What kinds of coercion is acceptable in military interrogation?
490676
the real question is what are WE willing to let our government do in the name of interrogation. heres a show we did with an expert on torture.\nhttp://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=140\nremember waco? in the end they werent charged with any felonies just 2 misdemenors. 92 were killed/murdered including 52 kids. we all watched it live on tv. nobody did anything & believed whatever they were told. they allegedly had a sawed off shotgun that violated gun laws. so what, anyone who knows anything about guns know a sawed off isnt harmful past 20 feet. accused of abusing kids, nothing more abusive than running them over with tanks.\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/reavis_stream.html
993095
50 cal works great.  Terrorists have NEVER played by the rules.  they hide in hospitals and schools.  They use children and human shields. They hang our soldiers by their feet off bridges.  They drage their bodies through the streets and yet, when we put them behind bars, we are the bad guys?  Good question.
525551
As long as they don't get in the way of military personnel\ngoing about their military duties.
217839
a few things...  Prisoners in a camp aren't under "courtesy", they are convicted felons/criminals, being held there to keep them away from society... The international forces who there received an order to leave the area because they were at risk of being attacked by the Palestinian militants there. Israel new this, and couldn't let those prisoners break free. Using the work 'kidnap' is about as accurate as saying that a bounty hunter who captures escaped felons is a 'kidnapper'. The main prisoner wasn't just 'accused' - he was convicted as well. As for your main question on the effects of this story? It won't increase the conflict, but it will be fuel for the Politicians on both sides to spin whichever way they want...
227271
Self-incrimination comes into play when you are in custody and subject to interrogation.  If you are in the back of a police car and are talking to yourself, it would be difficult to claim you were being interrogated.  \n\nIf you are in the back of a police car with a partner in crime, whatever the two of you talk about is fair game...again, you are not being interrogated by the police.\n\nIf you are in the back of a police car with a police informant who was put there just to listen to you talk (and did not question you), it's still all fair game because you're not being interrogated.\n\nLong story short: if you're blabbing to anyone (including yourself), without interrogation, you're almost certainly incriminating yourself and what you say is almost certainly going to be admissible at trial.\n\nDespite what others have said, just because you are arrested, handcuffed, and put into the back of a cop car, you may not have been "Mirandized"...I can't remember the last time I gave someone a Miranda admonishment just because I stuffed them into the back of my car after arresting them - and in my state, there is no requirement for me to do so.\n\nNote: some states have strange laws about who can record who and when.  While law enforcement might be guilty of violating one of those laws (though I can't imagine why they would), they are not about the Constitutional right to avoid self-incrimination.
794186
Yes I am concerned, but Congress rolled over and it is legal to torture....which I think makes us all the more unsafer. Think of a soldier captured and getting tortured.
641684
Ok, for those who have answered the following:\n\n- Moral persuasion\n- convince them that it's evil\n- diplomatic pressure\n\nI'd like to say "in what sugar coated world do you live?"\n\nThe warlords SHOOT people who are trying to get food.  People who have little children to feed.  Do you honestly think they are unaware of what they are doing?  Please.\n\nAs for diplomatic pressure?  Do you have any idea how silly that is?  They KILL their people.  They don't hand out surveys and take note of constructive critism.  Anyone talks out, bang, they're dead.  Someone says you said something, bang he's dead and bang you're dead.\n\nThe grim reality is that these people are inherantly evil.  When you have people like this, the only solution is to kill them, or remove them by force.\n\nThe only way to do this is war.\n\nBTW:  To whomever posted "oh, we have to find oil and we're there".  Pick up a book and do a bit of research about the war in Iraq.  You might actually learn something besides anti-war biased hype.  :D
1185434
NOTHING is absolutely painless.  Not even sex.  The Constitution speaks out against "Cruel and unusual punishment."  In France, they still use the guillotine.  Since it is used as a standard, it is not crueler to one than to another and not unusual.  The bleeding hearts feel that WE have to be kinder and gentler, but not the killers.  The problem IS, there are still TOO MANY Innocent individuals being railroaded into a conviction.  If we could get the cops to do an honest job, then I would be in favor of turning a convicted killer over to the surviving family to deal with as they feel fit.
791908
They read them there rights prior to interrogation.  If you don't ask for a lawyer or exercise your right to remain silent, you have waived your right to counsel.
1165556
I'm not weighing in on all the pros and cons of the Gitmo camp, nor am I evaluating whether or not the constitution applies to the Gitmo detainees or the permissions granted to Homeland Security to bypass certain parts of the constitution.\n\nI just want to make a couple of remarks.\n\nThe detainees in Gitmo who are true combatants and/or are members of al Qaida, and/or are Talibani, and who are not American citizens have no protection under the US constitution.  If they hold US citizenship, but were captured as combatants, they forsook that citizenship and are legally considered traitors as well as enemy combatants.   If there are US citizens detained at Gitmo and they are not al Qaida or Talibani, and were not enemy combatants, and were not captured in war zones of Afghanistan and/or Iraq, then they may have recourse to due process under constitutional law .\n\nHowever -- under Homeland Security and all the powers we granted to the department, constitutional due process is allowed to be suspended so long as it can be shown that a detainee does or did present a threat through action or conspiracy.\n\nIn short, we the people have said that in order to pursue the "war on terror," we will allow certain suspensions of and allowances or leeway in interpretations and applications of constitutional law including due process, habeas corpus, and much, much more.\n\nNow, as I said, I am not saying anything about what is right or wrong about anything involved in these issues, in terms of the constitutionality of many things done in the name of Homeland Security and the war on terror.\n\n\n\nI see it as unfortunate if Gauntanamo detainees chose suicide as an alternative to despair over their situation; however, only in so much as I feel regret over any needless death.  Furthermore, if their despair was due to their being frustrated terrorists or captured combatants in any ongoing war, I feel no sympathy whatsoever for their despair in that case.\n\nIf any or all sought to garner attention for their cause as detainees, I regret their choice of method.\n\nHowever, if any or all sought to muster support for their agendas as terrorists or combatants, then I hold them in the same contempt as I do their brethren, the suicide bombers who used their deaths to try to further their campaign of terrorism.\n\nLast, and I know this sounds cold,  but I feel much better knowing that a suicide died alone rather than taking others with him, like bombers are doing every day.\n\nP.S.  In times of war, it is customary to hold prisoners so long as hostilities continue, therefore it is entirely arguable that as so long as hostilities continue in Afghanistan and Iraq, then repatriation may be denied.  By extension, in the case of al Qaida members, as a group who declared war on the US and as a group without a nation, they present a special case wherein "repatriation" and "end of hostilities" are indeterminable by previous or traditional means and practices.  \n\nDo you want to return avowed enemies of the US to a status of active combat against us?
129243
captured by terrorists or extremists
1003224
Agreed, and just for a preemptive strike I'd like to mention that someone will almost certainly come in here and say "IF U DUNT BELEAVE N HEL DEN Y R U AFEARD UV IT?! !! LOLZOAZLO"\nTo this I say, if someone threatened you, and perhaps even many of the people you love with torture would it not upset you even if you knew they would never actually go through with it? Isn't just the idea that they take pleasure in the thought enough to piss you off? I know it is for me.
986078
I dont think they would ask for military help unless your osama ben laden there just trying to scare you up.Its been people who have had a charge pending on them and was out of the country & the police would never persue them I think its depends on what type of crime you did
486991
I believe passive and active should both be allowed. When someones life is torture, if it be mental or physical pain, they should be allowed to end their pain.\n\nAnyone who bases their answer on religion needs to realize that this is a serious issue, and should be taken seriously.
268248
Without knowing who you are and what exactly your purposes are, I am afraid(literally!) that I cannot comply with your request.\nNot in the current political climate, under the present so-called "homeland" security lockdown on formerly protected civil rights.\nSorry.
1127682
Those who kidnap, torture and murder those who are unarmed.\nThose whose aim is to kill those not involved in their conflict.\nThose that torture and kill their prisoners (especially when they then broadcast video of the murder)\nThey are generally the same as those who ignore the rules of law and basic human decency.\nThose that ignore the spirit of the Geneva Conventions. (I do not say the letter as circumstances have changed since it was written).\nThose that mutilate the bodies of the dead.\nThose that use rape as a weapon.
615026
This is what the Washington Post says:\n\nA U.N. anti-torture panel today issued a rebuke of Bush administration counter-terrorism policies today, calling for the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility in Cuba and a halt to the transfer of suspected terrorists to countries where they may face torture.\n\n...\n\nThe U.N. committee, made up of nine experts, urged the Bush administration to establish a federal law criminalizing torture and to eliminate some of its most controversial interrogation techniques, including sexual humiliation, the use of dogs to induce fear and "water boarding," a practice that involves simulating the sensation of near-drowning.