \* worked. Where it \*has \* made people give useful information not readily available otherwise. Things they didn’t say just to make the pain end, irrespective of its factuality. [/quote] Are you kidding me? You really think torture has never been effective? That’s an amazing – and utterly ridiculous – position. If you’re not aware that torture has revealed usable information in the past, then you’ve either never looked at the issue or you’re blocking out facts inconsistent with your values. I’m not privvy to the transcripts of intelligence-gathering organizations around the world and throughout time. Plus, countries don’t usually announce the methods by which they’ve obtained information, especially when that information has been obtained through less-than-desirable methods. And yet I can still name instances in which torture has worked. [For example, here:](http://www.slate.com/id/2057099/) > [@Dahlia Lithwick (certainly no fan of torture)](#): > > There’s no doubt that torturing terrorists and their associates for information works. In 1995, Philippine intelligence agents tortured Abdul Hakim Murad, whom they arrested after he blew up his apartment making bombs. The agents threw a chair at Murad’s head, broke his ribs, forced water into his mouth, and put cigarettes out on his genitals, but Murad didn’t talk until agents masquerading as the Mossad threatened to take him back to Israel for some real questioning. Murad named names. His confession included details of a plot to kill Pope John Paul II, as well as plots to crash 11 U.S. airliners into the ocean and to fly an airplane into the CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. His co-conspirator Ramzi Yousef was later convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. [And here:](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4412065.stm) > [@the BBC (in an article that concludes torture isn't worth it)](#): > > During Algeria’s fight for independence in the 1950s, French Resistance fighter Paul Aussaresses felt it was his duty to inflict electric shocks on Arab nationalists. > > Like many former torturers, he still believes it is the most effective way to gather intelligence in a so called “ticking bomb” case. He claims to have stopped Algerian bomb makers from killing French civilians by extracting confessions though electric shocks and suffocation with a water saturated towel. > … > The belief that torture works is justification enough for most torturers. Some experts claim that information divulged under force is always unreliable, but many who’ve practised torture say they have the experience to prove otherwise. > > Torture, they say, is the fastest and most reliable means of forcing prisoners to divulge information. > > During the apartheid era in South Africa, Gideon Nieuwoudt, one of South Africa’s most notorious torturers, used a range of techniques on his ANC victims and retains a philosophical perspective. > … > He has no doubt the beatings he inflicted on detainees forced them to talk: “The people will never give you anything without torture, that I can assure you.” > … > Most torturers, however, continued their trade until the regime change. For many, stopping torture was not an option - peer pressure, political indoctrination and a conviction of its effectiveness ensured their participation. [And here:](http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2005/05/sec-050512-rferl01.htm) > [@Global Security.org (in an article that concludes torture is not worth it)](#): > > In other examples from that same conflict, the French military was able to gather reliable information about the FLN network by torturing captives. This enabled them to arrest a great many among its leadership and cadre, and possibly save numerous French civilians living in Algiers from FLN terrorist bombing attacks. And if you believe we’re torturing prisoners in Gitmo, then [here](http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/01/24/guantanamo_tip_tied_to_arrests_of_22_in_germany/?rss_id=Boston%20Globe%20--%20Front%20Page): > [@](#): > > Information obtained through the interrogation of a Guantanamo Bay detainee led to a spectacular series of counterterrorism raids in Germany this month, in which more than 700 police swept through mosques, homes, and businesses in six cities and arrested 22 suspected militant extremists, according to a senior Defense Department official. Not to mention the time that my older brother held me down and hit me until I told him where I’d hidden his gummy bears. > [@](#): > > Or where the people being tortured really were “terrorists”. :rolleyes: Yes, they’re all innocent. Right. They just guessed correctly about the locations, names, and activities of other terrorists. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/53 "2006-08-18T00:35:27Z")
In short, no, you don’t have any examples to prove your assertion, only bluster. Not a surprise coming from you, of course, but still a bit disappointing nonetheless. Interesting reading about the German case, though - do you wonder why nothing more came of it? Of course you don’t. Did you even notice that your so-called cites are indistinguishable from instances of people just saying what their torturers want to hear? Of course you didn’t. Some remedial reading for you: [“The Torture Myth” by Anne Applebaum](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html) > [@](#): > > Charles Graner, the alleged Abu Ghraib ringleader, and because I still cannot find a positive answer. I’ve heard it said that the Syrians and the Egyptians “really know how to get these things done.” I’ve heard the Israelis mentioned, without proof. I’ve heard Algeria mentioned, too, but Darius Rejali, an academic who recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria – and they lost that war anyway. “Liberals,” argued an article in the liberal online magazine Slate a few months ago, “have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, the argument that torture is ineffective.” But it’s also true that “realists,” whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else. Getting worried yet? You should. > [@](#): > > By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was “not nice,” he says. “But we did not physically abuse them.” Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet – as he remembers saying to the “desperate and honorable officers” who wanted him to move faster – “if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy’s genitals, he’s going to tell you just about anything,” which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn’t know “any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea.” That’s merely the first Google reference under a simple search of “torture doesn’t work”. There’s a helluva lot more, obviously, but to learn from it you’d first have to be willing to accept that the Republican party line might be in error, so there’s probably no point, is there? “Amazing and utterly ridiculous” are the sort of words used by somebody pounding the table, Counselor. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/54 "2006-08-18T00:55:27Z")
Oh, what the hell, [Here](http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0512-23.htm) is a rationalization for it “working”, one which you’re entirely welcome to adopt as your own, should you wish. I give you “Torture’s Dirty Secret: It Works” by Naomi Klein . But \*how \* does it work? > [@](#): > > Maher Arar [, the] Syrian-born Canadian [who is] the world’s most famous victim of “rendition,” the process by which US officials outsource torture to foreign countries…said, “not a single person made a public complaint. Fear prevented them from doing so.” Fear of being the next Maher Arar. > … > The fear is even thicker among Muslims in the United States, where the Patriot Act gives police the power to seize the records of any mosque, school, library or community group on mere suspicion of terrorist links. When this intense surveillance is paired with the ever-present threat of torture, the message is clear: You are being watched, your neighbor may be a spy, the government can find out anything about you. If you misstep, you could disappear onto a plane bound for Syria, or into “the deep dark hole that is Guantánamo Bay,” to borrow a phrase from Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. > … > This is torture’s true purpose: to terrorize—not only the people in Guantánamo’s cages and Syria’s isolation cells but also, and more important, the broader community that hears about these abuses. Torture is a machine designed to break the will to resist—the individual prisoner’s will and the collective will. > > This is not a controversial claim. In 2001 the US NGO Physicians for Human Rights published a manual on treating torture survivors that noted: “perpetrators often attempt to justify their acts of torture and ill treatment by the need to gather information. Such conceptualizations obscure the purpose of torture….The aim of torture is to dehumanize the victim, break his/her will, and at the same time, set horrific examples for those who come in contact with the victim. In this way, torture can break or damage the will and coherence of entire communities.” Are you \*proud \* to support that policy? Is that really what you want us to stand for in the eyes of the world, the eyes of history, and, if you believe in Him, the eyes of the Lord? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/55 "2006-08-18T01:25:20Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] In short, no, you don’t have any examples to prove your assertion, only bluster. Not a surprise coming from you, of course, but still a bit disappointing nonetheless. [/quote] Mind explaining how this is not an insult? I’d like to keep the shots above the belt, please. But if you’re going to dip into insults, then I’d like to know what I’m wading into. Regardless, I’ve provided exactly what you asked me to provide. And now that I’ve provided it, you dismiss it out of hand. No evidence, no arguments, no discussion. Just a simple declaration that it’s “bluster,” and you continue to believe that contrary evidence doesn’t exist. That’s not a credible argument. > [@](#): > > Interesting reading about the German case, though - do you wonder why nothing more came of it? Of course you don’t. What in the world makes you think nothing has or will come of it? There have been lots of arrests and convictions of terrorists in Germany, many of which may be related to those 22 arrests I linked. And more than that, trials don’t usually begin in Germany as quickly as they do in the US. They don’t have a “speedy trial” guarantee in their Constitution. So, for example, a terrorist [arrested in 2002 may be tried in 2004](http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/10/26/66254.html). Do you have some evidence that nothing has come of those arrests? If so, I’d love to see it. Cite please? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Did you even notice that your so-called cites are indistinguishable from instances of people just saying what their torturers want to hear? Of course you didn’t. Well, yes, I suppose the interrogators wanted to hear (for example) details about terrorist plots and the names of co-conspirators. But that doesn’t explain how the subject had access to that information. Are you suggesting that the torturers already knew the information and just asked the subjects to tell them what they already knew? If so, I’d love to see some evidence to back that up. Cite please? But that wouldn’t make any sense. If the torturers already know the information, why are they torturing someone to get it? Why haven’t they acted on the information they already know? > [@](#): > > That’s merely the first Google reference under a simple search of “torture doesn’t work”. There’s a helluva lot more, obviously, but to learn from it you’d first have to be willing to accept that the Republican party line might be in error, so there’s probably no point, is there? First of all, “torture works” is hardly the Republican party line. Most people agree that torture can be effective, regardless of party affiliation. But here’s where I get stuck. I’d _love_ to believe that torture never works. Honestly, I would. Because if torture never works, we wouldn’t ever feel compelled to use it. I’d much rather that we’re never tempted to use it. But that just doesn’t jibe with reality. Torture does elicit information. Sometimes that information is bad. But sometimes it’s good. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “Amazing and utterly ridiculous” are the sort of words used by somebody pounding the table, Counselor. I don’t know how else to describe my reaction. Surely you’ll agree that at least one or two of the people tortured throughout history had usable information. So what do you think those people said when they were tortured? Are you suggesting that people will say whatever the torturer wants to hear, except when the person being tortured actually knows something? “Amazing and ridiculous.” ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/56 "2006-08-18T01:28:22Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Are you \*proud \* to support that policy? Is that really what you want us to stand for in the eyes of the world, the eyes of history, and, if you believe in Him, the eyes of the Lord? [/QUOTE] I’m _not_ supporting that policy. I’m just pointing out that torture can be effective. Whether it’s legally or ethically justifiable are two separate arguments. But I already pointed that out when I said: > [@](#): > > The argument you want to make is that torture is barbaric and illegal. So let’s keep the strawmen to a minimum, please. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/57 "2006-08-18T01:53:52Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] But here’s where I get stuck. I’d _love_ to believe that torture never works. Honestly, I would. Because if torture never works, we wouldn’t ever feel compelled to use it. I’d much rather that we’re never tempted to use it. [/quote] I still would assign the times it works as the lottery effect, indeed some win, but it is still a stupid game to play, and there are other reasons, see the next reply: > [@](#): > > But that just doesn’t jibe with reality. Torture does elicit information. Sometimes that information is bad. But sometimes it’s good.I don’t know how else to describe my reaction. Surely you’ll agree that at least one or two of the people tortured throughout history had usable information. So what do you think those people said when they were tortured? Are you suggesting that people will say whatever the torturer wants to hear, except when the person being tortured actually knows something? The items at hand here are the torturers of the current administration and the information that they are willing to get from worse torturers, **the administration is on record as using false torture information to justify going into Iraq** , the conclusion I did arrive is that maybe there was a time when one would trust the leaders to be wise to deal with the information obtained by torture, but this is not the time, not ever with this administration: [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa\_fact6](http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6) > [@](#): > > A few months after September 11th, the U.S. gained custody of its first high-ranking Al Qaeda figure, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi. He had run bin Laden’s terrorist training camp in Khalden, Afghanistan, and was detained in Pakistan. Zacarias Moussaoui, who was already in U.S. custody, and Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, had both spent time at the Khalden camp. At the F.B.I.’s field office in New York, Jack Cloonan, an officer who had worked for the agency since 1972, struggled to maintain control of the legal process in Afghanistan. C.I.A. and F.B.I. agents were vying to take possession of Libi. Cloonan, who worked with Dan Coleman on anti-terrorism cases for many years, said he felt that “neither the Moussaoui case nor the Reid case was a slam dunk.” He became intent on securing Libi’s testimony as a witness against them. He advised his F.B.I. colleagues in Afghanistan to question Libi respectfully, “and handle this like it was being done right here, in my office in New York.” He recalled, “I remember talking on a secure line to them. I told them, ‘Do yourself a favor, read the guy his rights. It may be old-fashioned, but this will come out if we don’t. It may take ten years, but it will hurt you, and the bureau’s reputation, if you don’t. Have it stand as a shining example of what we feel is right.’ ” > > Cloonan’s F.B.I. colleagues advised Libi of his rights and took turns with C.I.A. agents in questioning him. After a few days, F.B.I. officials felt that they were developing a good rapport with him. The C.I.A. agents, however, felt that he was lying to them, and needed tougher interrogation. > > To Cloonan’s dismay, the C.I.A. reportedly rendered Libi to Egypt. He was seen boarding a plane in Afghanistan, restrained by handcuffs and ankle cuffs, his mouth covered by duct tape. Cloonan, who retired from the F.B.I. in 2002, said, “At least we got information in ways that wouldn’t shock the conscience of the court. And no one will have to seek revenge for what I did.” He added, “We need to show the world that we can lead, and not just by military might.” > > After Libi was taken to Egypt, the F.B.I. lost track of him. Yet he evidently played a crucial background role in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s momentous address to the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, which argued the case for a preëmptive war against Iraq. In his speech, Powell did not refer to Libi by name, but he announced to the world that “a senior terrorist operative” who “was responsible for one of Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan” had told U.S. authorities that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two Al Qaeda operatives in the use of “chemical or biological weapons.” > > Last summer, Newsweek reported that Libi, who was eventually transferred from Egypt to Guantánamo Bay, was the source of the incendiary charge cited by Powell, and that he had recanted. By then, the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq had passed and the 9/11 Commission had declared that there was no known evidence of a working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Dan Coleman was disgusted when he heard about Libi’s false confession. “It was ridiculous for interrogators to think Libi would have known anything about Iraq,” he said. “I could have told them that. He ran a training camp. He wouldn’t have had anything to do with Iraq. Administration officials were always pushing us to come up with links, but there weren’t any. The reason they got bad information is that they beat it out of him. You never get good information from someone that way.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/58 "2006-08-18T02:43:25Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Only to the extent that it represents the same basic claim we make to being civilized, the same morality, that the Constitution puts into practice, however imperfectly. Do you believe in such a thing? [/QUOTE] No, I don’t believe that the Constitution is intended to put our morality into practice. The Constitution is intended to establish a framework for our government’s operation, such that our government will secure for us justice, peace, and domestic calm. That’s what the preamble says: **in Order to form a more perfect union** , establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. This argument, relying as it does on what the Constitution’s text says and all, is probably less than persuasive to you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/59 "2006-08-18T02:53:04Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] I’ve got a question. If a suspect is forced to undergo leashing, wearing women’s clothing, forced nakedness, etc etc but are subsequently found innocent, would they be able to bring some sort of legal case against the U.S. Military? [/QUOTE] If a suspect in this country is arrested, confined and forced to shower in communal settings naked, and wear bright orange or even pink garb, and then ultimately brought to trial and found innocent… do you think he can bring some sort of winning legal case against the sheriff that arrested and jailed him? Answer: generally, no. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2006, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979/60 "2006-08-18T03:12:57Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] If a suspect in this country is arrested, confined and forced to shower in communal settings naked, and wear bright orange or even pink garb, and then ultimately brought to trial and found innocent… do you think he can bring some sort of winning legal case against the sheriff that arrested and jailed him? [/QUOTE] No, he couldn’t. But in your “taming” of the acts (i’m guessing in order to point out that under each system, both are legal? If that’s it, it’s a good point) you’ve missed out that under the more strict forced acts there is a definite element of mental harm possible - one of considerably greater magnitude than merely being forced to wear orange overalls or showering naked. And it’s that mental harm that would be the focus of the case, not the legality of the acts in question. One can act perfectly within the law yet still be open to a mental harm suit. Also, there are other aspects to consider. Imagine the sheriff found (for example) child pornography in the suspect’s home, but committed an illegal search to do so. Imagine that the suspect had been held for a year or so prior to the trial. Imagine that the charges (as in this hypothetical) would in themselves cause a detriment to the suspect’s future life, thanks to the stigma of the charge. I imagine a charge could indeed be brought against the State in this case. Now, I know it’s legal for suspects held out of the U.S. to be held for however long; that part’s taken out. But there still is the matter of whether or not the suspect is very clearly innocent (as in, extremely poor evidence for their capture), how the evidence was found, the treatment of them whilst in confinement, and the ensuing stigma of being branded a terrorist and it’s effects on the rest of their lives. I think there could be a case there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-admin-wants-to-narrow-the-scope-of-the-war-crimes-act/368979.md?page=4)