Torture is now Okay
December 3rd, 2004 4:58 am
U.S. Can Use Evidence Gained by Torture
By Michael J. Sniffen / Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Evidence gained by torture can be used by the U.S. military in deciding whether to imprison a foreigner indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an enemy combatant, the government concedes.
Statements produced under torture have been inadmissible in U.S. courts for about 70 years. But the U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of 550 foreigners as enemy combatants at the U.S. naval base in Cuba are allowed to use such evidence, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle acknowledged at a U.S. District Court hearing Thursday.
Some of the prisoners have filed lawsuits challenging their detention without charges for up to three years so far. At the hearing, Boyle urged District Judge Richard J. Leon to throw their cases out.
Attorneys for the prisoners argued that some were held solely on evidence gained by torture, which they said violated fundamental fairness and U.S. due process standards. But Boyle argued in a similar hearing Wednesday that the detainees "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court."
Leon asked whether a detention based solely on evidence gathered by torture would be illegal, because "torture is illegal. We all know that."
Boyle replied that if the military's combatant status review tribunals "determine that evidence of questionable provenance were reliable, nothing in the due process clause (of the Constitution) prohibits them from relying on it."
Leon asked whether there were any restrictions on using torture-induced evidence.
Boyle replied that the United States never would adopt a policy that would have barred it from acting on evidence that could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks even if the data came from questionable practices like torture by a foreign power.
Several arguments underlie the U.S. court ban on products of torture.
"About 70 years ago, the Supreme Court stopped the use of evidence produced by third-degree tactics largely on the theory that it was totally unreliable," Harvard Law Professor Philip B. Heymann, a former deputy U.S. attorney general, said in an interview. Subsequent high court rulings were based on revulsion at "the unfairness and brutality of it and later on the idea that confessions ought to be free and uncompelled."
Leon asked whether U.S. courts could review detentions based on evidence from torture conducted by U.S. personnel.
Boyle said torture was against U.S. policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline." He added, "I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo" but noted that some U.S. soldiers there had been disciplined for misconduct, including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning.
The International Committee of the Red Cross said Tuesday it has given the Bush administration a confidential report critical of U.S. treatment of Guantanamo detainees. The New York Times reported the Red Cross described the psychological and physical coercion used at Guantanamo as "tantamount to torture."
The combatant status review tribunals comprise three colonels and lieutenant colonels. They were set up after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the detainees could ask U.S. courts to see to it they had a proceeding in which to challenge their detention. The panels have reviewed 440 of the prisoners so far but have released only one.
The military also set up an annual administrative review which considers whether the detainee still presents a danger to the United States but doesn't review enemy combatant status. Administrative reviews have been completed for 161.
Boyle argued these procedures are sufficient to satisfy the high court.
Noting that detainees cannot have lawyers at the combatant status review proceedings and cannot see any secret evidence against them, detainee attorney Wes Powell argued "there is no meaningful opportunity in the (proceedings) to rebut the government's claims."
Leon suggested that if federal judges start reviewing the military's evidence for holding foreign detainees there could be "practical and collateral consequences ... at a time of war."
And he suggested an earlier Supreme Court ruling might limit judges to checking only on whether detention orders were lawfully issued and review panels were legally established.
Leon and Judge Joyce Hens Green, who held a similar hearing Wednesday, said they would try to rule soon on whether the 59 detainees may proceed with their lawsuits.
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
Join us & contribute
Proud members of the Democratic Party
Copyright 2006 Democrats.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy
Cruel and Unusual Punishment now Ok
When is this going to be okay for the police or law enforcement.
"The only thing necessary for the perpetuation of evil is for good people to do nothing." ~Jane Elliott
shoud be
now. If we can catch just one criminal this way, why not torture. If your innocent you don't have anything to worry about. Now I actually heard that on a right wing radio show today. Very scary that people believe that.
New Homeland Security Director
This new Homeland Security Director, if confirmed scares the sh*t out of me, he is a former Police Commissioner, the police are already abusive enough, they don't need anymore help, encouragment, or reinforcement from this nutcase. I hope this country can handle the next four years, but I am more skeptical every day.
Standing by and doing nothing is being silent, submitting to silence is the very act of consenting.
Most Cops
are not abusive. This has to be one of the most idiotic statement I have seen. Are there bad cops, sure but it is way below a couple percent of the total population. Have some facts moron before you put statements like this out.
Thats your opinion
The years I lived in Lawrence Kansas, I have never seen so many obnoxious abusive cops, now I am sorry but if you think that, its your opinion. But if you agree the cops in NYC during the RNC protest were right to Pepper Spray the Protesters you are wrong. They attacked the protesters 2001 during the Innaguration too with excessive force. These are things that must be stopped, they are violating first amendment rights and they are out of line. If you don't believe there are problems, you have your eyes closed.
Standing by and doing nothing is being silent, submitting to silence is the very act of consenting.
police misconduct is a function of law enforcement
I found the editorial review for this book relevant to this conversation.
Editorial Review
Rather than an aberration enacted by "bad apples," police misconduct is a function of law enforcement's emphasis on repressive values and unenlightened tactics, argues Kristian Robert Williams. Firmly rooted in history and current practice, Our Enemies in Blue offers a clear-eyed account of law enforcement practices, including how police target certain groups and work to preserve power imbalances within society. Efforts to grow the prison industry are revealed along with a surprising account of modern police forces - many of which evolved from protection rackets and slave patrols. As a growing number of United States citizens encounter the criminal justice system, this resource provides useful historical perspective and real-life strategies for opposing abuses of power.
The book:
Our Enemies in Blue : Police and Power in America
by Kristian Williams
---
"It is the eternal fate of the noble and enlightened to be brutally crushed by the armed and dumb."
-America the Book
Kerik Record
December 3rd, 2004 6:23 pm
Kerik nomination is a ticking time bomb
By Ellis Henican / Newsday
Campaign bodyguard to Rudy Giuliani.
Errand boy for the Saudi royal family.
Energetic exploiter of Sept. 11th tragedy.
Tough-talking publicity-hound vowing to bring law and order to Iraq - then hightailing it out of there after a disastrous 14 weeks, leaving the place far less safe than he found it.
Oh, the bullet points on Bernie Kerik's real-life resume just go on and on. But is this really the guy we want standing between us and the terrorists?
George W. Bush apparently thinks so.
White House sources were saying last night that Kerik, the scandal-scarred former commissioner of the New York Correction and Police departments, will be named today to take Tom Ridge's job as head of homeland security.
For now, let's give the Bush folks the benefit of the doubt: Maybe they've been wowed by Kerik's shameless swing-state Kerry-bashing in Bush's behalf. ("I fear another attack, and I fear that attack with ... Senator Kerry being in office responding to it.")
Maybe they've been bullied by Giuliani's bulldog lobbying for a loyal business buddy and after-hours pal. ("OK, Karl," you can almost hear Rudy say, "I won't be attorney general, but you gotta take Bernie at homeland security!")
Or maybe it's just that the FBI background check isn't back from the field.
Whatever the reason, the White House personnel office really ought to ask some probing questions around New York. You can bet they'll get an earful of heads-up about this hard-charging, thick-necked, shaved-head lightweight.
Let this be a warning from someone who's followed the man's ladder-climbing career: He's a personal and professional time bomb the Bushies will learn to regret. Don't say I didn't warn you, guys!
That's certainly the message that smart law-enforcement professionals in New York were exchanging yesterday, as they shook their heads in disbelief at Kerik's latest career goal.
"He couldn't run the Rikers commissary without getting greedy and making a mess, in a jam," one correction veteran said. "Now he's gonna be in charge of the Department of Homeland Security? Let's just hope the terrorists don't decide to come back."
This former subordinate was referring to just one of many petty scandals that have hung over Kerik's career. When he ran Correction, nearly $1 million of tobacco-company rebates were diverted into an obscure foundation Kerik was president of. This was for cigarettes bought with taxpayer money and then sold at inflated prices to jail inmates. But this rebate money - would kickbacks be a better word? - got spent entirely outside the normal rules for public funds.
No one was criminally charged. But a whole rash of IRS rules were seemingly violated. One board member quit in protest when the foundation treasurer refused to provide him with financial reports. And no one has ever explained where all the money went.
It was a typical Kerik deal. He behaved from start to finish like normal rules didn't apply to him.
It isn't possible in so little space to give an adequate tour of the man's rise from Jersey high-school dropout to prospective anti-terror boss.
As a public service, however, let me suggest a few ripe areas of personal inquiry that someone in Washington might like to pursue.
Along the way, don't lose sight of this: The homeland security chief stands between Osama bin Laden and our good-night sleep.
Why did he pull out of Iraq so suddenly? Does he think he did a pretty good job teaching the Baghdad police how to keep order and how to behave in "a free and democratic society," to use his words at the time?
Was Sept. 11th Commission member John Lehman on to something when he called Kerik's leadership after the terror attack "scandalous" and "not worthy of the Boy Scouts."
What exactly does he do at Giuliani Partners? How's that anti-crime campaign in Mexico City going? What companies and foreign governments are on his client list?
Why did Kerik send a New York City homicide detective to rouse TV hair and makeup artists in the middle of the night when his book publisher (and workout-partner) lost her cell phone?
What new job does he have in mind for John Picciano, his perennial chief of staff? Could Picciano really pass a federal background check? What about the complaint (later dropped) that he'd beaten up his correction-officer girlfriend and waved his gun around?
There are answers for all of it, I am sure. Answers to these few questions and many racier ones.
Over the weeks to come, Kerik will have a chance to answer all of them.
I, for one, am waiting.
So are a lot of people who've gotten to know the man in New York.