U.S. District Judge Says Confession Under Torture Legal

A federal judge ruled Monday that prosecutors can use a confession by a man charged with joining al-Qaida and plotting to assassinate President Bush, despite defense claims that the confession was obtained through torture.

The ruling came after a six-day hearing in which Ahmed Omar Abu Ali testified that Saudi Arabian security officers whipped his back, kicked him in the stomach and pulled on his beard to obtain a confession.

U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee issued a one-page ruling and said he would explain his reasoning in a forthcoming order.

Abu Ali's lawyers wanted the confession tossed out and the entire case dismissed. But Lee's ruling means the trial will go forward this week, with jury selection Tuesday and opening statements as early as Thursday.

During the hearing, the judge reviewed photographs of Abu Ali's back that showed thin lines or scars that the 24-year-old said were proof of a flogging. Prosecutors argued the faint markings could have been caused by anything and might have been self-inflicted to bolster a torture claim.

Continued....

What you may think about the person should not let you ignore the precedant, or that it could happen to you.

If this is admitted at the trial, and he is convicted Liberty has been lost.

This goes against the Fifth and I believe the Eighth Amendments. The Fifth deals with self-incrimination. The Eighth (I think it's #8) deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

Bye-bye Bill of Rights....

The Fifth deals with self-incrimination. The Eighth (I think it's #8) deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

You have the right to not testify against yourself....a confession is different and totally legit. As for punishment...well he hasnt been legally "punished" yet, has he?

But, I do agree. A confession under torture is as good as toilet paper (the cheap kind). I mean hell....most of us would probably crack and sign just about anything to make the torture stop.

Originally posted by SportyMB

The Fifth deals with self-incrimination. The Eighth (I think it's #8) deals with cruel and unusual punishment.

You have the right to not testify against yourself....a confession is different and totally legit. As for punishment...well he hasnt been legally "punished" yet, has he?

But, I do agree. A confession under torture is as good as toilet paper (the cheap kind). I mean hell....most of us would probably crack and sign just about anything to make the torture stop.

Agreed, people that are put under incredible duress will do almost anything to have it end. I know that i was being tortured that there is a very good chance i would give in to any accusations, true or not, after a certain point just to have the torture end. Anyone that feels differently is probably lying or is trained in how to deal with it (which i am not).

What you may think about the person should not let you ignore the precedant, or that it could happen to you.

If this is admitted at the trial, and he is convicted Liberty has been lost.

I think you're reading too much into this. The judge didn't say a confession under torture is admissible, he said that marks on the back of the defendant were not sufficient evidence of torture and pushed the case to trial. The defense will have ample opportunity to prove their torture claims in court, which would make the confession inadmissible.

another misleading thread, again, this is becoming irritating, 3 i've seen the past 2 weeks, is it just me or is this becoming a problem more and more recently?

Originally posted by namehere
another misleading thread, again, this is becoming irritating, 3 i've seen the past 2 weeks, is it just me or is this becoming a problem more and more recently?

The source is the problem here, the title of the source is "U.S. District Judge Says Confession Under Torture Legal", but when you actually read the article that's very inaccurate. The whole purpose of the article is to convince people who don't bother reading the article and just run with the title.

rhelt100

...the article says the judge saw nothing to indicate torture so it was ruled a valid interrogation, the thread doesnt say that, he/she just looks for things fitting a bias, thats the real problem.


since it seems to be overlooked by a few:

Prosecutors argued the faint markings could have been caused by anything and might have been self-inflicted to bolster a torture claim

[edit on 26-10-2005 by namehere]

Originally posted by namehere
rhelt100

...the article says the judge saw nothing to indicate torture so it was ruled a valid interrogation, the thread doesnt say that.

I'm guessing the author of the thread didn't even read the entire article and just ran with the headline.