The Al-Nashiri Case (Gitmo)

[Hamlet]

@Simplicio

I think we’re talking about two different things. I’m talking about a confession, under torture, which I’d say is intrinsically untrustworthy and ought to be disallowed for that (and many other) reasons.

And, again, by automatically excluding it, you are saying not only is it untrustworthy, but it is ALWAYS untrustworthy. Throwing out every single confession, no matter what, without having a judge actually make a determination of the trustworthiness of the confession, is simply abandoning the search for the truth in favor of a blanket rule. Let the judges hear ALL the evidence and make a determination. Again, as Devil’s Advocate.

@Simplicio

Information garnered under torture (which I think is what your talking about) can be confirmed by further, less evil, methods of investigation. The question of whether these investigations ought to be then admissible is a bit more of a grey area. Personally I think it should still be inadmissible, though I grant that it may actually provide useful information about whether the accused is guilty. While I agree there may be some weakening of the exclusionary rule in cases like this, for the reasons you mentioned, I’d say that intelligence agencies (and their politician bosses) do have some desire to see a person they’re interrogating imprisoned, and torture is such an egregious breaking of both domestic and international law that even if excluding evidence garnered using it is only a minor deterrent to its use, we should still do so.

Here’s where I think we agree in real life not as DA. Torture is so unacceptable, is so resoundingly condemned in our treaties and international law, that it is simply unacceptable to allow it to take place or to allow the government to benefit from it.

[Sinaijon]

@xtisme

Do you just want Obama to come in and make a bunch of arbitrary decisions without giving them proper consideration??

But that’s exactly what he did. Not making an arbitrary decision would be letting the trials continue, which is what I think he should have done.

Remember the whole Habeas Corpus hubbub? Remember how evil Bush was for holding these guys without trial? Remember the celebration when the Supreme Court ruled that Habeas Corpus applied? Remember how we finally were going to find out what the evidence against these guys was?

And now, remember who the guy was that just threw Habeas Corpus out the window again? Remember all the ensuing pit threads flaming the guy for violating the spirit if not the law of the Constitution?

Wait, check that last part. I don’t remember that either.

[YogSothoth]

The test of a people’s virtue comes when they are in the majority. I think we would fail that if we somehow continued to imprison this guy

As we are not in a real war, his actions constitute nothing more than a crime, no better or worse than a serial killer. We wouldnt consider waterboarding or torturing them for a confession and neither should we use the evidence gained from torture to prosecute this guy

A part of having such extraordinary freedoms is that we’re vulnerable in a way closed societies are not. I dont think there is any good reason we shouldnt be sending this guy on a one way boat trip back to wherever he came from

[Simplicio]

@Sinaijon

And now, remember who the guy was that just threw Habeas Corpus out the window again? Remember all the ensuing pit threads flaming the guy for violating the spirit if not the law of the Constitution?

Wait, check that last part. I don’t remember that either.

Umm…me either. What does this have to do with Habeas Corpus? I seriously doubt that Al-Nashiri’s lawyer has submitted such a writ since Obama suspended the trials. Why would they want to? presumably they realize their client has a better chance under whatever system the Obama comes up with then under the current system.

What are you talking about?

[Cervaise]

@elucidator

Well, there you have it! Rep. Smith clearly has all the evidence right at his fingertips, and has no concerns about al-Nahiri’s guilt whatsoever! Rather a pity he didn’t share that with us. Security reasons, no doubt. Yes, that must be it.

Rep. Smith should be in prison before al-Nashiri.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@elucidator

Rep. Lamar Smith, (R-Texas) has no such qualms.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_guantanamo
Well, there you have it! Rep. Smith clearly has all the evidence right at his fingertips, and has no concerns about al-Nahiri’s guilt whatsoever! Rather a pity he didn’t share that with us. Security reasons, no doubt. Yes, that must be it.

Well if al-Nahiri is innocent, what’s he doing in prison then hmmmmm smart guy? Plus, just take a look at his name! Nuff said.

[Simplicio]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Plus, just take a look at his name! Nuff said.

True. Al Sharpton, Al Gore, Al Franken. No one who cares about America is named Al.