To Torture or not to Torture?

[Mephisto]

I'm glad that not everyone in the Defense Department endorsed torture.

Gitmo interrogations spark battle over tactics

The inside story of criminal investigators who tried to stop abuse

PART ONE OF TWO
By Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 10:35 a.m. MT Oct 24, 2006

Speaking publicly for the first time, senior U.S. law enforcement investigators say they waged a long but futile battle inside the Pentagon to stop coercive and degrading treatment of detainees by intelligence interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Their account indicates that the struggle over U.S. interrogation techniques began much earlier than previously known, with separate teams of law enforcement and intelligence interrogators battling over the best way to accomplish two missions: prevent future attacks and punish the terrorists.

In extensive interviews with MSNBC.com, former leaders of the Defense Department’s Criminal Investigation Task Force said they repeatedly warned senior Pentagon officials beginning in early 2002 that the harsh interrogation techniques used by a separate intelligence team would not produce reliable information, could constitute war crimes, and would embarrass the nation when they became public knowledge.

The investigators say their warnings began almost from the moment their agents got involved at the Guantanamo prison camp, in January 2002. When they could not prevent the harsh interrogations and humiliation of detainees at Guantanamo, they say, they tried in 2003 to stop the spread of those tactics to Iraq, where abuses at Abu Ghraib prison triggered worldwide outrage with the publishing of graphic photos in April 2004.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361458

[fishbob]

Great.

Just great.

Now I gotta get all worked up again at the defenders of this nonsense. So let me post this statement from the article to save time - from Col. Brittain P. Mallow, the commander of the task force from 2002 to 2005: No. 1, it’s not going to work,
No. 2, if it does work, it’s not reliable.
No. 3, it may not be legal, ethical or moral.
No. 4, it’s going to hurt you when you have to prosecute these guys.
No. 5, sooner or later, all of this stuff is going to come to light, and you’re going to be embarrassed.

[shemp]

To Torture or not to Torture?


This is the question I ask every Saturday night at The Church of Shemp[TM] Orgy.

[rdaneel]

It's going to be a tough decision for me at next weeks election. My current representitive, a Democrat, voted for the Military Commissions Act that authorizes the use of torture. And I doubt the Republican challenger would have voted any different. Either way I'm gonna have to hold my nose while voting.

[TragicMonkey]

I think that if a politician wants to endorse these "interrogation techniques" and claim they aren't torture, that politician should be made to endure those "interrogation techniques" for a week. It's only fair for them to test their claims via firsthand experimentation. Then when they say "it's not really that bad" we will have more reason to believe their assessment.

[Cylinder]

I think that if a politician wants to endorse these "interrogation techniques" and claim they aren't torture, that politician should be made to endure those "interrogation techniques" for a week. It's only fair for them to test their claims via firsthand experimentation. Then when they say "it's not really that bad" we will have more reason to believe their assessment.


President Bush at least would have endured similar interrogation techniques for a week at SERE training as have any other legislators that have served as flight crew, as certain types of trainers and other jobs that carry a SERE qualification requirement.

[Mephisto]

I think that if a politician wants to endorse these "interrogation techniques" and claim they aren't torture, that politician should be made to endure those "interrogation techniques" for a week. It's only fair for them to test their claims via firsthand experimentation. Then when they say "it's not really that bad" we will have more reason to believe their assessment.

I think their children should be tortured. It's easy to stand up against physical pain and humiliation for the right cause. It's MUCH more difficult to stand by and watch your children treated the same way. If their children agree that, "it wasn't all that bad," then I would endorse the proposed torture myself.

[CFLarsen]

If you use torture yourself, how can you justify fighting someone because they use torture?

[Mephisto]

President Bush at least would have endured similar interrogation techniques for a week at SERE training as have any other legislators that have served as flight crew, as certain types of trainers and other jobs that carry a SERE qualification requirement.

One thing about SERE training is that no matter how vigorous the training is, everyone undergoing the training KNOWS that it will be over after a period of time. As the week draws to an end morale actually rises - not so if there is no end in sight.

That is, assuming Bush was actually present for the training. ;)

[Katana]

I think their children should be tortured. It's easy to stand up against physical pain and humiliation for the right cause. It's MUCH more difficult to stand by and watch your children treated the same way. If their children agree that, "it wasn't all that bad," then I would endorse the proposed torture myself.

I wish that more children of our politicians, particularly our president's, were in the military.

[Mephisto]

I wish that more children of our politicians, particularly our president's, were in the military.

I've often asserted that the war on terrorism would have an actual plan if this were the case. Frankly, it would be nice to have more politiicians who had served (especially in combat); they'd be less likely to scoff at claims made by people like John McCain or Murtha.

[WildCat]

For those claiming such interrogations constitute torture, does this make your local police departments torturers also? Why should terrorists get better treatment than your average street thug being questioned in your local police precinct?

[WildCat]

The prisoners in this Texas jail (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/10/national/main2077390.shtml) are being humiliated. Humiliation = torture, yes?

[Katana]

For those claiming such interrogations constitute torture, does this make your local police departments torturers also? Why should terrorists get better treatment than your average street thug being questioned in your local police precinct?
Does my local police department do this?
According to interrogation logs made public, al-Qahtani, the suspected 20th hijacker, was dressed in women's clothing and led around on a leash while performing dog tricks.
Oh, my.

One interrogator fancied blaring country and western music and a full cowboy getup during his sessions.

This guy sounds like he just has a weird fetish.

[WildCat]

More examples of torture (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06243/717790-84.stm)?

[Katana]

The prisoners in this Texas jail (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/10/national/main2077390.shtml) are being humiliated. Humiliation = torture, yes?

That's not torture. That's clever.

[WildCat]

Oh, my.
And this is torture?

[WildCat]

That's not torture. That's clever.
It's humiliating. Humiliation = torture, according to some here.

[Katana]

It's humiliating. Humiliation = torture, according to some here.

Then I just don't agree. Humiliation is aversive and demoralizing, but I cannot call it torture.

[CFLarsen]

Then I just don't agree. Humiliation is aversive and demoralizing, but I cannot call it torture.

Do you support that prisoners are stacked naked or made to mimick sex with each other?

[Darth Rotor]

Do you support that prisoners are stacked naked or made to mimick sex with each other?
Have you stopped abusing your pets?

DR

[HarryKeogh]

Whether we think it's humiliation or torture isn't the point. Putting a prisoner on a dog leash isn't going to get you any worthwhile information, it may get a few yucks from the interrogators and it gives Islamic extremists another reason to kidnap a soldier and cut his head off.

Remember, these extremists tend to react disproportionately to things that offend them.

You don't do this crap because aside from being pointless (and IMO cruel) it puts our people in jeopardy (well, more jeopardy).

[Mephisto]

More examples of torture (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06243/717790-84.stm)?

This is hardly a good example of why we should endorse torture. You DID read the article, I'm assuming? What use is coercion if it yields no results? Here's an excerpt from the article you quoted:

"Despondent over finding his parents brutally murdered on their farm in northern Illinois, Gary Gauger was interrogated for 19 hours until he admitted, hypothetically, he could have killed them during a drunken blackout.

Five New York City teenagers convicted in the infamous Central Park Jogger case were questioned at length -- the longest for 28 hours -- until all but one offered shaky confessions.

Harrisburg area police convinced Barry Laughman, a man with an IQ near 70 and the mentality of a 10-year-old, that he had killed his neighbor, so Mr. Laughman confessed.

These crimes occurred in different places and under different circumstances, but in each case people confessed to heinous crimes and spent years in prison before their innocence was proven.

Innocent people confess to crimes for many reasons, including the desire for notoriety. That was the apparent motive in the celebrated unraveling this week of John Mark Karr's false admission that he had killed JonBenet Ramsey.

But false confessions usually involve coercive interrogations in which police claim to have evidence of a suspect's guilt and then promise leniency for cooperation or severe punishment for non-cooperation.

In a study of 340 overturned convictions between 1989 and 2003, Dr. Samuel R. Gross of the University of Michigan Law School and his colleagues found that 51, or 15 percent, involved false confessions. Most of those confessions resulted from police coercion."
___________

Having read that, I would immediately assume that the information gleaned from such a prisoner would be useless. Of course, we may just want to torture for tortures sake.

[Katana]

Do you support that prisoners are stacked naked or made to mimick sex with each other?

I do not believe that it is torture.

No. I do not support it.

[Beerina]

Do you support that prisoners are stacked naked or made to mimick sex with each other?

"Prison rape worldview doesn't interpret sexual pressure as coercion," he wrote. "Rather, sexual pressure ushers, guides or shepherds the process of sexual awakening." (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=50687&highlight=ushers)

[Drew]

For those claiming such interrogations constitute torture, does this make your local police departments torturers also? Why should terrorists get better treatment than your average street thug being questioned in your local police precinct?
If you think local police use water boarding and the other "techniques" that they use on these so-called "terrorists" I believe you're mistaken.

But how do you prove someone is a terrorist?

With the military act they do not need to prove anything. They can just detain whoever they want, for as long as they want, without trial, without letting them know why they are detained.

There have been people released that have been tortured. So, why would you release them if they are really terrorists?

There have been 3 (reported - that I can recall) that have died from these "interrogations".

Basically, the military act completely shreds the Bill of Rights.

[Cylinder]

But how do you prove someone is a terrorist?

By military commission. The question you probably should be asking is how does the military determine if a detainee is a combatant. That process is called the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT.)

With the military act they do not need to prove anything. They can just detain whoever they want, for as long as they want, without trial, without letting them know why they are detained.

Again - not true. CSRT procedure requires that each detainee has an initial screening by a independent tribunal to determine combatant status and annual administrative reviews of the initial classification. In both instances the detainee is apprised of the accusation and given assistance in preparing a rebuttal and in tribunal procedures.

There have been people released that have been tortured. So, why would you release them if they are really terrorists?

I believe that most have been released for diplomatic purposes.

Basically, the military act completely shreds the Bill of Rights.

Can you cite any other examples of the military applying the bill of rights to combatant detainees? It just does not work that way. Never has and never will.

[WildCat]

This is hardly a good example of why we should endorse torture. You DID read the article, I'm assuming? What use is coercion if it yields no results? Here's an excerpt from the article you quoted:
While I'm not a supporter of such police tactics, they have been upheld by the courts. Whether or not they are effective (and they're clearly not in many cases) is beside the point for the purpose of this thread. (and if you find other threads on this board about false confessions to police, you'll find I agree w/ you in these cases.) The question is whether or not it constitutes torture, and I don't think it does. One of the subjects in that article was questioned for 26 hours straight, I think the maximum allowed in Gitmo is 6 hours.

And interrogations in order to produce information is a different animal than interrogations intended to produce a confession. Gitmo is geared towards the former, and bad information does the military no good at all. In the latter case, a false confession can close the case and be a boon for the career of the prosecutors and police, even though it is false. They get their convictions, and the public generally wants to see convictions by their prosecutors and police.

[luchog]

Basically, the military act completely shreds the Bill of Rights.

No, it doesn't. That's the mistake that far too many people make. Constitutional protections do not apply to non-US citizens, as a rule. Not even legally resident aliens. One could argue, quite rightly IMO, that many of them should; but the fact is that they don't.

[Tony]

For those claiming such interrogations constitute torture, does this make your local police departments torturers also?

Yes.

[Tony]

No, it doesn't. That's the mistake that far too many people make. Constitutional protections do not apply to non-US citizens, as a rule. Not even legally resident aliens. One could argue, quite rightly IMO, that many of them should; but the fact is that they don't.

Evidence that the Militaey Act excludes US citizens?

[fishbob]

For those claiming such interrogations constitute torture, does this make your local police departments torturers also? Why should terrorists get better treatment than your average street thug being questioned in your local police precinct?

Are you innocently missing the point or deliberately diverting attention from the topic?

Torture, abuse, mistreatment - whatever you want to call it:

No. 1, it’s not going to work,
No. 2, if it does work, it’s not reliable.
No. 3, it may not be legal, ethical or moral
No. 4, it’s going to hurt you when you have to prosecute these guys
No. 5, sooner or later, all of this stuff is going to come to light, and you’re going to be embarrassed

[Cylinder]

Evidence that the Militaey Act excludes US citizens?

That is found in §948c of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109Qk5utj:e8595:).

Persons subject to military commissions

Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

[Tony]

That is found in §948c of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109Qk5utj:e8595:).

Thanks, but I see how that can be construed to include US citizens. How does that law define "alien enemy combatant".

[Cylinder]

Thanks, but I see how that can be construed to include US citizens. How does that law define "alien enemy combatant".

Alien only has one meaning currently under US law - and it ain't ET.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Here is the definition in the 2006 Military Commissions Act, under Sec. 948a (Definitions):

ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

[Cylinder]

Thanks for that cite, Chicken.

[back2basics]

Erm i think the rest of the World, you know outside America, and American troops are more worried about it's effect on the Geneva Convension.. and the detruction of the Nuclear None-Prolif. treaty. I wonder why? Pussies.

[Darth Rotor]

Erm i think the rest of the World, you know outside America, and American troops are more worried about it's effect on the Geneva Convension.. and the detruction of the Nuclear None-Prolif. treaty. I wonder why? Pussies.
You have just illustrated the term non sequitur. Please show me how those disparate elements are linked. As written, your post is nonsensical. Please elaborate to clear up the relationships.

DR

[back2basics]

You have just illustrated the term non sequitur. Please show me how those disparate elements are linked. As written, your post is nonsensical. Please elaborate to clear up the relationships.

DR

Simple. I need no links. A "treaty" in the form of none proliferation treaty or Geneva, will fall apart when one of the signatures reneges on its content. Thus all other signatures can also renege on the content of said treaty. New treaty is required. Where do you stand on a Bush policy of new treaty?

It's simple logic. Thus you were incorrect about non sequitur.

[karl]

Torture, abuse, mistreatment - whatever you want to call it:

No. 1, it’s not going to work,
No. 2, if it does work, it’s not reliable.
No. 3, it may not be legal, ethical or moral
No. 4, it’s going to hurt you when you have to prosecute these guys
No. 5, sooner or later, all of this stuff is going to come to light, and you’re going to be embarrassed

Time to go all cynical here ...

The main purpose of torture is not to extract information. It is to administer more flexible forms of punishment, without the need for a trial, and regardless of the outcome of a possible future trial. "Jack Bauer" situations are anecdotal and just a bonus if they occur. When people advocate torture as a necessary interrogation technique, they are merely rationalizing a basic human desire, the same way they claim to read Playboy for the interviews.

[Cylinder]

The main purpose of torture is not to extract information. It is to administer more flexible forms of punishment, without the need for a trial, and regardless of the outcome of a possible future trial.

That's just not true - as anyone who has attended resistance training could tell you. In fact, most of the techniques used aren't even negative - those are just the ones that get media attention.

"Jack Bauer" situations are anecdotal and just a bonus if they occur.

24 is to professional interrogation as ER is to neurosurgery.

[Darth Rotor]

Simple. I need no links. A "treaty" in the form of none proliferation treaty or Geneva, will fall apart when one of the signatures reneges on its content. Thus all other signatures can also renege on the content of said treaty. New treaty is required. Where do you stand on a Bush policy of new treaty?

It's simple logic. Thus you were incorrect about non sequitur.
Non-proliferation has already failed. Will a new treaty resolve that? Only with the will to enforce it. Was the old treaty enforced? See the failures in will, or in policy, with Pakistan and Israel being two lovely samples.

Which Geneva treaty are you referring to: the Conventions on the conduct of war?

Where did your original "pussies" remark come from?

I have not read in detail GWB's "policy" on a new treaty (on nukes?) so until I put more time into that, I can't give you a decent answer to that questions.

Conflating nuclear proliferation with Geneva treatment of prisoners isn't a non sequitur? I'll stick with my original call on that.

DR

[back2basics]

Non-proliferation has already failed. Will a new treaty resolve that? Only with the will to enforce it. Was the old treaty enforced? See the failures in will, or in policy, with Pakistan and Israel being two lovely samples.


Pakistan and Israel were not signatures, Britain and America were. Creating new mini nukes now opens the doors to proliferation by other signature, such as Russia.


Which Geneva treaty are you referring to: the Conventions on the conduct of war?


Article 3 or the conduct of war.


Where did your original "pussies" remark come from?


Just a joke, some sarcasm.


I have not read in detail GWB's "policy" on a new treaty (on nukes?) so until I put more time into that, I can't give you a decent answer to that questions.

Conflating nuclear proliferation with Geneva treatment of prisoners isn't a non sequitur? I'll stick with my original call on that.

DR

It was just an additional point, I do not believe I ever gave the impression that nukes, proved or had any bearing on my statements on Geneva or on the prior argument I as commenting on, that American citizens could be tortured. It was just a statement on two things people outside America would be worried about when Geneva is unraveled by America claiming the right to torture and create a new class of people (enemy none combatants) that are claimed not to be covered by Geneva, which they clearly are, it matters not that they are not wearing a uniform or fighting for a country. It may have been sloppy.

[Cylinder]

I have not read in detail GWB's "policy" on a new treaty (on nukes?) so until I put more time into that, I can't give you a decent answer to that questions.

I don't know about this instance, but many who are not familiar with the Conventions conflate applying those provisions with expanding them without thought that those expansions remove protections given to the surrounding civilian populations.

[Darth Rotor]

Pakistan and Israel were not signatures,
A non-proliferation treaty solves that how? Signatories is the word you seek. :)
Creating new mini nukes now opens the doors to proliferation by other signature, such as Russia.
I have been anti-Rummy-mini-nuke-bunker-busters since the summer of 2004. I think it undermines 30 years of non proliferation efforts, not all of which have been abysmal failures. I am not a fan of Silver Bullet Theory.
Article 3 or the conduct of war.
While Geneva is an artifact with bankrupt assumptions -- that wars would only be conducted between nation states -- I don't see any likelihood of the bulk of signatories following a GWB lead in making subtle and substantive changes that would update Geneva. I also don't think that, conceptually, the BushCo team are sensitive enough to "the law of unintended outcomes" regarding tweaks to Geneva. Does Geneva need a tweak here and there? Yes. Is the Bush team the ones to lead that tweaking? No. Their credibility is shot.
that American citizens could be tortured.
They are and have been, Geneva considered. Viet Nam, USS Pueblo, the soldiers in Iraq recently tortured-mutilated-slain. All of these are examples of how Americans will be and have been treated with Geneva already " in force" when the capturing agent chooses to overlook a scrap of paper.
It was just a statement on two things people outside America would be worried about when Geneva is unraveled by America claiming the right to torture and create a new class of people (enemy none combatants) that are claimed not to be covered by Geneva, which they clearly are, it matters not that they are not wearing a uniform or fighting for a country. It may have been sloppy.
There are already classes of non-combatants of persons covered in Geneva -- partisans, saboteurs, spies, and non combatants, however, the extra-national terrorist/guerilla groups are conspicuous by their formal exclusion. They don't fit well into any of the Geneva paradigms. This needs addressing. If you presume that only the BushCo approach will be considered, you are mistaken, as would be BushCo: getting a treaty amended takes a significant multinational consensus. I see no consensus on how the terrorist/extranational player is to be handled.

DR

[Cylinder]

It was just a statement on two things people outside America would be worried about when Geneva is unraveled by America claiming the right to torture and create a new class of people (enemy none combatants)...

I don't know to which class you refer. Unlawful enemy combatant is a class is older than the United States itself. It was cited in WWII, the US Civil War. the War with Mexico, the War of 1812, and the Revolution. Enemy none combatant isn't a class and enemy [i]non[b] combatant is not a class I have seen anyone in the government assert at any point. Nowhere does this administration claim anything but the full force of Geneva IV for all non-combatants.

[Cylinder]

I see no consensus on how the terrorist/extranational player is to be handled.

In fact, the US specifically rejected Protocol II (http://spj.org/gc-text6.asp?) for the very reason that it removed terrorism as a voilation of the laws of war and removed protections from surrounding civilian populations.

[back2basics]

I don't know to which class you refer. Unlawful enemy combatant is a class is older than the United States itself. It was cited in WWII, the US Civil War. the War with Mexico, the War of 1812, and the Revolution. Enemy none combatant isn't a class and enemy [i]non[b] combatant is not a class I have seen anyone in the government assert at any point. Nowhere does this administration claim anything but the full force of Geneva IV for all non-combatants.

The term unlawful combatant (also unlawful enemy combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent) is a term used by the Bush administration to label certain persons they consider outside of the protection of the Geneva Conventions; those to whom they do grant such protections they refer to as lawful combatants. The Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term and gave the President broad discretion in how a person is designated as an unlawful enemy combatant. An unlawful combatant is accorded neither the rights a soldier would normally have under the laws of war, nor the civil rights a common criminal would normally have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Many of the people in Gitmo were not caught on the battle field. They were non combatants. Several were caught crossing the border to Pakistan with false passports.

They have a right to trial, to hear and give evidence which the tribunals do not allow. That’s against Geneva.

Nowhere does this administration claim force of Geneva IV for all non-combatants

This from Rummy..

They will be handled not as prisoners of war because they are not, but as unlawful combatants. The -- as I understand it, technically unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention. We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva Conventions; to the extent they are appropriate. And that is exactly what we have been doing.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/12/smn.16.html

But more importantly the recent Military Commissions Act

A "competent tribunal" is defined in the US Army field Manual, section 27-10, for the purpose of determining whether a person is or is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and consists of a board of not less than three officers. It is also a term defined in Article five of the third Geneva Convention. However, the rights guaranteed by the Third Geneva Convention to lawful military combatants are expressly denied to unlawful military combatants for the purposes of this Act by Section 948b:

`(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#Provisions

[Cylinder]

Many of the people in Gitmo were not caught on the battle field. They were non combatants. Several were caught crossing the border to Pakistan with false passports.

Proximity to a battlefield has never been the threshold - it's that of "having committed a belligerent act." Each detainee is allowed to present evidence to a tribunal in order to refute the claims made to justify his detention during his CSRT and this determination is reviewed annually. As I pointed out earlier - there is nothing at all new about designating detainees as unlawful combatants as opposed to prisoners-of-war. These guidelines are clearly articulated in the Third Geneva Convention at Articles 4 & 5.

[back2basics]

Proximity to a battlefield has never been the threshold - it's that of "having committed a belligerent act." Each detainee is allowed to present evidence to a tribunal in order to refute the claims made to justify his detention during his CSRT and this determination is reviewed annually. As I pointed out earlier - there is nothing at all new about designating detainees as unlawful combatants as opposed to prisoners-of-war. These guidelines are clearly articulated in the Third Geneva Convention at Articles 4 & 5.

You really need to read the Military Commissions Act. The detainee has no rights to view the evidence against them.


Once again;

`(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.

[Cylinder]

You really need to read the Military Commissions Act. The detainee has no rights to view the evidence against them.

I have read it.

Sec. 949j. Opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence

(a) Right of Defense Counsel- Defense counsel in a military commission under this chapter shall have a reasonable opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence as provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

(b) Process for Compulsion- Process issued in a military commission under this chapter to compel witnesses to appear and testify and to compel the production of other evidence--

--(1) shall be similar to that which courts of the United States having criminal jurisdiction may lawfully issue; and

--(2) shall run to any place where the United States shall have jurisdiction thereof.

(c) Protection of Classified Information-

--(1) With respect to the discovery obligations of trial counsel under this section, the military judge, upon motion of trial counsel, shall authorize, to the extent practicable--

----(A) the deletion of specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the accused;

----(B) the substitution of a portion or summary of the information for such classified documents; or

----(C) the substitution of a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove.

--(2) The military judge, upon motion of trial counsel, shall authorize trial counsel, in the course of complying with discovery obligations under this section, to protect from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired evidence if the military judge finds that the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired such evidence are classified. The military judge may require trial counsel to provide, to the extent practicable, an unclassified summary of the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired such evidence.

(d) Exculpatory Evidence-

--(1) As soon as practicable, trial counsel shall disclose to the defense the existence of any evidence known to trial counsel that reasonably tends to exculpate the accused. Where exculpatory evidence is classified, the accused shall be provided with an adequate substitute in accordance with the procedures under subsection (c).

--(2) In this subsection, the term `evidence known to trial counsel', in the case of exculpatory evidence, means exculpatory evidence that the prosecution would be required to disclose in a trial by general court-martial under chapter 47 of this title.

How do you define "no rights?"

[ponderingturtle]

No, it doesn't. That's the mistake that far too many people make. Constitutional protections do not apply to non-US citizens, as a rule. Not even legally resident aliens. One could argue, quite rightly IMO, that many of them should; but the fact is that they don't.

Just like if you go to a foreign country, don't expect to have civil rights there.

[back2basics]

I have read it.



How do you define "no rights?"

There has since been an ammendmnt to that language.

The first draft of this legislation said that defendants could "examine and respond" to all of the evidence against them at a military tribunal. Now it says only that defendants can "respond" to all evidence. The full implications of this phrase aren't entirely clear. Defense lawyers will likely argue that defendants can't respond to evidence they haven't been able to examine.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6165648

In one change, the original language said that a suspect had the right to “examine and respond to” all evidence used against him. Mr. Graham and his colleagues in resisting the White House, Senators John W. Warner of Virginia and John McCain of Arizona, had insisted that the provision was necessary to prevent so-called secret trials. The bill submitted late Monday dropped the word “examine” and left only “respond to,” reviving complaints about secret trials, this time from Democrats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27detain.html?ex=1317009600&en=9a3ec7838f34ef14&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

So they have the right to respond to evidence that they may not know about.

I didn't say no rights, they have rights, just no rights to see evidence against them, even non secret evidence.

How thi started was the gutting of Geneva, and because the US just backed out of Geneva as a result of the act, now any other state will feel free to do the same.

[Cylinder]

There has since been an ammendmnt to that language.

Not true.

I quoted from the text of S. 3930 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109OvHZu3::). The Library of Congress reports (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN03930:@@@R) that this version of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed by the Senate on September 28, 2006, passed by the House on September 29, 2006 and signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2006.

[back2basics]

Not true.

I quoted from the text of S. 3930 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109OvHZu3::). The Library of Congress reports (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN03930:@@@R) that this version of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed by the Senate on September 28, 2006, passed by the House on September 29, 2006 and signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2006.

You quoted the origional wording.

If you try going to find the new wording the house actually passed (that was the Senate wording), and it's not available yet. The loc.giv site always links the final wording next to the date it passed.

From you link, go to the "text" link

10/17/2006 Became Public Law No: 109-366 [Text, PDF]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN03930:@@@R

This is direct.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/toGPObss/http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ366.109

[Cylinder]

If you try going to find the new wording the house actually passed (that was the Senate wording), and it's not available yet.

Are you claiming that the Library of Congress is wrong (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN03930:@@@R)?

MAJOR ACTIONS:

9/22/2006 Introduced/originated in Senate
9/28/2006 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 65 - 34. Record Vote Number: 259.
9/29/2006 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 250 - 170 (Roll no. 508).
10/17/2006 Signed by President.
10/17/2006 Became Public Law No: 109-366 [Text, PDF]

The National Public Radio article you quoted was written the same day - September 28, 2006 - that S. 3930 was passed in the Senate so they have to be referring to the same bill with the language quoted above. The New York Times article was written the previous day - September 27, 2006.

[back2basics]

Are you claiming that the Library of Congress is wrong (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN03930:@@@R)?

The National Public Radio article you quoted was written the same day - September 28, 2006 - that S. 3930 was passed in the Senate so they have to be referring to the same bill with the language quoted above. The New York Times article was written the previous day - September 27, 2006.


No i am claiming you are looking at the wrong text.

You even proved it yourself. The day the law was passed in to law in the House was October 17th, 2006. Not September 28th. The change happend in the House, not the senate.

10/17/2006 Became Public Law No: 109-366 [Text, PDF]

And that the text is not up on the site yet, which is demonstratably true if you only followed the links i supplied. I just checked and the text is still not up. I am suggesting (my opinion is) that this link will not work until after the elections.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ366.109

What i am saying is the text you posted was the origional wording from the origional bill, not the ammended bill as thats not available. When the ammended bill is up on the site, we will see the new language.

[Cylinder]

You even proved it yourself. The day the law was passed in to law in the House was October 17th, 2006. Not September 28th. The change happend in the House, not the senate.

There are a few issues here.

First, I claimed the article was written near the time S. 3930 was passed in the Senate.

Second - you need to re-read the LOC summary. Allow me to draw your attention to the following entry:

9/29/2006 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 250 - 170 (Roll no. 508).

September is the 9th month in each year. October is the 10th month. The House passed the bill on 9/29/2006 - September 29, 2006. The POTUS signed the bill on 10/17/2006 - October 17, 2006 - making it public law.

In fact, according to the Congressional Record Daily Digest (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/digest2006/d29SE061.pdf), the House adjourned for mid-term elections on September 30, 2006:

Adjournment: The House met at 9 a.m. and at 1:05 a.m. on Saturday, September 30th, pursuant to the provisions of H. Con. Res. 483, stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Thursday, November 9, 2006.

See page 12 of the PDF linked above. The House wasn't even in session on October 17, 2006.

Finally, the House does not pass bills into law. The House passes resolutions that must be also passed by the Senate and sent to the President to be signed. In those cases where there are differences between the House and Senate versions, a bicameral Conference Committee is established where the differences are worked out and a conference report is issued, Both houses of Congress must approve the report to send the bill to the President's desk. Veto issues are outside the scope of this discussion since I hope at least that you agree that this bill was not vetoed by the President.

There was no Conference Committee on this bill because the House compromised with Senate language by passing the Senate bill verbatim in order to expedite the bill and get it to the President's desk before Congress adjourned for mid-term elections.

If you don't trust the Library of Congress, you can just as easily read the FindLaw text of the bill [PDF] (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/mca2006.pdf). It should be noted that FindLaw has taken an editorial position against the Military Commissions Act. From that text at § 949a(b)(1)(A):

The accused shall be permitted to present evidence in his defense, to cross-examine the witnesses who testify against him, and to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him on the issue of guilt or innocence and for sentencing, as provided for by this chapter.

Emphasis is mine. The portion in bold clearly refutes the NPR report. Once again, examining Ԥ 949j, you will find that the language is the same as quoted above:

Opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence

(a) RIGHT OF DEFENSE COUNSEL.—Defense counsel in a military commission under this chapter shall have a reasonable opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence as provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

(b) PROCESS FOR COMPULSION.—Process issued in a military commission under this chapter to compel witnesses to appear and testify and to compel the production of other evidence—

--(1) shall be similar to that which courts of the United States having criminal jurisdiction may lawfully issue; and

--‘(2) shall run to any place where the United States shall have jurisdiction thereof.

(c) PROTECTION OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—(1) With respect to the discovery obligations of trial counsel under this section, the military judge, upon motion of trial counsel, shall authorize, to the extent practicable—

----(A) the deletion of specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the accused;

----(B) the substitution of a portion or summary of the information for such classified documents; or

----(C) the substitution of a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove.

--(2) The military judge, upon motion of trial counsel, shall authorize trial counsel, in the course of complying with discovery obligations under this section, to protect from disclosure the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired evidence if the military judge finds that the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired such evidence are classified.

The military judge may require trial counsel to provide, to the extent practicable, an unclassified summary of the sources, methods, or activities by which the United States acquired such evidence.

(d) EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.—(1) As soon as practicable, trial counsel shall disclose to the defense the existence of any evidence known to trial counsel that reasonably tends to exculpate the accused. Where exculpatory evidence is classified, the accused shall be provided with an adequate substitute in accordance with the procedures under subsection (c).

--(2) In this subsection, the term ‘evidence known to trial counsel’, in the case of exculpatory evidence, means exculpatory evidence that the prosecution would be required to disclose in a trial by general court-martial under chapter 47 of this title.

The dashes are mine and were added for text formatting. How is the FindLaw resolution prefaced?

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled...

If you like, you can also read the Congressional Record for the US House of Representatives for September 29, 2006 (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/HCOR-2006-09-29.pdf) where the bill was read into the record and sent to a floor vote (see page 27 of the PDF). First, look at § 949a(b)(1)(A):

The accused shall be permitted to present evidence in his defense, to cross-examine the witnesses who testify against him, and to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him on the issue of guilt or innocence and for sentencing, as provided for by this chapter.

Once again, emphasis is mine. Same as it ever was. The same applies for § 949j, which I will not quote here for brevity. I guess at this point I need to see evidence of a special session of Congress that amended the MCA in the manner which you describe.

[Cylinder]

I was looking at the Library of Congress website to see if the GPO had published the Public Law (it has not) and noticed the text of the requesting page:

You are requesting a file from the Government Printing Office Web Site.

If the bill text is not yet available, you may receive an error message.

If you get that message, you can see the text of the Enrolled bill by returning to the page you just left, then scroll to the result in which you are interested and select the Text of Legislation link. The Enrolled bill is the text passed by the House and Senate.

Emphasis is mine. Here is the link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109k9WsrA::) to the Enrolled bill - S. 3930ENR - as it was sent to the President. That's the same link as provided above, BTW.

[Darth Rotor]

I was looking at the Library of Congress website to see if the GPO had published the Public Law (it has not) and noticed the text of the requesting page:



Emphasis is mine. Here is the link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109k9WsrA::) to the Enrolled bill - S. 3930ENR - as it was sent to the President. That's the same link as provided above, BTW.
I am almost afraid to ask this question: did you see evidence of any Presidential signing statement related to this particular bill in your various digging into the detail?

DR