US Allows Use Of Evidence Gained By Torture.

December 4

US military review panels can use evidence obtained through torture in deciding the fate of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the US Government has conceded.

Lawyers acting for Australian detainees in Cuba have called on the Australian Government to renounce the practice.

About 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled evidence gained through torture was inadmissible.

Deputy associate Attorney-General, Brian Boyle, has told the District Court in Washington DC, that the Guantanamo review panels are allowing such evidence.

The lawyer for Australian detainee David Hicks, Stephen Kenny, says Saddam Hussein's regime was criticised for human rights abuses against defectors and the US Government should not be using the same tactics in the trial of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

"For the Americans to start saying they'll do this, essentially what they are doing is behaving as a third world dictatorship and frankly is a very great concern," he said.

www.abc.net.au...

Well i think this is a double edged sword. On one side you have the U.S. ignoring the Geneva convention and apparently gaining evidence in whatever manner it sees fit, which does not sit well
with other 'first world' countries...but,
the Al-Queda and Taliban who are in Gitmo do not engage in combat 'by the book' and are terrorists
who themselves couldn't care less about the Geneva convention, until they start getting tortured
that is.

So, has the U.S. lowered itself to the level of the terrorist? Or has the U.S. just created a
level playing field? I think the latter.

Sanc'.

as long as the UNIVERSAL LAW of karma is properly functioning, they should feel quite a sting when the tides of torment release unto them. how adept our administration is at altering space-time is entirely up in the air. i wont be holding my breath since they arent doing a whole lot right these days.

I bet I could get a signed confession out of any of you here !

Ten minutes with a pair of pliers and a carving knife should do it. One you have confessed, you are guilty. It is sad to think Americans are now doing this sort of thing under Presidential orders.

From Article
US military review panels can use evidence obtained through torture in deciding the fate of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the US Government has conceded.

It seems the Bush administration just changes the rules as they go along....

From Article
About 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled evidence gained through torture was inadmissible.

As Warpspeed stated, it's easy to get a confession when you play dirty.

I wonder when they'll start pulling their finger nails out?

So, has the U.S. lowered itself to the level of the terrorist? Or has the U.S. just created a
level playing field? I think the latter.

I think the former. Its difficult to distinguish between the two, both torture, both bomb things, only difference is that one is officially sanctioned!

You cant fight violence with more violence, its an age old conundrum.
This why wars will always be here, there are ultimatly no winners, each war is just another round, with fresh fodder! jmho

The terrorists aren't playing by the Geneva convention. They are cutting off people's heads and posting the videos on the internet. Certainly a little pharmocological persuasion is less permanent.

MK

torture is wrong. period. ever been tortured? even slightly? it's SO WRONG to torture people.
and it's pointless, except to spread rumours of torture to further instill fear into the populace. fear of the government.. STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM is what it is, plain and simple.
you could get every single prisoner to 'confess' that they're real name is 'dr. evil'.
torture's evil and stupid.

'level playing feild' is one hundred percent accurate.
home terrorism vs. visitor terrorism.
popcorn, ...peanuts, ...popcorn, ....get your red hots here!....

To accept 'evidence' gained through torture is offensive to any proponent of human rights. There is simply no acceptable justification for condoning such heinous acts, period.

Truly disgusting.

Originally posted by Warpspeed
I bet I could get a signed confession out of any of you here !

Ten minutes with a pair of pliers and a carving knife should do it. One you have confessed, you are guilty. It is sad to think Americans are now doing this sort of thing under Presidential orders.

Exactly what i was gonna say ..............well sort of , you presume that when you torture somebody , they are going to be honest. thik about it your gonna say whaterver will end your suffereing sooner, It was(and still is) used to make people say what you want them to say. We live in the big bad United States are you telling me that testimony made through torture is 100% truthfull, it's sick and wrong , lowering ourselves to "there" level is no excuse, if it was the better option we should have never signed the geneva convention.

Australian Government won't oppose torture evidence.

The Federal Government says that while torture is inappropriate, it has no intention of fighting plans by the United States Government to use evidence gained through torture in the trial of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

A court in Washington has been told that military panels at the prison in Cuba can use evidence obtained through torture.

Australia's Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says that while such evidence is not an accepted part of civilian trials, it is an approach used in military trials.

He says it is also used in international criminal tribunals that the United Nations has established.

www.abc.net.au...

Sanc'.

I think a key question here is the definition of torture here.

What exactly are they doing?

My bet (though I could be wrong) is that we are using sleep deprivation and other psychological torture as opposed to the physical brand - though I wouldn't be suprised if we roughed a few people up.

Also, one must consider that these people ended up at this prison for a reason - they weren't just kidnapped at random.

To be honest, it's a tough question...

If, through the use of torture, you actually prevent a terrorist attack (and we will probably never know if this ever happened) does that make it worth it? Is the pain inflicted on that man justified by the lives saved by his admission?

And then, more importantly, is the torture of several men, some of which are innocent, justified by the single confession gived that saves innocent lives?

Originally posted by MKULTRA

The terrorists aren't playing by the Geneva convention. They are cutting off people's heads and posting the videos on the internet. Certainly a little pharmocological persuasion is less permanent.

MK

The terrorists never signed the Geneva convention. The US has.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
And then, more importantly, is the torture of several men, some of which are innocent, justified by the single confession gived that saves innocent lives?

No. If torture is accepted then the level of the expectation of people is lowered and they start asking other questions, like would murder be alright?, how about assasinations?

That is how the terrorist start. They first blew up bombs and killed people. Then it became ordinary and nobody cared anymore. So they started suicide bombing, people were shocked but then it was on the news every day. Then they crashed air planes into buildings, videoed themslves cutting off the heads of people and are getting worst and worst. The US should not start torturing people because it will lead to worst and worst things and before you know it you become the same as the terrorists that you are fighting.

Wasn't USA supposed to be the good guys?

The country setting an example for the rest of the world? A country with an administration based on Christian morales and values? A country of justice and liberty?

I�m neither christian nor american, but I�m pretty sure I would have remembered if Jesus Christ or George Washington had advocated torture as a way of protecting themselves.

Also, one must consider that these people ended up at this prison for a reason - they weren't just kidnapped at random.

I think the fact that many of them have been released without charge proves that statement wrong! But I suppose that is just what fox news has told you then?

I see your point, but the US will never target civillians as terrorists do, we will never behead people as terrorists do, and we are certainly not stupid enough to comit suicide bombings when we have stealth aircraft that can get us there drop bigger bombs and get us back to base in time to catch monday night football and have a few beers.

as for your first 2 questions - I suport both murder and assasinations if they are done to people that mean myself, my country or our allies harm.

If you fight dirty, how can you expect others not to? All the examples of how bad the "terrerists" are, just proves they fight dirty better than you.

I believe the only way to beat terror is to fight by the rules. It may mean greater casualties for you in the beginning, but you will have proven that you are better than them. If you keep up this strategy, the other side would soon start loosing support, and they would die from within. For every new US torture and abuse story on the news, the terrorists gets more sympathy for their cause, and more volunteers willing to fight for them.

Right now, LOTS of ordinarry people in europe regard the war on terror as one evil fighting another. Many people here would be quite happy to see you destroy each-other.

If you want to win the war, and not just a battle, you desperately need a new strategy.

Originally posted by gekko
Wasn't USA supposed to be the good guys?

The country setting an example for the rest of the world? A country with an administration based on Christian morales and values? A country of justice and liberty?

Yeah, but we're not allowed to say anything like that in public. It might offend someone, you see.

Originally posted by Sep
No. If torture is accepted then the level of the expectation of people is lowered and they start asking other questions, like would murder be alright?, how about assasinations?

Now there's an interesting question. Assasinations.

Take that Mookie Al Sadr guy, for example. He has caused a lot of trouble over there, and we have had him cornered several times, but never finished the job. Why? Because he waved the white flag and promised to sit down and negotiate. Then as soon as he is free again, it's back to his old tricks.

Given that past performance is a very good indicator of future actions, what would be wrong with kidnapping him and burying him in the desert? We could always spread the rumor that he skipped over the border to Syria to be closer to Mohammed, or something.

Aren't there times when extreme measures are warranted?

Torture is defined as:

The Convention defines torture:


For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Why Torture Doesn't Work: A Critique of Alan Dershowitz' Case for Torture

IMHO, 'torture' is feasible when deemed necessary and/or in extroadinary cases. As combat and battlefield tactics evolve, as national security concerns evolve, so should the means to acquire said 'vital' informations evolve. There is NO nation in existence today who does not utilize some form of "torture." none.




seekerof