E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
65-34 (Snowe not voting). All Republicans but one (Chafee) voted in favor. Democrats voting in favor included Carper, Johnson, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Menendez, Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar and Stabenow. Posted
7:07 PM
by Marty Lederman [link]
Comments:
It's good to know there's a few sensable Dems out there.
In any event, I repeat my unanswered question:
What interrogation procedures are ok with you? All we see is you criticizingthe administration but you never offer an alternative set of tactics. Lets assume that KSM was captured or lets say the US captures Zawahiri or some other AQ big shot.
How would YOU interrogate him? What tactics would be acceptable to you? Lay out how it would go.
Let's say he says, "I'm not telling you anything and I'm waiting for my lawyer". Is that the end of it? Should we just say ok?
I have yet to see one liberal explain how terrorists should be interrogated and how we should get information from them. How would you do it? What's acceptable to you? And if he says "I'm not telling you anything" after you've played by CA3 rules and Geneva rules, then what?
Please, enough criticizing Bush. How would you go about it?
Here is how you interrogate without needing this bill. Google also Koubi and Scharff, star interrogators for Israel and the Luftwaffe, respectively. Both are famed for their skills, yet neither for his violations of Geneva 3.
I suppose one could actually think that it's wrong to torture American soldiers (or perhaps uniformed soldiers, or however you want to slice it), but okay to torture evil terrorists.
In all seriousness, I don't see how different treatment for terror suspects than for "regular" criminals can be justified. No, really.
As I understand it, wanting to subject terror suspects to "enhanced" techniques turns on 1) the desirability of the knowledge they (are assumed to) have, and 2) our willingness to treat terrorists more harshly than "regular" criminals, because we judge them to be more contemptible and less deserving of protections. The first justification is pragmatic, and the second, pseudo-moral. Neither seems workable to me. Rebuttals:
1) It seems to me that "regular" criminals will also sometimes have highly desirable information. Suppose a wacko kidnaps half a dozen young children and locks them up somewhere. They are at risk of starvation or suffocation. And yet the police are forbidden from using "enhanced" techniques. Why? It is extremely important here to extract the whereabouts of the children from the prisoner.
2) Allowing different treatment of a prisoner based on the crime they are suspected of having committed skips a basic protection of a civilized society: it bases decisions on the nature of the suspected crime without having firmly established that the prisoner is, in fact, guilty. To put this another way, even if you think that all terrorists should be tortured, you presumably think it's a great travesty to torture a non-terrorist. But giving yourself license to torture people that are merely suspected of terrorism is a terrific way to ensure you will end up torturing non-terrorists, sooner or later.
Bonus rebuttal to 2): it's not clear to me that terrorist acts are always morally worse than non-terrorist acts, unless we're going to start calling all kinds of criminals "terrorists". Serial rapists, sadistic killers, pedophiles, etc, all seem worthy of the same moral condemnation we reserve for terrorists.
So my first answer would be, whatever measures are permissible for “regular” criminals.
If you want a more aggressive suggestion, here's one that I don't actually support, but that seems at least defensible: torture warrants. If we're going to seriously advance a pragmatic justification for torture, that is, that the information we can reasonably hope to obtain justifies the repugnant act of torture, let's put safeguards in place. If the executive can demonstrate to the judiciary that it has reasonable grounds to believe that a prisoner is withholding critical information that could be extracted with torture, let the judiciary weigh the prisoner's rights against the value of the information, and issue a warrant for the harsh treatment when it is justified. But, I would still see no reason to distinguish between terror suspects and regular criminals.
I know SW (ironic name) is a troll, but "liberal" I assume is in the classic sense, such as this being a "liberal democracy" and so forth, right? The conservatives etc. against this thing underline we aren't just talking about the Kennedys of the world.
The Dems voting "aye" have an electoral taint to them. Several are running in November. The rather liberal L. (NJ) is surprising, but maybe he's doing it out of loyalty to M. who is running neck to neck vs. Kean.
Rockefeller's vote underlines the gutless wonder nature of his role on the intel committee, an important one in this area. The fact Sen. Roberts went too far for even him underlines the depths.
Well, maiken, you are forthright, and wcw, though less forthrights, is fundamentally in accord, in agreeing with sarahweddington's hypothetical version of the absurd liberal answer: if Khalid Shaikh Mohammed asks for a lawyer, all interrogation must cease. Unfortunately, the American people don't agree with you, but maybe you can convince them at some future date.
Most of the comments here make little sense to me. wcw, why do you we assume that terrrorists are the kind of loser low-lifes who succumb to standard police interrogation techniques? pseudonymous in nc, consider this: if you were (wrongly but reasonably) believed by an American soldier to be an enemy combatant on the battlefield, would you be willing to be killed? I doubt it. Does that mean that American soldiers are not allowed to kill those they believe to be enemy combatants on the battlefield? Your argument proves too much.
It's good to know there's a few sensable Dems out there.
That's big of you, so I'll respond in kind with a tip to help you get taken more seriously next time: the word is sensible, not sensable.
But to give my answer your question: interrogation procedures that aren't cruel and that don't torture are OK with me.
And to answer your underlying question: there are numerous examples of how reasonable, patient questioning of even "hardened" suspects can lead to real results. Here are two accounts: 1) "What would Allah do?" 2) "Pray and tell"
...summarized by me here, if you prefer. I invite your focused, finite, and civil discussion there.
Thanks for sharing this information. I really like your way of expressing the opinions and sharing the information. It is good to move as chance bring new things in life, paves the way for advancement. I have read a lot of article of this web site by which many of them were being very interesting and uplifting. This information has excellent subject along with excellent description.
Harga Blackberry terbaru Pengecoran Aluminium Thanks for the tips, maybe I can use this svelte my noesis marketing and Ive been use whatsoever ethnical media in try a interaction and they eff handiwork a big friendliness on me.
It's good to know there's a few sensable Dems out there.
In any event, I repeat my unanswered question:
What interrogation procedures are ok with you? All we see is you criticizingthe administration but you never offer an alternative set of tactics. Lets assume that KSM was captured or lets say the US captures Zawahiri or some other AQ big shot.
How would YOU interrogate him? What tactics would be acceptable to you? Lay out how it would go.
Let's say he says, "I'm not telling you anything and I'm waiting for my lawyer". Is that the end of it? Should we just say ok?
I have yet to see one liberal explain how terrorists should be interrogated and how we should get information from them. How would you do it? What's acceptable to you? And if he says "I'm not telling you anything" after you've played by CA3 rules and Geneva rules, then what?
Please, enough criticizing Bush. How would you go about it?
Sometimes I wonder if the Bush Admin thought up all this convoluted mess just so they could sound insane and piss off the Dems.
At the end of the debate, McCaine said that all US Officials must comply with Common Article III, even if they can't be punished for less than Grave Breaches. If this is true, wouldn't it allow field agents to legally disobey an order by refusing to employ certain procedures?
But anyway, the combination of harsh techniques and the loss of habeas corpus is the worst possible situation, not on constitutional or moral grounds, but simply on long term progress against terrorism.
If these men were true POWs, then harsh treatment wouldn't matter as much: when POWs return to their homeland after the battle is over, they are under the control of their government. In addition, it is obvious that POWs don't need habeas corpus to eventually get a hearing, and maybe released regardless of individual actions.
But terrorists, or those thought to be terrorists are a special case. They represent a Nation of One. Mistreatment during detention of could easily create a threat where one didn't exist. Detainees become dangerous due to the actions of our government. We can't simply set them loose since there is no government to take them.
So it is important to have either effective habeas rights, or strict policies for detainee treatment. Maybe the CIA will consider this and go easy on their captives until habeas has been tested in the Courts.
Btw, how long before the habeas stripping is challenged? Won't it start right away?
I have a question for you. What would you say (let's suppose that you were one of the senators who just voted for the bill) to an innocent man, such as the Canadian whom Bush sent to Syria to be tortured, and who had spent ten months in a cell being tortured, if you had to meet him face to face? Let's assume, however, that the meeting was in a prison, because, unlike the Canadian, my hypothetical innocent man was not being charged but was being held and tortured indefinitely. Bahasa Inggris
Well, maiken, you are forthright, and wcw, though less forthrights, is fundamentally in accord, in agreeing with sarahweddington's hypothetical version of the absurd liberal answer: if Khalid Shaikh Mohammed asks for a lawyer, all interrogation must cease. Unfortunately, the American people don't agree with you, but maybe you can convince them at some future date.
Most of the comments here make little sense to me. wcw, why do you we assume that terrrorists are the kind of loser low-lifes who succumb to standard police interrogation techniques? pseudonymous in nc, consider this: if you were (wrongly but reasonably) believed by an American soldier to be an enemy combatant on the battlefield, would you be willing to be killed? I doubt it. Does that mean that American soldiers are not allowed to kill those they believe to be enemy combatants on the battlefield? Your argument proves too much.
It's good to know there's a few sensable Dems out there.
In any event, I repeat my unanswered question:
What interrogation procedures are ok with you? All we see is you criticizingthe administration but you never offer an alternative set of tactics. Lets assume that KSM was captured or lets say the US captures Zawahiri or some other AQ big shot.
How would YOU interrogate him? What tactics would be acceptable to you? Lay out how it would go.
Let's say he says, "I'm not telling you anything and I'm waiting for my lawyer". Is that the end of it? Should we just say ok?
I have yet to see one liberal explain how terrorists should be interrogated and how we should get information from them. How would you do it? What's acceptable to you? And if he says "I'm not telling you anything" after you've played by CA3 rules and Geneva rules, then what?
Please, enough criticizing Bush. How would you go about it?
This afternoon I've read in your place, and quite interesting information submitted. If we are diligent reading will certainly add to the knowledge and insight. Thank you, continue to work.
Living Room Ideas Sarah Weddington: I have a question for you. What would you say (let's suppose that you were one of the senators who just voted for the bill) to an innocent man, such as the Canadian whom Bush sent to Syria to be tortured, and who had spent ten months in a cell being tortured, if you had to meet him face to face? Let's assume, however, that the meeting was in a prison, because, unlike the Canadian, my hypothetical innocent man was not being charged but was being held and tortured indefinitely.
coming to this comment field is most grateful to put some words, thanks for this information and hope be solved soon for the problems. good evening from me ^_^ beauty face
You made such an interesting piece to read, giving every subject enlightenment for us to gain knowledge. Thanks for sharing the such information with us to read this Tips seputar dunia properti
coming to this comment field is most grateful to put some words, thanks for this information and hope be solved soon for the problems. good evening from me ^_^ http://www.desainrumahmini.com
Your web site provided us with valuable information to work on. You've done an impressive task and our whole neighborhood can be thankful to you. Also visit my web site :
Your web site provided us with valuable information to work on. You've done an impressive task and our whole neighborhood can be thankful to you. Also visit my web site :