Two Questions

After reading two posts from members of the Watchers Council on President Bush’s veto of the bill banning waterboarding, it brought a couple of questions to mind. Both of the Democratic candidates for their party’s nomination for the presidency have spoken out against the policies of the Bush Administration in this regard. John McCain, now the Republican nominee presumptive for the presidency, has been somewhat ambiguous on the subject.

I’ve made my own positions on the subject pretty clear and been pilloried for them.

Here are my questions. Are all forms of coercive interrogation torture? If not, where is the bright line? I’d sure like answers for them from Sens. Clinton and Obama but I doubt that they will be forthcoming.

3 comments… add one
  • PD Shaw Link

    Those are good questions. I think I might phrase the first a little differently. Is coercive interrogation ever permitted? I ask this because coercive interrogation of citizens in a criminal context violates the Constitution and its argued over and over again that we are acting contrary to our principles.

    I would like to ask Obama this question: You’ve taught Constitutional Law and I presume have taught that due process requires that criminal offenses clearly proscribe punishable behavior, else the law is void for vagueness. What are the implications of generalized articulation of principles as criminal offenses and do they apply to current torture law?

  • Does the constitution prohibit all coercive interrogation? As commonly defined it includes things like isolation, temperature, stress positions. My understanding is that some variations of those are commonplace in police interrogations, particularly isolation.

  • PD Shaw Link

    My recollection of the history is that by the 30s/40s, the SCOTUS had decided that the Constitution forbade involuntary, coerced statements, whether physical or psychological. There were a number of cases finding that solitary confinement or lengthy interrogation or appeals to religiosity were coercive under the circumstances. Then in the 60s, the SCOTUS decided that the custodial nature of police interrogation itself was inherently coercive, but gave the police the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise by reading and providing Miranda rights. Under Miranda a certain amount of coercion re-entered the picture because the police could say we Mirandized him and he knowingly waived his right to be silent.

Leave a Comment