|
Information, including confessions, given under extreme duress is unreliable. I've said it before and I'll say it again: torture will not provide reliable intelligence.
According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." It is was and is strictly forbidden because the US was one of the 142 nations to have signed the convention.
Additionally, the label of 'unlawful combatants' is not recognized unless the person has been given a tribunal to determine their nature. Without the tribunal, the combatants are POWs and are covered by the Geneva Conventions (which means they cannot be tortured).
Finally, any psychologist or psychiatrist with any knowledge of torture can tell you that it's useless in the pursuit of reliable information. The idea that some idiots are trying to make information from torture admissible in court goes to show just how fucking stupid and unreasonable the people in power really are. I'd like to see them tortured and made to say things that weren't true, just so they could have first hand knowledge of just how wrong what they are doing really is. It's a damned shame that people actually vote for people like Bush.
If you voted for Bush, you're responsible for torture. Great job.
|