Torture means you can never have a legitimate trial of anyone subjected to it.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

There you have it. You tortured them, you got confessions and then what? You can't try them. You can't release them since they are "confessed" terrorists. You have just painted yourself into a corner and lost all your humanity, common sense and justice to boot.

[Supersedeas]

1. what began with Gonzo's legal opinion to the President that Geneva didn't apply

ended with the Supreme Court declaring DEFINITIVELY despite what any rightwing talking shills who will serve as media/propoganda apologist for torture say in the days and weeks to come:

The actions of the Bush Administration were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The assurances that Geneva did not apply to the detainees was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The executive orders based on those legal opinions were UNCONSTITITIONAL. The Geneva Conventions apply to the actions of the President even in a time of War.....maybe...maybe that's why they call them WAR CRIMES -- crime that happened during the commision of a....war.

Now, would be a good time for the Media Apologists for Torture to revisit the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case: 548 U.S. 557 (2006).

[Peacetrain]

2. They have shown themselves to stand for the destruction of the American ideal

[Orsino]

3. Yes. Works out perfectly.

Of course, you can't then ever release the captive, either, since he'll want revenge.

The purpose of torture is more torture, of a class of people who exist to justify any cruelty, anywhere.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. They just didn't think it through.

The guys in the olden days with the witches were MUCH smarter. Sinking proved you were innocent - oops we're sorry! but at least your relatives can give you a nice funeral. Floating proved you were guilty and then you could be hung with a clean conscience. It's that whole messy trial step that screws things up. Darn, it's hard being civilized!

[jazzjunkysue]

5. It's like the salem witch dunkings: If she sinks, she's innocent! Yeah!

And dead.

[jberryhill]

6. That's Incorrect

Coercion disqualifies evidence obtained as a result of the coercion.

It does not rule out any other evidence lawfully obtained, which remains admissible.

Example:

I arrest you for robbing a bank. You deny it. I torture you, and you confess. I also have the bank videotape of you robbing the bank.

You can certainly be tried, and the bank videotape can certainly be used. Your confession cannot be used.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. Even throwing out just the tainted evidence obtained through coercion

will probably hobble any trials. A fair number of people are being held due to mass round-ups or because someone was paid a bounty to turn them in. It's just been a stupid, terrible mess from the get-go.

I heard a lawyer for someone being held in Guantanamo on NPR once. It's so beyond Kafkaesque that it strains all credulity.

[jberryhill]

8. That May Very Well Be Correct

But that question needs to be sorted out on a case-by-case basis.

"Torture means you can never have a legitimate trial of anyone subjected to it" is broad enough to be incorrect.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. Well, I actually believe that you actually can't have a legitimate

trial of someone you tortured. I would consider it misconduct on the part of the state, illegal according to the Constitution and Geneva Conventions and numerous other sources. That is why I used the word "legitmate".

You could probably go ahead and have an "illegitimate" trial. It wouldn't be recognized by anyone except the corrupt and compromised government entity doing it as having any real validity in terms of carrying out justice.

[jberryhill]

10. You Are Entitled To Believe Anything

The actual law, however, applies the exclusionary rule only to evidence obtained by unlawful means.

Applying it as broadly as you suggest, permits this result:

Everyone in town watches me murder you in broad daylight in town square, where several video cameras are present to record the event. I am arrested by my brother the sheriff. My brother says, "Okay now, I'm gonna slap you a few times until you confess". He slaps me, I confess. Your point is that I should now be immune from trial.

Cool.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

11. Well, your brother would have to be an incredible moron to beat you

to obtain a confession that was already recorded by video cameras and observed by numerous witnesses. He wouldn't need a confession. I think your scenario is highly implausible.

If people are beating and torturing people in order to obtain confessions, it's because they know THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE. I do think that there are instances of this occurring in our American penal system today. And I still do not believe that the people who are incarcerated under these conditions are there "legitimately". They might even be guilty, but they are not incarcerated "legitimately". To me.

I'm not saying you're not correct about the law and it's rules of evidence - I'm sure you are. This is mostly an discussion about the semantics of something being morally legitimate or legally legitimate.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legitimate
LEGITIMATE
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.

[jberryhill]

12. My Brother And I Are Pretty Smart...

I got away with murder, and he helped me.

Any rule - any rule - can be gamed. One has to be careful with rules.

The detainees were ostensibly being tortured to provide information about whatever they might have information about, and not to provide evidence for their own conviction. Under the Bush "enemy combatant" policy, they could be locked up indefinitely anyway.

With KSM, for example, he was repeatedly tortured to provide a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda - a link which did not exist, hence the "need" to continue torturing him by insane m-fers in the Bush administration who could not bring themselves to grasp that fact.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. I have no doubt you and your brother are pretty smart!

There was a well laid trap that I fell into and then you just polished me off! Well done sir/madame! :toast:

I know you get the broader point I was attempting to make. I really appreciate your informed and civil debate.

[jberryhill]

15. And I Of Course Agree With Your Motivating Sentiment /nt

[Occam Bandage]

14. "If people are beating and torturing people in order to obtain confessions, it's because..."

No. Prisoners and detainees are often beaten and tortured simply because their abusers find it enjoyable. To claim that torture only occurs to extract badly needed evidence is to swallow the Cheney bait.