Judge rules confession gained through torture and threats not admissible!
By Wendy
@jerzgirl (9327)
United States
October 30, 2008 12:15am CST
Halleluyah! Saner heads are at last prevailing and raising us again from the brink of tyranny. 
A military judge has ruled that a confession gained through coercive measures and threats to kill the detainee's family if he didn't confess amounted to torture and was inadmissible. I mean, how many people have we held in Guantanamo who have since been released because the government couldn't provide real evidence of their guilt? And in this case, a key prosecutor QUIT because he wasn't permitted to share evidence that might have helped clear the detainee. In criminal court, that would be illegal, as it should be. No one should ever be convicted of a crime they didn't commit when the prosecutors have evidence that they didn't commit it and the defense ALWAYS has a right to ALL evidence both against AND for their client. The same should be true in Guantanamo. Here is the article:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/319/story/54917.html
What's your view of this?
A military judge has ruled that a confession gained through coercive measures and threats to kill the detainee's family if he didn't confess amounted to torture and was inadmissible. I mean, how many people have we held in Guantanamo who have since been released because the government couldn't provide real evidence of their guilt? And in this case, a key prosecutor QUIT because he wasn't permitted to share evidence that might have helped clear the detainee. In criminal court, that would be illegal, as it should be. No one should ever be convicted of a crime they didn't commit when the prosecutors have evidence that they didn't commit it and the defense ALWAYS has a right to ALL evidence both against AND for their client. The same should be true in Guantanamo. Here is the article:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/319/story/54917.html
What's your view of this?4 people like this
3 responses
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
30 Oct 08
That's great! Just because they aren't US citizens doesn't mean they don't have rights, and some of them actually are US citizens.
2 people like this
@tdavis (117)
• United States
30 Oct 08
What rights? They are not US citizens they have no standing here. If they are innoncent they are returned to their country of origin. Actually under Military law, since they are an organized army, and they fail to wear a uniform to identify them they should be held as spy's.
You are correct torture is not a guarantee that information is correct. However, it can be used to varify information that you already have. The only problem I see is the definition of what is torture. As an example, place three subject on a helicopter seated with their backs to the open door, the pilot lifts off and goes to about a thousand feet. The three subjects are then blindfolded, the pilot begins a very slow turn and desent so that the three subjects are unable to detect it. At about 5 to 10 feet from the ground you explain to the first man you are going to ask him questions if he fails to answer or lies you will kick him out of the chopper. The first guy always lies or refuses to talk, without hesitation you kick him out and then address the second subject in the same manner as the first. The second one usually will give a little bit, but he is worried about being labeled a colaberator. As soon as he lies, you kick him out. Now more times than not, the third guy starts talking his head off. Is that torture? I don't thinks so. So the problem lies in the definition of torture.
Also, these guys are not criminals, they are terrorist and combantants on a field of battle. We did not extend the rights of a US citizen to the Germans or Italians that were captured and held in the United States, during WWII. Over the last several decades there has been a movement to extend the rights of US citizens to anyone in the US. Unless of course they are a diplomat, then they have more rights than anyone in the US.
How many of those detainees have we released and they returned to the battlefield to kill.
Also, there are methods that are used to collect intelligence, and information that may give an indication of the source of the information, or the methods that we use to collect that information. A lawyer or the combatant need not know and due to security interests should not be revealed.
1 person likes this
