Waterboarding is, in fact, torture
Jan. 15th, 2009 06:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriquehttp://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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-01-16 08:26 am (UTC)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.