Comments on: Fighting terror with terror is bad policy (duh) http://www.theartofthepossible.net/2008/02/14/fighting-terror-with-terror-is-bad-policy-duh/ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:37:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Mona http://www.theartofthepossible.net/2008/02/14/fighting-terror-with-terror-is-bad-policy-duh/#comment-19 Mona Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:46:01 +0000 http://www.theartofthepossible.net/?p=21#comment-19 Paige: Well, yes, the MCA is an abomination. My point was only that, so far, evidence extracted by torture has not been permitted. Certainly not in criminal trials. How military tribunals will now handle "coerced" interrogations is likely revolting, in light of the MCA. A statute which needs to be repealed, if the Democrats only had any guts. Paige:

Well, yes, the MCA is an abomination. My point was only that, so far, evidence extracted by torture has not been permitted. Certainly not in criminal trials.

How military tribunals will now handle “coerced” interrogations is likely revolting, in light of the MCA. A statute which needs to be repealed, if the Democrats only had any guts.

]]> By: Paige http://www.theartofthepossible.net/2008/02/14/fighting-terror-with-terror-is-bad-policy-duh/#comment-16 Paige Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:22:46 +0000 http://www.theartofthepossible.net/?p=21#comment-16 I came across an article on the six detainees in this week's Economist and I think it sums things up well. Here's a passage: "Beginning in 2006, a 'clean team' worked to re-extract the relevant information, without torture. But it is rather hard to un-coerce anybody." In addition, Congress' Military Commissions Act "allows statements 'in which the degree of coercion is disputed' to be admitted in some cases." Considering detainees will probably not be present at their own trials to testify on how much 'coercion' was used for any given statement, I'm thinking most admissions will be fair game. http:www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10697113 I came across an article on the six detainees in this week’s Economist and I think it sums things up well.
Here’s a passage: “Beginning in 2006, a ‘clean team’ worked to re-extract the relevant information, without torture. But it is rather hard to un-coerce anybody.” In addition, Congress’ Military Commissions Act “allows statements ‘in which the degree of coercion is disputed’ to be admitted in some cases.” Considering detainees will probably not be present at their own trials to testify on how much ‘coercion’ was used for any given statement, I’m thinking most admissions will be fair game.
http:www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10697113

]]> By: Mona http://www.theartofthepossible.net/2008/02/14/fighting-terror-with-terror-is-bad-policy-duh/#comment-12 Mona Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:06:52 +0000 http://www.theartofthepossible.net/?p=21#comment-12 <blockquote>The fact is, our government holds prisoners in secretive conditions, without legal recourse, and uses torture to extract desperate admissions <b>which can then be used against them.</b></blockquote> Great post, and I agree, except for the bolded part. To my knowledge no victim of U.S. torture has had evidence extracted thereby used against him in a criminal or military trial.

The fact is, our government holds prisoners in secretive conditions, without legal recourse, and uses torture to extract desperate admissions which can then be used against them.

Great post, and I agree, except for the bolded part. To my knowledge no victim of U.S. torture has had evidence extracted thereby used against him in a criminal or military trial.

]]>