What if - to up the ante a bit ....
1. The extraordinary rendition to a third party, more than willing to torture and kill the three sons, is a reality. The interrogators' friend has both the means and intent to render (pun intended) the sons and carry out the threat.
or to up the ante even a bit more ...
2. The interrogators are made of stronger stuff and don't need a third party to do their work. They are able and willing to carry out the threat themselves.
and, finally, if the threat does not work ...
3. The interrogators execute the threat by successively torturing and then killing each of the three sons.
Do these altered facts change the answers ?
My effort not to be first was successful...
STARTS:Written 2040 CDT, 10 Jul 09 but I'm not going to be the first to post... :D
Here's the unedited reponse.
Quote:
Do you think this technique is moral or ethical or otherwise sound practice? Why or why not?
Marginally moral, not enough information to form a total moral evaluation. Regardless, it is not sound practice and I would not do it for the very practical reason that no one man is ever likely to be that importan as this action would almost certainly be disclosed. IOW, don't do it, probable result is not worth the potential downstream hassle.
Quote:
Do you have an opinion on the legality of this technique (whether it is or should be legal, etc).
I do not think it should be illegal -- there are too many unenforceable laws about, we don't need one more. It should however IMO be discouraged or regulatorily prohibited for the reasons I stated above. If the punch line is what I suspect, I'll still go with the decision above. :D :ENDS
Got no awards to pass out but you do get
The apple that fell from the tree ....
Does the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" extend as far as this:
Quote:
from LawVol
If the answer to the first question suggests no legal basis for holding the wife, then everything that happens after is tainted by that fact.
....
from Ken
Given no legal basis for custody of the wife or kids, all that follows would be illegal.
and, if so, on what authorities (legal) or reasoning (non-legal) are these sweeping assertions based ?
Does the hypothetical involve a criminal case where evidence is offered which was derived from the interrogation ?
Really interested in seeing the punchline
But as others alluded to the problem I have with this is very simply left to a couple of variables.
Who's being interrogated
Why
What will be done in relation to that why
And most importantly by whom /how
If the reason isn't tied to the who your interrogating then regardless the validity of your concerns (there's a whole lot of consequences in regards to the population your dealing with)
Better be a whole lot more to the why then simply (they might know)
Because the actions about to be taken in reponse to any information obtained and the whos performing those actions will have a lot to deal with should something be wrong anywhere in the process
Finally if the who is a US soldier theres a whole lot of long term issues with the whole idea of being able to temporarily detach themselves from those things they regard as proper within the context of their own lives and if you get it wrong you may well not know it till their home and all hell is breaking loose.
Just my thoughts (uninformed by any practical application)
99 USC-White, of course. Why do you ask?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
and, if so, on what authorities (legal) or reasoning (non-legal) are these sweeping assertions based ?
Given the hypothetical, no reason was shown for the custody of the Wife. If it's only due to the fact that she's the spouse and hasn't been picked up for her own actions, intimidation is a misdemeanor most places and in some a felony if weapon is used or harm results. Last time I heard, anyway. That could well apply even if her custody was not solely due to the relationship; intimidation is intimidation. Then there's this:
""Uniform Code of Military Justice art. 31(d), 10 U.S.C. § 831(d) (2000) (“No statement obtained . . . through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against [the accused] in a trial by courtmartial.”).""
We dunno whether the interrogator is military or not...;)
What we do know is that there is a distinct possibility a Court Martial could rule that coercion was used. Even if the Court Martial does not, the Civil suit by Wife or Terrorist Husband after release from Elba or a fifth Cousin 14 years later may so rule.
Since I'm me and I can't visualize a situation where I'd be interrogating unless I was in the millinery, that was my rationale...:wry:
Quote:
Does the hypothetical involve a criminal case where evidence is offered which was derived from the interrogation ?
Not stated. :eek:
But in this day it certainly could...
None of which affects me because it would be, IMO, stupid and I'm not going to do it based on the information thus far given -- mostly so I don't get cross flogged by you and John over one sorry Dude who is unlikely to hold the fate of the free world in his hands (or, if he does, that should have been stated)... :D