There is
some speculation
out there in the blogosphere that Zacarias Moussaoui's last-minute on the witness stand "
confession" that he was to be the 20th hijacker, charged with crashing a plane into the White House, may not have been completely voluntary.
This is due to something that NBC News' Pete Williams let slip on The Abrams Report:
WILLIAMS: ...the old outbursts were gone... He was very docile today... ...we believe that he's wearing one of those stun belts, and it may be that he was very worried about doing anything that would cause those Marshals to press the button...understandably so...
ABRAMS [incredulously]: A stun belt? They literally have something around his waist? That they can push a button and...?
WILLIAMS: [Pause] Well...we're not positive about this...
The link has the acual video.
What are "stun belts?" How and how often are they being used?
Answers below...
WHAT ARE STUN BELTS?
From a helpful FAQ page at caltech.edu:
Who uses stun belts, and why?
Remote-control stun belts are used by law enforcement in the United States for restraint of prisoners in various situations, including courtroom appearances and transportation. Usage varies at the local level; some states or localities ban or restrict their use (including LA county for now, though the restriction is being appealed). Besides in the USA, stun belts are known to be used in South Africa.
How powerful are they?
According to specifications, one activation delivers 50,000 Volts for 8 seconds, at a current of 3 to 4 milliamperes, pulsed at 17 to 22 pulses per second.
... what do those numbers mean?
Extreme pain! Occasionally, law-enforcement officers have been shocked as part of training, and themselves describe it as if "you had nine-inch nails and you tried to rip my sides out and then you put a heat lamp on me" and "it felt like every muscle in my body short-circuited at the same time." Victims commonly fall to the ground in pain, and sometimes lose consciousness and lose control of bodily functions, including urination and defecation.
Lovely, huh?
HOW ARE STUN BELTS BEING USED?
The first time a stun belt was actually used on a defendant in LA County court in 1998, the results were, quite literally, shocking. Municipal Judge Joan Comparet-Cassani ordered her bailiff to activate the belt around the waste of defendant Ronnie Hawkins because he was talking too much. The man was not a homicidal maniac preparing to attack someone in the courtroom, or run for the door. In fact, he was there for a three-strikes hearing - he had been convicted of petty theft...of $200 worth of aspirin.
The International Lesbian and Gay Association also reported (I believe in 1999) that stun belts had been used "on inmates from the segregated HIV/ AIDS unit of the Old Parish Prison (OPP-D-1) during transport to and from medical facilities."
In 1999, Amnesty International, citing the Hawkins case, condemned the use of stun belts. In addition, the UN Committee Against Torture concluded that they may violate the Geneva Conventions. But, the use of the belts has continued to rise - by 2003, they were in use in 30 state prisons, and all federal trial courts (source).
For example, "The DC Sniper," John Allen Muhammad, was made to wear one during his trial. Jonathan Turley wrote in the Washington Post on August 28, 2003:
Last week accused sniper John Allen Muhammad raised a point of legal procedure and received a shocking response -- literally. Muhammad objected to a medical test that had not been ordered by the court or discussed with his attorney. In response to his refusal to cooperate, the guards activated a stun belt that sent a powerful electrical charge through his body.
While few people in this region have sympathy for Muhammad, the use of a 50,000-volt shock was a disturbing introduction to this common device. In fact, the use of the stun belt in such a circumstance is unlawful but not unique. Stun belts have been denounced internationally as a violation of basic human rights. Local government and Congress should insist on new guidelines, if not a ban, on the use of these devices.
...
At any moment, a guard can flip a switch and turn you into a quivering, incapacitated freak. Indeed, the stun belt's ability "to humiliate the wearer" is cited as a "great advantage" by one company's literature -- impressing on a defendant that "the mere push of a button in someone else's hand could make you defecate and urinate yourself."
A court recently found that accidental triggerings occur regularly. For example, murder defendant Roy Hollaway of Las Vegas was at a critical stage of his trial, with a prosecutor pointing to him and asking the jury "how deep, deep into this man's being does this violence run?" As if on cue, Hollaway's stun belt was triggered and 50,000 volts coursed through him. As the jury watched, Hollaway flailed and foamed on the courtroom floor.
It is because of the constant threat of an intentional or accidental shock that some courts have banned or restricted the use of stun belts in court. Last year the California Supreme Court effectively banned the use of hidden belts during criminal trials, rejecting claims that conventional restraints and proper supervision cannot satisfy security concerns. Other states, such as Indiana, have also banned them.
The use of a stun belt on Muhammad appears abusive and should be investigated as a potential case of criminal assault. In the United States, a prisoner cannot be physically attacked for a refusal to submit to a medical test. In this case, Muhammad reportedly refused to submit to an X-ray without speaking with his counsel. Muhammad had agreed to a court-ordered MRI, but objected that the X-ray was never raised. According to The Post, Muhammad was restrained by the wrists and ankles and never became violent. The stun belt was apparently used to punish him and force him to conform to the wishes of the guards. With stun belt literature promising guards "total psychological supremacy" over inmates, an inmate's failure to yield can enrage a guard and easily lead to such "corrective action."
THE ETHICAL AND LEGAL PROBLEMS RAISED BY STUNBELTS
An essay by Prof. Lawrence M Hinman of the University of San Diego Department of Philosophy, titled "Stunning Morality: The Moral Dimensions of Stun Belts," tackles this discussion.
Professor Hinman raises the slipperly slope argument, and discusses the possibility of abuse that exists:
Within the prison situation, the widespread use of stun belts could so immobilize a prison population that it would open the door to two kinds of abuse. First, on an individual level, it might allow sadistically-oriented guards to act out their worst desires without fear of retribution from the prison population--what, in the literature on stun belts from Stun Tech, is euphemistically called "officer gratificaiton." Second, there is an increased possibility of institutional abuse, a possibility that may be exacerbated as prisons are privatized and become for-profit enterprises. Traditionally, one of the checks on overcrowding, intolerable food, etc. has been the prison riot. If all prisoners were eventually forced to wear stun belts, riots would be virtually impossible. This certainly makes it more possible that prisoners will be subjected to inhumane conditions.
The type of abuse that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations are principally concerned about is even more extreme. It is easy to imagine the effects of such a device in the hands of torturers. Although it would not be different in kind from much of the current torture, it would be significantly different in its degree of effectiveness. Once encased in the belt, a prisoner (or anyone else) would be at the complete mercy of the one who controls the belt. Once such devices are manufactured on a large scale, it is easy to imagine them falling into the hands of torturers.
However, Professor Hinman fails to raise another possibility: the use of stunbelts to control what a defendant says on the stand in a criminal trial. In other words, the ability to coerce a defendant into providing specific testimony.
THE MOUSSAOUI TRIAL
The fact that Zacharias Moussaoui had been fitted with a stun belt had been confirmed by the Washington Post on February 8, 2006. They reported that U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema "has allowed federal marshals to fit Moussaoui with a stun device during court appearances, sources familiar with the case said. Lawyers who have seen one said the gadget is attached to the defendant's body, under the clothing."
A deputy equipped with a small remote control stands at the ready to administer jolts of electricity if violence is threatened. "It's enough to give you convulsions on the floor,'' said Shapiro, whose client Christopher Andaryl Wills, a kidnapping defendant, wore one during his 2001 trial at the federal courthouse where Moussaoui is on trial for his life.
John Hackman, chief deputy U.S. marshal in Alexandria, declined to comment on the stun device but said the marshals are "taking every precaution to ensure the safety of not only the defendant but also the people watching the trial, the judge, the defense lawyers and the prosecutors."
No zapping was required Monday; Moussaoui wasn't in court long enough. Brinkema threw him out after outbursts at the start of four sessions with prospective jurors. Among other things, Moussaoui declared his allegiance to al Qaeda, called his attorneys "my enemies" and announced his intention to testify at the trial.
As he left the first time, Moussaoui noted that he didn't "want to give you any excuse to pretend that I make any aggressive move." His remark might be interpreted, court observers said, as: Please, don't zap me.
CONCLUSION
There is certainly no evidence that Moussaoui's testimony was coerced in any way. But, if he indeed was wearing a stun belt while providing testimony, this could be another horrible error. It may give the defense an avenue for appeal, in order to get his testimony removed from the record, and a new sentencing hearing ordered.
Besides this, it simply does not look good at all (put mildly). The potential for abuse of stun belts remains very high, and this is not a method of controlling unruly courtroom behavior that is either necessary, nor something we should be comfortable with.
Where else are stun belts being used, and for what purposes? How about at Guantanamo, or in prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere? Have they been used as torture devices?
This is an important issue that needs to be addressed by society and the Congress.