User:Gracey19000

time to employ means of pressure, including physical pressure." They found this measure "unavoidable" and "an interrogation tool of utmost importance."[8] but that a "dilemma" arouse about revealing the methods of interrogation since it would "appear to the court as violating the principle of a person's free will, and thus causing the rejection of the confession."[9]

They found that the GSS "simply lied, thus committing the criminal offence of perjury" and that "false testimony in court soon became the unchallenged norm which was to be the rule for 16 years."[10] In 1982 a written "guideline as to the nature of the lie to be told" with regard to "method of physical pressure" was issued by the highest GSS authorities.[11]

The Commission was satisfied that the practice of committing perjury had "completely discontinued" after the head of GSS issued a directive on 10 June 1987.[12]

It also found that the judges, prosecutors, police and medical personnel were unaware of systematic perjury by GSS interrogators. "Even though no judges were called to appear before us and we heard no explicit denial, we find this allegation to be baseless, and wholly unacceptable."[13] [edit] Habeas Corpus

With regard to Habeas Corpus the Commission found that the keeping of prisoners "without judicial supervision for a period of 18 days not acceptable." Hence "We support the proposal to shorten this period and recommend that the question of prolonging the detention be brought before a judge no later than the eighth day after the day of his arrest."[14] [edit] Interrogation techniques

The Commission found that the use of violence against prisoners was an acceptable method of interrogation. They argued, in the light of what they called "the concept of the lesser evil", that "actual torture . . . would be perhaps be justified in order to uncover a bomb about to explode in a building full of people . . . whether the charge is certain to be detonated in five minutes or in five days."

"To put it bluntly, the alternative is: are we to accept the offence of assault entailed in slapping a suspect's face, or threatening him, in order to induce him to talk and reveal a cache of explosive materials meant for use in carrying an act of mass terror against a civilian population, and there by prevent the greater evil which is about to occur? The answer is self evident."[15]

Elsewhere they state: "The effective interrogation of terrorist suspects is impossible without the use of means of pressure, in order to overcome an obdurate will not to disclose information and to overcome the fear of the person under interrogation that harm will befall him from his own organization, if he does reveal information."[16] And: "The means of pressure should principally take the form of non-violent psychological pressure through a vigorous and extensive interrogation, with the use of statagems, including acts of deception. However, when these do not attain their purpose, the exertion of a moderate measure of physical pressure cannot be avoided."[17]

But they identified a danger: "a security service . . . is always in danger of sliding towards methods practised in regimes which we abhore."[18] And "It is true that strict care must be taken, lest a breach of the structure of prohibitions of the criminal law bring about a loosening of the reins, with each interrogator taking matters into his own hands through the unbridled, arbitrary use of coercion against a suspect. In this way the image of the State as a law abiding polity which preserves the rights of the citizen, is liable to be irreparably perverted, with it coming to resemble those regimes which grant their security organs unbridled power."

It recommended:

"First, disproportionate exertion of pressure on the suspect is inadmissible; the pressure must never reach the level of physical torture or maltreatment of the suspect or grievous harm to his honour which deprives him of his human dignity. Second, the possible use of less serious measures must be weighed against the degree of anticipated danger, according to the information in the possession of the interrogator. Third, the physical and psychological means of pressure permitted for use by an interrogator must be defined and limited in advance, by issuing binding directives. Fourth, there must be strict supervision of the implementation in practice of the directives given to GSS interrogators. Fifth, the interrogator's superiors must react firmly and without hesitation to every deviation from the permissible, imposing disciplinary punishment, and in serious cases by causing criminal proceedings to be instituted against the offending interrogator."[19]

The guidelines for means of pressure permitted