Torture undermined case against alleged 9/11 terrorist

Besides being an ineffective way to gain reliable intelligence, torture also can undermine criminal cases. That’s what happened with a Saudi national who allegedly was to be the 20th hijacker on the Sept. 11 attacks. The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring the case to trial decided that she couldn’t file charges because the U.S. military had tortured the detainee, reported Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution, said Susan J. Crawford. This is a man whom Crawford described as “very dangerous.”

9 Comments

  1. lvs24neek8
    Posted January 15, 2009 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    Now what, set him free, or continue with indefinite captivity, or back to S.A. for more torture?

  2. CapnAmerica
    Posted January 15, 2009 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    Somebody wake up Nathan to ask in wide-eyed incredulity, “but how do we know the military was responsible for the torture?”

    Yeah, you’re right, Nathan.

    I could have been aliens from space, I guess . . .

  3. Regular
    Posted January 15, 2009 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Evidently, the military must torture their own as well.

    I’ve have been on as well as most of the military remained up for 24-36 doing high stress work during military exercises and during the Gulf War.

    One also gets similar exposure to ‘long days’ in survivor training and certain ‘educational’ classes of sleep deprivation.

    Definition of torture – lack of sleep- Tell a surgeon that.

    heh

  4. CapnAmerica
    Posted January 15, 2009 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    That would explain the cognitive impairment Regular exhibits daily . . .

  5. Nathaniel
    Posted January 15, 2009 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    CapnAmerica,

    Just in case you were wondering, it is the CIA who would most likely have been responsible for any interrogation techniques used, not the military.

    Nothing posted so far describes who did the interrogations let alone saying it was the military.

    So, why do you keep saying this is proof the military tortures people?

  6. Maggotpunk
    Posted January 15, 2009 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    “So, why do you keep saying this is proof the military tortures people?”

    Perhaps because the head of the topic mentions how the military tortured a guy. Reading isn’t your strong suit is it?

  7. Phantom
    Posted January 15, 2009 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    How stupid did Gonzo and shrub have to be not to see this coming. I predicted when I learned of it, that in our former justice system, the confessions would be useless.

  8. Phantom
    Posted January 15, 2009 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    Drinking water wouldn’t be torture either, but if you pumped a gallon or two down someone, it might be torture.

  9. janeeyre
    Posted January 15, 2009 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Regular,
    The report that I heard said the man was tortured by sleep deprivation for 21 or 22 days and that his heart rate had dropped to around 35 beats a minute, leaving him close to death. That is part of what Ms. Crawford referred to as his being tortured–not a simple matter of 24-36 hours of sleep deprivation.

    You may think he should have been left to die; however, we are supposed to be an enlightened people who do not kill prisoners who have not been brought to trial & found guilty first. Darn that Constitution of ours anyway–being so picky about justice!