Actually I think all of them have admitted to it.
The only one I don't think admitted to the 9/11 plot that is on trial is the person who admitted to killing Pearl. Either way, there is indeed evidence.
I'm all for conducting trials when guilt is uncertain, but if they are admitting to it, the trial should be short and justice swift.
its good that we are exposing their idiocy.
From your point of view yes, they are idiots, but to many other Muslims they are heroes. And they are the audience these guys are playing too.
Actually I think all of them have admitted to it. The only one I don't think admitted to the 9/11 plot that is on trial is the person who admitted to killing Pearl. Either way, there is indeed evidence.
I'm all for conducting trials when guilt is uncertain, but if they are admitting to it, the trial should be short and justice swift.
Confessions extracted under torture are unreliable and inadmissible in the judgement of most civilised courts.
No links or evidence, so why do you post lies?
Always looking for a negative spin on Obama, forgetting W. couldn't even find Bin Laden.
Uhm they werent tortured.
Former military prosecutor denounces trialMorris Davis, a former colonel who was chief prosecutor when Mohammed was brought to Guantanamo in 2006, said the military commissions will be badly discredited by the use of testimony obtained from waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques used on the accused men.
Umm, yes they were. Even US military prosecutors admit that torture took place.
Former military prosecutor denounces trial
Please list the times and dates these savages were waterboarded. SPecifically how many times.
They are freely today admitting thier crimes and mocking the victims, boasting about it. I feel no empathy for thier plight.
According to recent information, Osama bin Laden was killed by the use of information that was obtained by “enhanced interrogation techniques” at Guntanamo Bay Prison... “Enhanced interrogation techniques” can be assumed to be waterboarding, or some other form of torture.
Jose Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, has acknowledged that waterboarding - an interrogation technique that simulates drowning - is "not a pretty sight".
Mr Rodriguez ordered the destruction of secret CIA video tapes of the process, which Newsnight's Peter Taylor has revealed contained footage of one al-Qaeda suspect "vomiting and screaming".
Well, I guess that's a start. I seem to recall that in another thread a year or so ago you were denying that waterboarding could be classed as torture. A list of times and dates is neither available nor necessary. Just using pro-torture voices it's possible to get unequivocal admission of the use of torture at Gitmo.
Bin Laden caught through waterboarding - RedState
CIA: Waterboarding not a pretty sight
So yeah, I stand by my claim that AQ prisoners were tortured at Gitmo. Whether these particular defendants confessed to the crimes with which they are charged under torture, I cannot claim definitively. Were they to be allowed proper defence counsel and the court forced to operate proper disclosure, I'm sure that would be revealed.
I think that it's not quite torture, actually. There are far far worse things than waterboarding that cause permanent damage, and calling this torture, to me, anyway seems to cast too wide a net on what it is. I think what 2 people total were waterboarded? and key information that saved lives was extracted? meh, if one has to resort to extremes, in very very rare specific cases. such as this. I can forgive. I still feel it is shy of torture, in the context it was used.
Now if a civillian police force used it, or even if the military decided it would be used on more than the most extreme cases, I'd probably change my mind.
Well, I think it more than a start down a very slippery slope and one that has repercussions for future combatants on whatever side. My original point was that if, as I believe happened, the defendants in this case confessed under torture then that confession should be inadmissible. If this military court accepts confession extracted under torture then it forfeits its legitimacy.
A lot of ifs, but a pretty clear principle.
Are you suggesting we set them free on a technicality?
Are you suggesting we set them free on a technicality?
How Pious the holy act. It would seem these clowns show no remorse and have nothing but venom towards thier victims and thier families. I find thier behavior odd to say the least, i for one will be glad when these assholes achieve room temperature.
It's why we are Americans. We assume that God gives ALL men unalienable rights. These clowns will get their right to a trial, and if found guilty, will be given their right to an execution. Our legal system is one good reason why we are better than they are.
I see. They behave like barbarians, so we (you) behave like barbarians. I thought the West were meant to be representing the civilised world.
I'd say you're waving this :surrender. You've ditched civilised standards because they have. They've turned you into them. They've won.
Obviously, people like Hicup haven't orchestrated terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of innocent people and I don't think anyone would argue that, which is why no one, except for you (to my knowledge), has said that people like Hicup are "exactly the same" as al Qaeda. Therefore, the barbarism of (most) angry Americans that want to piss on terrorists is not the exact same as that of Al Qaeda's. It's not the same because barbarism, like everything, exists on a scale - or what one would refer to in this context as "grey area." Consequently, your entire criticism of Anda's post is based on the false premise that posts like Hicup's cannot at once be barbaric and exist within the "grey area" you accuse him of ignoring.the type of person who see's shades of grey in EVERYTHING when it benefits them politically to see it....suddenly, MIRACULOUSLY, doens't see shades of grey in something like this and if America or an American did or wanted to do one thing, for whatever reason, that was against the generalized moral fabric that makes up the country for the past few centuries then that equates them to "becoming" exactly the same as those who perform said immoral acts on a routine basis and who have performed no where near the same number of positives acts based on that same moral fabric..
Not.At. All.
Ideally they would be handed over to the International Criminal Court as their alleged crimes have been against a multiplicity of nationalities, committed in numerous countries.
I know that's not going to happen, so they should be tried according to US law in a bona fide US court, not a military commission. There are real issues of legitimacy in trying them this way.
The lack of a freely-offered confession is a side issue and certainly makes little difference to the strength of the case against them. They should only be released if they are found not guilty, if the weight of evidence merits such a verdict.
which is why no one, except for you (to my knowledge), has said that people like Hicup are "exactly the same" as al Qaeda.
A man murders 100 people
You've never murdered anyone. Indeed, you're a firefighter whose saved many peoples lives.
Said firefighter is put in a situation with the man where the man admits all the murders he's done and highlights how he has not, and likely will never, be caught.
Firefighter has the ability to murder said man.
Firefighter murders him.
By your absolutely ridiculous moral absolutism that is so frequent in people ONLY when it suits them to make their political point and thump their chest, the firefighter is as horrible a human being and is "the same" as that murder. Becuase it is people making arguments like that....people who in so many other instances likely love to tell us how the world is not black and white, how there's "shades of grey"...people who in some other venue would likely be sitting there lecturing people about "how would you feel if it was missiles being lobbed into your country" and asking us to understand the terrorists....the type of person who see's shades of grey in EVERYTHING when it benefits them politically to see it....suddenly, MIRACULOUSLY, doens't see shades of grey in something like this and if America or an American did or wanted to do one thing, for whatever reason, that was against the generalized moral fabric that makes up the country for the past few centuries then that equates them to "becoming" exactly the same as those who perform said immoral acts on a routine basis and who have performed no where near the same number of positives acts based on that same moral fabric.
Idiotic. There's no other way to describe that one sided, "black and white when it suits me, grey when it doesn't", america-attacking mentality that is so readily apparent by those who routinely show their absolute love for all things negative about this country and people in it than that. Idiotic. If people that think like what you posted wish to think someone is "uncivilized" for saying in certain circumstances "torture" would be okay or that they wouldn't have an issue having seen these people executed frankly I say more power too you...because I truly don't give a **** what the opinion is of those with such a politically driven, hate filled, unrealistic, inconsistent, naive world view.
Its a shame that instead of protesting mightily when briefed on the use of EITs, the democrats in attendance all asked if there wasnt MORE they could be doing to get information.I'm sure you feel better having got that off your chest. It's a shame that your ire obscured your logic. On the one hand you berate me and others for their moral relativism and then, on the other, you set up a hypothetical that absolutely requires a degree of moral relativism to make it comprehensible. I apply no moral absolutes to torture. In certain, very limited, circumstances torture may be required in order to save lives. I don't see the extraction of confessions fits this requirement, but who knows? Perhaps it does in very exceptional circumstances.
The fact that it may be occasionally justifiable does not thereby transform torture into a moral, ethical or civilised thing to do. In order to defend the use of such tactics however, one does have to inhabit that world of grey and leave behind that trippy, dippy realm of moral absolutism that says that what our side does is, by definition, morally incomparable and incontestably superior with what the enemy does. We are white, the enemy is black. That Bush-like moral infantilism doesn't work any more. In this world of grey relativism we can stare our enemies right in the eye because we are in the same moral no man's land.
Its a shame that instead of protesting mightily when briefed on the use of EITs, the democrats in attendance all asked if there wasnt MORE they could be doing to get information.
You personally may be opposed to waterboarding terrorists as a means to extract data. You personally may believe it is torture. The courts disagree with you and both parties politicians agreed to its use.
I am curious...the scenario is familiar...I wonder as to your response. A terrorist group has slaughtered thousands. They have plans to slaughter many more thousands. Would you A-Use any interrogation techniques available to save lives or B-allow the thousands to be slaughtered?
THAT is the position leaders are put in. Its an ugly position...one we can make hypothetical choices with all day long. Easy for us because ultimately...we have zero real responsibility. We can afford to be morally superior.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?