Do Interrogation Tactics Used in the War on Terror Raise Constitutional Issues? The Military Commissions Act provides: “No statement

Do Interrogation Tactics Used in the War on Terror Raise Constitutional Issues?

The Military Commissions Act provides: “No statement obtained by the use of torture or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment . . . shall be admissible in a military commission under this chapter. . . .” 10 U.S.C § 948r(a). Subsection (c) allows all other statements made by the accused to be admitted “if the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient proba­tive value” and either “the statement was voluntarily given” or was “made incident to lawful conduct during military operations at the point of capture or during closely related active combat engagement, and the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.”

This language offers much less protection than voluntariness standard affords criminal defendants under the Due Processes Clauses of Fifth and Four­ teenth Amendment. In fact, it appears to declare that statements coerced from enemy combatants using means that fall shy of torture are admissible, even though the highly coercive interrogation practices used would render the statements inadmissible as in­ voluntary under civilian criminal procedure standards.

Complete a 500-word essay answering the following:

Do you think the different rule applicable to enemy combatants in military tribunals is justified? Why or why not?
Compare and contrast how the custodial inter­rogation of enemy combatants raises concerns similar to those that were at issue in Brown v. Mississippi .
Conduct a Web Quest to identify a current event either related to the topic of interrogation tactics and/or another topic of interest within this module. Summarize the event and be sure to indicate the association with the topic related to it. Additionally, cite your source in proper APA format.