Judge to US: Yes, Really, Torture is Illegal.

[babsbunny]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/10/judge-us-yes-really-torture-illegal

A major terrorism prosecution is derailed because "enhanced interrogation" taints evidence.

— By Karen Greenberg

Thu Oct. 7, 2010 8:10 AM PDT

Finally, it seemed, the moment had arrived. The jury pool had been whittled down to 65, the final voir dire was set to begin, and lawyers on both sides were ready with their opening statements. Anticipation was high, and so, clearly, was nervousness. For the first time in more than a year of pretrial hearings, security held the press and observers on the ground floor of the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan. Anyone who took the elevator to the 26th floor without clearance from the US Marshalls was turned away.

By 10:00, the reporters and observers had gone through the newly installed screening booth outside the courtroom and the defendant had entered the courtroom wearing a light gray sweater and a blue and gold tie that matched the hues of the Department of Justice emblem on the carpet. The hush in the packed room underscored the shared recognition of the moment's significance—the start, finally, of the first Guantanamo trial in US courts, just a few blocks away from Ground Zero.

[malaise]

1. You may wish to watch this tomorrow or on line

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11469369

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. It might be biased

After all...... what do we know?

[malaise]

6. LOL

:rofl:

[sabrina 1]

3. Finally, a public repudiation of torture.

The Constitution does not permit" the witness to testify, the judge asserted, given that torture evidence is not allowed in US court proceedings.

This is why they wanted to hold secret trials. They had thought it all out. They intended to torture people, I can only speculate why, they opted out of the World Court before going to war. This was a pre-meditated crime.

But even in their secret military trials, they found it difficult to get convictions as many military prosecutors quit once the looked at the 'evidence'.

Rightwingers of course, will use this to slam President Obama for permitting these trials to take place in public courtrooms.

Otoh, they will be happy with another statement from the judge regarding the fact that even if this defendent is found to be not guilty, he will not be released until the 'end of hostilities' since he has been declared and 'enemy combatant'. That will be the next legal battle. I know POWs can be held until the end of hostilities, but this 'enemy combatant' designation is a new, made-up title for the so-called, never-ending WOT.

Regardless, this was a good ruling and the first sign that maybe we still have some principles.

[JDPriestly]

4. K&R

[JDPriestly]

5. K&R

[spanone]

7. k&r

[sabrina 1]

8. I really hope that Democrats are ready for the rightwing

attacks that are going to come in defense of torture. There is NO defense of torture and that should be their position. They should be unmovable on this.

[gratuitous]

9. Wait, have they asked John Yoo yet?

He's a law school professor, you know.

[Solly Mack]

10. K&R

[chill_wind]

11. K & R!

[leftstreet]

12. K&R

[Odin2005]

13. Torture. Is. ILLEGAL.

[NNN0LHI]

14. Torture is only good for getting people to say what you want them to say

The truth is irrelevant.

Worked great on them "witches", didn't it?

Don

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. That's not true, and it's a dangerously flawed way to make the case against torture.

If you start off with an idea of what you want someone to say, you can torture them into saying it. So information received under torture is *unreliable*. But that's a long, long way from worthless - information like "the code to the safe is 15237" or "there's an ambush planned on the 13th" or "I hid the bodies under my patio" is valuable even if it's unreliable.

Also, if you base the case against torture on "it doesn't work" then "we should torture people more skillfully" becomes a possible alternative to "we should stop torturing people".

The only way to make a compelling case against torture is to point out that a) the value of the information obtained by (e.g) American soldiers torturing their enemies balances against the cost of information gained from American soldiers being tortured by their enemies, so we might as well all agree not to torture people, and b) it's morally wrong.

[Kurovski]

15. K&R.(nt)

[Solly Mack]

16. kick