4 ms·

If the has been switched off or if >48h passed since the last unlock. Also remember that rubber-hose cryptanalysis is always an option.

• newjersey 11y ago
  Can you be convicted in the US based on evidence obtained with physical torture? Edit: Looks like the answer is it depends and not a resounding no http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/evidence-obtained-through-torture.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/evidence-obtained-thr...
  • tptacek 11y ago
    No, you cannot. Evidence derived from facts learned from torture is also excludable.
    • CamperBob2 11y ago
      Sure, you can. It all depends on who gets to define "torture." If they can find a judge who believes the iron maiden isn't torture while the anal pear is, then guess what... the government will use the iron maiden. Even if they can't find such a pliable jurist, they'll have no problem getting a John Yoo to write an executive memo that justifies whatever they want to do to you, and let the courts sort it out later. There's no downside from their point of view.
      • rdancer 11y ago
        > getting a John Yoo to write an executive memo The memos didn't provide de iure indemnity. There is no constitutional basis, in fact the proposition that a memo can supersede the Constitution is idiotic on its face. The failure is the de facto doctrine of absolute executive immunity. It has two prongs: 1. "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." 2. When the perpetrator follows president's orders, also not illegal. Nevertheless, since there is no legal basis, there is nothing preventing the next government from prosecuting them.
        • CamperBob2 11y ago
          The memos didn't provide de iure indemnity. There is no constitutional basis, in fact the proposition that a memo can supersede the Constitution is idiotic on its face. Yes, and that's what I meant by "let the courts sort it out later." The Constitution's not much help either way, being full of imprecise, hand-waving language and vague terms like "cruel and unusual." It was anticipated by the Constitution's authors that it would be of use only to a moral government. Nevertheless, since there is no legal basis, there is nothing preventing the next government from prosecuting them. I wonder if that's ever happened in the US? Does anyone know?
          • rdancer 11y ago
            I would disagree. The Constitution is a bulwark against tyranny. The US have successfully prosecuted waterboarding in the past. It usually only happens when the rule of law is suspended and then resumed. You're a young country, so maybe it hasn't happened before. Robert H. Jackson was an American, though ;-)
    • r00fus 11y ago
      Torture to get detailed info, use details to establish plausible parallel construction. Enter parallel-constructed information as court-sanitized evidence.
  • rdancer 11y ago
    Of course you can. As long as the courts can be persuaded that there is no causal nexus between the torture and the evidence, or if the torture actually isn't legally torture. That assumes that the defendant can show (or is even aware) the torture actually took place. Examples: * prolonged solitary confinement: not legally torture * fellow prisoner violence: not legally torture, no nexus * prolonged pre-trial confinement: not really torture, but we may as well include it * waterboarding/drowning: not legally torture? (Supreme Court declined to rule) * stress positions: cannot show it took place * parallel construction: cannot show / not aware