Torture testimony 'acceptable'

[Lori Price CLG]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/humanrights/story/0,7369,1003351,00.html

Torture testimony 'acceptable'

Expert tells terror appeal hearing that MI5 would use information obtained under duress in court

An MI5 expert in terrorism has admitted that the security service would use information extracted from tortured prisoners as evidence in court.

The secret witness told a panel of judges that in spite of knowing that a victim had been tortured or had come from a country where the regime sanctioned torture, she would still consider their testimony to be relevant to security service investigations.

The admissions will add to growing public concern over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, who were questioned by the CIA and by MI5 officers. Critics claim that the government has condoned torture by the US in its attempts to garner evidence against people it suspects of having been involved in al-Qaida or the Taliban...

Lori R. Price
http://www.legitgov.org/
Petition to Senate - Investigate Oddities of 9/11:
http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/petition.html

Receive the CLG Newsletter every day! Contact: [e-mail] or
address to subscribe: [e-mail]

[wtmusic]

1. Yes, torture testimony is acceptable

and any number of other of rights we demand in the US (judicial review, trial by peers, etc) have been discarded.

That's why they're parked in Cuba.

[Wonder]

2. There is just too many ugly things to think about on this forum

x(

have we begun gasing them too?

[wtmusic]

3. No, but lethal injection is likely

and all it takes is a unanimous vote by a 7-member commission made up of military officers.

Did you know:

The US might exclude defendants from even being present at their own trials?

That any representation hired by defendants can also be excluded from all trial proceedings?

That press and public not only can but likely will be excluded from trial proceedings?

Hearsay ("I heard some dude in Kabul say you were guilty") is admissible as evidence?

Unauthenticated physical evidence ("I found this bomb on him") is admissible as well?

It's almost beyond comprehension that this is happening.

[Wonder]

8. wtmusic is all that part of the Patriot Act II

It sounds like the kind of immorality that the Patriotic Act seems to be upholding for what is it the next five years. Before it gets put back on the table for renactment. (I am not sure I am using the right terminology there).

It sounds like the Patriot Act is it?

[wtmusic]

12. No, and ironically (and quite humorously)

USA Patriot provides rights for the detainees at Gitmo which are at odds with the rules drawn up by the DOD for the military commissions...

they can't even get being evil right.

[Wonder]

15. that is interesting I guess they are just making it up as they go

backtracking distracting
retracting playacting
man-u-facting consent
on the ground up and down
round and round

[Wonder]

11. also have you heard about the alleged war crime

US is being charge with in Afghanistan to do with POW's an out an out massacre of 3000 POW's already disarmed and in confinement. It is alleged last I heard I have yet to follow up on it.

[w4rma]

4. Lawyers Furious as US Builds (Gitmo) Death Chambers

Lawyers Furious as US Builds (Gitmo) Death Chambers
LAWYERS expressed outrage yesterday at plans to put al-Qaeda suspects, including two Britons and an Australian, on military trial in Guantanamo Bay.
They would effectively be tried by a “kangaroo court”, stripped of all basic rights of due process that would be afforded in criminal courts in Britain or America, they said.
...
He said: “The construction of execution chambers makes virtually every lawyer in the Western world extremely angry. The idea that there is an artificial creation or enclave which, according to the Americans, is beyond the purview of all recognised systems of law is repugnant.”
...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0705-05.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=8201&forum=DCForumID71

The Courier Mail: US Plans Death Camp (May 26, 2003)
THE US has floated plans to turn Guantanamo Bay into a death camp, with its own death row and execution chamber.
Prisoners would be tried, convicted and executed without leaving its boundaries, without a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported yesterday.

The plans were revealed by Major-General Geoffrey Miller, who is in charge of 680 suspects from 43 countries, including two Australians.
...
"This camp was created to execute people. The administration has no interest in long-term prison sentences for people it regards as hard-core terrorists."
...
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6494000%255E401,00.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3258&forum=DCForumID71

CBS Producer Fired For Comparing The Mood In America To That Of Germans Who Helped Hitler's Rise To Power
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2845.htm

Producer Is a Casualty in CBS's 'Hitler' Miniseries
...
In the April 12 TV Guide, the publication says that "Gernon stated his belief that fear fueled both the Bush administration's adoption of a preemptive-strike policy and the public's acceptance of it." According to the article, "Gernon said a similar fearfulness in a devastated post-World War I Germany was 'absolutely' behind that nation's acceptance of Hitler's extremism."

Gernon is quoted as saying of the miniseries, which tracks Hitler's rise to power in 1930s Germany: "It basically boils down to an entire nation gripped by fear, who ultimately chose to give up their civil rights and plunged the whole world into war.

"I can't think of a better time to examine this history than now," he added.

The article further quotes him as saying that "when an entire country becomes afraid for their sovereignty, for their safety, they will embrace ideas and strategies and positions that they might not embrace otherwise."
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5649-2003Apr10¬Found=true

[teryang]

16. Unlawfuf Command Influence

The Major General improperly taints the Commission members by saying:

<"This camp was created to execute people. The administration has no interest in long-term prison sentences for people it regards as hard-core terrorists." >

Of course there is no saving these kangeroo courts, one is allowed to be convicted based upon hearsay "evidence summaries" attributed to confidential sources identified by pseudonyms viewed in camera in secret with only the detailed military counsel present. The content of these reports may not be conveyed to anyone. The scope of any investigation (trial preparation) allowed to the defense is determined by the commission, no rule of process may be construed as constitutional right, the commission members are appointed directly by dim son or Rummy, as is the review panel. To top it off, the Chief Defense Council used to work for Bush I.

[JackSwift]

5. We've put your civil rights in a blind trust

You won't need them, trust you.

[Pert_UK]

6. This headline and article are deeply misleading IMHO......

As far as I can tell, this is what the woman has said (my paraphrasing):

"We wouldn't automatically conclude that information was false just because someone supplied it under torture."

Basically, she is saying that intelligence / information generated by countries that we KNOW use torture on prisoners, should not be disregarded as inaccurate simply because it may have been generated in that way.

I think that's a reasonable position. It would be insane to assume that all information provided under torture was factually inaccurate - if you attached electrodes to my body and asked what my bank account number was, I'd tell you the right number (please don't).

I 100% agree that torture SHOULD NOT BE USED and I believe that we should do all we can to stop it. We should also be sceptical of information gained through torture - I'd say anything to stop you torturing me. In addition, we should ensure that our countries take an active role in discouraging other countries from torturing their prisoners.

However, this article does not imply that the intelligence agencies of the UK support the torture of suspects. It merely says that they would consider using information gained under torture, which seems to me to be the only sensible means of proceeding.

[NYC]

7. I think accepting information obtained by torture

will encourage the use of more torture.

[wtmusic]

9. Has UK intel come out and said they don't torture suspects? No...

and neither has the CIA. Tenet has stated that al Qaeda suspects in Afghanistan will be subject to more "rigorous interrogation" than they would in the US.

Sounds a whole lot like torture to me.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. Can't agree with you on this one

I've read (sorry, no idea where or when, and no link) that torture can produce all sorts of non-truths.

Sure, you'd give your bank account number in a flash under torture; so would I. But if they wanted you to confess to killing the neighbor, being an al Qaeda member, whatever, you'd probably admit to that too, just to stop the torture.

That's what I've read anyway, and I tend to believe it.

[Pert_UK]

13. That's not the point.....

Of course you would say anything to stop someone from torturing you. That's why all information gained in this way would be regarded with a high degree of scepticism by the intelligence agency.

As far as I can tell, this woman is not saying that it is acceptable to torture subjects, she's saying that you shouldn't totally disregard information that happens to be gained under torture. It might be "acceptable" to use that information, even if it has come from a tortured suspect.

Consider this...

An MI5 operative goes to their boss and says "Boss, I've just heard from the Egyptian military that one of their prisoners says there's a bomb in Oxford Circus."

"Did they torture him to get that info?"

"Well probably"

"Well we can't use that information then. Ignore it and carry on as you were...."

[bpilgrim]

18. we are talking about in a court of law... where it should NEVER be used

now on an operational level you have a point. if investigators wish to obtain a warrent to monitor a suspect based on information that may have been extracted via torture to prevent violence and to monitor these folks so as to gather REAL evidence that then may be used in court is a different story i suppose.

yet to accept as evidence to be used against a person to convict them is a tradegy of justice and brings us back to the good ole days before the founding of the usa and is completely unacceptable.

peace

[Lori Price CLG]

20. The Bush Dictatorship *needs* untruths to sustain itself...

Yes, torture would yield inaccurate information and lies... to perpetuate the Bush dictatorship.
:)-Lori

Lori R. Price
http://www.legitgov.org/
Petition to Senate - Investigate Oddities of 9/11:
http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/petition.html

Receive the CLG Newsletter every day! Contact: [e-mail] or
address to subscribe: [e-mail]

[Pert_UK]

14. I'll try again.....

"The secret witness told a panel of judges that in spite of knowing that a victim had been tortured or had come from a country where the regime sanctioned torture, she would still consider their testimony to be relevant to security service investigations."

Basically she is saying that we won't automatically disregard information that comes from a country whose regime is thought to torture suspects. We would consider their testimony "relevant...to...investigations".

She's not said that the UK government or intel community wants suspects hung up by their thumbs - if she were, they'd be a righteous outcry.

P.

[gratuitous]

17. Of course she's not saying that . . . specifically

Because it would look to the public too much as if she was saying "Yeah, go ahead, do what you want, we won't be too picky." But, in fact, that's exactly what she's saying and the folks who torture will surely get the message. For the local public, however, the British government can maintain the fiction of its high standards and piously declare that they don't torture anyone, nor do they condone torture by anyone else. But if that torture that they don't condone happens to yield a good result, who are they to look a gift horse in the mouth?

It's a cynical ploy designed to allow the torturers to keep torturing on the off chance that they might come up with something useful (after all, the Brits said they wouldn't turn it down) while maintaining a "clean hands" posture for the home crowd. It's despicable, and no amount of rhetorical window dressing can make it palatable.

[ze_dscherman]

22. Two things to connect

1. She has admitted that it is o.K. to deal intelligence with countries that torture detainees. Nice allies.

2. The U.S. has been sending detainees to countries that have a record of torturing and that are willing to cooperate "fighting terrorism". Syria for example. I wonder what the U.K. practises.


But, as you wrote it, she has cautiously circumvented admitting that the U.K. directly uses other services to interrogate detainees under torture. But it does not mind either.

[TahitiNut]

19. "secret witness"?? "she"??

"Witness A said the security service had no concerns about the way the Americans were gathering evidence that she was aware of. She had not been aware of any deaths in custody and would be surprised to learn that people held at Bagram had been tortured."

Color me unimpressed with the "secrecy". :eyes:

[ze_dscherman]

21. Time to get tough on those WMD-deniers

"Saddam's loyalists thwart polygraph tests" faithfully reports the Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030720-115919-6766r.htm

Oh, I forgot, those WMD's have never been important. Or am I confused?

[gottaB]

23. Why this is a problem

Legally, any signatory to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has an obligation to "ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture" (bold is mine). In my view, a legal ruling that evidence obtained by torture shall be allowed in courts of law ammounts to complicity.

You can't have something be both a crime and a way of prosecuting crime. That's just inviting corruption and abuse.

[Walt Starr]

24. Under torture, good Christians were willing to admit to witchcraft

Yep, tortured testimony is VERY RELIABLE!

(/sarcasm)