Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Do you support the use of torture to obtain evidence for prosecution ?
Yes 1 (8.3%)
No 11 (91.7%)
Total Votes: 12
Use of torture by USA
Topic Started: Dec 3 2004, 11:59 PM (293 Views)
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
US allows use of evidence gained by torture
Quote:
 
US military review panels can use evidence obtained through torture in deciding the fate of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the US Government has conceded.

Lawyers acting for Australian detainees in Cuba have called on the Australian Government to renounce the practice.

About 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled evidence gained through torture was inadmissible.

Deputy associate Attorney-General, Brian Boyle, has told the District Court in Washington DC, that the Guantanamo review panels are allowing such evidence.

Two Australians, Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks, are being held at Guantanamo Bay.

The lawyer for Australian detainee David Hicks, Stephen Kenny, says Saddam Hussein's regime was criticised for human rights abuses against defectors and the US Government should not be using the same tactics in the trial of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

"For the Americans to start saying they'll do this, essentially what they are doing is behaving as a third world dictatorship and frankly is a very great concern," he said.

Mr Kenny says the decision is more proof that his client will not get a fair trial in Guantanamo Bay.

He is again calling on the Australian Government to bring Hicks home and allow him to defend himself against allegations of war crimes before an Australian court.

The Federal Government has so far declined to comment on the matter.

Rules of evidence

The US military lawyer appointed to defend Hicks says the Australian Government should do more to ensure his client gets a fair trial.

Major Michael Mori says Hicks will not get a fair trial before the Commission and the Australian Government is not doing anything about it. He says there must be rules of evidence.

"This Military Commission system is designed to allow evidence that could have been obtained under torture to be used as evidence against people," he said.

"Rules of evidence and procedures have been designed to keep uncredible evidence out and credible evidence in".

Maj Mori, in Melbourne for a seminar on legal tactics, says Australia should protest against the Commission process like Britain has and hold an inquiry into its legal standards.

Michael Ratner, a human right lawyer with the Centre for Constitutional Rights, says he was shocked by the Bush administration's admission.

"Never in my 30 years of being a human rights lawyer would I ever expected to be in the state that we've arrived at," he said.

Mr Ratner says the admission amounts to a tacit acceptance of torture.

"You're saying to another country or another place, torture people and we'll just use the product of it," he said.

He says the Howard Government must condemn torture and the use of evidence produced from it.

This week the International Committee of the Red Cross accused the US military of using tactics "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, a claim the Pentagon rejects.

Torture evidence

Mr Boyle's comments came during suits brought by some Guantanamo prisoners challenging their detention without charges.

At the hearing, Mr Boyle urged District Judge Richard J Leon to throw out the cases.

Lawyers for the detainees argued that some were being held only on evidence gained by torture.

Judge Leon asked Mr Boyle if detention based solely on evidence gained by torture would be illegal, because "torture is illegal, we all know that".

Mr Boyle answered that the if the US military panels "determine that evidence of questionable provenance were reliable, nothing in the due process clause (of the Constitution) prohibits them from relying on it".

He added that torture was against US policy and any allegations of it would be "forwarded through command channels for military discipline".

"I don't think anything remotely like torture has occurred at Guantanamo."

Earlier this week, Mr Boyle argued in a similar hearing that the detainees "have no constitutional rights enforceable in this court".



Disturbing.

But not surprising with Bush and Rumsfeld in power.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Personal Response

Because of the way your poll was worded, I couldn't answer it.

Certainly I would not support the use of torture to gain information for prosecution.

However, the article you posted isn't discussing that. It is discussing the use of information gained by torture committed by others. It doesn't, however, define torture.

Given that some of the same groups refuse to characterize people who murder children as terrorists, should we trust their definition of torture?

Do I think information a female interogator gains from asking a man questions should be used in prosecution? Absolutely, because I do not define a woman asking a man questions as torture. However, some groups have done just that.

Therefore, without a common or universal definition of the word torture, it is impossible to respond to a question as to whether information gained through the use of the undefined word torture should be allowed.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
^^^^^^^
Could not put it better my self.


somerled I think you aught to head the wisdom I gave you last night and not allow your unmistakable infallible ridged interpretations of the world cloud your judgment.


Did you mistakenly on purpose forget to put “other” in this poll as well?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
^^^
Perhaps a moderator or administration could rephrase this poll to better reflect the article?

Addendum:

Link: SisterTrek Topic: "How Far is Too Far?"

In the above cited link there is another link to the PBS program "Uncommon Knowledge" in which this type of hypothetical discussion takes place.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
For Swidden
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
Swidden
Dec 4 2004, 01:11 AM
^^^
Perhaps a moderator or administration could rephrase this poll to better reflect the article?

The community has decided against such action. (disclaimer, this does not mean the Admin will not change polls as it sees fight, just that this particular poll is benign enough to allow the ability to listen to the community on this matter)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
I refrained from editorialising the poll. My views are well enough known on this anyway - even if some here disagree with my views.

The fact is that torture has been used (and I wont define torture - we all know what it is and those who don't can easily find out for themselves), and a discussion of the definition of torture has been done here already anyway.
Also any fresh discussion (as a tangent to this thread) would only act as distraction for the appologists or hardliners who support this abhorent process.
Also it matters not the mechanism for applying torture - outsourced or by directly by the USA or her representatives.

The fact is that the Bush administration wants evidence obtained under torture to be admissible despite long standing conventions and laws.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
somerled
Dec 4 2004, 01:40 AM
I refrained from editorialising the poll. My views are well enough known on this anyway - even if some here disagree with my views.

The fact is that torture has been used (and I wont define torture - we all know what it is and those who don't can easily find out for themselves), and a discussion of the definition of torture has been done here already anyway.
Also any fresh discussion (as a tangent to this thread) would only act as distraction for the appologists or hardliners who support this abhorent process.
Also it matters not the mechanism for applying torture - outsourced or by directly by the USA or her representatives.

The fact is that the Bush administration wants evidence obtained under torture to be admissible despite long standing conventions and laws.

As Wichita has explained nicely the world torture is subjective, with out the bases of what is considering torture in the article (or in your poll), it means nothing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dandandat
Dec 4 2004, 02:09 AM
somerled
Dec 4 2004, 01:40 AM
I refrained from editorialising the poll. My views are well enough known on this anyway - even if some here disagree with my views.

The fact is that torture has been used (and I wont define torture - we all know what it is and those who don't can easily find out for themselves), and a discussion of the definition of torture has been done here already anyway.
Also any fresh discussion (as a tangent to this thread) would only act as distraction for the appologists or hardliners who support this abhorent process.
Also it matters not the mechanism for applying torture - outsourced or by directly by the USA or her representatives.

The fact is that the Bush administration wants evidence obtained under torture to be admissible despite long standing conventions and laws.

As Wichita has explained nicely the world torture is subjective, with out the bases of what is considering torture in the article (or in your poll), it means nothing.

Sure it's a subjective word , and has very emotive connotations.

However - we have all been following developments and we all know the kinds of things we are talking about when torture , especially outsourced torture , is mentioned , so for some of us to claim they don't is nonsense.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
somerled
Dec 4 2004, 06:40 AM
I refrained from editorialising the poll. My views are well enough known on this anyway - even if some here disagree with my views.

The fact is that torture has been used (and I wont define torture - we all know what it is and those who don't can easily find out for themselves), and a discussion of the definition of torture has been done here already anyway.
Also any fresh discussion (as a tangent to this thread) would only act as distraction for the appologists or hardliners who support this abhorent process.
Also it matters not the mechanism for applying torture - outsourced or by directly by the USA or her representatives.

The fact is that the Bush administration wants evidence obtained under torture to be admissible despite long standing conventions and laws.

Personal Response

Since you were so pleasant in your response to me, Somerled ... :rolleyes:

The example I used - a man being questioned by a woman constitutes torture - is a real one from lists of examples of "torture".

(sarcasm on) So, based on your comments, I see that you agree that a woman having a job that involves guarding, questioning or even being visible to a man being questioned about his activities constitutes torture. Basically you believe that women should be forbidden to have any job than involves her having any control whatsoever over a man because he would be "tortured" by the experience.

In fact, you probably agree than women should not be permitted to be around men unless they are covered from head to toe by fabric, should not be permitted to drive, and should not be permitted to be seen in public unless accompanied by their husband (permitted to beat her at will) or brothers (permitted to kill her if she threatens the family honor).

Fond of this as well?

(/sarcasm off)

As I recall, the even the British has been accused of some pretty evil activity in terms of how they have treated prisoners in the relatively recent past. For months some people have demanded that the US cooperate MORE with countries to gain information and make the war on terror more like a police investigation and have been damming them pretty hard for not doing so.

Now you want us to inverstigate and evaluate the processes of every country in the world and only use the information provided by those countries who will use methods that do not include "torture" - when they include in the definition of "torture", among other things" allowing women to guard or question the prisoner? Yeah, that will work :rolleyes:

The first time the US questions the methods used by another country to gather information we will be again accused of interfering with their sovereignty and of wanting to invade them or something.

Even the UN kept a man on payroll who was accused of personally committing genocide in Rwanda and others who have sexually assaulted people under their care. Should we trust the methods of the French who recently fired on crowds in the Ivory Coast - on TWO different occasions?

Tell me which countries employ only methods that never make anyone's lists of what constitutes "torture". Save us some all time.

BTW, my guess is that Australia would not qualify based on the lists that I have seen.

End of Personal Response

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Quote:
 
(sarcasm on) So, based on your comments, I see that you agree that a woman having a job that involves guarding, questioning or even being visible to a man being questioned about his activities constitutes torture. Basically you believe that women should be forbidden to have any job than involves her having any control whatsoever over a man because he would be "tortured" by the experience.

In fact, you probably agree than women should not be permitted to be around men unless they are covered from head to toe by fabric, should not be permitted to drive, and should not be permitted to be seen in public unless accompanied by their husband (permitted to beat her at will) or brothers (permitted to kill her if she threatens the family honor).

Fond of this as well? Link removed  :(  :sick:

(/sarcasm off)


Where (and when) did I say or infer the above ?

Quote:
 
As I recall, the even the British has been accused of some pretty evil activity in terms of how they have treated prisoners in the relatively recent past. For months some people have demanded that the US cooperate MORE with countries to gain information and make the war on terror more like a police investigation and have been damming them pretty hard for not doing so.

Yes they have and that is a separate issue and a distraction.

Who is claiming the moral high ground , places like Egypt, etc , surely not , but it is the USA who frequently claims the high ground , and who claims they are justified , yet still want to engage in this repugnant means of extracting information , confessions and admissions of guilt ?

Surely you are not trying to downplay the significance of applying techniques that have been outlawed and if they were carried against a group of Americans would be regarded as a war crime (very loudly) by the very same administration who has used it and wants information gathered by it to be acceptable.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Define "torture" for me.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
I voted "no". While I agree that torture needs to be defined, I also believe that once a reasonable effort was put forth to do so, it would inevitably include things that I would not agree should be allowed.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ImpulseEngine
Dec 4 2004, 11:19 AM
I voted "no". While I agree that torture needs to be defined, I also believe that once a reasonable effort was put forth to do so, it would inevitably include things that I would not agree should be allowed.

Of course I agree with this statement, but I will wait until the definition is given before I vote.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Might not be an issue that is considered serious of news worthy in the USA , but it is here.
Labor accuses Govt of condoning torture
Quote:
 
The Federal Government is under pressure to condemn the possible use of evidence obtained by torture in the United States military commissions taking place at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

A court in Washington hearing an appeal by Guantanamo detainees has been told that the US military panels may use such evidence.

The Federal Government says that while torture is inappropriate, it has no intention of fighting plans by the US Government to use the evidence.

Australia's Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says that while such evidence is not an accepted part of civilian trials, it can be used in military trials.

"We've always known that that was the approach in the military trial arrangements," he said.

Opposition legal affairs spokeswoman Nicola Roxson says the use of such evidence condones torture.

"I think it does and I think it highlights the reason that in Western countries like Australia, and in the ordinary American civilian system, would not allow material to be used in court when it's been obtained from torture because that gives it some weight, gives it some credibility, as an indication that the state says that this is acceptable material to use," she said.

Ms Roxson says it is wrong to condemn torture, but then talk about how evidence obtained through it can be used.

"It's inappropriate but we still want to go on and talk about how it can be used. I don't think you can have it both ways," she said.

"This is something that all Australians would be concerned about. I am quite astounded Mr Ruddock is not being stronger on this issue."

Lawyers acting for Australian detainees in Cuba have called for the Government to renounce the practice.

Two Australians, Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks, are being held at Guantanamo Bay.

The lawyer for Hicks, Stephen Kenny, says the US Government's plan to use evidence resulting from torture will hamper any chance of a fair trial.

"If you want to try people, give them the proper protection, give them the same rights you give your own citizens and put them before a proper court and give them a chance to defend themselves," he said.

"Don't take them to a place where you're trying to hide them beyond the rule of law, which is what they did in Guantanamo Bay."

Mr Kenny has again called on the Australian Government to bring Hicks home and allow him to defend himself against allegations of war crimes before an Australian court.

About 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled evidence gained through torture was inadmissible.

But the US deputy associate Attorney-General, Brian Boyle, has told the District Court in Washington DC that the Guantanamo review panels are allowing such evidence.

This week the International Committee of the Red Cross accused the US military of using tactics "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, a claim the Pentagon rejects.

The brits objected, as did other allies. But Howard has chosen not to object.

I am curious - is this matter being discussed in US media ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus