US Judge: OK to extract confessions by threatening rape

reply to post by Big Raging Loner


I think that is the key phrase. "Or is it an idle threat?"

It would almost have to be, wouldn't it? I mean rape isn't legal is it?

So this brings up the question then. What happens when threatening rape is no longer effective? What happens when the subject realizes it's an idle threat.

what happens then?

reply to post by DaMod


I was waiting for someone to bring it up, you were pretty close.

In the US courts, not the military tribunals, it has been decided that the police can LIE to defendants.

Does that mean THEY can threaten rape and murder to get someone to confess?

I am sure the totalitarian state we are headed for would probably start going in that direction.

What is the difference between lies to entrap and saying you are going to rape and kill someone?

I think everyone is arguing too far away from the crucial point at hand. The methodologies of torture is pointless.

The real issue is, how can a confession obtained under duress period, be admissible. Because the person isn't a citizen? So we don't have to abide by our own laws on US soil?

We don't have to abide by Human Rights because he isn't one of us?

Disgusting, just a child.

QUESTION: Is it wrong to threaten rape to get information?
ANSWER: Yes.
Q: Is it wrong to allow the death of soldiers if you don't try hard enough to obtain good information?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it wrong to try to minimalize collateral damage and the deaths of innocent civilians that could otherwise have been avoided if necessary information had been obtained?
A: No.
Q: What if the prisoner refused to cooperate to provide such information, and the only way you could get that information was to threaten him with rape? Would it be wrong to attempt to gain the information in that manner?
A: I don't know. It's wrong, but it might save lives... It might save lives on *both* sides, the soldiers and innocent civilians that might accidentally get hit.
Q: Is it wrong to try to save lives by threatening rape in order to get information from a prisoner who refuses to coorperate?
A: I don't know.
Q: Is it wrong!? Answer the question!
A: NOOOOoooooooo! B-b-because you didn't rape him, you just threatened to rape him, and the information could save lives!
Q: Is it wrong to rape a prisoner?
A: Yes. Yes it's wrong!!! Can I leave now?
Q: No... I need some more information, and you better give me the answers, or....
A: (silence, perhaps a gulp)

Originally posted by GhostLancer
Q: Is it wrong to try to save lives by threatening rape in order to get information from a prisoner who refuses to coorperate?
A: I don't know.

Seriously? This should be a resounding YES.

Especially since these prisoners more often than not, have zero intelligence and are accused of crimes they had no part in. So you're essentially excusing away a heinous act with zero potential benefit.

In a perfect world, the question would never need to be asked.

At the end of the day, the question is which crime is the worst? A) threatening a prisoner with rape to gain information which could SAVE LIVES; or, B) allowing the unnecessary deaths of soldiers and civilians because an interrogator wanted to take the moral highground.

Killing is wrong. Killing during a battle in a war for your country is... right? Yes and no. Killing to defend your wife and child from an intruder into your home is justified.

It's all context. As long as the prisoner is not actually raped, MAYBE it is okay to scare the information from him? OR, if the interrogator refuses to do so, he lets a squad of soldiers go into the wrong neighborhood and 27 civilians end up getting shot to death. Or a bomb is dropped onto the wrong house. Or the prisoner's friend slips away and bombs a shopping mall, killing 200+ people. There is a LOT at stake: morality VS saving lives.

Is it wrong? Which is the worst of the two options? Threaten the prisoner or take a chance and possibly allow more death in the world?

Again, in a perfect (or even MORE perfect) world, the question wouldn't need to be asked. In such an imperfect world, sometimes the lesser of two evils must be chosen. A threat to a prisoner --on one side of the scale; lives needlessly lost, potentially, --on the other side of the scale.

Both options are a RESOUNDING "terrible."

reply to post by XenoStuffz

Doesnt matter wether those pretexts are BS or not. They have been repeated so often, and keep getting repeated, without a trace of doubt, that every naive person in America will, per default, assume them to be true, and will have to be convinced, they are not. Getreadyalready just points out the discrepancy between pretext and reality and you attack him for mentioning the pretexts? Get some mind behind your anger, before you just blast away on people, who are by logic of their arguments, on your side of the fence.

If you read what I posted you would have seen I only attacked his stance on the wars, hence he supports the war as he stated.

That simply means he swallowed the war pretext, he can correct me if I'm wrong, not you.

reply to post by GhostLancer


The END NEVER justifies the means. EVER.

What if killing 10,000 foreigners would save 25 citizens? 50, 100, 2000, 100,000?

Where do you draw the line?

I draw it with the LAW. Period.

Anyone can come up with hypotheticals.

Tell me, have you seen the movie Unthinkable? Tell you what, that movie freaked me out.

This may be another of several reasons, why the U.S.-forces are not seen as the "good-guys" anymore. I can tell you at least, if i ever come into a situation somehow where i am classified as an enemy by the u.s. army, maybe because of a war against my country or a computer mistake or anything, i will not let myself be taken as a POW or prisoner by them that is for sure. I think i would rather be shot.

This is like the soviet army, when they entered into Berlin in 1945, raping and stuff. And when you surrender maybe you get tortured as a bonus.

Just think as a dude you would have to fight against a "gay-army", who want to rape and torture you and occupy your country for years to come.

And those few non-gays in that army maybe doing something like this: newsjunkiepost.com...

No, but seriously i know that not all americans or american soldiers are like this, but these horrible things just have to change for your own sake.

reply to post by XenoStuffz


reply to post by XenoStuffz

Doesnt matter wether those pretexts are BS or not. They have been repeated so often, and keep getting repeated, without a trace of doubt, that every naive person in America will, per default, assume them to be true, and will have to be convinced, they are not. Getreadyalready just points out the discrepancy between pretext and reality and you attack him for mentioning the pretexts? Get some mind behind your anger, before you just blast away on people, who are by logic of their arguments, on your side of the fence.

If you read what I posted you would have seen I only attacked his stance on the wars, hence he supports the war as he stated.

That simply means he swallowed the war pretext (for example human rights/women's rights), he can correct me if I'm wrong, not you.

Omar Khadr was 15 when he was captured. So his adult interrogators threatened to rape a 15-year old child? And this is legal?

Edit: Joshua Claus, the scum who threatened to rape a child, also murdered an innocent cab driver in Bagram, Afghanistan. Why is anything to do with him admissible?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross]

reply to post by oozyism


True. I supported the war on the pretexts given. I.E. liberation of the people whom Saddam had supposedly used chemical weapons against, and preemptive strike against a country willing and capable of using those same weapons against us.

I currently support the war, not on the pretexts, but on the fact that if we make a hasty withdrawal, they will be left in turmoil and susceptible to any number of violent futures.

If the pretexts were BS, and it appears that they were, then I was naive to have been swayed by them, but it doesn't change the current picture.

The point of my post was that regardless of whether or not the pretexts were BS, we declared them as our pretext, and therefore we should be operating on the higher moral ground. We can't scream morality as our cause and then show none when we get there. I am a Conservative, but I am ashamed of the Conservatives that think our Constitutional rights are only for Americans. If they are inalienable and self-evident rights, then they should be extended to all of human kind. If we go into a country to dethrone a dictator and establish a democracy based on freedom and equality, then we have to treat those people, even the combatants, with our elevated sense of justice and morality.

We have to walk the talk!!

You would not have to even threated to rape him. Just say he is going to such and such prison in the U.S. and say do you know what happens to guys in that prison?

You wanna know how to stop this war and win really fast. Every muslim you kill you spill pig blood on him and bury him in the ground with a pig. that will stop things really fast.

they cant enter the after life with there 72 vergins if they are tanted with pig blood.

I belive the brits or the americans. i really cant remember did this in like the 1800's and that won the war for us

[edit on 12-8-2010 by camaro68ss]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

What is wrong with some of these judges ?

Whilst I agree with your sentiment, you have to remember the judge isn't giving a personal moral view of ethics he's giving his view on the laws of the USA which after recent changes allow such practices and more.

Need a response to my earlier comment.

What is the difference to a LEO lying to you about anything and a interrogator lying to you about rape and murder?

Hell, I think we should allow the LEO's to start threatening murder and rape in our own country! /s


ANYONE that allows or condones this, IS NOT my countrymen!

Debating stuff like this is waste of energy. You have stuff like "drop weapon", torture facilities, "rendition", DU weapons, gulf syndrome, increase of insurgency, black budgets, money laundering, "98% of budget unaccounted" issue, Taliban fundings, Afghan heroin trade increase, suicide bombers, etc. just to name a few. So, few kids being threatened with ass-rape should bottom the agenda .

It would be cool if someone would make a summary of all these Iraq/Afghan related issues. I am very against any war, but everyone could see it coming while no one could predict the amount of raw damned mess it created.

and this is seen as NORMAL? why is it a man will pretend to be reilgious but break his relgious code everytime he gets a chance?

What does this say about our species? or thier morals? its time like this i hope we all go into extinction, years and years of war and meaningless death rape torture....for what? the "honour of your country"

You die for a piece of land, that wasnt yours to begin with, in the end it is only an excuse for humans to satisfy thier one true desire, death and destruction.

The devil is real, and apperntly his name is homo sapien.


If you disagree with me and think war and all this torture and suffering are wondering because they are "only terrorists" kill yourself right now, you midaswell kill your whole family too because they might just share those same ideas, this world is over populated as it is, we dont need warmongers and rapists telling people what to do.
Because in the end they know what the right thing to do is, and they dont give a ratsass.


i am serious thought this is harsh but if you think harming a youth with rape is okay then kill yourself right now i demand it of you and i dont give a f*k what anyone else thinks of me for saying it, there is enough suffering in this world dont add to it

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Anthony1138]

Originally posted by name pending

Threatening a 15yr old with anal (since it's a guy) or other 'kind' of rape to extract confession is now okay as per a US judge in trial of a Gitmo detainee. This is a perfect example for violation of Geneva convention and shaming of the judiciary process and a nation.

What has the legal system come to. Since when is it permissible to "extract truth" by threatening to sexually violate someone?

Threats by cops are bad, but this really is far worse; it's a kid, being held in a secret military prison being interrogated by another country. He has no idea what could really happen to him. Terrorizing a child with rape...can you imagine it? What if it was your kid held by a different country in some black site and threatened with rape to extract confession!! Simply appalling ruling by this kangaroo court.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Edit to add the direct link to article is not opening for some people you can read the cached page of the article
here



[edit on 12-8-2010 by name pending]

Surely, you can't be serious.

If it was YOUR mother's or child's life in the balance and you 'knew' the prisoner had personal knowledge that would give you a chance to save them...


...you'd apply the KY jelly.

Suggest you get your head out of your netherland and realize the USA is in a fight for its life.

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by Big Raging Loner

 

I think that is the key phrase. "Or is it an idle threat?"

It would almost have to be, wouldn't it? I mean rape isn't legal is it?

So this brings up the question then. What happens when threatening rape is no longer effective? What happens when the subject realizes it's an idle threat.

what happens then?

Mate don't get too hung up on them having lied, there are thousands of pictures from Iraq of prisoners or their kids actually being raped, that's also why the US flies prisoners around the world to allied dictatorships to be tortured that's why Guantanamo isn't in the USA.