Thursday, October 18, 2007
Torture, privacy, civil liberty - a small investigative rant
The "funniest" thing I've seen today:
NY Times quote of the day:
"Torture is unlawful under the laws of this country. It is not what this country is all about. It is not what this country stands for. It’s antithetical to everything this country stands for."
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, President Bush’s nominee for attorney general.
Well... not exactly funny. But it does raise some interesting questions. Like, for example, what about Guantanamo? So torture is unlawful in the USA, but US citizens are at liberty to detain and torture non-US citizens as long as it is not on official US territory? Or, could Mr Mukasey actually be taking a stance on the issue, condemning the practices at Guantanamo Bay? It seems highly unlikely.
As candidate for Attorney General of USA, does Mr Mukasey believe that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay should be tried and have their verdicts "pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people" as per Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (which USA has signed). If so, should detainees not be allowed private (re: non-military) lawyers and to see what evidence there is against them?
And of course, Does Mr Mukasey believe that the detainees should and "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely"? (Also Article 3 of Geneva Conventions)
After a brief google search on Michael Mukasey and Guantanamo, I was unable to link the two. Thus, he appears to have no public opinion on the matter. He does, however, have a public opinion on the USA Patriot Act ("Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Interrupt and Obstruct Terrorism"), which he fully supports, and which, many argue, allows (albeit not explicitly) for the covert spying-on of citizens.
In his opinion piece, he states:
"The statute also codifies the procedure for issuing and executing what are called "sneak and peek" warrants that allow agents, with court authorization, to enter premises, examine what is there and then leave. These warrants had been issued by courts ... on the fairly simple logic that if it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to enter premises and seize things, it should also be reasonable to enter premises and not seize things."
This is not fairly simple logic at all. It does not follow that if it is acceptable to enter and seize things from private property on the basis of strong suspicion of criminal activities that it is acceptable to enter and not seize things.
The problem is that whilst it may endanger an investigation to allow a potential criminal to know that s/he is being investigated, it also creates an atmosphere whereby any citizen may be watched without their knowledge of it. To broaden the argument, I hereby reproduce an article from The Economist, September 20, 2007
What the article is trying to say, and where I have strayed to, is that nobody should have the right to secret surveillance over individuals. As Mr Mukasey states in his opinion piece "If you leave behind a note saying "Good afternoon, Mr. bin Laden, we were here," that might betray the existence of an investigation and cause the subjects to flee or destroy evidence." However, I'm in agreement with The Economist on this one: "Dozens of plots may have been foiled and thousands of lives saved as a result of some of the unsavoury practices now being employed in the name of fighting terrorism. Dropping such practices in order to preserve freedom may cost many lives. So be it."
The question is really whether you prefer to live a safe and highly restricted and regulated life, or be free to negotiate your own relations with your neighbours but have some risks?
I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not in favour of totalitarian, authoritarian rule.
fon @ 8:45 PM link to post * *