Interrogations of Detainees

[GRUNHERZ]

Terrorists are not soldiers. They are spies, traitors and or saboteurs. They should be treated in a highly uncivilized manner. I dont remember Osama ever signing the Geneva convention.


And remember anyone who criticizes the USA now is showing their true colors as an enemy and hater of this country and all the good things we stand for. We will remember.

[Seeker]

"And remember anyone who criticizes the USA now is showing their true colors as an enemy and hater of this country and all the good things we stand for. We will remember."

You really are completly off your trolley.

I'm surprised you can remember your own name.

[capt. apathy]

And remember anyone who criticizes the USA now is showing their true colors as an enemy and hater of this country and all the good things we stand for. We will remember.
 

when the day comes that we are not free to criticize this country, there will be nothing about this country worth  defending.

[Pongo]

Times they are a changeing.
This discussion shows that the meaning of the word "War" is now open for discussion.
The perps of this attack would never in a million years consider themselves bound by the rules of the Geneva convention.
So they are not protected by it.
The geneva convention is not a decleration of inaliable human rights..It is a "convention" aggreed to by signitures as to how they will wage war on each other.

It is also just as clear I believe as to what constitutes a soldier and what doensnt.
Maybe someone can dig that up.

[-dead-]

The Geneva Convention certainly doesn't apply to terrorists.

Here's the articles defining POWs in full - the italics show the "terrorists aren't covered" bits.

 

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
 

However before we pump all the suspects full of truth serum, a quick look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might be advisable:

 

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11
1 Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2 No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.  

And we should probably take into account 2 more things:
1. Truth serums aren't very good - you have no guarantee they're telling the truth. Likewise with torture - you can get them to say anything you like, but it doesn't make it true.

2. Allowing truth serums, torture & imprisonment without a trial for one type of criminal is a quick way of getting rid of everyone's rights. It makes it very easy for a government to get rid of anyone they don't like: simply accuse the person of being a terrorist (remember - for an interrogation you don't need to have any real evidence whatsoever: you're gathering the evidence), torture/dope them until they confess & then execute them. Or just keep them in prison indefinitely, and avoid a messy trial.
Sure, that's a worse case scenario - but it would all be above board & legal. So spare a thought for yourselves before you clamour for terrorists to be tortured and truth serumed - because it might be you who's in the interrogation room next.

[Gunthr]

There is no problem with torturing terrorist suspects for information, ethically or legally, as long as the information isn't for use in a US court of law.

[osage]

I read of one instance where an Islamic terrorist was being leaned on pretty hard to divulge information.  I forget which country this was in.  They did some pretty bad toejam to him but he wouldn't crack.  One tough nut.

However when they brought him to the airport and informed him they were sending him to Israel for further "enquiries" he shat himself and babbled nonstop, telling them everything they wanted to know.

I say let the Russians or the Israelis have a crack at 'em.  Americans just don't seem scary enough when it comes to torture.

[Pongo]

The real question is this.

A nuke is in the US somewhere.

The CIA is holding 3 guys that have a strong chance of knowing where...

Do they ask nice or not.....

I think I know what would happen. I think I aggree with it.
I dont think there is a piece of paper any where in the world that could stop it from happening.

[-dead-]

Point accepted Pongo, and it no doubt happens, and I don't want any nukes going off anywhere.
However, it still seems a rather tougher ethical question for me, because life usually isn't as easy and clear cut as your scenario - it would actually be more likely that they don't know for certain there's a nuclear bomb at all, they don't know for certain the 3 guys know where it is (if it exists), or even they don't know for certain the 3 guys have done anything wrong.
And even if they do - how do we know they know this? How do we know that suspect #3 really is a terrorist at all and not just someone Agent #2 found in bed with his wife? Or a journalist who was about to expose the CIA for selling drugs to buy arms for some South American guerilla army?
The whole human rights thing is unfortunately a whole heap trickier than your scenario suggests, and made even more tricky by the secrecy needed to provide good counter-terrorist intel - because if you torture the wrong guy, what recourse does he have? Who is accountable? It is far easier for the CIA to deny all knowledge and dismiss the guy as a nutter or just kill him (he had a heart condition - we didn't know) -any files will not be released for decades, if ever [classified for reasons of National Security].

Which brings us to Gunthr's comment

 

There is no problem with torturing terrorist suspects for information, ethically or legally, as long as the information isn't for use in a US court of law.  

Gunthr - I have to ask this: who would you exempt from being suspected of terrorism? How, and who decides who is a terrorist or a suspected terrorist and who isn't?
As far as I see it, any law enforcemnet agency trying to stop terrorism has to be able to consider any- and everybody as a terrorist suspect in order to be effective, and so you might as well say:
"There is no problem with torturing US citizens or foreign nationals for information, ethically or legally, as long as the information isn't for use in a US court of law."

Sounds like a very scary country to live in to me.  
Indeed a good test for how totalitarian these sorts of statements sound is to replace the word "terrorist" with the words "enemies of the Communist party" and "US" with "China", and then see if you can still back it as justifiable.

"There is no problem with torturing enemies of the Communist party for information, ethically or legally, as long as the information isn't for use in a Chinese court of law."
Still sound OK? Sounds like a front page shock-horror story to me: "Evil commies violate human rights again"  

[Gunthr]

Sorry Dead, I shouldn't have used the word "suspect". I meant known terrorists.

And remember, there is a war going on. I'll give an illustration:

Lets say that a subject is pulled over while driving a van containing part of a crude nuclear device, headed to NYC. The subject is middle eastern, in the country illegally, and already suspected to be involved in previous terrorist acts. He could be subject to torture if he refuses to give information as to his organization, the whereabouts of the other componants of the nuclear device, etc.

If anyone is overly concerned about being tortured, maybe they should refrain from transporting a nuclear device, or other weapons of mass destruction. We have a responsibility here, to innocent men, women and children in this country.

Again, I don't believe that mere "suspects" should be subject to torture.

I believe that in war, known terrorists who target innocent civilians should be subject to drugs/torture to develope information.

In my original post, I am saying that, as far as I know, use of torture and/drugs under these specific circumstances do not violate the laws and constitution of the USA, unless the attempt is made to use such information in a US court of law.

I hope I've made myself clear. I'm as horrified as anyone by the harsh realities brought about by terrorist's willingness to attack and kill innocent people en masse.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Gunthr ]

[1776]

Originally posted by 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?

Take them on a curise with the CIA funded by donations of US citizens.  I'm sure Dizzney would supply the ship

At 12 miles pump them with the babble juice.  No Constitution at 12 miles and they can gamble too.

Now, who is going to start this quality 501c3???  I have my check book open and a pen filled with ink

[Gunthr]

No Constitution at 12 miles and they can gamble too.

LOL, that cracks me up...  

[Pongo]

Dead
very good reply.
I dont want to live in a country that uses torture to achieve its means. But really my scenario while not exaustive is realistic. You can put up scenarios that are not so clear cut if you like. But my point is made by the clear cut one.
Yes or no. Do we condone the torture or serume use on these three known terrorists to find out where they have hidden a nuke.
I deliberatly made it a black and white issue. Because I assume that there are people who would not preasure or coerce the info from our three heros no matter the cost.

[midnight Target]

Those who would trade Liberty for Security deserve neither - Benjamin Franklin

What we need is some "Stan" remover.