|
Edited on Sun Sep-24-06 12:12 AM by joemurphy
Consider the following scenario:
Yussuf G. is swept up by a bounty hunter in Afghanistan and turned over to U.S. forces as an Al-Qaeda suspect. He is held incommunicado for 3 years in a secret prison where he is subjected to waterboarding, prolonged standing in a single position, sleep-deprivation, solitary confinement, enforced nudity, and interrogation in the presence of military dogs. He is not given a right to an attorney. He cannot seek a writ of habeas corpus to determine on what basis he is being held.
A statement confessing to his Al-Qaeda membership is eventually extorted from him. After 3 years of confinement he is eventually formally charged as being an Al-Qaeda member and an aider and abettor of attacks on civilians. This charge, however, is based in part on "classified" information which the government deems can't be revealed. Hence he is given a redacted copy of the charge.
He is then brought before a military commission. A lawyer is appointed to defend him. The commission consists of at least 5 military officers who will pass sentence. A military judge with JAG certification monitors the proceeding. Depending on whether the above circumstances constitute "torture" under the new U.S. interpretation given to Common Article 3, his "statement" may or may not be used against him. He may not be able to confront his accusers depending on their availability and security considerations. Hearsay evidence, depending on its "reliability", may or may not be used against him.
If, following a trial, he is acquitted and found to be innocent, he will not be able to file a civil suit against the people that may or may not have tortured him.
Is this OK under "The Great Torture Compromise"?
As I read it, it is. Thanks McCain, Graham, and Warner for your "principled stand against Bush".
|