Lawyer: Gitmo interrogators told to trash notes

Lawyer: Gitmo interrogators told to trash notes

hosted.ap.org...

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- The Pentagon urged interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to destroy handwritten notes in case they were called to testify about potentially harsh treatment of detainees, a military defense lawyer said Sunday.

The lawyer for Toronto-born Omar Khadr, Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, said the instructions were included in an operations manual shown to him by prosecutors and suggest the U.S. deliberately thwarted evidence that could help terror suspects defend themselves at trial.

Kuebler said the apparent destruction of evidence prevents him from challenging the reliability of any alleged confessions. He said he will use the document to seek a dismissal of charges against Khadr.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 9-6-2008 by jasonjnelson]

[edit on 9-6-2008 by jasonjnelson]

What the hell man? Just when we are getting to a point when we can finally attach some credibility to this whole sham, then they go and do this. This is some rookie LAPD stuff. Like planting drugs on a gang member. So does this mean that the international courts will say anything? How about the odds of our supreme court going in on this?

hosted.ap.org...
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 9-6-2008 by jasonjnelson]

reply to post by jasonjnelson


And they will get away with it... again. What happened with the missing email? They do this over and over again and we all just forget and move on. The media doesn't hold them responsible and the people are too distracted to care.

reply to post by Karlhungis


I agree with that. But it just seems to me that this is a little bush league. (no pun intended) The fact is, either they are terrorists or they are not. But there should be no need to withhold evidence. What is this, the changeover to communism that China had? With sham trials? This says alot about our hopes as citizens, seeing as the executive branch actually said that they believe the president can name any U.S. citizen an enemy combatant.

reply to post by jasonjnelson


Remember when they just destroyed the interrogation videos? There was a brief flare up of outrage and then no follow up. They used the good old, "National Security" defense and got away with it. This is the same thing all over again.

I agree, things have gotten out of control with this administration. They flaunt the fact that they are above the law. It would be one thing if it weren't true, but it is that much more offensive because it is true. The only way these criminals will be held accountable is if there is a full blown revolution but I simply don't see that happening. They will get away with this and it is only going to get worse as the year goes on.

Am I the only one that sees the situation described this extract from the OPs article as perverse?

The case against Khadr, who was captured in Afghanistan when he was 15, is on track to be one of the first to trial. He faces war-crimes charges including murder for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. Special Forces soldier during a 2002 firefight.

How can the US invade and wage war on another country, ostensibly in pursuit of one man, and then charge a guy - a 15-year old Afghan resident - with war crimes for fighting back?

reply to post by coughymachine


to be honest with you, if he killed a special forces, after he chose to align himself with the Taliban, I think he should be put to death, or imprisoned. For me it is not about that, it's about setting a precedent, and standing by what we preach to others.

reply to post by jasonjnelson

And that's is the sort of logic I simply don't understand.

The US threatens war on Afghanistan for harbouring a man the Taliban said they'd give up if the US produced evidence of his involvement in the attacks of 9/11.

The US didn't produce said evidence and instead launched an attack, toppling the Taliban and killing many innocent civilians in the process. And failing, it should be remembered, to officially kill, capture or even locate their ostensible target.

This boy - Omar Khadr - who was a long-term Afghan resident, aligned himself with the country's leaders and helped them attemp to resist the invasion and occupation. In so doing he killed what he surely considered to be an invading enemy combatant.

And he is guilty of a war crime?

That seems utterly perverted to me.

If the US were ever attacked and invaded, how prepsterous a notion would it be for the international community to regard any long-term immigrant residents who helped defend the US homeland as 'war criminals'?

...Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, said the instructions were included in an operations manual shown to him by prosecutors...

Uh, are we saying the evidence describing the 'destroy the evidence' order was in the prosecutor's possession and they showed it to the defense who can now only allege he saw it?

This is getting crazier everyday... what a waste of taxpayer dollars.

reply to post by coughymachine


I don't think that one could call the actions of the pre war Taliban to be some sort of grand government. Quite the opposite really. And BTW, if I was fighting in my country and they were coming? Death is ALWAYS a better option than imprisonment.

Who cares how bad they treat them. It's a war, are we all forgetting that?.
Do you think they would treat a P.O.W. like royalty should they get one?.
Beat the hell out of them, do whatever it takes to get all the info needed to foil other terror attacks, or catch the ring leaders.

Originally posted by orby1976
Who cares how bad they treat them. It's a war, are we all forgetting that?.
Do you think they would treat a P.O.W. like royalty should they get one?.
Beat the hell out of them, do whatever it takes to get all the info needed to foil other terror attacks, or catch the ring leaders.

*sigh* How many times does this kind of BS need to be refuted before people get the point?

War has rules too.

It doesn't matter how we speculate they might treat POWs, because we're supposed to be the good guys; it falls to us to be better and to do better than they do.

Torture does not work. It does not produce reliable, actionable information. The only thing torture does is get desperate people to say anything their torturers want in order to stop the torture.

The "Ring Leader" is still at large because we stopped looking for him.

Suspects are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Yes, that should count for POWs as well, because that's the kind of fairness this country is supposedly built upon. Again, we're supposed to be the good guys.

reply to post by orby1976


Dang! You really don't get it do you? The last guy they beat up and waterboarded - went home and killed a bunch of people! We let him go because he wasn't a terrorist.... UNTIL WE MADE HIM ONE using your mentality of 'who cares? they're the enemy!'

POW aren't supposed to be treated as criminals, that is why we have a justice system (remember that line.., "with liberty and justice for all..."?) Punishment happens AFTER trial, not while your in Guantana-limbo.

reply to post by The Nighthawk


I agree, although usually not with you, lol.

The fact is, although I believe if we caught some guy, and we KNEW that he knew where, I don't know, a nuke was, then a Jack Bauer type situation might work. But I cannot, for any reason, condone the treatment of POWs in any different way than how we are supposed to. The fact of the matter is, although I know that there are terrorists who would rather kill me than look at me, I would still treat them the way we treated the fascists, japanese, Vietnamese, and others we have had major conflicts with.

In a country where we let our murderers live in cushy prisons and our violent sexual predators are released again and again to walk the streets, I can't see the logic in saying that these men are any more dangerous.

Let them get tried in their own countries, or in an international court if they did in fact commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
reply to post by The Nighthawk

 

I agree, although usually not with you, lol.

The fact is, although I believe if we caught some guy, and we KNEW that he knew where, I don't know, a nuke was, then a Jack Bauer type situation might work. But I cannot, for any reason, condone the treatment of POWs in any different way than how we are supposed to. The fact of the matter is, although I know that there are terrorists who would rather kill me than look at me, I would still treat them the way we treated the fascists, japanese, Vietnamese, and others we have had major conflicts with.

In a country where we let our murderers live in cushy prisons and our violent sexual predators are released again and again to walk the streets, I can't see the logic in saying that these men are any more dangerous.

Let them get tried in their own countries, or in an international court if they did in fact commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Well, you know, first off the Jack Bauer situation just doesn't happen. The Ticking Time Bomb scenario is a complete Hollywood fabrication.

Second, if this guy is up for war crimes for allegedly lobbing a grenade at someone in the heat of battle then there's a few thousand US soldiers who would then qualify as suspects as well. If throwing a grenade at your enemy is a war crime what about launching a dozen of them from a 40mm automatic GL on top of a Humvee?

Or does it only count when they do it to our guys?

Silly me, I keep expecting the United States of America to live up to the same standards we demand from the rest of the world......

And once again why we disagree. The taliban was an illegal terrorist regime that also flaunted basic human rights. You will never hear me argue that. But was this kid a trained soldier? No, not at all. Just some kid who should stand trial for aligning himself with the bad guys. not OUR bad guys, bad guys in general. (lets not make this into a debate on the Taliban)
So should he be in detention? If there is still a war going on? Sure!
But he should be that, a POW.
Or, try him for war crimes in a higher court. Either way works for me.

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
And once again why we disagree. The taliban was an illegal terrorist regime that also flaunted basic human rights. You will never hear me argue that. But was this kid a trained soldier? No, not at all. Just some kid who should stand trial for aligning himself with the bad guys. not OUR bad guys, bad guys in general. (lets not make this into a debate on the Taliban)
So should he be in detention? If there is still a war going on? Sure!
But he should be that, a POW.
Or, try him for war crimes in a higher court. Either way works for me.

So, if someone invades the USA, and you, not being in uniform or a trained member of a standing army, shoot one of the invaders, you're a war criminal?

Interesting perspective.

Better hope it doesn't happen to you.

reply to post by The Nighthawk


now now night hawk. look no deeper than what I said please.... I am merely pointing out what kind of "Government" this really was. And that there, if you read my post, are many ways to treat and label this guy. What is being done is not that.

So if we catch POWs, and you know they know something, are you saying we should pamper these guys?.
All im saying is, if it's known for sure these guys know something of major importance, we should be able to do whatever it takes to protect our own.
Even if that means getting a little physical with them.
And If we know before hand that they're not a major player, they should be shot on the battle field.

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
I don't think that one could call the actions of the pre war Taliban to be some sort of grand government.

It doesn't really matter what you would call them. They ruled most of Afghanistan and were initially supported by the US.

The US then decides to invade - on what true grounds I'm still a little unsure - and you believe a 15-year old boy should be tried as a war criminal for helping to resist?

I find that sort of logic unfathomable.