-
Mohammed (whom they’re now calling “the Forrest Gump of terrorism”) has been in custody since 2003 and may have been tortured. Does this give us reason to doubt his confession?
-
Does this mean Osama bin Laden is off the hook?
On 1., sure. Could be some truth to it, though. But he could be being boastful. Or deceptive. Or he’s deluded about some of the things. Or a combination of the lot (which would be my bet).
Without a good account of who asked him and told him what at a particular time, what he said under what conditions and a trail of physical evidence I doubt we’ll ever have much of a clue.
Well, whatever the truth, the confession has served its purpose: it got AG Gonzales and the prosecutor-firing scandal off the front page.
It’s still on the front page of todays NYT. (But below the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed story, and with a smaller-type headline.)
I think my point stands. It pushed Gonzales off the front page of CNN.com.
A “confession” at a hearing where Defendant’s lawyer was not allowed to be present.
Hell, I wipe my ass with stuff worth more than that…
This confession is worthless. Any conviction based, even in part, on it would be similarly worthless.
I’ll just note that I have no idea why this confession is in the news now, when he had already confessed before. If only there was a reason to release this “confession” now, when it’s already been in the news for years.
The Tribunal Hearing to determine his status as Enemy Combatant was held on March 10, 2007. Its details have just now been released. Here’s the PDF full transcript.
Unacceptable citation. It’s bad enough that it’s a Wiki cite, let alone the fact that it’s (currently) untrue. From the transcript:
In other words (I know his English is bad), Khalid says he was “tortured” in order to make him name names. “Do you know so-and-so?” snap, crackle, pop
Claiming a “Senior Moment” he doesn’t now remember many of the names he was compelled to name. What Khalid does know is that he is indeed an Enemy Combatant and that the alleged mistreatment in 2003 does not change that fact.
In his Tribunal statement he pledges Bay’aat (fealty) to UBL. So no.
We are known to torture people we claim to be terrorists, therefore any confession to anything by such a person is meaningless. There’s nothing this man could say that I’d believe, while he’s in the custody of America.
El Cid, his tribunal statement was made without the presence of counsel or press in the presence of those who are alleged to have mistreated him. We can’t know if he actually said it, let alone that it wasn’t coerced.
It’s worthless.
Induction Fallacy. By your (il)logic the entire US Criminal Justice System should be thrown out because a detective whacked a suspected sneak-thief with a phone book in order to extract a list of accomplices.
According to all reports, Khalid was neither racked nor in thumbscrews during this hearing. As noted above he was given ample opportunity to state that he was under duress or that his enumerative statement pertaining to the hearing was given under pain of torture. He stated the opposite. Therefore, there are no facts to support the notion that his testimony should not be believed.
For an Enemy Combatant Status Hearing the Tribunal System affords only a “Personal Representative” for the Detainee. Please present a cite demonstrating the presence at the Tribunal of the CIA Officers alleged to have mistreated Khalid.
:rolleyes: Oh, please. Of course he’d say that; we’d torture him if we didn’t. He’s not the only person we’ve terrorized into claiming we didn’t torture him.
Bombast.
Circular argument.
Cite to prove he’s been “terrorized into claiming” he wasn’t tortured. And since “he’s not the only person,” cite the other example(s), please.
I think the onus is on you to prove he was not tortured, given that we already know he was held in a secret CIA detention facility that was not on US soil, or even US controlled.
If he was not tortured, then why was he not held in Guantanamo, but instead held in limbo?
Why does this announcement come after 4 years of captivity ?
Don’t you imagine that the US leadership would have been itching to tell the world of his capture ? of course they would, unless they had another purpose in mind for him.
No, given the US behaviour on human rights, you prove he wasn’t tortured,
Oh I’m so sorry, you cannot, this is impossible, and do you know why ?
It’s called oversight dude, simple as that.
No, at least part of his confession was known back in 2004, when he gave it. Report.
It also came up during the Moussaoui trial.
He also was the first to climb the Matterhorn, found Dr. Livingston, invented printing from movable type and proved that π is irrational.
I don’t like the idea of the CIA torturing people any more than anyone else does, but consider this:
The government says that information obtained from KSM under torture allowed them to foil a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.
Something to think about. Especially if you use the Brooklyn Bridge.