Posted on 12/03/2004 12:10:55 AM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON -- U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of foreigners as enemy combatants are allowed to use evidence gained by torture in deciding whether to keep them imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the government conceded in court Thursday.The acknowledgment by Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Boyle came during a U.S. District Court hearing on lawsuits brought by some of the 550 foreigners imprisoned at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The lawsuits challenge their detention without charges for up to three years so far.
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."
U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon asked if a detention would be illegal if it were based solely on evidence gathered by torture, because "torture is illegal. We all know that."
Boyle replied that if the military's combatant status review tribunals (or CSRTs) "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 if there were any restrictions on using evidence produced by torture.
Boyle replied the United States would never 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.
Evidence Based on Torture
Evidence based on torture is not admissible in U.S. courts. "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 if 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 CSRT panels, composed of three military officers, usually colonels or lieutenant colonels, were set up after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the detainees could ask U.S. courts to see to it that they had a proceeding in which to challenge their detention. They have finished reviewing the status of 440 of the prisoners 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 and the detainee lawsuits should be thrown out.
Noting that detainees cannot have lawyers at the CSRT proceedings and cannot see any secret evidence against them, attorney Wes Powell argued "there is no meaningful opportunity in the CSRTs to rebut the government's claims."
Leon asked, however, "if the judiciary puts its nose into this, won't that lead us into reviewing decisions about who to target and even into the adequacy of information supporting the decision to seize a person?"
Leon said he thought an earlier Supreme Court ruling would limit judges to checking only on whether detention orders were lawfully issued and detention review panels were legally established.
Leon and Judge Joyce Hens Green, who held another hearing Wednesday on detainees' rights, said they will try to rule soon on whether the 59 detainees can proceed with their lawsuits.
Ok so now the bar is set at what is Tantamount to Torture, not what is actually torture.... Next week its what is virtually torture...
It was reported elsewhere that the red cross claims merely holding these terrorists without telling them how long they will be held for is torture.
Where was that claim during world war II? Korea? Vietnam?
The International Committee of the Red Cross always ready to Criticise the US about the Fair Treatment of Prisnors, but rarely do they ever intercede on behalf of American Prisnors. Why is this double standard for our troops allowed to go on.
Why hasn't the ICRC ever protested against the treatment of the men at the Hanoi Hilton, Korea, Russia. The ICRC would be well advised to mind their own European Business! How about we just tell the ICRC that: We will treat these prisnors as they the rest of the world have treated our troops when they were held prisnor and the world be damned!!
I bet the would cry like babies if we told them that!!!
It is wrong to detain suspects based on evidence obtained through torture alone.
I advocate tough interrogation methods, but torture is torture. I dont buy this Red Cross tantamount to torture nonsense by the way.
Torture sounds good.....Just about the same as 3000 Americans had to go through......
Where was that claim when the half dozen or so real (American)prisoners of war from the first Gulf War disappeared into Saddam's torture system?
As to the International Red Cross, it should be asked to leave US soil permanently, and any US funding directly and indirectly, stopped ASAP.
If the evidence can be corroborated, it doesn't matter how it was obtained.
The lame implied argument is that, under torture, men will confess to anything (presumably randomly). What are the chances that a half dozen conspirators will confess to the exact same (fictional) planned atrocity?
Let's not even start on the "if you are able to prevent it, how can you prove that it was really planned" routine.
If illegal combatants are found anywhere, my choice would be to shoot them on the spot as allowed by all international laws, but if not killing them allows the prevention of additional atrocities, no means are off limits.
Agreed, torture is wrong -- period. Still, I was impressed with the line above:
"...including a female interrogator who removed her blouse during questioning."
"If this is torture, chain me to the wall!"
-- Oliver & Company
Really!!
"Hey, let's not be right-wing fanatics here. Let's be for "choice". Mr. Unlawful Combatant, you have a choice. We can execute you or you can go to Gitmo. Bet "tantamount to torture" looks pretty good now huh?"
I'll do you one better. I've been saying for over 2 1/2 years (since the Afghan War hit it's stride) that I truly believe that EACH and EVERY slimeball being held at Gitmo should be lined up against a wall and shot. I have 0% patience and compassion for Islamist murderers who kill innocent Americans in the name of their god. I don't want my taxpayer dollars going to feed them and clothe them, and I sure as HELL don't want my money going to help pay for their defense. I would, however, be willing to pay for the bullets should America ever regain our senses and decide to put holes in these f___ers skulls.
Those 550 aren't there for no reason you know, and they aren't "political prisoners" like the MSM and the "Rachel Corrie's" (you know what I mean) of the world make them out to be-- they are TERRORISTS, and they would kill you, me, our families, and any other infidel that crosses their path with Pleasure.
They will claim that being denied a gun by which to kill their Marine guards is "tantamount to torture".
Natch. Torture is horribly unreliable. The tortured will tell the torturer whatever it is he/she thinks will stop the torture. The truth has no bearing at all. The most innocent of people will confess to the most heinous of crimes after enough torture.
I would agree with you if I knew for certain that "EVERY slimeball" at Gitmo as you put it, was indeed guilty. However, I don't, so I can't. It's really that simple.
I'd imagine that a female interrogator removing her blouse would be unbearable torture for a Muslim. (/sarcasm)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.