• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Administration Allows Torture Confessions in Trials

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union » What We Stand For

Monday was Day One of the sentencing hearing in the case of Sudanese detainee Ibrahim al-Qosi. Al-Qosi was the first detainee to be convicted under President Obama, in a plea deal entered this June in which he admitted to being an al Qaeda cook and occassional driver. Yesterday saw jury selection of senior military officers, who would deliver a formal sentence in al-Qosi's case. If the jury delivers a sentence longer than what was agreed to in the plea bargin, it will be moot. Unless the jury delivers a shorter sentence, al-Qosi's true sentence will be what was hammered out in the plea agreement.

But in an unprecedented move, military judge Air Force Lt. Col. Nancy Paul ordered today that al-Qosi's true sentence will be kept secret until he's released. The judge said the government requested that the sentence be kept secret.

A fellow observer of the military commissions here, former Marine judge and law of war expert Gary Solis, here to monitor the commissions for the National Institute for Military Justice, says he has participated in 700 courts-martial and has never heard of a secret sentence.
...

A final pretrial hearing also took place Monday in the case of Canadian Omar Khadr, who will start trial today as the first test trial of the military commissions under President Obama. In a summary decision of only a few words, and with no explanation, the military judge in Omar Khadr's case, Col. Patrick Parrish, denied defense motions to exclude self-incriminating statements Khadr made to interrogators because of torture and other abuse. The judge will issue a written decision, certainly after the trial begins and possibly after it's ended, but for now he's offered no explanation.

It boggles the mind that the military judge could find that Khadr was not coerced and gave these statements to interrogators voluntarily. Khadr, then 15 years old, was taken to Bagram near death, after being shot twice in the back, blinded by shrapnel, and buried in rubble from a bomb blast. He was interrogated within hours, while sedated and handcuffed to a stretcher. He was threatened with gang rape and death if he didn't cooperate with interrogators. He was hooded and chained with his arms suspended in a cage-like cell, and his primary interrogator was later court-martialed for detainee abuse leading to the death of a detainee. During his subsequent eight-year (so far) detention at Guantánamo, Khadr was subjected to the "frequent flyer" sleep deprivation program and he says he was used as a human mop after he was forced to urinate on himself.

In closing arguments before the judge's ruling, Khadr's sole defense lawyer, Lt. Col. Jon Jackson, told the judge, "Sir, be a voice today. Tell the world that we actually stand for what we say we stand for."

WTF. Obama needs to hold himself accountable to his campaign promises. This is NOT hope and change, and it's a shameful slur on our history as a nation.
 
Last edited:

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I don't believe it.These detainers are trained to say they were tortured.
The ACLU is seldom on the right side of things.

i'm sorry, what? are you saying this boy wasn't tortured?
 

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,662
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
In a summary decision of only a few words, and with no explanation, the military judge in Omar Khadr's case, Col. Patrick Parrish, denied defense motions to exclude self-incriminating statements Khadr made to interrogators because of torture and other abuse. The judge will issue a written decision, certainly after the trial begins and possibly after it's ended, but for now he's offered no explanation.

Why would one assume that Col. Patrick Parrish, the military judge, takes his marching orders from the White House? That'd be just downright scarey.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Proof?????

http://www.justice.gov/ag/manualpart1_4.pdf

AQ Trainee Handbook:

"PRISONS AND DETENTION CENTERS
IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:

1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.
2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.
 

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I don't believe it.These detainers are trained to say they were tortured.
The ACLU is seldom on the right side of things.

IF this boy wasn't tortured, why were his torturers courtmartialed? Read the damn article BEFORE commenting in the future.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
IF this boy wasn't tortured, why were his torturers courtmartialed? Read the damn article BEFORE commenting in the future.

they were framed, catz. good god, we don't torture.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
IF this boy wasn't tortured, why were his torturers courtmartialed? Read the damn article BEFORE commenting in the future.

If I'm reading the article correctly, it's saying that one guy who interrogated this detainee was accused and convicted of mistreatment of a different prisoner, not this detainee.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,626
Reaction score
4,189
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is an interesting case to me because of the book I'm currently reading, "Takeover" by Charlie Savage. There's alot of details in it concerning the Bush-Cheney administration and how they aloowed torture and the "legal ranglings" they conducted in order to keep torture and prisoner abuse out of the public eye AND perfectly legal for the sake of national security.

It's quiet possible that Pres. Obama has no choice but to limit or disallow certain evidence from these military commissions because of the precedent the Bush-Cheney administration established within the judicial system. It's very difficult to go into detail concerning this matter. To fully understand what's at stake where these military commission are concerned, you'll have to read the book in order to digest the width and depth of the matter. Suffice it to say, unless these terror suspects are able to present evidence in open court - much of which is being held in secret by the government - it will be difficult for the defendants to defend themselves even against what some consider to be trumped up charges against them.

Again, you'll really have to read the book to fully digest how and possibly why the trials of these men are being conducted in the manner in which they're being held. From what I've read, it's very possible that Pres. Obama may not have much of a choice but to act as he has concerning these trials because of the judicial precedent that was set before he took office.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,916
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Khadr case is a scar on Canada as well. Our current Prime Minister refuses to fight for his return to Canada where he can be tried as a Canadian citizen. Rights groups in Canada have been shouting at the Prime Minister's office for years now and he refuses to hear them. I don't really want this guy living in my country, but I think he's entitled to due process, not a military fiasco trial. He was a child soldier and he was detained all the way into his adult life, and now he's being tried as an adult for something he did as a young teenager. It's ridiculous.

The UN has conventions for child soldiers, and the U.S. basically ignored them all.

So yeah... this whole thing looks very bad for both our countries.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,925
Reaction score
29,366
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is an interesting case to me because of the book I'm currently reading, "Takeover" by Charlie Savage. There's alot of details in it concerning the Bush-Cheney administration and how they aloowed torture and the "legal ranglings" they conducted in order to keep torture and prisoner abuse out of the public eye AND perfectly legal for the sake of national security.

It's quiet possible that Pres. Obama has no choice but to limit or disallow certain evidence from these military commissions because of the precedent the Bush-Cheney administration established within the judicial system. It's very difficult to go into detail concerning this matter. To fully understand what's at stake where these military commission are concerned, you'll have to read the book in order to digest the width and depth of the matter. Suffice it to say, unless these terror suspects are able to present evidence in open court - much of which is being held in secret by the government - it will be difficult for the defendants to defend themselves even against what some consider to be trumped up charges against them.

Again, you'll really have to read the book to fully digest how and possibly why the trials of these men are being conducted in the manner in which they're being held. From what I've read, it's very possible that Pres. Obama may not have much of a choice but to act as he has concerning these trials because of the judicial precedent that was set before he took office.

And there we have it, it's Bush's fault.
 
Top Bottom