Bush Admin wants to narrow the scope of the War Crimes Act

[Bricker]

@Revenant Threshold

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.

I admit I’m no expert in the realm of civil law, but … no, not really. I certainly don’t know what the law is in the UK, but here in the US, police officers have what’s called qualified immunity. They generally cannot be sued if they have acted legally.

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.

No, I must disagree. The remedy a suspect has here is limited to dismissal of the charge. The only time the suspect might breach the shield of immunity is if the sheriff deliberately acted with malice, planting evidence or manufacturing testimony. As long as the sheriff’s negligence is limited to an illegal search, the best the suspect can do is dodge the criminal charge; he cannot recover damages for the true allegations made against him.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Age Quod Agis

Mind explaining how this is not an insult?

If you can explain how it is not a statement of fact.

[quyote]Regardless, I’ve provided exactly what you asked me to provide.
[/quote]
You were asked for examples of torture actually providing *useful * information not otherwise availableou *instead * provided examples of torturees saying whatever would make it stop, and some reassurances from torturers that they had indeed obtained information - of some sort. Do you see the difference?

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.

Convictions for what? Terrorism? Or the dragnet stuff of overstayed visas and parking tickets and such of the kind that has put so many Middle Eastern faces and names in the news here? If there were an actual serious terrorism ring involved, don’t you think there would have been some reporting of it from the lapdog US mass media?

Do you have some evidence that nothing has come of those arrests?

“Something” has indeed come of it. But is that something that has helped maked the world a safer place, or a more dangerous one?

But that doesn’t explain how the subject had access to that information.

You if anyone should understand the concept of “making shit up on the spot”.

Are you suggesting that the torturers already knew the information and just asked the subjects to tell them what they already knew?

Gawdamighty, you don’t get it. Torturers already know what they *want to hear * - they “know” they’re torturing a “terrorist” with key information about a plot or organization. They’re trying to make the subject provide that “information”. The subject, meanwhile, has a great incentive to stop the pain, and it isn’t that hard to make up some shit that will satisfy the torturers, is it? Got it now? :rolleyes:

Because if torture never works, we wouldn’t ever feel compelled to use it.

Now there is a remarkable statement. Let that sink in for a moment, readers.

Torture does elicit information. Sometimes that information is bad. But sometimes it’s good.

Asked once again - when is it good? By what definition?

I’m just pointing out that torture can be effective. Whether it’s legally or ethically justifiable are two separate arguments.

If it’s effective, that’s an argument for it being ethically justifiable, of course, as your entire line of “reasoning” suggests. You do have a good reason for refusing to engage in discussion of legality or ethicality, of course.

“Amazing and ridiculous.”

When come back, bring argument. But first *understand * argument.

@Bricker

No, I don’t believe that the Constitution is intended to put our morality into practice.

Thanks for confirming something I pretty much already knew - that you deny it, and our legal system’s, origins or basis in any sort of higher principle other than its mere text. I don’t think you accept the concept of “the spirit of the law” either, much less that it can diverge from “the letter of the law”. Am I right?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

I admit I’m no expert in the realm of civil law, but … no, not really. I certainly don’t know what the law is in the UK, but here in the US, police officers have what’s called qualified immunity. They generally cannot be sued if they have acted legally.

Really? I’m much less an expert in civil law than you, i’ll admit, but I was pretty sure someone could sue for mental harm even if actions are entirely legal. Someone can abuse the law without breaking it; there’s a lot of behaviour which, whilst entirely legal, can result in getting a restraining order, for example. I know that’s a completely different situation, but it does show the potential for making a case without illegal behaviour on mental health grounds.

I hadn’t heard of qualified immunity, but i’m suggesting prosecuting the State, not the sheriff who captured the suspect, just as someone might sue the U.S. Military as a whole rather than the soldiers who captured them.

No, I must disagree. The remedy a suspect has here is limited to dismissal of the charge. The only time the suspect might breach the shield of immunity is if the sheriff deliberately acted with malice, planting evidence or manufacturing testimony. As long as the sheriff’s negligence is limited to an illegal search, the best the suspect can do is dodge the criminal charge; he cannot recover damages for the true allegations made against him.

Fair enough. What about a sheriff acting poorly, however? If the evidence was just not present to prove a crime or even suggest the suspect was there at all, could a case be made on the basis of the degrading acts/length of time imprisoned/social stigma against the lack of evidence?

Plus there’s always the chance a suspect is innocent, in which case the sheriff could have acted properly but there is no proving evidence. This to me looks less likely to be actionable than a poorly acting sheriff, but considering the degree of the “bad things” the suspect has had to go through this still seems like a case could be brought.

I could be quite wrong though, and I certainly don’t have much legal knowledge, so if i’m way off, please feel free to say so.

[Evil_Captor]

@Age Quod Agis

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.

I agree that torture was severe and inhuman before the decree. That was the point of the decree – to keep preists from doing shit like that. But they found a way to weasel-word their way around it. Another victory for the law!

[quote]
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.[\quote]

Are you actually trying to make the point that waterboarding isn’t torture because it doesn’t KILL its victim outright? Please tell me your moral compass hasn’t blown that far off course. A lot of the torture techniques from the Inquisition didn’t kill their victims outright. They’re still fuckng awful, gruesome, inhumane things to do to another human beings. And so is waterboarding. BTW, waterboarding doesn’t create the “psychological feeling” of drowning, it recreates the whole physical experience of drowning. Here’s a description of the practice from ABC News:

“The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda’s toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last over two minutes before begging to confess. ‘The person believes they [sic] are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,’ said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.” [1]

Yeah, a technique that can get a hardened fanatic to tell you anything you want to hear – true or not – isn’t torture. I say that IS a lie.

First of all, I’m glad you separated torture and degradation. Like you and Bricker, I think the two are distinct.

But unlike you and Bricker, I think most of the practices currently lumped under “degrading treatment” should be illegal. Most of all, waterboarding.

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?

Sure I am. But your argument is bullshit. In the US we’ve somehow managed to avoid torturing prisoners under the “cruel and inhuman treatment” rubric for centuries. Is that an immoral code? No, it’s a good one, because it tells jailers that if they torment their charges, they will join them in prison. Makes them properly cautious about how they do things.

Third, you seem to be under the impression that prohibiting specific acts will result in fewer prosecutions.

Yes. Because as soon as one set of practices is outlawed, a new specific set will be used. Duh.

As has been mentioned by numerous posters and in the linked interview, the current broad language will not support any convictions.

What, no one’s ever been prosecuted under “cruel and unusual punishment” in the US? Cite, baby. I know of at least one case where the Supreme Court took on a case about jailers who beat a prisoner hard enough to break some bones while shackled, and found the jailers innocent. But that’s a moral flaw on the judges’ part, not a problem with the law. If you can’t recognize beating a defenseless prisoner hard enough to break bones as torture, you’re a sick fuck.

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.

Demonstrate to me why the scenario I propose will not play out under those circumstances.

[Evil_Captor]

@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.

Maybe he or she should be, to protect us all from becoming complicit in torture.

[Bricker]

@Revenant Threshold

Really? I’m much less an expert in civil law than you, i’ll admit, but I was pretty sure someone could sue for mental harm even if actions are entirely legal. Someone can abuse the law without breaking it; there’s a lot of behaviour which, whilst entirely legal, can result in getting a restraining order, for example. I know that’s a completely different situation, but it does show the potential for making a case without illegal behaviour on mental health grounds.

I think the distinction you’re missing here is the actors - a private individual doesn’t have qualified immunity. So the same actions that could get a private individual sued can safely be done by a police officer.

I hadn’t heard of qualified immunity, but i’m suggesting prosecuting the State, not the sheriff who captured the suspect, just as someone might sue the U.S. Military as a whole rather than the soldiers who captured them.

Same kind of problem. In the US, both states and the federal government have what’s called sovereign immunity - a concept, I might add, that arose from when the sovereign was a person, and which I’m pretty sure exists today in English law as well. Sovereign immunity prevents the government from being sued, except with its consent. In other words, a law must exist that abrogates the government’s immunity in a particular area.

There is a federal law - 42 USC § 1983 - that abrogates the state’s immunity when actions are taken in an effort to deprive someone of their civil rights, for example. Again, I’m out of my depth here, but I don’t believe that or any other law would permit you to sue the arresting officer’s state under the circumstances we’ve discussed above: an illegal search that revealed contraband. I believe the remedy in such cases is limited to the dismissal of criminal charges. But I certainly would welcome clarification from anyone more familiar with § 1983 claims and the like.

Fair enough. What about a sheriff acting poorly, however? If the evidence was just not present to prove a crime or even suggest the suspect was there at all, could a case be made on the basis of the degrading acts/length of time imprisoned/social stigma against the lack of evidence?

I would say the answer is no. As long as the sheriff acted in good faith–that is, not planting or manufacturing evidence, or lying about how the evidence was found–then the mere fact you suffered from some legal, but arguably degrading acts is not sufficient to sue the sheriff.

[Bricker]

@Evil Captor

Maybe he or she should be, to protect us all from becoming complicit in torture.

Well, that’s certainly a legitimate opinion to advance, but it’s one I disagree with.

[Bricker]

And for the record, while i don’t believe that forced nakedness, wearing pink underwear, or the use of dog leashes should be forbidden by criminal law, I do agree that waterboarding should be a crime.

[FRDE]

@Evil Captor

Maybe he or she should be, to protect us all from becoming complicit in torture.

From a public relations point of view, it is a bit stupid looking like an animal

From a Legal point of view, I seriously object to people benefiting from Laws when they are not subject to them.

Without the Geneva Convention, few soldiers would have wanted to /surrender/ in WWII, and fighting to the finish is pretty unproductive.

I am inclined to agree with those that have said that torture does not work.

In a time limited situation, even a semi-moron would give out misleading information - unless they thought that their horizons were broadening rather than narrowing.

There is something to be read in that last paragraph.

[elucidator]

Ah, good then! Torture is wrong, but not new! improved! Torture Lite.

[Revenant_Threshold]

Alright, thanks for the answers, Bricker.

[gonzomax]

Bail Bonds Directory- Bail Bondsman - Find a Bondsman, Post Bail Fast! It is not quite so simple. The use of torture says something about us.

[Evil_Captor]

One of the things I have always been most proud of about being an American is that we are the good guys. We didn’t invade countries unless they committed aggression first. We didn’t torture our captives.

Now Bush has put us on par with the Nazis and the Japanese in WWII. We invade countries without provocation, under the flimsiest of pretences, using lies. We torture. We are scum.

I hate him and his Administration for what they have done to America.

[Bricker]

@Evil Captor

One of the things I have always been most proud of about being an American is that we are the good guys. We didn’t invade countries unless they committed aggression first. We didn’t torture our captives.

Now Bush has put us on par with the Nazis and the Japanese in WWII. We invade countries without provocation, under the flimsiest of pretences, using lies. We torture. We are scum.

I hate him and his Administration for what they have done to America.

This sort of hyperbole only demonstrates your lack of understanding of history. We are NOT on a par with the Nazis.

I read statements like this, and I have to remind myself that they are not representative of the Left as a whole…

…are they?

[elucidator]

While your at it, please reassure me than these men who have shit upon our nation’s soul and honor for the last six years are not “representative” of the Right, as a hole.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

This sort of hyperbole only demonstrates your lack of understanding of history. We are NOT on a par with the Nazis.

I read statements like this, and I have to remind myself that they are not representative of the Left as a whole…

…are they?

That was a rhetorical question, I hope? While I imagine a considerable majority of the Left (not to mention a decent portion of the Right) feel the name of the U.S. is being dragged through the mud, until there’s systematic rounding up and killing off of an entire cultural group within your borders, along with an invasion of Mexico and Canada, you’re not that bad. And I think most people recognise that.

[elucidator]

Cold comfort.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

While your at it, please reassure me than these men who have shit upon our nation’s soul and honor for the last six years are not “representative” of the Right, as a hole.

Nope, I’m not sure I can agree. They got the votes in 2004. At that time, a bit more than half the country wanted them over the other crew. That suggests that they are representative of something.

Now, if you’re asking if Bush is a good poster child for classic conservatism… no. He’s not.

[elucidator]

You know, while we’re about it, I’d like to revisit that particular toothsome irony.

When WWII ended, we established a new and shining principle: crimes against humanity. Such crimes could be punished outside of a nation’s judicial system, it was a crime that transcended sovereignty, no defense based national loyalty was effective. A German could not claim that loyalty or obedience compelled him.

We established that principle, that aggressive war was a crime against humanity, that a nation that murdered another nations civilians in pursuit of an unprovoked war was no better than a common murderer, and deserving of the same fate. We charged them, we tried them and we hanged them.

We’ve come a long way, baby.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

You know, while we’re about it, I’d like to revisit that particular toothsome irony.

When WWII ended, we established a new and shining principle: crimes against humanity. Such crimes could be punished outside of a nation’s judicial system, it was a crime that transcended sovereignty, no defense based national loyalty was effective. A German could not claim that loyalty or obedience compelled him.

We established that principle, that aggressive war was a crime against humanity, that a nation that murdered another nations civilians in pursuit of an unprovoked war was no better than a common murderer, and deserving of the same fate. We charged them, we tried them and we hanged them.

We’ve come a long way, baby.

Shall we start with Clinton, or should we go back a bit further than that? I guess the other presidents are mostly dead, so it’s a moot point. In any event, you got it wrong. We established that the winners could try the losers for war crimes. You’ll note that it was Milosovich on trial most recently, not Clinton. And the same will hold true for Bush-- Saddam will be the guy on trial, not W.