Detainee Treatment Act: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>George Swan
(move to talk page...)
mNo edit summary
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
The '''Detainee Treatment Act of 2005''' is an act passed by the [[United States Congress]] on December 31 2005, specifying explicit standards for the treatment of captives the [[United States]] apprehended during its [[War on Terror]].<ref name=JuristDTA>
{{TOC|right}}
{{cite news
The '''Detainee Treatment Act of 2005''' (42USC2000dd) is an act passed by the [[United States Congress]] on December 31 2005, specifying explicit standards for the treatment of captives in United States military custody.<ref name=DTA>{{citation
| url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php
| url = http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/detainee-treatment-act-of-2005-white.php
| title=Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
| date = December 31, 2005
| publisher=[[The Jurist]]
| title = Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
| date=December 31 2005
| id = 42 USC 2000dd
| accessdate=2008-04-10
}}</ref> Contrary to popular reports, it does not contain the words "war on terror" but is a general standard for military confinement. It is not specific to Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but addresses the status of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq as well.
| quote=
 
}}</ref>
Its major provisions are restrictions on the use of interrogation techniques that could be construed as torture, as well as restricting the appeals available to those prisoners specifically at Guantanamo.
 
==Permitted interrogation techniques==
==Permitted interrogation techniques==
Interrogators who use, in good faith, interrogation techniques outside the scope of the Act shall be able to offer the defense "that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and  understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. It specifically states "No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."  The description of prohibited treatement is generally consistent with that of the [[Convention on Torture]], and in the spirit of the [[Eighth Amendment]].


[[United States Senator]] [[John McCain]], who was tortured by when he was a prisoner of [[North Vietnam]], is the sponsor most closely identified with the Act.  
[[United States Senator]] [[John McCain]], who was tortured by when he was a prisoner of [[North Vietnam]], is the sponsor most closely identified with the Act.  He argued that the interrogation techniques used on American captives should be restricted to those techniques described in the [[United States Army]]'s interrogation manual, FM2-22.3. See [[human-source intelligence]]. [[Vice President of the United States]] [[Dick Cheney]] argued that these restrictions should only apply to captives in military custody, and that the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] should still be allowed to employ "extended interrogation techniques".<ref name=WashingtonPost20051025>
   
He argued that the interrogation techniques used on American captives should be restricted to those techniques described in the [[United States Army]]'s interrogation manual, FM2-22.3. See [[human-source intelligence]].
[[VPOTUS|Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]] argued that these restrictions should only apply to captives in military custody, and that the [[Central Intelligence Agency]] should still be allowed to employ "extended interrogation techniques".<ref name=WashingtonPost20051025>
{{cite news
{{cite news
| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402051.html  
| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402051.html  
Line 26: Line 25:
}}</ref>
}}</ref>


Cheney's comments are moot, since the [[Obama administration]] has rejected the argument that extended interrogation is permissible.(missed earlier signing) [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]]
==Limitation on appeals==
It limited the scope of detainees to file petitions with the relevant [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] to an appeal brought by or on behalf of an alien who was detained at Guantanamo and for whom a final determination had been made.


==Detainees may not petition for habeas corpus==
Certain prisoners, who had been determined not to be enemy combatants by [[Combatant Status Review Tribunal]]s, were left with no means of appeal, according to legal writer [[Jonathon Hafetz]].<ref name=JuristDTA20060420>
 
{{cite news
The Act stated detainees have no standing to file [[habeas corpus]] petitions.<ref name=NYtimes20070912>
| url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/04/what-detainee-treatment-act-really.php
| title=What the Detainee Treatment Act Really Means for Guantanamo Detainees
| publisher=[[The Jurist]]
| author=[[Jonathan Hafetz]]
| date=April 20, 2006
| accessdate=2008-04-10
}}</ref> Since the DTA, however, significant court decisions and legislation have affected the criteria for evaluation, so Hafetz's comments may be moot.
==Concern on information disclosure==
Aspects of the legislation addressed concerns about the disclosure of intelligence information. <ref name=NYtimes20070912>
{{cite news
{{cite news
| url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/washington/12gitmo.html?ref=todayspaper
| url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/washington/12gitmo.html?ref=todayspaper
Line 39: Line 47:
| accessdate=2007-09-12
| accessdate=2007-09-12
| page=A18
| page=A18
}}</ref><ref name=Slate20071016>
{{cite news
| url=http://www.slate.com/id/2176017/
| title=The Dog Ate My Evidence: What happens when the government can't re-create the case against you?
| page=
| pages=
| publisher=[[Slate Magazine]]
| author=[[Dahlia Lithwick]]
| date=Tuesday, October 16, 2007
| accessdate=2008-03-01
| quote=
}}</ref>
}}</ref>
In the event the Judicial Branch interpreted this as prohibiting Guantanamo captives from initiating new habeas corpus petitions, but allowing existing habeas corpus petitions to run their course.
In lieu of habeas corpus petitions, captives were allowed to submit requests to a [[Washington DC]] court of appeals. The appeals court had the option of reviewing the evidence the [[Combatant Status Review Tribunal]] used to confirm that the captive was an [[enemy combatant]], if it thought the captive had a reasonable claim the Tribunal had not complied with the rules laid out for it.<ref name=NYtimes20070912/>
Certain prisons, who had been determined not to be enemy combatants by CSRTs, were left with no means of appeal, according to legal writer [[Jonathon Hafetz]].<ref name=JuristDTA20060420>
{{cite news
| url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/04/what-detainee-treatment-act-really.php
| title=What the Detainee Treatment Act Really Means for Guantanamo Detainees
| publisher=[[The Jurist]]
| author=[[Jonathan Hafetz]]
| date=April 20, 2006
| accessdate=2008-04-10
| quote=
}}</ref>
==The DTA and the Military Commissions Act of 2006==
One of the habeas corpus petitions that continued to proceed after the passage of the DTA was [[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]],<ref name=JuristMCA20070227>
{{cite news
| url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/02/why-boumediene-was-wrongly-decided.php
| title=Why Boumediene Was Wrongly Decided
| publisher=The Jurist
| author=Marjorie Cohn
| date=February 27, 2007
| accessdate=2008-04-10
| quote=
}}</ref>, which the [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled  that the [[Executive Branch]] lacked the [[United States Constitution|constitutional authority]] to authorize military commissions.  It ruled that this authority lay with Congress.
Subsequently, in the fall of 2006, the United States Congress passed the [[Military Commissions Act of 2006]] (MCA).  The MCA authorized Military Commissions very similar to those set up by the Presidency.  It also specified that all the captive's outstanding habeas corpus petitions would be stayed.
==Appeals in Federal court==
On June 23, 2008, it was announced that a three judge Federal court of appeal had overturned the determination of [[Huzaifa Parhat]]'s Combatant Status Review Tribunal on Friday June 20 2008.<ref name=Wapo20080623>
{{cite news
| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062300844.html
| title=Appeals court rules for Guantanamo prisoner
| publisher=[[Washington Post]]
| author=James Vicini
| date=2008-06-23
| accessdate=2008-06-23
}} [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2008%2F06%2F23%2FAR2008062300844.html&date=2008-06-23 mirror]
</ref>
Parhat's was the first case to ruled on since the Supreme Court's ruling in [[Boumediene v. Bush]].
However, the appeals court's ruling was under the section of the Detainee Treatment Act that allowed captives to challenge their Combatant Status Review Tribunal's determination that they were "enemy combatants" -- not due to the Supreme Court's restoration of their right to mount habeas corpus petitions.
The ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' quoted comments on the ruling from [[David Cole]], the author of two books on military law:
<blockquote>Now all of these cases have been revived and this is the first case to move forward. And here is somebody that the military has been holding on to for six years and the federal court now says he shouldn't have been held in the first place.
Absent this independent judicial review, he might have been sitting there for another 10 to 15 years. Now he has a chance to find freedom.<ref name=LosAngelesTimes20080624>
{{cite news
| url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-gitmo24-2008jun24,0,6727416.story
| title=Court rules for Guantanamo inmate
| publisher=Los Angeles Times
| author=Josh Meyer
| date=2008-06-24
}} [http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnews%2Fnationworld%2Fwashingtondc%2Fla-na-gitmo24-2008jun24%2C0%2C6727416.story&date=2008-06-24 mirror]
</ref></blockquote>


==References==
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]]

Latest revision as of 11:01, 6 August 2024

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42USC2000dd) is an act passed by the United States Congress on December 31 2005, specifying explicit standards for the treatment of captives in United States military custody.[1] Contrary to popular reports, it does not contain the words "war on terror" but is a general standard for military confinement. It is not specific to Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but addresses the status of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq as well.

Its major provisions are restrictions on the use of interrogation techniques that could be construed as torture, as well as restricting the appeals available to those prisoners specifically at Guantanamo.

Permitted interrogation techniques

Interrogators who use, in good faith, interrogation techniques outside the scope of the Act shall be able to offer the defense "that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. It specifically states "No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." The description of prohibited treatement is generally consistent with that of the Convention on Torture, and in the spirit of the Eighth Amendment.

United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured by when he was a prisoner of North Vietnam, is the sponsor most closely identified with the Act. He argued that the interrogation techniques used on American captives should be restricted to those techniques described in the United States Army's interrogation manual, FM2-22.3. See human-source intelligence. Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney argued that these restrictions should only apply to captives in military custody, and that the Central Intelligence Agency should still be allowed to employ "extended interrogation techniques".[2]

Limitation on appeals

It limited the scope of detainees to file petitions with the relevant United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to an appeal brought by or on behalf of an alien who was detained at Guantanamo and for whom a final determination had been made.

Certain prisoners, who had been determined not to be enemy combatants by Combatant Status Review Tribunals, were left with no means of appeal, according to legal writer Jonathon Hafetz.[3] Since the DTA, however, significant court decisions and legislation have affected the criteria for evaluation, so Hafetz's comments may be moot.

Concern on information disclosure

Aspects of the legislation addressed concerns about the disclosure of intelligence information. [4]

References

  1. Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, December 31, 2005, 42 USC 2000dd
  2. R. Jeffrey Smith, Josh White. Cheney Plan Exempts CIA From Bill Barring Abuse of Detainees, Washington Post, October 25 2005, p. A01. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
  3. Jonathan Hafetz. What the Detainee Treatment Act Really Means for Guantanamo Detainees, The Jurist, April 20, 2006. Retrieved on 2008-04-10.
  4. William Glaberson. Officials Cite Danger in Revealing Detainee Data, 'New York Times', Wednesday, September 12 2007, p. A18. Retrieved on 2007-09-12.