US defends “evidence” obtained through torture ...

[RBHam]

By Don Knowland, wsws.org

At his confirmation hearing before the US Senate Judiciary Committee on January 5, Alberto Gonzalez, chief legal counsel to President Bush and his nominee for attorney general, purported to express abhorrence of torture. A few days earlier, the Department of Justice trotted out a new legal opinion claiming the government would continue to honor US and international legal prohibitions on torture. This new opinion departed from the 2002 position of the Justice Department, solicited by Gonzalez, that the president, in time of war, could ignore such restrictions.

The actual position of the US government on the subject of torture was on display the previous month during hearings in federal court on habeas corpus actions brought by 54 prisoners at the US military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The prisoners are challenging their continued detention after three years without charges or trial.

The government’s position at these hearings was that evidence obtained by means of torture can be used in determining whether to detain a foreign suspect indefinitely as an “enemy combatant” in the “war on terror.”

more...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/guan-j11.shtml

[Ian David]

1. If he floats, he's a terrorist. If he drowns, he was innocent.

eom

[The Doctor.]

2. A point I made on a conservative site....

So let me tell you about something that happened to me;

I was speaking with the receptionist one day about some of the bald incompetence I've seen from this administration.

She mentioned war crimes.

A friend and colleague of mine who is more enamored of Bush than I was passing through and took exception to the comment.
He said "What's that about Bush and war crimes?"

I said, "Well, it's more along the lines of the adaptation of torture as a means to gain evidence."

A five minute conversation ensued wherein I cited instances which showed that torture was an unreliable method of obtaining information, especially with regard to confessions.
When he continued to tell me I was wrong, I decided I would prove my point.
(I'm lucky Chris doesn't hold grudges for long.)

I told him that my Sunday paper was stolen two weeks ago, then asked him to hold out his hand. (Yes... someone DID steal my paper - that or the deliverer lied to me.)

He (foolishly) obliged.

I used a basic chin na wristlock (Middle finger to inside of palm, thumb between third and fourth metacarpal), kicked his foot out, and firmly planted his face on the carpet with his upstretched arm at my mercy.
The lock is not terribly harmful, but VERY painful when executed properly.

Eventually, after 10 minutes in an uncomfortable position and many vociferous expletives, I got him to admit that he stole my paper, shot JFK, and was soley responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs.

The very next week, I found my car riddled with paintballs - he has no idea who did it.

I'm not going to press the issue.

If I could get that in ten minutes, imagine what you could get in a year.

I understand that there are strategies to information gathering of this sort, but I cannot fault anyone for being highly skeptical of the use of torture as a reliable means of interrogation.

Just think of what YOU might say...

[RBHam]

3. Exactly...

To stop the pain, most people would confess to the murder of their mother and the rape of their children.