Would using a ship as a black site enable the US to torture prisoners in international waters?

I don't really understand maritime law, and am not sure if it's just a TV trope that there are essentially no laws in certain areas of the ocean.

Seems like it would be pretty easy to have a large ship with holding cells and travel around on faux business, or just park the thing. Not a whole lot of nosy neighbors, real hard to get close too without a ton of advanced warning, don't have to rely on other governments etc.

Unless it's detected.
I suspect they indeed are.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I feel like it would be hard to prove. I also suspect only foreign governments would be able to detect them, and that they are probably going to keep quiet for a myriad of reasons.

Like this you mean??



www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: Domo1

Commercial vessels over a certain size need to be registered, the registering country and entity (Lloyds, DNV, ABS etc) so it likely won't be a commercial vessel per se' but would likely fall under the military naval fleet where it can be better controlled by government agencies without the interference of commercial compliance and exposure.

On the high seas where the rule of law is murky at best, the golden rule is SOLAS (Safety Of Life At Sea) which every seafarer has an obligation to comply with - and that includes an obligation to rescue individuals in distress, whether that distress is overt or covert is an interpretation of international maritime law.

So, just like Greenpeace and Sea Shepard, there is nothing stopping a group from forming whose sole purpose is to disrupt the black site operations and torture of humans where the legalities of interference have not been tested. The CIA/other would have a very hard time in an international maritime court persuading a judge and jury that they should be allowed to operate the black site on the high seas with impunity.

ETA: and as cavtrooper7 said, this is based upon a black site being exposed - I have no doubt they are in operation already and nigh-impossible to detect

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Hey thanks! You certainly seem to have a wide breadth of knowledge. I appreciate you here a lot.

Don't you think that the CIA/other could set up fake stuff? I mean they do all the time with real estate and other assets.

Enhanced interrogation techniques though, not trying to kill people, just causing some discomfort.

Interpretation is interpretation though.

I have a feeling that there would be some influence over judges that actually could affect an operation like this. It's a tangled web of subtleties.

a reply to: dragonridr

Wow no s$$$?

A US navy spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, told the Guardian: "There are no detention facilities on US navy ships."

Yeah, they wouldn't be Navy ships. Slippery snake.

ETA: Thanks for the link!

a reply to: Domo1

Well, now that I think about it, you can certainly set up a site in a 40" container or within the superstructure of a ship and yes, indeed, it could be a commercial vessel where the Captain and crew are in on it and the Director of the complying government body (for Australia it's AMSA - Australian Maritime Safety Authority, for the US it's the Coast Guard) is also versed on the site as well and allows it to operate "under the radar" so to speak.

Good point, and certainly within the capabilities and resources of the CIA.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: dragonridr

Wow no s$$$?

A US navy spokesman, Commander Jeffrey Gordon, told the Guardian: "There are no detention facilities on US navy ships."

Yeah, they wouldn't be Navy ships. Slippery snake.

ETA: Thanks for the link!

I like how he put the qualifier in saying well for more than a few days lmao. Problem is no record of when they arrived or when they leave so we should just take his word for it I guess?? Also when questioned about the ships he refused comment soo those ships didn't count I guess lol.

a reply to: Domo1

Huh? No detention facilities on a ship? Simply put what about the brig?

And then the prison ships? The US admitted to operating them.

No doubt whatsoever blacksites are operated on USS vessels.

In warfare what exactly is the line?
Col Allen West was kicked out of the army for firing a pistol close to a prisoners head so he would point out the enemy.
To ME that is fine.
Terrorists aren't covered by Geneva convention as they aren't a declared nation but a world wide cult.
Their treatment would fall in the client catagory.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

There was a TED talk that I found rather illuminating that went into the secret shady shenanigans of the govt. It's irritating the crap out of me that I can't find it. Annnnnnd, I think I just remembered how to...

Yup



I'm not going through the whole thing, but I believe he talks about the govt. pretending not to be (he govt.). I'm sure you've seen it.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Col Allen West was kicked out of the army for firing a pistol close to a prisoners head so he would point out the enemy.

To ME that is fine.

With things like this there is more evidence pointing to the fact that torture does more harm than good. There are countless studies the prove this.

What really gets me about these situations is that the people doing the torturing don't know where to stop. They think a person holds all the answer or is hiding something and the person ends up giving false answers or no answers at all because they don't know anything.

But you know what it isn't fine? When the torturers have friends that benefit from someone being under a criminal investigation.

Cherish the day.

a reply to: gpols

With things like this there is more evidence pointing to the fact that torture does more harm than good. There are countless studies the prove this.

It's a dance. Straight up torturing someone won't net results, at least not beneficial ones, they'll lie to make it stop if they don't know, and will lie anyway, it needs to be deeper than torture. You need to be able to do SOMETHING to get people on board. You can't be all talk and no bite.

"I know muh rights" isn't something you want an obvious terrorist saying. You want information, you're not getting it unless the person is under duress and knows you can keep them there for a long time. You need to be their friend, it's not their fault, you hate what you have to do, but it's getting done until you start getting verifiable info. keep them in the dark about what you know, pretend you know more than you do, keep 'em talking and be dispassionate.

There's a difference between LE and counter terrorism when it comes to interrogation. I'd rather get a bunch of false leads and finally get gold with a known terrorist than get a false confession with a shoplifter. I would wager that a few members that are in the know won't comment about certain methods. it's OK to headf$$$ someone that's clearly got knowledge (especially of a future crime), it's not OK to lead a person into confessing. There's a difference. It's hard to explain morally.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

And I'm sure it wouldn't be a walk in the park to harass a prison ship, either. No doubt they'd have goons with sub machine guns on board and anti-ship weaponry to repel boarders.

a reply to: Domo1

It's hard to explain morally.

Not really, at some point you become to emotionally involved because of what you THINK you know when in reality you don't really know anything and you are just continuing the game because it's personal and there isn't actually any police work.

It's all about revenge and not about justice. You feel what I'm saying?

ETA:

It's like trying to pin someone as a Mafia Don when there are tapes discrediting your story and you are using political muscle to seek out an agenda.


ETA: ETA:

Or worse yet. To see through your story you would have to admit being the Mafia.

a reply to: gpols

It's all about revenge and not about justice. You feel what I'm saying?

Honestly no. Can you explain it a bit more?

For me it wasn't about justice, but about protection. There wasn't any real feeling of hate, just a sense of duty to innocents.

originally posted by: Domo1
Would using a ship as a black site enable the US to torture prisoners in international waters?

It seems to me that your 'creativity' might be better put to use in ways other than an attempt to make the torture by the insane criminals even easier to accomplish.
You would have had a sure job in medieval days, though.
Torquemada?
I think that we are about done torturing each other, don't you think so?

a reply to: namelesss

Just look at his Avatar. I wonder if he ever found that Glock that he lost a while back?

Next thing you know they'll want me to rap and try to use that as a "confession" because there is no evidence to support their story. The lengths they'll go to for a friend. geez.

Maybe I should have went to the Karaoke bar tonight instead!! LOL!!!

The question may apply to any country - not just the US.

English law has jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad i.e. for English or Welsh nationals. Not sure how that applies to crimes committed at sea, but as England has been around a bit longer than the US it probably has already set precedent quite deeply - there's probably a law going back to 936! The US Federal law has jurisdiction over some crimes committed at sea, such as piracy, if my reading is correct.

Just doing a cursory search, it seems crimes committed at sea are generally prosecuted in the country where the ship is registered.

However, any ambiguity is a crack which people exploit.