Prosecutors have already excluded statements that Mohammed made after his capture when he was held by the CIA in overseas prisons and subjected to brutal treatment including waterboarding before his transfer in 2006 to Guantanamo, the Times reported.
But the trial judge Lieutenant Colonel Michael Schrama has concluded that Mohammed’s subsequent interrogations in 2007 at Guantanamo were also inadmissible.
Schrama cited an “unbroken continuation of the CIA’s psychological conditioning and severe coercion,” and also found that FBI agents intentionally failed to tell Mohammed that he had a right to be silent and to consult a lawyer. (Reporting by AFP)
Torture. The word you’re looking for is torture. The CIA & FBI tortured this man for over twenty years.
Oh, and they did it illegally, because:
So they tortured this man for over twenty years while denying him the right to counsel or even to be silent, then expected the judge to accept his confession as legitimate.
Whether or not you have sympathy for Mohammed, how he’s been treated is an absolute shit-show. Remember, this man has yet to be convicted of a crime, and the crime they’re going after him for, heinous though it may be, happened 25 years ago.
Here’s the rub - if they have the evidence to convict, then they don’t need the confession. Yet they found the need to waterboard this man for 20+ years to obtain it. This means that the other evidence they have against him is too flimsy to secure a conviction on its own.
And that means they’ve been torturing a technically innocent man for three decades to save face.
I agree with everything you’ve said. I think I would draw a clear distinction between “not legally established” and “innocent.” To be clear, nothing justifies 20 years of torture, no matter what he did, but it seems to me this guy is innocent the same way Trump is innocent of violently raping children.
Keeping him behind bars might well have prevented him from planning additional attacks or even being elevated to political prominence. But torture is beyond the pale.
What are you basing that on? Information that was given to you by the people that tortured him?
The United States justice system is based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. He has not been proven guilty. As such he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
If you imprison people based on what they might do, you no longer have a justice system. All you have is a lawless police state.
Well we’re doing a shit ton of the last thing you mentioned, so it appears we’re a lawless state.
As a Native American I and my ancestors have been saying this all along. It’s just that non wealthy white people are finally being targeted and are just now realizing it’s the case. Maybe they’ll eventually realize it’s always been the case.
If freed, there is every reason to believe he would have planned and executed further attacks, and probably that he would today. Which means all of those additional lost lives are the cost to free him. That’s not a cost that’s in our interest to pay. It’s certainly not a cost I’d be willing to pay.
Asymmetrical warfare is something that isn’t fully handled by a legal system and not a purely military issue. This is a not a case of easy answers and clear morality. If the families of those alternative timeline victims could blame you for their loss, would the right choice be so clear to you? It wouldn’t to me.
You clearly have no morality.
If it’s so clear that he did it then there should be plenty of evidence and torture shouldn’t even be necessary. As to the risk of him planning the next terrorism attack - incarceration “just in case” isn’t necessary (and not lawful for good reason) - planning crimes, especially terrorist offences, are already crimes themselves, so it doesn’t have to go that far to rearrest him if he really does tend to go in that direction.
According to who? The CIA and FBI agents that beat a confession out of him? The press that presumed him guilty the moment they chose to notice him? We have no idea who this guy actually is other than what they claim, because it’s never come out in a public court of law.
If there’s evidence to convict him, convict him and make him suffer the penalty of the law. Otherwise you’re destroying a man on the basis of hearsay, and undermining your own justice system in the process.
Only fascist anti-American pieces of shit who hate the Bill of Rights draw that distinction. Ever.
If that’s not clear enough, I can try to state it in even more emphatic terms.