The Military Commissions Act, Coerced Confessions, and the Role of the Courts

Commenting on the provenance of this concern about coercions expressed in cases under both the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Due Process Clause,6 Rehnquist observed that judicial focus on the voluntariness of defendants' statements to custodial authorities has roo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inCriminal justice ethics Vol. 25; no. 2; p. 2
Main Author Margulies, Peter
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics 01.07.2006
Subjects
Amendments
Commissions
International law
Medical treatment
Military tribunals
Provisions
Sleep deprivation
Supreme Court decisions
Terrorism
Tribunals & commissions
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Commenting on the provenance of this concern about coercions expressed in cases under both the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the Due Process Clause,6 Rehnquist observed that judicial focus on the voluntariness of defendants' statements to custodial authorities has roots in the common law, as the courts of England and the United States recognized that coerced confessions are inherently untrustworthy. Fourth, courts can hold that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Due Process clause apply to military commissions convened at Guantanamo and require the suppression of statements made under coercion by either the defendant or by third parties such as fellow detainees.
ISSN:0731-129X
1937-5948
DOI:10.1080/0731129X.2006.9992197