Abstract

 


 



Ditching the ‘Disposal Plan’: Revisiting Miranda in an Age of Terror


Kim D. Chanbonpin


The John Marshall Law School

2008

St. Thomas Law Review, Vol. 20, p. 155, 2008

Abstract:     
In addition to raising doubts about the fairness and legitimacy of the U.S. detainee policies, torturing suspected terrorists poses the more immediate problem of, as former CIA chief of European operations Tyler Drumheller phrased it: “[w]hat are you going to do with these people?” If a detainee is prosecuted, the accused will argue that his confession and any corroborating evidence elicited through torture should be excluded. Consequently, CIA interrogators have little incentive to keep terror suspects alive after their intelligence value has been exhausted. Moreover, a living victim of CIA interrogation methods is a prospective witness in the potential criminal prosecution of the CIA agent who performed the interrogation. The fear of prosecution for violating federal torture statutes is so real for CIA interrogators that many of them have purchased professional liability insurance to offset the costs of any legal fees associated with their criminal defense. For any agent, a tempting solution is “the disposal plan,” a euphemism for the extrajudicial killing of terror suspects.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 28

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: April 26, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Chanbonpin, Kim D., Ditching the ‘Disposal Plan’: Revisiting Miranda in an Age of Terror (2008). St. Thomas Law Review, Vol. 20, p. 155, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1594260

Contact Information

Kim D. Chanbonpin (Contact Author)
The John Marshall Law School ( email )
315 South Plymouth Court
Chicago, IL 60604
United States
Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 120
Downloads: 18

© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.641 seconds