... that eventually someone in the media would make the connection that being kicked or beaten to death during interrogation amounts to torture even by the fairly lax criteria of the OLC memos ("results in death or severe pain equivalent to major organ failure"). The only way these people can fail to make this connection is if their jobs depend on not making it. Beating people to death who are in your custody and restrained is not merely illegal — it is downright barbaric.

Bernbart wants to know how many of America's Einsatzgruppen were military and CIA and how many were contractors. I think it would be more useful to know how many were Christians and how many were Jewish.

Aren't we splitting hairs here? I'll admit to being out of my depth, but functionally, a limit placed on what a prisoner is required to provide combined with a restriction against coercion, is essentially equivalent to a prohibition against interrogation, isn't it? (Functionally equivalent, not absolutely equivalent.)

Not at all. Unless you define interrogation as beating the crap out of someone until they tell you what you want to hear. Coercion is not an integral part of the definition of interrogation. It is quite possible to interrogate someone without resorting to coercion. Some people are really good at it. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff>.

If charged with a crime, one is not required to answer questions without a lawyer present.

True, but even if not charged with a crime one is not required to answer questions without legal advice.

In all instances, one may answer questions voluntarily, including, I might add, the "detainees who can't be named" currently at issue (reference to an earlier thread and a bit of a pun, too).

Sorry, I must have missed it. I don't get it.

In all cases but one, the aforementioned "detainees", one has the right to either remain silent or provide only limited personal information.

This is not quite correct. POWs have the right to provide only limited personal information (date of birth is also a piece of information a POW is required to provide under the Geneva Conventions, but gets dropped out of the the Hollywood line "name, rank, and serial number") and to refuse to answer any other questions.

Persons charged with crimes or those who are suspected of involvement in crimes, however, while they have a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation, only have a right to refuse to answer questions that may result in self-incrimination. Failure to answer other relevant questions may lead to charges of obstruction (see Libby, I. Lewis [aka "Scooter"]). The presence of a lawyer to advise what questions may be answered is a guard against infringement of the accused's constitutional right to protection from self-incrimination.

Another difference between POWs and accused criminals is that POWs, captured on the battlefield, can be assumed to have relevant information about the disposition of enemy forces (deployments, staging areas, level of supply, location of units, names of commanders, etc.), whereas a suspected criminal very well might know nothing about the criminal acts of which he is accused or suspected.

And the right not to be tortured.
— The Reality Kid

Everyone has that right.

... for doing my homework for me.

I appreciate the detailed reply of the kind that I would never get to read in any news coverage (supposing there were any) of this despicable microcosm in the continued descent into tyrannical imperialism (or imperialistic tyranny). Should we expect thunderous applause?

Not to be seen as fawning, I have a tiny quibble about "the fact that interrogation of POWs is forbidden under the Geneva Conventions", which, as ondelette has already pointed out, is not entirely correct.

"Name, rank, and serial number" is the only information a POW is required to give to his captor. He can give any additional information he chooses to. What is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions is any form of coercion to obtain information from POWs:

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68

I have posted about this before, but not for half a year or so:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/19/holder/permalink/ec8c3656918f86a7910f2ab1074f22bb.html

If even one of the "detainees" at GTMO is legitimately a prisoner of war, then his treatment there amounts to a war crime (also known, for the purposes of USC as a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions").

Again, thanks for your detailed summary.

On the progress of the Lieberman/Graham "Suppression of Evidence of War Crimes Act"? I understand it passed the Senate by acclamation.

This one's for you, omooex:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8118721.stm

From the AP:

The Iranian government has seized and detained several hundred activists, journalists and students across the nation, in one of the most extensive crackdowns on key dissidents since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Even as unprecedented protests broke out on the streets after the June 12 disputed presidential election, the most stinging backlash from authorities has come away from the crowds through roundups and targeted arrests, according to witnesses and human rights organizations. They say plainclothes security agents have also put dozens of the country's most experienced pro-reform leaders behind bars.

The Iranian government says only that unspecified figures responsible for fomenting unrest have been taken into custody.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_the_quiet_crackdown

Enemies of the State are subject to indefinite detention. Them Iranians don't do no habeas corpus crap.

And Obama wants to make the US more like Iran?

As Nero Wolfe would have said, "pfui".