Due to the unique nature of the war on terrorism in which the enemy covertly attacks innocent civilian populations without warning, and further due to the critical nature of the information believed to be known by certain of the al-Qaida and Taliban detainees regarding future terrorist attacks, it may be appropriate for the appropriate approval authority to authorize as a military necessity the interrogation of such unlawful combatants in a manner beyond that which may be applied to a prisoner of war who is subject to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
After extensive discussion 35 of domestic and international legal implications 36 the Working Group discusses considerations affecting policy. The fundamental policy [of doctrine prior to FM ] concerning intelligence operations However, a strong caveat to this principle noted "treaty commitments and policy of the United States, international agreements, international law and the UCMJ require the conduct of military to conform with the law of war.
The Working Group also noted that FM "emphasized a prohibition on the use of force during interrogations", including " FM stated that experience revealed that the use of force was unnecessary However, [it said] that the prohibition on the use of force must not be confused with the use of psychological tools and deception techniques In its discussion of FM , the Working Group noted that it had adopted the principles and framework for conducting interrogations of FM , 42 and that it, along with the curriculum at the U.
Army Intelligence Center "continue to emphasize a prohibition on the use of force. The underlying basis for this prohibition is the proscriptions contained in international and domestic U. Army interrogation experts view the use of force as an inferior technique that yields intelligence of questionable value. The Working Group also identified a number of policy considerations articulated by the Department of Defense. Choice of interrogation techniques involves a risk benefit analysis in each case bounded by the limits of DOD policy and U. The DOD policy guidance confirmed that priority was being given to intelligence gathering but stated that there would be continued assessment of "the value of information for prosecution considerations.
For interrogations involving exceptional techniques approved by [Secretary Rumsfeld] standard doctrine may be used as well as specifically authorized exceptional techniques. However, such interrogations may only be applied in limited, designated settings approved by [Mr. Is it in its discussion of the potential effect of interrogation techniques on prosecutions that the Working Group Report is most directly relevant to the analysis here. It notes, "depending on the techniques employed, the admissibility of any information may depend on the forum considering the evidence.
As the interrogation methods increase in intensity, the likelihood that the information will be deemed coerced and involuntary and thus held inadmissible increases. Although voluntariness of the confession is not a specific threshold question on admissibility, it can reasonably be expected that the defense will raise voluntariness, challenging the probative value of the information and hence, its admissibility. If the statement is admitted, voluntariness will undoubtedly be a factor considered by the members in determining the weight given to the information.
As previously noted, examination of past applications of the Quirin evidence rule include substantial abuses, often offensive to basic notions of fair play. Their analysis of the admissibility of extraordinary interrogation results in a court martial or U. District Court, is much more congruent with precedent.
If the actions taken to secure a statement constitute torture the statement would be inadmissible. As such, the more aggressive the interrogation technique used, the greater the likelihood it could adversely affect the admissibility of any acquired statements or confessions.
It straightforwardly supports a core proposition of this article; that use of evidence obtained through violations of the Third Geneva Convention would violate a POWs rights under GC3 Article Following its analysis of domestic legal issues, the Working group discusses its view of problems with the interrogation techniques under international law. It finesses the Presidential Declaration of inapplicability with a statement that the law " The Working Group notes that "to the extent that other nation states do not concede the U.
It warns that:. These articles of the Third Geneva Convention may provide an opportunity for other States Parties to allege that they consider the United States to be in violation of the Convention through its treatment of detainees.
To the extent any such treatment could be considered by them to be torture or inhumane treatment, such acts could be considered "grave breaches" and punishable as war crimes. Despite these warnings, the Working Group, operating on the assumption that the Presidential Directive of inapplicability of GC3 is mandatory, recommends an interrogation program containing many of the elements previously discussed.
It is, however, substantially limited in their application. The Working Group recommends 62 limited use of many of the non-standard techniques 63 previously approved by Secretary Rumsfeld but hedged with numerous limitations, safeguards and caveats. Its core is the statement that:.
The purpose of all interviews and interrogations is to get the most information from a detainee with the least intrusive method, always applied in a humane and lawful manner with sufficient oversight by trained investigators or interrogators. The steps it proposes to ensure compliance with that standard are enlightening, both because they circumscribe interrogator conduct, and because they explain in clear terms the psychological and emotional manipulation at the core of effective interrogation techniques.
Interrogation operations are never conducted in a vacuum; they are conducted in close cooperation with the units detaining the individuals.
Detainee interrogation involves a plan tailored to an individual and approved by senior interrogators. Mutt and Jeff, and Isolation " The Department of Defense has verified that some of the techniques eventually approved by Secretary Rumsfeld were used, between 2 December, and 15 January, See Appendix 1. The limitations of FM , and the Third Geneva Convention, however, were apparently not entirely observed even prior to this date.
At least from the time prisoners were shipped to Guantanamo, their beards were forcibly shaved. Authorities justified the act as necessary for hygiene. Article 14 of GC3 provides in part,that "Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour," and Article 16 provides for no adverse distinction based upon, inter alia, "religious belief. Joint Task Force was established in January and was tasked with taking care of captured enemy combatants from the war on terrorism. Joint Task Force was stood up by Southern Command on 16 February , and tasked with handling interrogation operations for the Department of Defense as well as ensuring coordination among government agencies involved in the interrogation of the suspected terrorists.
That Brief, by Diane E.
Paragraph 2. It is discussed in more detail in Section VI B below. The Field Manual discusses low intensity conflicts in chapter 9. It provides that:. EPW interrogations are conducted in support of wartime military operations and are governed by the guidelines and limitations provided by the Geneva Conventions and FM However, insurgent subversive underground elements who are seeking to overthrow an established government in an insurgency do not hold legal status as belligerents see DA Pam Since these subversive activities are clandestine or covert in nature, individuals operating in this context seek to avoid open involvement with host-government police and military security forces.
Army Field Manual 2 , or FM , Human Intelligence Collector Operations, was issued The manual permits nineteen interrogation techniques, Described in Chapter 8 of the manual as "approach techniques" to help establish a. There are multiple techniques employed in interrogation including deception, torture, increasing suggestibility, and the use of.
Hence, any insurgent taken into custody by host-government security forces may not be protected by the Geneva Conventions beyond the basic protections in Article 3. The insurgent will be subject to the internal security laws of the country concerning subversion and lawlessness.
Supreme Court, are leading police to question juveniles differently than adults. Prev NEXT. There are several theories and strategies when it comes to the practice of investigative interview and interrogation techniques. The use of sleep deprivation was described to involve the forcing of detainees to remain awake for upwards of hours, all while standing or in stressful positions; sometimes shackled. Health Long-Term Care. The Bush Administration merely pretended—thirty-four years later—that this and other precedents did not exist. All Rights Reserved.
Action of US forces, however, will be governed by existing agreements with the host country and by the provisions of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Insurgency is identified as a condition resulting from a revolt or insurrection against a constituted government which falls short of civil war. It is not usually a conflict of international character, and it is not a recognized belligerency. Therefore, insurgent captives are not guaranteed full protection under the articles of the Geneva Conventions relative to the handling of EPWs.
fr.yxowacow.tk However, Article 3 of the Conventions requires that insurgent captives be humanely treated and forbids violence to life and person -- in particular murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture. It further forbids commitment of outrages upon personal dignity, taking of hostages, passing of sentences, and execution without prior judgment by a regularly constituted court. Humane treatment of insurgent captives should extend far beyond compliance with Article 3 , if for no other reason than to render them more suceptible to interrogation.
Erratum Email Alerts notify you when an article has been updated or the paper is withdrawn. Visit My Account to manage your email alerts. Email or Username Forgot your username? Password Forgot your password? Keep me signed in. No SPIE account? Create an account Institutional Access:. The alert successfully saved. The alert did not successfully save. Please try again later.
Gagliardi, M. The largest and most newsworthy section of the document details procedures for the screening and interrogation of prisoners of war and unlawful combatants. Army , but not for the CIA. Bush vetoed a bill, supported by Democrats and opposed by John McCain, which would have restricted the CIA to the techniques in the manual.
Disputes during the manual's preparation included whether a section on interrogation techniques would remain classified,  and whether the Geneva conventions ban on "humiliating and degrading treatment" would be removed. It restricted the CIA and other Executive Agencies to proceed with interrogations "strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations [Army Field Manual 2 Attorney General , may recommend "additional or different guidance" for non-military agencies such as the CIA.
The Center for Constitutional Rights , one group that represents detainees, termed the commission an "escape hatch" for returning to previous practices. The manual permits nineteen interrogation techniques,  Described in Chapter 8 of the manual as "approach techniques" to help establish a rapport, these are: .
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.