StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Following from Pantheocide Part Thirty. Please note there isn't a right or wrong answer to this in the sense of I agree with one or the options. I've written a forked path so the plotline can follow one of two minor deviations based on the majority verdict of the board. There are some really serious issues raised here. I won't be voting unless there is a tie in which case I'll flip a coin.

Please also note, as always, the characters speak for themselves, not for me.

She betrayed Earth to Heaven. Her actions could have killed thousands, and given Heaven a stronger position. What Luga did was completely justified.

However, following the letter of the law, the confession is not admissible. Legally, it should be struck down, but I'm not sure how the Judge would rule in real life.

The whole 'enhanced interrogation technique' motif leave a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. However, for the purposes of the story I'd like to see the judge going for the populist route of 'for the war effort', seeing as the casus belli are sound enough to justify the necessity, I'm voting for conviction. I look forward to seeing what kind of public backlash is generated in-universe.

Lugasharmanaska's action was incidental to the entire process was it not? Nothing more than the same as a truck backfiring outside convincing you that God has set your date to die, or some other sort of superstitious nonsense which sometimes makes paranoid criminals confess. Not the Succubus' fault that she got hungry while interviewing the woman, is it? Nothing happened between the two except for an exchange of words. This isn't waterboarding, and a reasonable judge could well conclude that our dear little traitor had no actual reason to expect that she would actually lose parts of her body as demon food; she was simply being scared. Is saying to a suspected child molester that you're going to put him in genpop unconstitutional as well? Because this really isn't any different from that. The people voting for saying what Luga did is unconstitutional, are frankly being kinda ridiculous.

It was only images, right? That was the impression I got from the chapter, but I've been known to miss out on subtleties before. If it was only images, I'm inclined to allow it, if it involved the victim actually feeling the pain of being eaten, I'm all against it. Most of the trauma here seemed to stem from the girl's religious background and Luga's nature, made it hard to figure out how much the images actually did on top of that stress.

The law is clear. The defendant gave her information under severe duress. She was made to believe, and fully experience that she was about to be given a forced mastectomy sans consent or anesthesia. In this regard, it's no better than waterboarding, where someone is made to believe and feel that they're about to be drowned, even though this isn't the actual intent of the interrogators. From a purely legal standpoint, it goes beyond the usual leeway of law enforcement threats to actual torture. The judge ought to throw out the defendant's confession.

The next thing that the FBI would likely do after this would be to implore President Obama to take the Lincoln Option and suspend habeus corpus, so this sort of question doesn't make it to the courts again.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:This isn't waterboarding, and a reasonable judge could well conclude that our dear little traitor had no actual reason to expect that she would actually lose parts of her body as demon food; she was simply being scared.

Non sequitur; she was scared because(as admitted) that she was under threat of violence. However, as I've already said, I feel that it was justified.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:The law is clear. The defendant gave her information under severe duress. She was made to believe, and fully experience that she was about to be given a forced mastectomy sans consent or anesthesia. In this regard, it's no better than waterboarding, where someone is made to believe and feel that they're about to be drowned, even though this isn't the actual intent of the interrogators. From a purely legal standpoint, it goes beyond the usual leeway of law enforcement threats to actual torture. The judge ought to throw out the defendant's confession.

The next thing that the FBI would likely do after this would be to implore President Obama to take the Lincoln Option and suspend habeus corpus, so this sort of question doesn't make it to the courts again.

I just didn't get that impression from what I read.

She was under severe duress. Even if the Duress was illusion it existed. The defendant believed whole heartily that she was about to have a chunk taken out of her by Lugasharmanaska. Despite the fact it did not occur she still believed. Waving the loaded pistol and via mind control making them believe you are waving a loaded pistol is the same thing.

Had she had mental issues it would be different but Lugasharmanaska deliberately psychically waved the loaded pistol.
All this means is we have to hold of prosecuting her until we have Michael there in person to testify to making her his agent on earth. Her confession might be tainted but all the evidence leading up to the arrest is not and bring Michael in should convince any jury. Hell they could run with everything they had up until they put her in the interrogation room, and with public opinion any jury will likely convict her.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:The law is clear. The defendant gave her information under severe duress. She was made to believe, and fully experience that she was about to be given a forced mastectomy sans consent or anesthesia. In this regard, it's no better than waterboarding, where someone is made to believe and feel that they're about to be drowned, even though this isn't the actual intent of the interrogators. From a purely legal standpoint, it goes beyond the usual leeway of law enforcement threats to actual torture. The judge ought to throw out the defendant's confession.

The next thing that the FBI would likely do after this would be to implore President Obama to take the Lincoln Option and suspend habeus corpus, so this sort of question doesn't make it to the courts again.

I just didn't get that impression from what I read.

From the previous chapter:

... "You can't stop me. I'm stronger and faster than you and it takes a lot of bullets to kill us. And I'm hungry now." Luga reached out and ripped open Branch's blouse, then grabbed one of her breasts. She pulled it, stretching it out and opened her mouth exposing her fangs just a few inches from her supposed snack.

"Get her away from me!" Branch panicked, screaming the words, mixed out with weeping and fear. "Get that hell-spawn away from me. I'll tell you anything, just don’t let her . . . . ."

Luga stepped away and grinned at the two stunned FBI men. "There you are. You humans are so afraid of being eaten. Of course, you can't use her confession in court. Call me back if there are any more problems with her."

Kathryn Branch was already babbling out a long list of the people she had contacted in her espionage ring. As she left, Luga stopped and patted her on the head. "Kathryn, fangs for the mammaries."

It seems quite clear that the defendant experienced her breast being pulled from her blouse and that it was about to be eaten by a daemon from Hell. Out-of-universe, someone had to go out of their way to ask if this actually happened, or if the defendant was merely given a convincing hallucination that it happened.

Besides the fact that she was under duress, she was drugged. The Prosecutor acted as if the ineffectiveness of the drugging proved it didn't occur. If you drugged me with LSD, sodium pentathol or xanax today for the purpose of interrogation and I didn't respond, that doesn't mean that the drugging was okay or didn't happen. The whole purpose of bringing Luga in was to use her pheromones to get information from Branch.

Branch is a despicable cunt, but it's fairly clear that under existing law this confession should be inadmissible.

Legally, this is a violation of due process. The police cannot actually beat confessions out of people (whether or not this actually happens is another matter) and they cannot threaten to do direct physical harm to the person being interrogated. Miss Branch had every reason to believe that Luga had actually laid hands on her, ripped open her shirt, grabbed her breast, and was about to bite it. That's clearly poisoned fruit. Police can lie, they can tell stories about prison, they can tell a person that everyone knows they did it and have a list of witnesses saying they did a mile long, but they can't physically coerce the person.

Further, she certainly was drugged. Luga's pheromones are clearly mind altering chemicals, which actually require a powerful air exchanger to deal with. Whether or not a person RESISTS drugging does not matter to the fact that drugging has occured. Frankly, bringing Luga in on this was the FBI MAJORLY dropping the ball.

Darmalus wrote:It was only images, right? That was the impression I got from the chapter, but I've been known to miss out on subtleties before. If it was only images, I'm inclined to allow it, if it involved the victim actually feeling the pain of being eaten, I'm all against it. Most of the trauma here seemed to stem from the girl's religious background and Luga's nature, made it hard to figure out how much the images actually did on top of that stress.

I fail to see any difference between something actually happening and a perfectly convincing illusion that it was happening. What a person experiences is a product of their senses, and if all their senses feel, see, smell, et cetera something happening to them, for all intents and purposes, it is real.

Remember, paranoid schizophrenics who have audial hallucinations are actually hearing these things. Due to Luga's powers, Miss Branch actually saw and felt Luga ripping open her shirt, grabbing her breast, and going to bite it.

Voted admissable due to the circumstances, that is, the subject (?) refused to actually take part in a legal investigation and (Also due to the circumstances, that is the threat of eternal torture or genocide once-over) said tactics were in this case justified. I agree with those saying that it is a violation of her rights, but as I said, in this case the ends (at least appear to) justify the means.

EDIT: On a less thought-out note, (not saying much there ) perhaps some form of compensation is in order?

I wasn't aware that a due process violation COULD be made admissible.

Perhaps not, I'm not versed in legal matters, but as I said under the circumstances I think that it should be admissable. Morally wrong, but admissable.

VX-145 wrote:Voted admissable due to the circumstances, that is, the subject (?) refused to actually take part in a legal investigation

You have the right to remain silent
Refusing to say anything is covered under your rights.

I'd have to say that after 5 hours in a room with a Succubus she was sufficiently drugged that her mental status could be called into question. I'd have to throw the confession out.

Forgot about that. But I still think that given that this is supposed to be (If not actually being, see "Curbstomp War") an all-or-nothing scenario that it's justified in this case.

VX-145 wrote::oops: Forgot about that. But I still think that given that this is supposed to be (If not actually being, see "Curbstomp War") an all-or-nothing scenario that it's justified in this case.

Did you support the waterboarding of suspected/known al-Qaeda members at Gitmo, by any chance?

At this point the United States, hell most of humanity, is in a formally declared war against Heaven. That being the case, and in light of the fact that they captured the spy by feeding her false information, there's already indirect evidence of the girl's scheming with Michael and against humanity in general. Perhaps it should have been handled by Military Intelligence, rather than the FBI, but I imagine manpower's stretched just as thin as production capacity and they were called in for the interrogation because they're skilled at it.

Stuart, on page 100 of the story thread, revealed that Spoiler Luga's miasma may provide a corner for a defense attorney to pick apart the prosecution's case, but there's also one other consideration: this is set in the current day, with B. Obama as President. To my knowledge, even though Guantanamo is/is going to be/was closed, U.S. rules against enemy combatants, as well as the Patriot Act, are still in effect. I can't see this girl walking under any scenario. In fact, the cruelest punishment for her betrayal would be a life sentence in prison, followed by a default second life in Hell.

They interrogated her for 5 hours without the pheromones. It was only when Luga was brought in that the suspect was introduced to them. so the prosecutions statement that the defendant withstood the pheromones for the whole interrogation false. The evidence should be thrown out.

Count Chocula wrote:Luga's miasma may provide a corner for a defense attorney to pick apart the prosecution's case, but there's also one other consideration: this is set in the current day, with B. Obama as President. To my knowledge, even though Guantanamo is/is going to be/was closed, U.S. rules against enemy combatants, as well as the Patriot Act, are still in effect. I can't see this girl walking under any scenario. In fact, the cruelest punishment for her betrayal would be a life sentence in prison, followed by a default second life in Hell.

Whether the testimony is legal, is not for the executive, but the courts to decide. The rules against enemy combatants have no bearing on this, whereas the patriot act did not legalize torture.

Did you support the waterboarding of suspected/known al-Qaeda members at Gitmo, by any chance?

Actually, no. Hence why I was emphasising the entire "In light of the circumstancrs" thing; the situation in the story (That is, the eternal slavery to another species or something along the same lines IE an all-or-nothing scenario) is the ONLY situation in which I would consider torture to be a viable option.

john1761 wrote:They interrogated her for 5 hours without the pheromones. It was only when Luga was brought in that the suspect was introduced to them. so the prosecutions statement that the defendant withstood the pheromones for the whole interrogation false.

Wrong.

She looked up and saw to men from the FBI and a third figure, a tall woman with a dead white skin and small red horns pushing through her hair. Branch recognized her immediately, the succubus that had a new career as a television star. The grim words ran through her mind 'you can't lie to a succubus.' She found herself realizing that Luga was actually quite attractive, then understood that its evil was already corrupting her.

"You are Kathryn Branch?" One of the FBI men spoke quite gently. Branch shook her head, she might not be able to lie with a succubus present but she could say nothing. It took an effort because she had this continued urge to please the daemon in front of her.

Five hours later, she had, with great effort, managed to continue her refusal to speak. Maintaining silence had taken every bit of strength she had but it had been worth it to see the frustration on the faces of the two FBI men. The daemon just stared at her, emotionless, unblinking, evil.

VX-145 wrote:

Did you support the waterboarding of suspected/known al-Qaeda members at Gitmo, by any chance?

Actually, no. Hence why I was emphasising the entire "In light of the circumstancrs" thing; the situation in the story (That is, the eternal slavery to another species or something along the same lines IE an all-or-nothing scenario) is the ONLY situation in which I would consider torture to be a viable option.

The reason I bring it up is because they believed that in light of the circumstances (i.e. getting these people to spill the beans about possible future terrorist plots, before they could be brought to fruition,) so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques (pronounced: "torture") were authorized by The Powers That Be.

By any other name, this is what's known as "making excuses." Which, while it may give you a warm-fuzzy, doesn't necessarily hold up in court.