posted
I realize this article is HUGELY biased commentary, but I wanted to get a more factual opinion on this law.
IF like the article says it allows coerced testimony, perhaps through torture then its a bad thing since coerced testimony is supposed to be extrememly unreliable.
quote: `(c) Statements Obtained Before Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
`(d) Statements Obtained After Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and
`(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.
The treatment described in the bolded section is a much lower threshold than torture. Therefore, future torture is not "allowed" as your title suggests.
Seriously, there's almost nothing accurate about this damn bill out there, on either side. People need to read it for themselves.
(Yeah, that means don't take my word about anything in the bill, either.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also from the bill (I should say statute, now):
quote: (c) Additional Prohibition on Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment-
(1) IN GENERAL- No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
(2) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
(3) COMPLIANCE- The President shall take action to ensure compliance with this subsection, including through the establishment of administrative rules and procedures.
How does this "make[] the administration the arbiter of what is torture and what isn't"?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Dag, thats what I was looking for. Really had no idea what it actually entailed, but the sections posted here do seem to suggest the commentaries' author is a lying dirtbag only trying to advance his own name by sensationalizing a law and making our current presidential administration look like a bunch of barbaric dungeon masters.
ooops! Did I just write that?
Posts: 375 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
