Detention at Guantanamo

The BBC recently published an informative article that deals with the legality of the detainees at Guantanamo and the various processes that defendants are subjected to.

What about evidence obtained by torture or coercion?

Evidence obtained under torture will not be permitted, but evidence obtained by coercion could be.

One problem is that "waterboarding" is not classified as torture by the Bush administration.

If evidence was obtained before 30 December 2005 (that is, the date when the Detainee Treatment Act came into force, outlawing "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment"), the military judge can allow the evidence if "the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable" and "the interests of justice would best be served".

This suggests that some evidence obtained in the so-called "secret prisons" operated by the CIA might be admissible. If it was obtained after 30 December 2005, then the judge would also have to be satisfied that no "cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment" had been used.

Read the whole article

The Morality of Torture

Andrew Sullivan posted an insightful and thought provoking piece on the slippery slope to the justification of torture:

The manner in which free societies lose their moral compass is always incremental. Step by step by step, certain core values are whittled away. There is rarely a moment at which a government stands up, and asks its people if they wish to abandon such "quaint" notions as the Geneva Conventions, the rule of law, humane interrogation or habeas corpus. These things are abandoned incrementally or secretly, slice by slice, euphemism by euphemism, the chronology always clearer in retrospect than at the time. And each incremental step is always portrayed as a small but essential temporary sacrifice for the sake of security in a time of great and imminent peril.

And so defenders of torture have long argued that is is essential to make torture legal - but only in the ticking time bomb scenario. And yet, such a scenario has not yet happened and the United States has still indisputably abused and dehumanized thousands of prisoners in its custody, "disappeared" and tortured hundreds, and seen more than a dozen die in "interrogation". We now know, moreover, the following undisputed facts: the president of the United States and his closest advisers devised, orchestrated and monitored interrogation methods banned by the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo Bay and subsequently in every theater of combat; these techniques were used not only in the extra-legal no-man's land of Guantanamo Bay but also at the prison at Abu Ghraib where photographic evidence of many of the actual techniques explicitly authorized by the president - stress positions, hoods, mock-executions, etc. - was incontrovertible. We now know that those techniques that the president expressed "shock" at were already explicitly authorized for use by other agents by him long before Abu Ghraib was exposed.

It is worth a read.

Letters to the Editor

The New York Times published some interesting letters in response to the ABC report in which it was revealed that top government officials where intimately involved in the creation of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Here is one letter that was published from Human Rights First President, Michale Posner:

Re “The Torture Sessions” (editorial, April 20):

You say that it will take a new president and Congress to finally see accountability on torture. With America’s global leadership and moral authority on the line, nine months is too long to wait.

Fortunately, the remaining presidential candidates are all on record opposing torture and official cruelty. Anyone who followed the early presidential debates — when many of the candidates sought to outdo one another on who was more in favor of abusive interrogation — knows that this outcome was not a given.

Human Rights First has had the privilege over the last few years of working with a growing number of retired senior military leaders to share their messages with candidates and the public. They believe, as we do, that human rights and national security are mutually reinforcing, and that resort to torture and cruel treatment is wrong and counterproductive.

The presidential candidates seem to have gotten the message. But ultimately, it is up to the American people to keep the pressure on all of our current and future elected officials to demand an end to torture and abuse.

Michael Posner

President, Human Rights First

New York, April 21, 2008

Read all the letters here.

Guantanamo Bay Detainees Allege Drugging

The Washington Post reports that at least 2 dozen former and current detainees claimed they were drugged or witnessed other inmates being drugged against their will:

"I'd fall asleep" after the shot, Nusairi, a former Saudi policeman captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2002, recalled in an interview with his attorney at the military prison in Cuba, according to notes. After being roused, Nusairi eventually did talk, giving U.S. officials what he later described as a made-up confession to buy some peace.

Read the whole article.

White House Officials Torture Talks

The Washington Post, Dan Froomkin, responds to the ABC report which revealed that top government officials were intimately involved in orchestrating the interrogation techniques of the CIA operatives:

Top Bush aides, including Vice President Cheney, micromanaged the torture of terrorist suspects from the White House basement, according to an ABC News report aired last night.

Discussions were so detailed, ABC's sources said, that some interrogation sessions were virtually choreographed by a White House advisory group. In addition to Cheney, the group included then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then-secretary of state Colin Powell, then-CIA director George Tenet and then-attorney general John Ashcroft.

At least one member of the club had some qualms. ABC reports that Ashcroft "was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

"According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: 'Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.'"

Read the whole article.

Watch the ABC Video.

Torture Memos Released.

Yesterday the 81-page "Torture Memo" written by John Yoo was publicly released.

The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.

The 81-page memo, which was declassified and released publicly yesterday, argues that poking, slapping or shoving detainees would not give rise to criminal liability. The document also appears to defend the use of mind-altering drugs that do not produce "an extreme effect" calculated to "cause a profound disruption of the senses or personality."

Read the whole story here.

Reactions to the Torture Veto

The New York Times posted letters to the editor in response to President Bush's veto on the restrictions of C.I.A. tactics. The director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, Allen S. Keller, letter was featured:

The president’s veto does not make us or the world safer. To the contrary, it puts civilians living under despotic regimes at greater risk of being tortured, and sends a chilling message to humanity, including to the estimated 400,000 torture survivors now living in the United States.

Read all the letters here.