“Enhanced” Interrogation Techniques (Updated) (Updated Again) 0

On today’s Radio Times:

In discussing why so many seem to approve of Americans’ torturing captives, the interviewees theorized that many see the captives as already guilty and the “interrogation” as punishment. In fact, many (note–I said “many,” not “all”) of those caught up the dragnets in Afghanistan and Iraq just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time, picked up by scared soldiers who don’t even speak the language of those they are detaining on often the flimsiest of reasoning.

They also pointed out what is old news: Torture doesn’t work. It can produce confessions, but seldom produces facts. But the American Torquemadas don’t care. Torture is their pornography.

But the folks are still in custody and still subject to torture. And the Current Federal Administrator believes he can imprison them indefinitely just on his say-so, because he’s always right and he’s never wrong (just look at his record).

You can follow the link to find the show (you may have to use the “Archive” search feature for the first hour of the June 11, 2007; I couldn’t find a direct link to that eposide. Or you can listen here (mp3) or here (Real).

Two former interrogators talk about the techniques used by the U.S. in Iraq and the work being done to develop new rules and effective approaches for interrogations. Air Force Col. STEVEN KLEINMAN serves on the Intelligence Science Board which has been studying interrogation methods and TONY LAGOURANIS whose book “Fear Up Harsh” details his experiences as an Army interrogator in Iraq.

Addendum, Later That Same Hour:

A ray of sunshine:

The appeals panel said President Bush overstretched his authority by declaring Marri an “enemy combatant,” because the Constitution protects both U.S. citizens and legal residents such as Marri from an unchecked military and from being detained without charges and a fair trial. The court rejected the administration’s claim that it was not relevant that Marri was arrested in the United States and was living here legally on a student visa.

“The President cannot eliminate constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention,” the panel found. “Put simply, the Constitution does not allow the President to order the military to seize civilians residing within the United States and detain them indefinitely without criminal process, and this is so even if he calls them ‘enemy combatants.’ “

Addendum-de-dum-dum

Read the opinion. Their Honors do not mince words.

For over two centuries of growth and struggle, peace and war, the Constitution has secured our freedom through the guarantee that, in the United States, no one will be deprived of liberty without due process of law. Yet more than four years ago military authorities seized an alien lawfully residing here. He has been held by the military ever since — without criminal charge or process. He has been so held despite the fact that he was initially taken from his home in Peoria, Illinois by civilian authorities, and indicted for purported domestic crimes. He has been so held although the Government has never alleged that he is a member of any nation’s military, has fought alongside any nation’s armed forces, or has borne arms against the United States anywhere in the world. And he has been so held, without acknowledgment of the protection afforded by the Constitution, solely because the Executive believes that his military detention is proper.

And that’s just from the introduction.

This is from the conclusion:

For a court to uphold a claim to such extraordinary power would do more than render lifeless the Suspension Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the rights to criminal process in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments; it would effectively undermine all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. It is that power — were a court to recognize it — that could lead all our laws “to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces.” We refuse to recognize a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.