[pjc50]

I'm pretty sure everyone involved thought the person was not innocent.

This is always true of almost everyone arrested by the police: they're arrested because they're suspects. Suspicion is not grounds for torture. Guilt is not grounds for torture either! That's what the 8th Amendment is about.

Torture is, in and of itself, a crime against humanity under international law and the laws of war. This is not a theoretical point, it was used in the post-WW2 war crimes trials to prosecute even low-ranking staff who were involved in systematic torture. The Allies executed people for torture.

[ikeboy]

I was just pointing out that "specifically to torture innocent people" was misleading and wrong.

>Suspicion is not grounds for torture. Guilt is not grounds for torture either! That's what the 8th Amendment is about.

Morally, you have a point. But from your mention of the 8th Amendment, it looks like you're talking legally, in which case only US citizens and people covered under relevant international agreements have such rights.

[pjc50]

No, non-citizens are arguably covered: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...

"The Constitution does distinguish in some respects between the rights of citizens and noncitizens: the right not to be discriminatorily denied the vote and the right to run for federal elective office are expressly restricted to citizens.12 All other rights, however, are written without such a limitation. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all "persons." The rights attaching to criminal trials, including the right to a public trial, a trial by jury, the assistance of a lawyer, and the right to confront adverse witnesses, all apply to "the accused." And both the First Amendment's protections of political and religious freedoms and the Fourth Amendment's protection of privacy and liberty apply to "the people.""

The restriction to US citizens isn't in the text of the constitution, which is written in the passive voice:

> "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

But a bit more digging reveals that it was explicitly banned by US law some time ago, making this discussion of its legality moot: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

[hartpuff]

> I was just pointing out that "specifically to torture innocent people" was misleading and wrong.

What are so-called 'black sites' set up for then, if not to torture people who have not been charged with let alone convicted of anything (ie, are innocent)?

[ikeboy]

That word does not mean what you think it means.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/actual_innocence

>A finding of actual innocence, as that term has come to be used in federal habeas corpus jurisprudence, is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court in a bench trial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence

Innocent means that they didn't do anything legally wrong. Plenty of uncharged and unconvicted people have broken the law.

[hartpuff]

> That word does not mean what you think it means.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

    One of the most sacred principles
    in the American criminal justice
    system, holding that a defendant
    is *innocent* until proven guilty. 

> Plenty of uncharged and unconvicted people have broken the law.

I can't believe anyone would bother making such a fatuous point, to which the obvious response is simply: plenty of uncharged and unconvicted (and even convicted for that matter) people have not broken the law.

Now can you answer the question you evaded in my last post:

If stating that black sites are set up specifically to detain people without charge and torture them is "misleading", according to you, please explain what you believe the purpose of black sites is.

[ikeboy]

>I can't believe anyone would bother making such a fatuous point, to which the obvious response is simply: plenty of uncharged and unconvicted (and even convicted for that matter) people have not broken the law.

Which is entirely irrelevant. Your claim was that innocent simply meant not found guilty, which is incorrect. There's a "presumption" of innocence: "innocence" means they actually didn't do it, and the law assumes they're in that state until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean everyone presumed innocent is innocent.

>If stating that black sites are set up specifically to detain people without charge and torture them is "misleading", according to you, please explain what you believe the purpose of black sites is.

I didn't say that. I specifically suggested you use "unconvicted", but if you'd used "uncharged" it would be fine. The word innocent is problematic for reasons I've explained.

[hartpuff]

> Your claim was that innocent simply meant not found guilty, which is incorrect.

What I said is: "by definition, the people being tortured, not having been found guilty of any crime, are innocent". Which is not incorrect.

I'm going to assume you know the principle of innocent until proven guilty, since it was in my last reply, quoted from Cornell's Law site.

> the law assumes they're in that state until proven otherwise. That doesn't mean everyone presumed innocent is innocent.

Okay, point me to a legal principle akin to innocent until proven guilty that instead states might not be innocent even if they have not been found guilty.

> The word innocent is problematic for reasons I've explained.

That it's problematic for you does not make it problematic.