home

Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture?

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:31:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Guantanamo military tribunals are underway. It seems that evidence obtained under torture will be admissible. Why? It has to do with the definition of torture. If it's not akin to putting a red hot needle in the prisoner's eye, it may not be torture. One of the hearing officers said:

Colonel Peter Brownback declined to commit to a blanket ban on evidence obtained as a result of torture. "What you and I mean by torture could be different," Brownback told defense lawyer Major Tom Fleener.

He said "a red-hot needle in the eye" constitutes torture but was not ready to commit to a prohibition in advance of the trial. "My personal belief is that torture is not good," he added. But he said it would depend on the circumstances and how the prosecution presented the evidence.

Two lawyers from Human Rights First are in Guantanamo observing the proceedings and blogging here.

< Katrina Tapes Speak for Themselves | Teaching the Constitution >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? | 13 comments (13 topical)
    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Punchy on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 10:47:54 AM EST
    Why is this argument even taking place? We DON'T torture. We don't. Bush said so. So why the military even considering this "blanket ban"????

    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Al on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:27:07 AM EST
    FTA:
    After the hearing, US officers confirmed that the rules written for the newly created military tribunals, or commissions, left the question open. The rules also allow for hearsay evidence and other exceptions to standard US and international legal norms.
    Asked about evidence secured through coercion, a spokeswoman for the military tribunals said the issue would be addressed by the officers presiding over each trial.
    What a farce. The tribunals are bound by no rules, but they are free to make up the rules as they go along. Remember, this is being done with your tax dollars.

    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:55:33 AM EST
    He said "a red-hot needle in the eye" constitutes torture
    But a room-temp needle in the eye does not. Sheesh, people, what's the big deal? We clearly need to set arbitrary, yet flexible definitions of torture here, because torturing people is in the best interests of America! I mean, if you can't trust the Bush Administration, who can you trust?

    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    Is it torture if you yell at a prisoner all day? Troll alert. My stupid meter just red lined.

    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#6)
    by jen on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 01:29:20 PM EST
    http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#7)
    by theologicus on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 01:57:10 PM EST
    narius -- and anyone else who is serious about the question of definition -- can consult the 1996 Convention Against Torture. It is included in the Misison Statement, under "Resources," at National Religious Campaign Against Torture. If you are interested in building a movement to change US policies that permit torture, please consider signing our statement and joining our campaign. P.S. Amnesty International posts all the standard definitions of torture as codified in international law.

    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Al on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 02:31:04 PM EST
    narius, what's at stake here is not so much what the definition of torture is, but who gets to define it.

    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Johnny on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 04:57:39 PM EST
    Good point Al. Narius, who has stated publically here that he would eagerly anticipate killing a human being, is of course going to have little to no standards when it comes to defining torture.

    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#10)
    by john horse on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 03:39:00 AM EST
    By now we should realize that you need to read the fine print on anything Bush is selling. When Bush says "we don't torture", the fine print is that "what you and I mean by torture could be different". Bush has all the sincerity and integrity of a used car salesman (and comparing Bush to used car salesman may be an insult to used car salesman). Caveat emptor.

    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#11)
    by HK on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 04:27:10 AM EST
    narius used to be bottom of my list of people to ask when you want a sensible opinion, but he's got some competition now from Colonel Peter Brownback:
    "Torture is not good."
    Thanks for that gem. I look forward to hearing the good Colonel's studied and intellectual views on other serious issues...

    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    After that point, we should have an open season on those people.
    Once again, Narius is ready to disregard the 8th amendment.

    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 07:56:32 PM EST
    Why are we discussing barbarous details about torture? The agreements between Cuba and the United States of 1903 and 1934 clearly state that the premises around Guantanamo are to be used "for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose." The use of Guantanamo as a prison camp (to hold persons who did not even get there on boats) is a violation of the lease. Guantanamo must be returned to Cuba.

    Re: Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Johnny on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:54:28 PM EST
    Sihon, any and all treaties have been declared, either publically or implicitly, "quaint" by the wrong-wingers. Narius, who has publically expressed his desire to kill another human being, once again shows up and exhibits his medieval mentality.

    Guantanamo Tribunals: What's Torture? | 13 comments (13 topical)