Law Lords reject torture evidence use

[Morgeruat]

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

Claiming torture is a popular tactic of our dear friends Al Q. simply because it is so looked down upon in the west (most of Europe, USA, Australia, etc), and is generally cause for a mistrial. I hope there's some sort of screening procedure (other than video taping each suspect 24/7 as evidence against torture) to prevent law enforcement from having to spend more time proving they are not toturing than actually pursuing leads, interrogating suspects, etc.

[ 12-09-2005, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

[Lucern]

Originally posted by wellard: Ohhh I'm not to sure about that Lucern, Madame du lash got me to admit I was a very, very naughty boy in record time! But I digress How do you define torture? Physical pain? Mental torture? Would being kept in jail without trial for over 4 years for interrogation purposes be classed as torture (like the USA does to Australians) or would a week’s physical torture be less cruel in the long run? If you send you’re prisoners overseas to be tortured, standard USA procedure according to C.Rice, could the evidence still be used because the torture happened elsewhere?

LOL...well uhh..like any torture situation, you and she both knew already that you were a naughty boy. You just gave in, naturally

How would I answer those? Yes, hell yes, and I guess it depends. Neither torture nor arbitrary confinement gives me much faith in the guilty party - and by that I mean the state. It depends, of course, on the people (I'm something of a junior anthropologist, you see). Lest anyone discount what torture does to a person: a week's torture often produces suicides, while others survive. With regular therapy, an incident of torture involving both physical and mental abuse lasting a few hours generally takes a couple of months to 'get over', if such a thing can be thought to exist. Now, this is a couple of months of extreme paranoia, nightmares, lack of sleep in general, hypervigilance (involves being 'on alert' all the time) at the least, and generally some torture-specific trauma, such as fear of uniformed officers. "Getting over it" generally entails relocating to a place without any of your friends and family and suffering a long-lasting post-traumatic stress disorder. Is lengthy and arbitrary imprisonment worse? Is is similar in some ways? They're both horrible in reality. If psychological illness isn't enough, consider lasting physical pain. Just earlier this year a strong young woman I knew, who contracted HIV while being raped during torture a few years ago, succumbed to AIDS.

I can't answer what confinement would be classified as really. Therefore, as per usual, you've earned the CAT (Convention Against Torture) - which the US boasts a hand in writing and adopting, minus that caveat I mentioned before. Fortunately, I've just finished a term paper on post-structuralist identity formation theory as it applies to asylum-seekers, so I don't have to type it out again

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed, or is suspecting of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by, or at least the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

My thinking is that the lengthy and arbitrary confinement, while quite bad, wouldn't be torture because 1) it results from lawful sanctions (ehhh...maybe not) 2) the intentional infliction of harm isn't there. It'd be foolish to think that such actions do not cause mental harm, of course. This one hasn't been hashed out here afaik.

Btw, I'd like to hear more about these detained Australians.
Also, btw, did Condi screw up that blatantly? I haven't been keeping up, but I have heard that she's going out of her way to defend the right of the US to send prisoners elsewhere for 'interrogation'.

[Lucern]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm Claiming torture is a popular tactic of our dear friends Al Q. simply because it is so looked down upon in the west (most of Europe, USA, Australia, etc), and is generally cause for a mistrial. I hope there's some sort of screening procedure (other than video taping each suspect 24/7 as evidence against torture) to prevent law enforcement from having to spend more time proving they are not toturing than actually pursuing leads, interrogating suspects, etc.

Of course. However, it's pretty damn easy to tell if people are lying about being tortured if that torture was anything like what the people I met experienced. In a system that has become as closed as ours though, it's more credible than it would otherwise be. 24/7 video sounds like a good use of technology to me.

[Morgeruat]

I agree, but then you've got other problems such as prisoners privacy being violated (yes there are advocacy groups for this), "potty" cams, searches if the suspect is a minor (it could be construed as child porn) etc.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Lucern: Also, btw, did Condi screw up that blatantly? I haven't been keeping up, but I have heard that she's going out of her way to defend the right of the US to send prisoners elsewhere for 'interrogation'.

No, this was reported as a policy change about a week ago. I almost posted a link about it at the time but thought I'd posted enough material critical of America recently.

Basically they made a policy decision to be 'aggressive' on this - taking the angle that Europe should take their word when they say that they don't torture.

Link

[Zebodog]

So how exactly do you determine who is to be tortured and who isn't? Do you base it on religous beliefs, colour of skin, country of origin, language spoken? Or should it be based on intelligence gathered? I think we can all agree that the Intelligence Agency's of most country's would be lucky to find their ass even if they had a map.

I fail to see how anyone can agree that torture is a good thing even if it provides real life saving information. I'm pretty sure that's what Hussein believed as well.

How soon have we forgetten those fellow countrymen who were tortured, endured unimaginable suffering. The lessons of our past really should be re-visited from time to time.

It's easy to condone torture from a keyboard. It's something different if you have to administer it, or god forbid you are the recipient. Torture is an easy word to say but before condoning such a terrible act, live through it for a short time. You'll have a whole different outlook on life then.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: First, I don't think torture is necessarily cruel and unusual punishment. You may want to google it, but the 8th Amendment has been pretty much eviscerated over time. I'm not saying what oughta be -- just what IS, for that is a lawyer's first job. You will find that most of my comments begin with "what is" before going to "what oughta be."

I don't know much about the 8th other than what I think it ought to be, so maybe some howework is in order for me. I guess I'll start here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment08/

Cheers!

[Timber Loftis]

I hope you read all the links, and I hope they had good case references, because with the 8th Amendment, the first mistake you can make is reading the language and thinking it sounds pretty clear.