US Judge: OK to extract confessions by threatening rape

reply to post by camaro68ss


Since when are American soldiers able to get away with crimes not committed in America?

reply to post by EnkiCarbone


Here is one from Reuters

Canadian prisoner Omar Khadr told interrogators he was an al Qaeda terrorist and described pulling the pin of a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, a prosecutor told Khadr's war crimes tribunal on Thursday.

But Khadr's defense attorney said those were the false words of a scared and wounded child whose interrogators fabricated a tale of a young boy raped and killed in prison to frighten him into making a fake confession.

"It is only after that story is told to Omar Khadr that he admits to throwing anything. He told them what they wanted to hear," Army Lieutenant Colonel Jon Jackson said in defense opening statements.

www.reuters.com...

NONE of you "get it."

The threat of being raped, especially if you're MUSLIM, will create a lot of false testimony. Lots of women in the US have been raped (and never reported it) so many times, it's become common (I'm sorry to say). But when you threaten a CHILD, and especially a Muslim child, with such a crime, the person intimating it is perpetrating a CRIMINAL ACT. Those children are NOT LIKE US! And it's extremely unfair to treat them the way we treat our own.

He probably WAS raped... by our own American guards. And if I really believed in a Hell, I'd want them to burn there for it.

He was only 8 or 9 when his father uprooted him from a life in America, and took him to a foreign land to be trained to fight a fight that was NOT of his own choosing. But it was indoctrinated in him. The Child who is now a MAN is not to blame for what his parents taught him, nor for what we have done to their countries. We have NO BUSINESS fighting a War in any land where we don't comprehend the beliefs and the politics.

Better that we should make an effort to let him see what it's like to grow up in a traditional AMERICAN home, under close supervision, before we condemn him for life. We need to at least give him a chance to be redeemed.

And, we can't ever win... If you don't know that by now, you're as handicapped as HE is.

reply to post by CynCritter


Just a small correction: he is Canadian. But your point is very valid.

Getting some person, let alone a kid to confess to something under the threat of rape is the same thing as the prosecutors planting evidence on someone.. There is no way that this method could be conceived of as an accurate way to get truthfull info from sonone.. That judge must be an incredible moron not to mention the people that are using this method thinking they could possibly gain truthful information using this form of torture...

On another note, I personally would never admit to something I didn't do no matter what form of torture was used.. But I can't fathom a 15 year old being able to let it get to that point..

Our country is truly being led by nazi freaks and the proof is in their daily actions like this judge advocating rape as acceptable for use on children to get confessions...

Just an observation, has anyone else noted the crap spelling and poor grammar of the right wing US apologists, dumb twats know not of what they speak, probably children posturing to please their dad.

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by name pending

 

While I support the war, and I support 99.9% of the troops, I feel we HAVE to maintain the moral high ground! Our pretext for the war was a human rights pretext. Our pretext for policing the world is a human rights pretext. Why on earth would we not pay the utmost attention to the treatment of our captives? It is imperative that we spread the same "inalienable, self-evident" rights to our enemies that we assign to ourselves. Anything less is abhorrant and counter-productive!

I mean no offense by this...but what planet are you from? Where have you been for the last 10 years?

What moral high ground do we really have to maintain? You support the war?? Really? What is this human rights pretext you speak of? We have admitted to torturing prisoners.. so where is the "human rights" part of that issue?

I was under the impression we were in Afghanistan, attacking the Taliban because they refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden. I thought we were in Iraq because they were making and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction that we could not wait to get evidence for because the evidence may "come on the form of a mushroom cloud". So please.. explain to me what this human rights pretext is? Was our reasons for occupying these countries redefined and I just simply missed the meeting?

Can you point out these "inalienable, self evident" rights that we have assigned ourselves? We no longer have those in the US. If we did, there would be no "free speech zones", there would be no gun control laws, and Americans would not be permitted to be charge under the Patriot Act, held indefinitely, without contact with family or an attorney. We would not have warrantless wiretapping, spying on our e-mails, and we would not have members of ATS whose post were added to some document listing them as potential domestic terrorist (which for the life of me I can not find anywhere on ATS anymore..can someone help me with it?)

Sorry.. but I do not support the wars. They are illegal. We have no right to be there. I do not support our troops. I used to, and I used to tell myself they are just following orders, but no more. They are following illegal orders from a rogue government, while they have an oath to uphold the Constitution. If that was an oath taken seriously, they are violating their own oath. It's really that simple now.

More on topic.... this ruling is absurd at best. I hope for the sake of that judge that his wife is not threatened with rape, or his child, or him self. Then again.... does anyone expect anything less from a Military Judge? This is brought to us by the same people who said it was ok to torture others.

you can talk about all the USA laws you want but it did not happen in the USA. so till you find me a law that said what they did illegal then no harm no faul

Well, I am not going to do your homework for you, but I will go ahead and tell you where you can start. It is called "International Law". It is the same reason why 11 US Soldiers are now in various military prisons for their treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Those acts were not committed on US soil either, and those acts violated International law which included acts such as physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture, rape, sodomy, and homicide of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison.

Now aside from the fact that it is illegal... you have to be brain dead to turn a blind eye to this. Have you not already learned that all the things we allow to happen to our "enemies" eventually comes around and is used on the American people as well? The Patriot Act, was supposed to be used to capture "terrorist" and is now used against the American People. Warrantless Wiretapping was supposed to be used on people making calls to "terrorist" overseas, now it is admitted that it is used on American citizens calling anyone, no matter where or who they are, and those are just 2 recent examples. I am sure with a little effort on your part you can find many more examples.

This is probably relevant to this thread, just released today

A serving officer in the United States Army is removed from the Omar Khadr's (the kid/guy this thread is about) jury after informing the court of his belief that the American-run prison camps in Guantánamo Bay ought to be shut down.

He replied: "I agree with the President the detention facility should be closed down." He said that it "eroded America's reputation in the world," and that after speaking to Europeans and academics he backed the views of the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the former Attorney General of the UK, Lord Goldsmith QC, who had both condemned the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo.

He was asked specifically which things he objected against

Asked specifically which policies had led him to this conclusion he authoritatively cited examples including; charge without trial, torture, rendition and the denial of access to members of the International Committee of the Red Cross to detainees held in secret locations. He went on to say that he believed a small number of detainees may have been killed while in American custody but added: "I don't think my views differ from those of the President." By the time he had admitted that he would be "suspicious" of any evidence obtained under torture his fate was sealed.

The Military Complex won again.

Here's another article by Raw Story from 2009

The CIA relied on intelligence based on torture in prisons in Uzbekistan, a place where widespread torture practices include raping suspects with broken bottles and boiling them alive, says a former British ambassador to the central Asian country.

Former UK ambassador: CIA sent people to be ‘raped with broken bottles’

[edit on 13-8-2010 by Sheol]

There ya go.... raping someone with a broken bottle... nothing illegal or wrong with that as long as you don't do it on US soil /sarcasm

No harm no foul right?

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by name pending

 

While I support the war, and I support 99.9% of the troops, I feel we HAVE to maintain the moral high ground! Our pretext for the war was a human rights pretext. Our pretext for policing the world is a human rights pretext. Why on earth would we not pay the utmost attention to the treatment of our captives? It is imperative that we spread the same "inalienable, self-evident" rights to our enemies that we assign to ourselves. Anything less is abhorrant and counter-productive!

I mean no offense by this...but what planet are you from? Where have you been for the last 10 years?

What moral high ground do we really have to maintain? You support the war?? Really? What is this human rights pretext you speak of? We have admitted to torturing prisoners.. so where is the "human rights" part of that issue?

I was under the impression we were in Afghanistan, attacking the Taliban because they refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden. I thought we were in Iraq because they were making and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction that we could not wait to get evidence for because the evidence may "come on the form of a mushroom cloud". So please.. explain to me what this human rights pretext is? Was our reasons for occupying these countries redefined and I just simply missed the meeting?

Can you point out these "inalienable, self evident" rights that we have assigned ourselves? We no longer have those in the US. If we did, there would be no "free speech zones", there would be no gun control laws, and Americans would not be permitted to be charge under the Patriot Act, held indefinitely, without contact with family or an attorney. We would not have warrantless wiretapping, spying on our e-mails, and we would not have members of ATS whose post were added to some document listing them as potential domestic terrorist (which for the life of me I can not find anywhere on ATS anymore..can someone help me with it?)

Sorry.. but I do not support the wars. They are illegal. We have no right to be there. I do not support our troops. I used to, and I used to tell myself they are just following orders, but no more. They are following illegal orders from a rogue government, while they have an oath to uphold the Constitution. If that was an oath taken seriously, they are violating their own oath. It's really that simple now.

More on topic.... this ruling is absurd at best. I hope for the sake of that judge that his wife is not threatened with rape, or his child, or him self. Then again.... does anyone expect anything less from a Military Judge? This is brought to us by the same people who said it was ok to torture others.

you can talk about all the USA laws you want but it did not happen in the USA. so till you find me a law that said what they did illegal then no harm no faul

Well, I am not going to do your homework for you, but I will go ahead and tell you where you can start. It is called "International Law". It is the same reason why 11 US Soldiers are now in various military prisons for their treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Those acts were not committed on US soil either, and those acts violated International law which included acts such as physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture, rape, sodomy, and homicide of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison.

Now aside from the fact that it is illegal... you have to be brain dead to turn a blind eye to this. Have you not already learned that all the things we allow to happen to our "enemies" eventually comes around and is used on the American people as well? The Patriot Act, was supposed to be used to capture "terrorist" and is now used against the American People. Warrantless Wiretapping was supposed to be used on people making calls to "terrorist" overseas, now it is admitted that it is used on American citizens calling anyone, no matter where or who they are, and those are just 2 recent examples. I am sure with a little effort on your part you can find many more examples.

o ok, well the judge already ruled so thats to bad. you should have brought that up to him before hand. glad he is keeping america safe and made the right choice.

reply to post by name pending


A 15 year old held in GB for 7 long bloody years? This WRONG WRONG WRONG on all counts. Let the kid go!

Well its not legal. so this time the judge needs to be charged and taken away from his position. Its up to citizens to put on the pressure till he's gone and expose him as a criminal fascist.

Originally posted by sassyncute
Typical of the US.

USMC are the regular grunt, and in todays climate if you look through the ranks it comprises of the uneducated, jobless (before joining) and all minority races and homeless. The only requirement to join is walking on off the street with no prospects in life.

So why is "minority races" included in this otherwise unflattering and abysmal content? Are you letting your sheets flap?

I got out of the military back in '01. Yall do know that Iraq has/had what we called "rape dogs". They have this table, probably similar to what dog breeders use for studding their dogs. But they would strap a guy to this table and let the dogs rape him.

Rape isn't anything new in war.

With all this said raping someone is wrong period. Peacetime or war. The only thing is, war is a necessary wrong anyway. Basically, anything goes. If you attempt to play nice during war you will lose.

Tactics used during war are really too thin-line for us people not participating in to discuss. You have to have been there and faced that stress to have a valid opinion.

Last thing is I'm not too familiar with the case but I know that children in America are different from children in other countries. Children in other countries will bust a cap in your @ss or frag you with a grenade. In some countries they are carrying AK's by the age of 8.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
I got out of the military back in '01. Yall do know that Iraq has/had what we called "rape dogs". They have this table, probably similar to what dog breeders use for studding their dogs. But they would strap a guy to this table and let the dogs rape him.

Rape isn't anything new in war.

With all this said raping someone is wrong period. Peacetime or war. The only thing is, war is a necessary wrong anyway. Basically, anything goes. If you attempt to play nice during war you will lose.

Tactics used during war are really too thin-line for us people not participating in to discuss. You have to have been there and faced that stress to have a valid opinion.

Last thing is I'm not too familiar with the case but I know that children in America are different from children in other countries. Children in other countries will bust a cap in your @ss or frag you with a grenade. In some countries they are carrying AK's by the age of 8.

Thank god someone who know the "REAL" life outside of the USA and in the 3rd worlds. all the rest of you live in fairyland thinking this is just a little boy that would not kill you if he was given a gun or a bomb to blow himself up on to kill you.

if your defending this kid let me ask you this. would you trust this kid with a loaded gun in front of you. do you trust he would not hurt you if he could?

[edit on 13-8-2010 by camaro68ss]

reply to post by camaro68ss


I would not trust my 15 year old nephew with a loaded gun around me. That has nothing to do with our Constitution.

This takes a big dump on our Constitution. If our men and women commit such atrocities while fighting a war, what exactly is it that they are fighting for? You can't say "freedom" or "American Ideals", because such behavior belongs to neither.

reply to post by name pending


I remember this kid, it's made a lot of air play in Canada. His father, older brother and himself all attended a training camp in Pakistan then he was found in Afganastan standing over a dead US soldier holding the gun the guy was shot with. His mom and sister still get lots of air play up here claiming the three of the men from the family are all just innocent pilgrims.

reply to post by DZAG Wright


Please familiarize youself with the case. Omar Khadr is a Canadian. He was dragged back to Afghanistan by his father, who is now dead. His mother and sister live in Toronto. Something that Camaro ignored, probably because it is impossible to explain, is that Khadr is accused of throwing a grenade while he had 2 holes in his back and blind in one eye. In addition, the American soldier he is accused of killing was actually killed by an American-made grenade (Afghans would likely be using Russian-made) and the soldiers involved changed their stories multiple times. They are lying. This boy is guilty of nothing except having a terrible father.

reply to post by exile1981


I think you have the facts of the case mixed up. Omar Khadr was not found standing over an American soldier, holding a gun. The soldier he is accused of killing was not shot, he was killed by an American-made grenade. Khadr was lying on his back with 2 bullet holes in him.

I've been thinking about some of the irony in the opinions voiced in this thread. For example, we talk about bombing hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians as an "ends justify the means" proposition. Meanwhile, we define terrorism as attacking soft targets with the primary goal of influencing state policy via fear. So that makes these things acts terrorism by the same definition we in the United States use to condemn others. The utilization of disproportionate force, the deliberate use of violence against soft targets.

So it is a very clear double standard. It's alright when we do it, because we are "us". It not alright when others do it, because they are "them". Objectively there is nothing to separate this position voiced by several people in this thread from the very position espoused by Osama bin Laden. Then, as pointed out by my favorite Texan, we defend the employment of despicable means by saying they are necessary to defend our place as a bastion of freedom and light in the world. This conveniently ignores that any legitimate claim to such a position requires a genuine moral high ground - you have to win without doing what the bad guys do if you don't want to end up being one of those bad guys.

Food for thought.