Interrogations of Detainees

[Hangtime]

Some might say its a violation of the detainees rights to use 'truth serums'... a violation of constitutional rights.

On the other hand, we've all had our rights violated by the actions of the terrorists, the response of the government has in effect violated our right to privacy.

Whaddaya think, pump 'em fulla babble juice and get the info, or continue to ask politely thru their lawyers for the info?

[AKDejaVu]

I'm curious... what right's are being violated?  The right to privacy?

If a truth serum is used, any information gathered can't be used against the person since the constitution protects against self-incrimination.  I can't event venture a guess as to the legal ramifications of applying that information towards another arrest would go.

Seems like a pandora's box waiting to be opened.

I say we bring back painfull torture and frequent beatings.  Nobody will expect that!

AKDejaVu

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
If a truth serum is used, any information gathered can't be used against the person since the constitution protects against self-incrimination.  I can't event venture a guess as to the legal ramifications of applying that information towards another arrest would go.

The Constitution only applies to American citizens.  Non-citizens do not share these rights unless explicitly granted them by an act of Congress.  In most cases, the rights of citizens closely overlap the rights of non-citizens (and rightfully so).  However, the recent anti-terrorism legislation demonstrates the rift between the two, often applying a very broad definition of "terrorism" to non-citizens and a more narrow definition to Americans.

And all that is perfectly legal without violating the Equal Protection Clause, since only Americans are guaranteed the right to equal protection.  They're also the only ones constitutionally guaranteed the right to avoid self-incrimination.  If Congress desired, it could make using truth serums and detaining foreign suspects indefinitely completely legal.  Not that I support its doing that of course, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[AKDejaVu]

Hmmmm... I don't believe we have a means to not apply the constitution to non-US citizens.  There is no clear set of behaviors defined.

I think that trying to do so would be disastrous to a way of life founded on imigration.

Basically, instead of telling us that the constitution doesn't aply... tell us what does?  I don't believe it is acceptable to treat them in any manner we see fit.

AKDejaVu

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Basically, instead of telling us that the constitution doesn't aply... tell us what does?  I don't believe it is acceptable to treat them in any manner we see fit.

AKDejaVu

I don't believe it's acceptable to treat them in any manner we see fit either.  However, the fact remains that any rights granted to non-citizens are done so by acts of Congress and are not explicit in the Constitution itself.  What we currently have, thankfully, is a great deal of overlap between rights enjoyed by Americans and rights enjoyed by foreign visitors to America.  I firmly believe that that's as it should be.

However, Congress could choose to revoke those rights immediately if it desired.  As a case in point, AG Ashcroft pushed for a provision of the anti-terrorism bill that would have enabled the United States to detain suspect foreigners indefinitely without officially charging them with a crime.  Congress balked at this proposal and instead voted to allow the US Government to detain suspect foreign nationals for no longer than seven days without being charged.  In addition, they instituted a sunset clause on this provision that would eliminate it after three or four years.  It seems unlikely that we'd ever have that sort of debate over legislation affecting American citizens, who are guaranteed due process and a timely trial.  A bill applying these standards to Americans would never make it out of committee.

So yes, Congress has the power to eliminate any parity between rights shared by citizens and non-citizens.  However, they've also demonstrated a respectable level of pragmatism here.  I think they fear the Pandora's Box as much as you do, DejaVu.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Dead Man Flying ]

[Eagler]

save the juice and call in the Sopranos .. after a finger or two, you'll get the truth.

[Hangtime]

With physical torture we become what we are trying to catch.

With 'chemical' means we are simply allowing the government to do to the detainees what the government is already doing to us... invading privacy.

If it's decided that inerrogations using babble juice are illegal in this country, lets put the detainees on a plane to some place it ain't and ask the questions there.

[miko2d]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Basically, instead of telling us that the constitution doesn't aply... tell us what does?  I don't believe it is acceptable to treat them in any manner we see fit.

 Lot of things going on in US are based on the concept of "reasonable". No one is going to round up all non-citizens and use them for fertiliser anytime soon.
 If we do stop being reasonable, constitution would not help. People who were subject to genoside in germany or those sterilized in US in 1930s were all citizens...

 miko

[mrfish]

some people use drugs like Sodium Pentothal recreationally (not like i would know of course)

they only really work on people who don't get high much if you are trying to get to the truth.

it's like getting a nondrinker drunk - you can ask em anything you want. to an old alch-y it wouldnt matter. so i think we should all develop tolerances to narcotics as defense against terrorists!
 

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying:


I don't believe it's acceptable to treat them in any manner we see fit either.  However, the fact remains that any rights granted to non-citizens are done so by acts of Congress and are not explicit in the Constitution itself.  What we currently have, thankfully, is a great deal of overlap between rights enjoyed by Americans and rights enjoyed by foreign visitors to America.  I firmly believe that that's as it should be.

However, Congress could choose to revoke those rights immediately if it desired.  As a case in point, AG Ashcroft pushed for a provision of the anti-terrorism bill that would have enabled the United States to detain suspect foreigners indefinitely without officially charging them with a crime.  Congress balked at this proposal and instead voted to allow the US Government to detain suspect foreign nationals for no longer than seven days without being charged.  In addition, they instituted a sunset clause on this provision that would eliminate it after three or four years.  It seems unlikely that we'd ever have that sort of debate over legislation affecting American citizens, who are guaranteed due process and a timely trial.  A bill applying these standards to Americans would never make it out of committee.

So yes, Congress has the power to eliminate any parity between rights shared by citizens and non-citizens.  However, they've also demonstrated a respectable level of pragmatism here.  I think they fear the Pandora's Box as much as you do, DejaVu.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Dead Man Flying ]

Heya DM,

I hate  to bust your bubble but the constitutional rights DO extend to foriegners under arrest in the U.S.. Think of it this way. The courts that have jurisdiction in this country all play by the same rules, the constitution. If you are going to try anyone in this country then all civil / criminal rights apply irregardless of nationality or citizenship. This is for criminal prosecutions of violations of the criminal codes, State and Federal. The courts will not allow an exception for the constitutional rights of a foriegn national being ignored.

Happens that illegal aliens have rights same as citizens under the law. There are exceptions given excacerbating circumstances and laws dealing with being an illeagle alien only. In other words, no other criminal conduct other than lack of visa etc. for the offender.

 

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Maverick:
Happens that illegal aliens have rights same as citizens under the law. There are exceptions given excacerbating circumstances and laws dealing with being an illeagle alien only. In other words, no other criminal conduct other than lack of visa etc. for the offender.

The distinction you've made is equality in the court rooms.  This doesn't necessarily correspond to equality of standards (e.g. the various definitions of terrorism) or of non-trial rights (interrogation, due process).  I think the big distinction in the anti-terrorism bill was detention without arrest.

On all other points I defer to the experts.    However, a strict constitutional reading provides no prima facie evidence that constitutional rights extend to foreign nationals.  Congress possesses nearly total power over the administration, formation, and organization of federal courts other than the Supreme Court (and even then they have great control over the non-explicit jurisdiction of the SC).  It therefore seems to me that Congress ultimately controls whether or not constitutional rights extend to foreign nationals.  If there's no explicit law providing for this, there must be a Supreme Court decision that codifies it.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[easymo]

In Vietnam, just the suggestion that we might turn POW's over to the South Vietnamese for interrogation had a very favorable effect on the enemies willingness to talk.

  If I were Saudi, and it was suggested that I would be returned to my countrymen for questioning.  I would have to rethink my position

[capt. apathy]

i see nothing wrong with using 'truth serum' on prisoners of war,  that is what they are, right?

[-dead-]

Guess Capt. Apathy never heard of the Geneva convention...

 

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.


Article 17

Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.

And

Article 99

No prisoner of war may be tried or sentenced for an act which is not forbidden by the law of the Detaining Power or by international law, in force at the time the said act was committed.

No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused.

No prisoner of war may be convicted without having had an opportunity to present his defence and the assistance of a qualified advocate or counsel.

 

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Hangtime:

If it's decided that inerrogations using babble juice are illegal in this country, lets put the detainees on a plane to some place it ain't and ask the questions there.

There you go, dangle em out the door until we get the answers we are looking for.

then cut the cord and send them to Allah and their pile of virgins...

show them as much mercy as they showed the ppl in the WTC.

Fight Fire with Fire .. not more PC BS