You don’t see a difference between having to shower with other people and having to be naked in situations where you’d normally not be naked, quite unlike a shower? You don’t see a difference between being dressed in pink and being restrained with a dog leash?
Of course there is a difference. But I don’t think a law that merely targets “outrages” against human dignity would be the correct way to distinguish those differences. Your line for what constitutes an outrage and mine will vary enough that a statute with that language simply does not give fair notice of what is prohibited. A cautious prison administrator may worry that he would be targeted because he forces inmates to shower in communal settings. Forcing male inmates to wear pink clothing might well be seen as an “outrage” by some people… in fact, I bet if you polled the SDMB population here, asking them if this sheriff’s tactic was “outrageous” or “an offense to human dignity” you’d get a few ‘yes’ responses.
Sorry - the language is simply too vague to be reasonably enforceable.
:dubious: Implying different standards are appropriate for them than for other kinds of prisoners. Why?
The quote I posted from the article explains it. This proposed law attempts to define actions that violate Article III. Actions like murder, rape, hostage taking, etc. But “left off the list” is the issue actions that are degrading. So, it doesn’t try to make that language more specific, since it doesn’t address it at all (according to the article).
But I agree with Age Quod Agis in that lets hold our horses until we see the actual legislation that Bush will propose. This is all too sketchy at this point.
That’s an unavoidable inference from his position. Whatever you support being done BY the US, you also have to support being done TO the US.
- Nobody in Gitmo has captured any US soldiers.
- Our standard is that we treat ALL prisoners the way we want our OWN people treated.
Cit that anyone in Gitmo has ever done any of those things?
Remember the Inquisition? Some of its most grisly tortures arose because there was an official and specific Church law that forbade its preists from doing anything to others that draws blood. Instead of understanding the intent of the law – that a preist may not harm others – they went after the specific language, and came up with things like the bastinado, the heated boot, striking the knees with large hammers, dunking (now called waterboarding) and the plum (a gag that dislocated the victim’s jaws, without of course drawing blood).
Isn’t it obvious that if the US establishes specific standards for torture, degrading treatment or whatever, our handy-dandy legal types (all law, no morality) will work closely with our torturers (let’s just call them what they are) to come up with all sort of legal (in terms of the letter of the law) ways of torturing and degrading people, and if THOSE methods are subsequently defined as illegal, they’ll just come up with new ones.
Such “specificity” sounds to me like a back-door way of making torture and degrading treatment the norm.
I agree that we should wait for specific language before we get too exercised about this, but this is one aspect I’d look at very carefully.
So we’d be better off not prohibiting torture at all? Surely that’s not what you’re suggesting, is it?
I hope we can all agree that the Inquisition was not a result of this one church decree, and that the torture was just as severe and inhumane before the decree as after.
Waterboarding (at least as it’s practiced today) doesn’t actually involve dunking someone’s head under water. It involves tying someone to a board, laying him so his head is below his feet and lungs, wrapping his head in cellophane or cloth, and then pouring water over his head so he feels like he’s asphyxiating. In truth, it’s difficult to asphyxiate in that position because the lungs are above the head and the water is blocked by the cellophane or cloth. However, waterboarding creates the psychological feeling of drowning.
It is, however, possible to drown while dunking, and in fact, many people did die while being “dunked.”
First of all, I’m glad you separated torture and degradation. Like you and Bricker, I think the two are distinct.
Second, the reason it’s against American law to convict someone based on a vague law is because it’s immoral to do so. It’s immoral to convict someone for an act that they had no way of knowing was illegal. It’s a law designed to protect criminal defendants. Surely you’re also in favor of moral protections for domestic criminal defendants, aren’t you?
Third, you seem to be under the impression that prohibiting specific acts will result in fewer prosecutions. As has been mentioned by numerous posters and in the linked interview, the current broad language will not support any convictions. We’ve got the choice between adding specific language that will prevent acts (like waterboarding), or sticking with the current language that will not prevent those same acts (like waterboarding). So we can either stick with the status quo – which effectively prohibits nothing – or amend the statute – and possibly have some prosecutions.
But I hope you will agree both should be crimes.
Because prisoners in the United States, convicted of domestic crimes, are in a different category than prisoners held overseas and detained for acts of violence and war against the country. And that difference is legal – the Constitution does not reach fully into a prison on foreign soil, for one thing.
Why doesn’t it? And much more importantly, why shouldn’t it?
Alos, when was it determined that anyone at Gitmo has committed acts of war or violence against America?
The category they fall under is “human”. Thereby, endowed with certain inalienable rights. Which we hold to be, as I recall, self-evident. Is that a principle, or an adornment?
How’s that supposed to be better? If we’re “civilized” and they’re “uncivilized”, how does that point out any difference between the two?
What part of the constituion are we talking about? The 2nd amendment? Surely you need to narrow the scope, no?
I agree that some acts of degradation should be crimes. But not all.
It doesn’t because the Supreme Court says it doesn’t.
It shouldn’t because the Constitution was designed as a framework for our internal government, not as a guideline for how to wage and prosecute war.
The tribunals formed in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamdi have been busy making those determinations.
So the answer to your question, in part at least, is: *Since the SCOTUS decision in * Hamdi.
Well, it certainly has nothing to do with the Constitution.
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.
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.
The real question ,is are they changing the rules to avoid future prosecution. This would be saying that they know they have exceeded todays standards and are vulnerable. Torture, extraordinary rendition waterboarding, sexual humiliations, shame us all.
Just ‘terrorism detainees’? This would not have covered a good portion, if not most, of the prisonners at Abu Gharab however?