Waterboarding is, in fact, torture

[sobrique]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7825902.stm

Ok, so the news tonight - apparantly, interrogating someone by partially drowning them whilst they're restrained _is_ actually torture, after all.

NO FUCKING SHIT SHERLOCK.

Ok, that's somewhat unfair - Mr. Obama hasn't been at the reins until now. But really. How can so many turn a blind eye to such a thing?

And as for the other part? Well, they're not quite sure what to do with the people still in Guantanamo bay.
"We're going to get it done, but part of the challenge that you have is that you have got a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication."

I have a suggestion. It's not fucking rocket science. How about: Put them on trial, if you have the bits you need. Y'know, like er. Evidence. A charge. That kind of thing.

And if you don't? Let them go.
Both the US Constitution and the European convention on human rights agree - that a man is innocent until you've proven him guilty, and doing so in front of a proper jury is the way that's done.

Why do we consider these things optional?

I mean, don't get me wrong - I still don't think 'rights' are automatic. I don't think you have a right to anything at all implicitly granted just for existing. That makes it all the more important though. NO ONE is going to hand you 'human rights', you have to stand up and demand them. For you, for me, and for those poor sods who've been languishing in guantanamo for years with neither charge nor trial, and who have subject to ... well, clearly it cannot be _torture_ because they legal definition was checked and everything. But ... wait. No. FUCK OFF. Interrogating someone under duress is torture. I don't care how you want to weasel the words and the definition. IT. IS. WRONG.

How about we add a new thing to the definition of 'torture'. "If you have to ask a lawyer whether the thing you're doing is torture or not, THEN IT IS".

But anyway. Well done Mr. Obama. This is going in the right direction. You have government inertia to push forwards, but at least it seems you have the right idea.

Comments

[cbr-paul.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking of starting a sweepstake in work: how many Presidential pardons will Bush issue to the high-ranking members of his administration between now and 12:00 Tuesday?
Closest one takes the pot!

[malal.livejournal.com]

How about: Put them on trial

That takes time in the best of circumstances (time between arrest & trial is what, months? Best part of a year?). Considering the cluster fuck being held in Guantanamo is likely to do to their paperwork, it's going to be a while before they're either sentenced or free.

At least, that's what I hope he means by that comment.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

If the do not have that paperwork ready, right now, after ... however long it's been then summary release is in order.

[malal.livejournal.com]

They still think the inmates are guilty of some pretty severe crimes (and a good portion of them may well be). Not even Obama's going to let them go without trial, and frankly, I'm not sure he should*. They need to have charge hearings for them formally ASAP.**

* "You've been punished enough, you were tortured" Is a Really Nasty Precedent, and one I don't want to see. As the iceberg tip, it really weakens the "Multiple GBH with intent" or "Conspiracy to commit GBH" cases that really really should be whacked on everyone involved. If you make the slightest hint that you've 'legitimised' that form of punishment like this, the top flight defense they have will see them walk free.

** I expect most cases can't stick. Some might. But since one of the big issues here is due process has been shat on, you need to follow due process when fixing it.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

If they're guilty of some pretty server crimes, the let them by all means, stand 'em before a jury. I'm not going to dispute that.
But if they cannot make the case NOW after having these guys detained for _years_ then they should just let them walk.

Also if the case they can prove/try them for carries a lower sentence than they've already served, then they should let them walk.

'You have been punished enough' I feel _is_ legitimate - torturing prisoners is unacceptable, and if people lose the right to actually 'bring justice' as a result of torturing their prisoners, then that's surely as good an argument against them doing it ever again?

Not legitimising the punishment, as pointing out the inherent illegitimacy of any trial where that sort of thing has happened to the chain of evidence. You get a mistrial if you've digitally altered a photo. You should as sure as hell get a mistrial and acquital if you've tortured the prisoner.

[malal.livejournal.com]

If they're guilty of some pretty server crimes, the let them by all means, stand 'em before a jury. I'm not going to dispute that.
But if they cannot make the case NOW after having these guys detained for _years_ then they should just let them walk.

The big problem with this, is it's going to be a mess. There's no way in hell anybody currently running that place can be allowed anywhere near the shut down process, so you'll need a new set of people to go in, gather evidence (mainly of the GBH), find out who the hell the prisoners are, why they are held, where they come from, etc. Chance of the previous camp boss burning all paperwork? High.

Though shifting these people out of the camp into a police holding cell while you do this ASAP would be a really good idea.

'You have been punished enough' I feel _is_ legitimate - torturing prisoners is unacceptable, and if people lose the right to actually 'bring justice' as a result of torturing their prisoners, then that's surely as good an argument against them doing it ever again?

No. Hypothetical situation: You have an unrepentant serial killer, with multiple life sentences. A few years down the line, he comes up with hard evidence that his prison guards have actually been torturing him. Are you actually going to let him walk because of it? Fuck no.

Also, carry on down that line, and everybody who receives the death penalty should get a posthumous pardon.

You should as sure as hell get a mistrial and acquital if you've tortured the prisoner.

If it's part of the chain of evidence, yes. If not, then it's a separate criminal act and has no bearing.

[mapp.livejournal.com]

"Ok, so the news tonight - apparantly, interrogating someone by partially drowning them whilst they're restrained _is_ actually torture, after all."

You might be interested to learn that water-boarding was used by the Portugese and Spanish Inquisitions, and was listed as one of the acts of torture that was cited as a reason for why the Inquisition should be disbanded. So there you go!

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Quite.

But really, I'm not entirely sure how the CIA got away with pretending it 'was ok'.

[mapp.livejournal.com]

It says a lot that they got away with it for so long too. One can only assume that the authorities within the United States that could have ordered the practice stopped felt that it was okay, which makes me a bit scared about the kind of people who're in power.

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

They havn't read the history of the Spanish Inquisition?

[cbr-paul.livejournal.com]

It's because nobody expects it!






Sorry... :)

[cthulahoops.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, I can see why shutting down Guantanamo is easier said that done. What do you do with anyone you release? They aren't US citizens so you have to determine whether they can be safely deported, or whether they'll face further torture. Some may be entitled to asylum in the US. Anyone you charge in a civilian court will get a pretty much automatic mistrial, if a court is willing to accept jurisdiction at all, followed by lucrative suing of the federal government for damages.

So, a little bit of time has to be allowed to untangle the mess.

[malal.livejournal.com]

This.

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

Lets see, these people are not on US soil, so I wonder where they will be tried and under who's rules??/

Given that these people have mostly been *extradited* in vaguely leagaly grey (mostly black) way and tortured by their "benevolent" captors I wonder how much of their "statements" would be admissible in a western court???

Have to prove that their crime is more than just being "muslim in a war against mus... er "terror" warzone...

Not that I am cynical or anything....

[malal.livejournal.com]

What I would Love to see (but likely never will, alas), is Bush, Cheny, and anyone else in that government involved being tried for whatever charges "Getting someone tortured" involves.

Maybe in Obama's second term? :-/