NationStates Jolt Archive

So now Bush has created the precedent that American citizens can be sent to jail based upon confession gotten under Torture--Welcome Police State AmeriKKKa

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032901633.html?sub=new


Abu Ali's conviction was based primarily on his confession to Saudi authorities while in detention there. His defense attorney argued the confession was coerced and obtained only after he was tortured by Saudi officials and denied legal counsel.

Abu Ali's parents mounted a highly public campaign to have him brought back from Saudi Arabia, suing the U.S. government in U.S. District Court in Washington, contending that it had condoned the torture of their son. They alleged that their son was tortured by Saudi security officers and that U.S. officials were complicit in the treatment

So now Bush has created the precedent that American citizens can be sent to jail based upon confession gotten under Torture--Welcome Police State AmeriKKKa

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032901633.html?sub=new


Abu Ali's conviction was based primarily on his confession to Saudi authorities while in detention there. His defense attorney argued the confession was coerced and obtained only after he was tortured by Saudi officials and denied legal counsel.

Abu Ali's parents mounted a highly public campaign to have him brought back from Saudi Arabia, suing the U.S. government in U.S. District Court in Washington, contending that it had condoned the torture of their son. They alleged that their son was tortured by Saudi security officers and that U.S. officials were complicit in the treatment
Hey. You need to read your own articles. He was arrested in Saudi Arabia when he tried to join Al Queida, returned to American, tried by an American court, found guilty, and is now awaiting sentancing ... in the US.

Skapenroe returns?

Oy!

If he gets deported to Saudi Arabia they will use Torture to get all the Information they can from him about all the Members of his Former cell who is contacts are and how they communicate, there is just one problem he is not a Terrorist Agent and he is also an American Citizen so he should remain within the U.S

If he gets deported to Saudi Arabia they will use Torture to get all the Information they can from him about all the Members of his Former cell who is contacts are and how they communicate, there is just one problem he is not a Terrorist Agent and he is also an American Citizen so he should remain within the U.S
What part of this ...

"He was brought home in February 2005 and has been held in solitary confinement in the Alexandria detention center since then."

... do you NOT understand? :p

Wow...completely owned by your own arguement. >.>

We tried a few times to do stuff like this:

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/dispatches_torture/
http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/K/kidnap_torture_american_style/index.html

[F]rom the motion filed by the DOJ over bail we learn:
An American doctor gave the defendant a thorough physical examination on or about February 21, 2005, after the defendant had been transferred by the Saudi Government to U.S. custody. The doctor found no evidence of any physical mistreatment on the defendant’s back or any other part of his body. Moreover, the doctor specifically asked the defendant if he had been abused or harmed in any way, and the defendant said no.
During the initial hearing, you will recall, that Abu Ali's lawyer blurted out that Ali had been beaten and exclaimed he wanted to show the judge. The lawyer, of course, knew that the judge would not allow that to be done. Further:
The Consul at the U.S. embassy in Riyadh, an employee of the Department of State, met
personally with the defendant on several occasions during his detention in Saudi Arabia.
On no occasion did the defendant complain of any physical or psychological
mistreatment. To the contrary, the defendant advised the Consul – to whom he could have confided claims of mistreatment to prompt intervention on his behalf by the U.S. Government – that he was being well treated. For example, during the Consul’s initial visit with the defendant on July 8, 2003, the defendant used the words “excellent,” “kind,” and “humane” to describe his treatment. During a subsequent visit in August 2003, the defendant remarked that he had access to a gym with fitness machines and was permitted to play soccer with other inmates in a gym area. The Consul routinely recorded after each visit that the defendant “was in good health and spirits. There was nothing in his physical appearance, demeanor, or speech to indicate mistreatment or abuse.”
It goes on, but the most telling part from the DOJ motion is this:
Not until his initial appearance, with members of the news media present, did the defendant claim that he had been physically mistreated while in Saudi custody. source (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/069100.php)

There appears to be more than one side to this story. The only evidence of torture is the claim of defendant and his lawyer and his parents.

We tried a few times to do stuff like this:

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/dispatches_torture/
http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/K/kidnap_torture_american_style/index.html

This is in Iraq. Not America.

"He was brought home in February 2005 and has been held in solitary confinement in the Alexandria detention center since then."


If it said all that stuff at the bottom thats the reason.

This is in Iraq. Not America.

I used it as an Example.

So now Bush has created the precedent that American citizens can be sent to jail based upon confession gotten under Torture--Welcome Police State AmeriKKKa

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032901633.html?sub=new


Abu Ali's conviction was based primarily on his confession to Saudi authorities while in detention there. His defense attorney argued the confession was coerced and obtained only after he was tortured by Saudi officials and denied legal counsel.

Abu Ali's parents mounted a highly public campaign to have him brought back from Saudi Arabia, suing the U.S. government in U.S. District Court in Washington, contending that it had condoned the torture of their son. They alleged that their son was tortured by Saudi security officers and that U.S. officials were complicit in the treatment

BTW, for the benefit of the OP - the title to your thread is misleading and your first statement is a flat lie. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with this guy being arrested, detained, prosecuted, etc. and he sure as hell did not set any precedent. If any precedent was set it was by a judge, specifically U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, a former defense attorney, Clinton appointee to the court and a judge generally considered "sympathetic" to accused criminals (source (http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel08182003.html))

Hey. You need to read your own articles. He was arrested in Saudi Arabia when he tried to join Al Queida, returned to American, tried by an American court, found guilty, and is now awaiting sentancing ... in the US.
you left out the part where Bushs Saudi mandates tortured him into confessing

What part of this ...

"He was brought home in February 2005 and has been held in solitary confinement in the Alexandria detention center since then."

... do you NOT understand? :p
solidtary confinement also =Torture

BTW, for the benefit of the OP - the title to your thread is misleading and your first statement is a flat lie. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with this guy being arrested, detained, prosecuted, etc. and he sure as hell did not set any precedent. If any precedent was set it was by a judge, specifically U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, a former defense attorney, Clinton appointee to the court and a judge generally considered "sympathetic" to accused criminals (source (http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel08182003.html))
clearly the Judge is too superior to be a corrupt Bush appointee Ill give you that but there is a precedent for Bush torturing people at Abu Graib and Gitmo

clearly the Judge is too superior to be a corrupt Bush appointee Ill give you that but there is a precedent for Bush torturing people at Abu Graib and Gitmo

Bush didn't torture anyone there either. Some soldiers engaged in what appears to be torture at Abu Graib and several have been charged with crimes as a result and a few convicted and other drummed out of the military and/or stripped of their rank as a result. As far as Gitmo, I keep hearing about allegations and claims of torture, but I've yet to see any evidence of it. Also, it could depend on your definition of torture, I don't consider solitary confinement torture as you seem to do.

Bush didn't torture anyone there either. Some soldiers engaged in what appears to be torture at Abu Graib and several have been charged with crimes as a result and a few convicted and other drummed out of the military and/or stripped of their rank as a result. As far as Gitmo, I keep hearing about allegations and claims of torture, but I've yet to see any evidence of it. Also, it could depend on your definition of torture, I don't consider solitary confinement torture as you seem to do.
But Bush has defended the use of Torture and Im not talken about solitary confinement (which is a form of torture tho) Im talken more about the waterboarding the naked pyramid triangles the beatings to death and Dark Prison-abuses that would never have occured if it wasnt encouraged from the Top Down

He did it, I say we torture him more, Im sure he knows something.

He did it, I say we torture him more, Im sure he knows something.
:headbang: No, we dont want to be a regime of torture.

:headbang: No, we dont want to be a regime of torture.
Why not?

Because then we are reduced to their level. However I agree the torture card is overplayed.

I doubt he was tortured under American influence. >.>

Meh, I say we should have let the Saudi authorities do as they would like with him, what he did in my opinion was treason.

He did it, I say we torture him more, Im sure he knows something.
which one UN-- Bush or Rummy?

I doubt he was tortured under American influence. >.>
extraordinary rendition

extraordinary rendition

AKA outsourcing. They outsource everything these days. I bet it would be governmental administration next.

But Bush has defended the use of Torture and Im not talken about solitary confinement (which is a form of torture tho) Im talken more about the waterboarding the naked pyramid triangles the beatings to death and Dark Prison-abuses that would never have occured if it wasnt encouraged from the Top Down

Evidence? Show me the quote where Bush said Waterboarding was OK by him or naked pyramid triangles was acceptable (though I'm not sure I'd agree being naked in a pyramid is torture). And what beatings to death and "Dark Prison-abuses" are you talking about? Where, when, by whom? Specifics please, with a reputable source.

Bush has defended the use of "agressive interrogation" techniques in an effort to gain information about terrorist operations, but "agressive interrogation" is not the same thing as torture. And according to his aides he specifically directed that they do only what the law permitted.

What would you have us do, make them sit in the comfy chair and strike them gently with the comfy pillows? Do you seriously advocate just asking and if they refuse to tell anything saying "ok, nevermind, just checking to see if you'd talk, sorry to have disturbed you." Come on, we're talking about people who want to see you and your family dead and this entire country under an islamic theocracy or destroyed.

Evidence? Show me the quote where Bush said Waterboarding was OK by him or naked pyramid triangles was acceptable (though I'm not sure I'd agree being naked in a pyramid is torture). And what beatings to death and "Dark Prison-abuses" are you talking about? Where, when, by whom? Specifics please, with a reputable source.

Bush has defended the use of "agressive interrogation" techniques in an effort to gain information about terrorist operations, but "agressive interrogation" is not the same thing as torture. And according to his aides he specifically directed that they do only what the law permitted.

What would you have us do, make them sit in the comfy chair and strike them gently with the comfy pillows? Do you seriously advocate just asking and if they refuse to tell anything saying "ok, nevermind, just checking to see if you'd talk, sorry to have disturbed you." Come on, we're talking about people who want to see you and your family dead and this entire country under an islamic theocracy or destroyed.

Bush was forced by his own party into accepting the Anti Torture Bill and even then he thinks theres loopholes in it for him to continue torturing. Torture is a form of Terrorism itself--all it does it create more terrorists and it legitimizes terrorism against us since we're practicing it ourselves. Besides aboslutely no reliable information is ever gotten from torture since tortured people only tell you want you want to hear anyway--We have experts in Pyschological manipulation--if your saying we actually have to reduce ourselves to the barbaric level of torture then we already LOST the war on terrorism and we became everything that we say we hate--a Nation that has to rely on Torture is a Nation that doesnt deserve to exist

Hey. You need to read your own articles. He was arrested in Saudi Arabia when he tried to join Al Queida, returned to American, tried by an American court, found guilty, and is now awaiting sentancing ... in the US.

tried by an American court by "evidence" obtained in manners which directly violate the United States Constitution...

I say this with conviction... The Judge, all 12 members of the Jury, and the US Attorney should be charged with treason.

Hey. You need to read your own articles. He was arrested in Saudi Arabia when he tried to join Al Queida, returned to American, tried by an American court, found guilty, and is now awaiting sentancing ... in the US.

That is hilarious.

source (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/069100.php)

There appears to be more than one side to this story. The only evidence of torture is the claim of defendant and his lawyer and his parents.

Of course, when the same questions were asked to POW's at Northern Vietnamese detention camps during the Vietnam war, they described their treatment in much the same manner... We of course now know such responses were made under threat and cooersion towards the prisoners themselves. So, you'll have to excuse me while I consider none of that as any semblance of reliable evidence.

solidtary confinement also =Torture

I think that's actually doing him a favour. I imagine that other inmates aren't fond of Al-Qaeda operatives.

I think that's actually doing him a favour. I imagine that other inmates aren't fond of Al-Qaeda operatives.Ever not talked to anyone for days? Seen anyone? That's not very fun if you do it for a year.

Mustapha has placed his foot inside his mouth again.

*dies of laughter*

This has got to be the fastest owning by self-argument I've ever seen. :eek:

Why not?

Are you an idiot? We are not Stalin, Hitler, Saddam. We should not be torturing anyone. You have been served.

tried by an American court by "evidence" obtained in manners which directly violate the United States Constitution...

I say this with conviction... The Judge, all 12 members of the Jury, and the US Attorney should be charged with treason.

Since it was obtained legally in Saudi Arabia, this does not hold weight.

solidtary confinement also =TortureI do not agree.

Since it was obtained legally in Saudi Arabia, this does not hold weight.

It would not if it were a trial in a Saudi Court... This however was a trial in a US court, which is bound by the stipulations and restrictions of the US constitution. To which such testimony was UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and therefore ABSOLUTELY ILLEGALLY applied. ALL citizens enjoy absolute protection of their VI amendment rights in the process of trials in our courts... All evidence must be obtained and applied by the standards of those amendments, otherwise it is a violation of the absolute highest laws of this land.

What part of this ...

"He was brought home in February 2005 and has been held in solitary confinement in the Alexandria detention center since then."

... do you NOT understand? :pThe OP bottom line is clearly stated on the first line.. and I Quote him:
Bush has created the precedent that American citizens can be sent to jail based upon confession gotten under Torture.
.
nothing posted so far has defeated his point.

solidtary confinement also =Torture
ROFLMFAO! What ... EVER! :rolleyes:

It would not if it were a trial in a Saudi Court... This however was a trial in a US court, which is bound by the stipulations and restrictions of the US constitution.

However, he was picked up in Saudi Arabia wasn't he?

I do not agree.
ROFLMFAO! What ... EVER! :rolleyes:

Depends, doesn't it? You'll find no one who'll argue that three days alone is torture. However, how about three months, or three years? That could qualify as torture.

However, he was picked up in Saudi Arabia wasn't he?lets say some Canadian man was "picked up" in Texas.. and condemned to Death or whatever.. (then somehow he was sent to Canada) The minute he is in Canadian soil.. Canadian Laws automatically take over. (death sentece is lifted.. etc)

However, he was picked up in Saudi Arabia wasn't he?

Does not matter who picked him up. Saudi Arabia is under no restriction upon how evidence is gathered, nor in what is allowed regarding the VI Amendment; OUR COURTS HOWEVER ARE. The use of testimony, in our courts, from the accused derived by cooersion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The VI amendment does not absolve the court of its constitutional responsibilities when such happens outside of our jurisdiction... The amendment is absolute in regard to our legal process upon fellow citizens of this country.

Depends, doesn't it? You'll find no one who'll argue that three days alone is torture. However, how about three months, or three years? That could qualify as torture.Maybe.. but we do not need to argue about that.. If you look at (one of the overseas US torture centers) pictures...
Its about torturing with Dogs, sexual assault, Electrical shock, blood in their faces, blood in their genitals, blood on the floors, (blood in our hands).. etc.

A sligtly different view from The New York Times:

American Is Sentenced to 30 Years in Terror Case (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/national/nationalspecial3/30terror.html)


By DAVID STOUT
Published: March 30, 2006
WASHINGTON, March 29 — An Arab-American student from Virginia was sentenced Wednesday to 30 years in prison for plotting with operatives of Al Qaeda to assassinate President Bush and hijack airplanes.

In November, a federal jury in Alexandria, Va., convicted the student, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, now 25, of numerous counts of conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism. The jurors rejected his claim that his captors beat and tortured him into confessing after his arrest in Saudi Arabia in 2003.

Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of the Federal District Court in Alexandria could have sentenced Mr. Abu Ali to as little as 20 years. The Justice Department had argued for the maximum sentence, life in prison.

The department has described Mr. Abu Ali as "one of the most dangerous terrorist threats that America faces in the perilous world after Sept. 11, 2001: an Al Qaeda operative born and raised in the United States, trained and committed to carry out deadly attacks on American soil."

Mr. Abu Ali, who was born to a Jordanian father and grew up in Falls Church, Va., was arrested in June 2003 at a university in Medina, Saudi Arabia, as the Saudi authorities were investigating a wave of bombings.

Prosecutors said that Mr. Abu Ali went to Saudi Arabia in 2002 hoping to become a terrorist because he saw Mr. Bush as "the leader of the infidels," and that he eventually met a high-ranking leader of Al Qaeda and was trained in weapons, explosives and document forgery.

Mr. Abu Ali's lawyers have insisted that he was just a student who went to Saudi Arabia to pursue religious studies. They said they would appeal the conviction.

However, he was picked up in Saudi Arabia wasn't he?
yup

Does not matter who picked him up.

Actually it does matter where he was picked up. If he was arrested in Saudi Arabia, then it is perfectly legal for them to torture him and to have that evidence submitted into a Court of Law here in the US. Why? Because it is legal to torture people in Saudi Arabia. You cannot exclude the evidence obtained by torture from another country before he was turned over to the United States.

Saudi Arabia is under no restriction upon how evidence is gathered, nor in what is allowed regarding the VI Amendment; OUR COURTS HOWEVER ARE. The use of testimony, in our courts, from the accused derived by cooersion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The VI amendment does not absolve the court of its constitutional responsibilities when such happens outside of our jurisdiction... The amendment is absolute in regard to our legal process upon fellow citizens of this country.

If he was arrested in Saudi Arabia, then it sure is most definitely legal for them to torture him for the evidence and that evidence would be legal in a court of law here in the US.

yup

Oh well! His tough luck in getting arrested in a nation that has torture. Under law, the evidence would be legal in a US Court.

What about the rights of those, that terrorists murder in cases such as July bus bombings in London all those victims were just going about their daily business.
You in the US are just getting to know how we in the UK have felt since the start of 'the troubles'
Guilty until proven innocent then shoot the B!"%^&*s!!!!

What about the rights of those, that terrorists murder in cases such as July bus bombings in London all those victims were just going about their daily business.
You in the US are just getting to know how we in the UK have felt since the start of 'the troubles'
Guilty until proven innocent then shoot the B!"%^&*s!!!!

Well we have this thing called innocent until proven guilty and we do kinda like that. It can be troublesome but alas, it is in the constitution.

Prosecutors said Mr. Abu Ali went to Saudi Arabia in 2002 hoping to become a terrorist (bold by Eutrusca)
The Prosecutors said he is a Terrorist..
The US Gov said he is a Terrorist..
The US Gov said he is a criminal..
The US Gov said he is a guilty..
The US Gov said he is evil..
etc..

You Bolded that part as if it was proof of anything.
we knew they were going to say that.. that what they do. Don't they?

The question is why should I blindly trust the US gov?

Well we have this thing called innocent until proven guilty and we do kinda like that. It can be troublesome but alas, it is in the constitution.
Could have fooled me.

The Prosecutors said he is a Terrorist..
The US Gov said he is a Terrorist..
The US Gov said he is a criminal..
The US Gov said he is a guilty..
The US Gov said he is evil..
etc..

You Bolded that part as if it was proof of anything.
we knew they were going to say that.. that what they do. Don't they?

The question is why should I blindly trust the US gov?

Maybe because it came out of Saudi Arabia who arrested him?

Oh well! His tough luck in getting arrested in a nation that has torture. Under law, the evidence would be legal in a US Court.

Actually, the confession was admitted to evidence because the Judge ruled that it was 'voluntary', i.e. not co-erced with torture.

Had it been ruled the product of torture - that is to say coerced - then I imagine that it would not have been admitted. The fifth amendment and all that.

Actually, the confession was admitted to evidence because the Judge ruled that it was 'voluntary', i.e. not co-erced with torture.

Had it been ruled the product of torture - that is to say coerced - then I imagine that it would not have been admitted. The fifth amendment and all that.

However, it was obtained in Saudi Arabia where the rules are different. The US Court would actually have to respect it regardless of how it was obtained.

Maybe because it came out of Saudi Arabia who arrested him?I do not trust any confession obtained by torture..

People will confess to anything.. just to stop the torture.. you could make him "confess" his ties to the Lincoln assassination.

However, it was obtained in Saudi Arabia where the rules are different. The US Court would actually have to respect it regardless of how it was obtained.

No. Not if it was the product of torture. Because that would: violate the constitution; violate international law; and, shock the conscious of the court.

So instead the court relyed upon the convienent fiction that this particular confession was obtained voluntarily.

Further the court excluded any evidence of torture by the defence.

I imagine that this conviction will be overturned.

I do not trust any confession obtained by torture..

People will confess to anything.. just to stop the torture.. you could make him "confess" his ties to the Lincoln assassination.

That would be laughed out of court.

.. the Judge ruled that it was .. not torture. If the US Judge says its so.. then it must be true. [/sarcasm]

No. Not if it was the product of torture. Because that would: violate the constitution; violate international law; and, shock the conscious of the court.

Actually it wouldn't be a violation of International Law because the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia still uses torture. It actually would be a violation of international law if the US didn't accept it.

Actually it wouldn't be a violation of International Law because the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia still uses torture. It actually would be a violation of international law if the US didn't accept it.

Please elaborate. How is international law violated by the refusal of an American court to accept a confession that was extracted by torture?

this bit ruins the prosecution
But Lee noted that Abu Ali had no prior criminal record and had taken no steps to carry out his plots.

Actually it wouldn't be a violation of International Law because the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia still uses torture. It actually would be a violation of international law if the US didn't accept it.
It would be bad practice to knowingly use torture evidence though, if for no other reason than the fact you risk setting a guilty man free. I can't imagine a jury convicting on the basis of torture, even if they are the most rotten person in the world.

Actually it wouldn't be a violation of International Law because the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia still uses torture. It actually would be a violation of international law if the US didn't accept it.

The prohibition on torture in non-derogable. Its a premeptory international norm.

As to your second sentence: rubbish.

The US is under no obligation to accept criminal evidence from other countries. And I doubt very much that the saudi legal system merits a grant of comity. Moreover, the US consitution trumps any treaty that may have been signed with them to that effect.

Please elaborate. How is international law violated by the refusal of an American court to accept a confession that was extracted by torture?

Because the ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would have no choice but accept how it was done.

The prohibition on torture in non-derogable. Its a premeptory international norm.

As to your second sentence: rubbish.

The US is under no obligation to accept criminal evidence from other countries. And I doubt very much that the saudi legal system merits a grant of comity. Moreover, the US consitution trumps any treaty that may have been signed with them to that effect.

Tell that to the Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Because the ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would have no choice but accept how it was done.

Yes, but how would this breach international law?

It would be bad practice to knowingly use torture evidence though, if for no other reason than the fact you risk setting a guilty man free. I can't imagine a jury convicting on the basis of torture, even if they are the most rotten person in the world.

Bad practice yes however we are talking about Saudi Arabia. This is legal for them.

Tell that to the Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Why on earth would I tell him that?

The confession was evidence. And is subject to the rules of evidence: one of which excludes confession obtained under torture. There is no obligation on the part of the US to use saudi obtained confessions in its courts.

Jeez, corny, should we prosecute those vietnamese POWs who confessed to committing 'war crimes' on north vietnamese radio and TV? I mean, they confessed, after all. And it is the North Vietnamese system to use torture. Tough luck for them eh?

If the US Judge says its so.. then it must be true. [/sarcasm]

Yes. I don't find it convincing.

The point is however, that the US court system has not yet accepted confessions obtained under torture as competent evidence.

solidtary confinement also =Torture
Not by any international code established.

Yes. I don't find it convincing.

The point is however, that the US court system has not yet accepted confessions obtained under torture as competent evidence.the official LasVegas odds that he was not tortured are of 0.0%

So basically the US court is about to accept confesion-obtained-under-torture.

The US court has simply decided to legally declare it "not-really-torture".. and since the Judge is the legal equivalent of God...

-Yes,I am afraid you are correct-

But on this case.. the US justice system is totally BullShit..

This is a funny thread. Before I jump in I want to make sure everyone gets what side I am going from.

Solitary Confiment= Torture; Hell no! Just twidle you thumbs or whatnot. I get sent to "solitary confiment" in my bedroom when I get a poor grade. So you see going against the high-courts and requesting an appeal? No, I don't.

Bush making a precedent and whatnot over torture-
Hah! Like there is even a grain of truth in that! The Supreme Court is (I am somewhat sure) is either 50% or higher democrat and they would throw out torture evidence in a heart beat. So there is no reason that someone should be tortured.

Gaitomo (sp?)-
Some sex addicts got in the military and showed their true colors with that perverted- well... stuff..... There was no "torture", meaning they did that for the fun of it. Not to get crucial evidence for or against anyone.

Naked Pyramid, a added tidbit, saw in the start of this thread as a means of torture; I don't consider it torture, if somewhat demented.

A couple of quibbles:



Bush had absolutely nothing to do with this guy being arrested, detained, prosecuted, etc. (source (http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel08182003.html))

The DOJ is a cabinet department, and there have been multiple stories over the last few years of career lawyers and officials leaving in droves because of the extreme politicalization of the department. There's also been multiple reports of just how cozy this administration is with the Saudi Government. In my opinion to say they had "absolutely nothing" to do with it is an overstatement.


...and a judge generally considered "sympathetic" to accused criminals. (source (http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel08182003.html))

Why you unamerican facist! (I mean that in jest, at least partly). You use the term "accused criminals". Yet, the bedrock, and one of the most important innovations of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". May I suggest that "defendant" is a more neutral term.

Gaitomo (sp?)-
Some sex addicts got in the military and showed their true colors with that perverted- well... stuff..... There was no "torture", meaning they did that for the fun of it. Not to get crucial evidence for or against anyone.

Naked Pyramid, a added tidbit, saw in the start of this thread as a means of torture; I don't consider it torture, if somewhat demented.

That was Abu Ghraib. Not Gitmo.

Are you an idiot? We are not Stalin, Hitler, Saddam. We should not be torturing anyone. You have been served.
Served what exactly? Torture is a part of the civil society.

The question is why should I blindly trust the US gov?
Never said you should. As a matter of fact, everything the government does should be questioned ... repeatedly.

I just wonder what's going to happen when a democratic president is next elected. I strongly suspect that all this ranting on the part of assorted leftists, liberals and democrats about checking everything the government does will quietly disappear. I'm taking bets that several people on here will say things like, "now is not the time to question the government, let them do their job."

As the saying goes, "it all depends upon whose ox is being gored." :rolleyes:

tried by an American court by "evidence" obtained in manners which directly violate the United States Constitution...

I say this with conviction... The Judge, all 12 members of the Jury, and the US Attorney should be charged with treason.
I agree

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was convicted in November after spending nearly two years in a Saudi Arabian prison, where he says was tortured into making a confession. Two doctors who examined him corroborated his claim.

I think that's actually doing him a favour. I imagine that other inmates aren't fond of Al-Qaeda operatives.
but did he at least have a lightbulb? or was he forced to sit in the dark while rats gnawed at his extremities?

Since it was obtained legally in Saudi Arabia, this does not hold weight.
nothing is obtained legally in Saudi Arabia

I agree

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was convicted in November after spending nearly two years in a Saudi Arabian prison, where he says was tortured into making a confession. Two doctors who examined him corroborated his claim.

Bolded is mine!

This is where they actually have torture. There is nothing the US can actually do about it. Even the Ambassador to the Kingdom can not stop a US Citizen captured in the nation from being tortured.

I do not agree.
turn off your lights and swithc off the internet and smash all your electronical devices then get back to me on this

nothing is obtained legally in Saudi Arabia

Under US law, I'll grant you that. Under Saudi Arabian Law, that is where you are wrong.

Maybe.. but we do not need to argue about that.. If you look at (one of the overseas US torture centers) pictures...
Its about torturing with Dogs, sexual assault, Electrical shock, blood in their faces, blood in their genitals, blood on the floors, (blood in our hands).. etc.
Blood spilt everywhere :(

Oh well! His tough luck in getting arrested in a nation that has torture. Under law, the evidence would be legal in a US Court.
thats certainly a new precedent I never heard of

Not by any international code established.
human beings are a pack animal--no international code can change that

thats certainly a new precedent I never heard of

Since he was treated in accordance with Saudi Law (right or wrong), the United States Judiciary doesn't have a leg to stand on in tossing out the case. Now if they tortured only foreigners arrested, then yes I believe that the case can be tossed out since they have treated foreigners differently than they do their own citizens.

That would be laughed out of court.
then torture the court and see if they still laugh

then torture the court and see if they still laugh

HAHA!! Ok, I may have my beefs with the judiciary but come on! This is way over the top.

Served what exactly? Torture is a part of the civil society.
only between concensual adults

Actually it does matter where he was picked up. If he was arrested in Saudi Arabia, then it is perfectly legal for them to torture him and to have that evidence submitted into a Court of Law here in the US. Why? Because it is legal to torture people in Saudi Arabia. You cannot exclude the evidence obtained by torture from another country before he was turned over to the United States.

You MUST exclude any cooerced testimony.... Coerced testimony is INADMISSIBLE in US courts... This is why prosecuting attorneys cannot even CALL the defendant to the stand... You can make up all the excuses you want, the 6th grants the court no such license as you seem to think exists. It does not say our courts cannot do this, it merely says it CANNOT be done (AT ALL, PERIOD)... And the fact that you even attempt to make such an excuse for the gross constitutional negligence of this court, shows to me just how much of an ENEMY you are to the United States.



If he was arrested in Saudi Arabia, then it sure is most definitely legal for them to torture him for the evidence and that evidence would be legal in a court of law here in the US.

It's legal for them to torture, cooerce, or the like.... However, the mere fact that the Judge allowed such testimony, shows to me that this "court" is no longer a functioning element, nor legitimate under the United States Constitution, the testimony was inadmissible, the judge should have thrown the taped "confession" out, like anything else that was a violation of this citizen's constitutional rights....

A citizen cannot be compelled to testify agaisnt themselves in a court room, by allowing a cooerced confession to be admitted into testimony, the judge allowed the US Attorney to violate his 6th Amendment right protecting such.

Actually, the confession was admitted to evidence because the Judge ruled that it was 'voluntary', i.e. not co-erced with torture.

Had it been ruled the product of torture - that is to say coerced - then I imagine that it would not have been admitted. The fifth amendment and all that.

The 6th Amendment does not provide a loophole where testimony is gained in ways other than torture... Unless a defendant, before the event, waived his rights... It is not voluntary... He simply cannot be made to testify agaisnt himself... Which is exactly what this court forced him to do, thus violating such.

No. Not if it was the product of torture. Because that would: violate the constitution; violate international law; and, shock the conscious of the court.

So instead the court relyed upon the convienent fiction that this particular confession was obtained voluntarily.

Further the court excluded any evidence of torture by the defence.

I imagine that this conviction will be overturned.

I do see the US court of appeals (which is generally much more concerned with constitutional issues than district courts), at one level or another, determining that this was a violation and overturn the conviction.

*snip*

I point you to the way the Saudis treat their prisoners. This is what they do. We do not get a say in the matter.

I do see the US court of appeals (which is generally much more concerned with constitutional issues than district courts), at one level or another, determining that this was a violation and overturn the conviction.

I'll take that bet.

Because the ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would have no choice but accept how it was done.

Oh, in this case you are right... The Ambassador would accept all "evidence" from such... However, the Judge is the one who should be saying "Nope, entering this testimony into the record for cosnideration would be a violation of his rights protecting him from being compelled to testify against himself...", and should of, had he been operating in consideration of Constitutional conventions affirmed the Defenses motion to exclude such testimony.

snip It actually would be a violation of international law if the US didn't accept it.
Still waiting to see how you Justify this statement

Oh, in this case you are right... The Ambassador would accept all "evidence" from such... However, the Judge is the one who should be saying "Nope, entering this testimony into the record for cosnideration would be a violation of his rights protecting him from being compelled to testify against himself...", and should of, had he been operating in consideration of Constitutional conventions affirmed the Defenses motion to exclude such testimony.

The evidence obtained by such measures in Saudi Arabia, obtained legally under Saudi Law, would be admissible in court. I know someone who is good at International law. Let me email her and I'll get back to ya to see if your right or wrong.

The evidence obtained by such measures in Saudi Arabia, obtained legally under Saudi Law, would be admissible in court. I know someone who is good at International law. Let me email her and I'll get back to ya to see if your right or wrong.
Would be admisibal in THEIR court not OURS

Since he was treated in accordance with Saudi Law (right or wrong), the United States Judiciary doesn't have a leg to stand on in tossing out the case. Now if they tortured only foreigners arrested, then yes I believe that the case can be tossed out since they have treated foreigners differently than they do their own citizens.

The US judiciary has plenty of legs to stand on. A citizens rights in OUR COURTS are not trumped by the laws of foreign governments. Once again this case was before a UNITED STATES COURT.... And such court is RESTRICTED by the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, which includes enumerated provisions protecting particular rights of accused persons while STANDING TRIAL in a UNITED STATES COURT.... This COURT was a UNITED STATES COURT, not a SAUDI COURT.

The Judge of this UNITED STATES COURT compelled the accused to testify agaisnt himself by legitimizing (JUDICIALLY) testimony that was not derived voluntarily while being detained by a foreign power, in ABSOLUTE and CLEAR violation of the accused rights persuant to the 6th Amendment to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The judge, in this case was in gross negligence of his constitutional duty to the accused.

I point you to the way the Saudis treat their prisoners. This is what they do. We do not get a say in the matter.

We do, in this case, when this is an event before a UNITED STATES COURT... The judge has not only the POWER but the RESPONSIBILITY to find such "evidence" as inadmissable, and a gross violation of the persons rights outlined by the United States Constitution....

UNITED STATES COURT.... THIS WAS A UNITED STATES COURT... U-N-I-T-E-D S-T-A-T-E-S C-O-U-R-T, which is bound by the laws and procedures of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, not by Saudi Arabia's laws.

The evidence obtained by such measures in Saudi Arabia, obtained legally under Saudi Law, would be admissible in court. I know someone who is good at International law. Let me email her and I'll get back to ya to see if your right or wrong.

Not if the testimony is derived by a VIOLATION of our own evidentiary restrictions... Once again, the accused cannot be compelled to testify against himself in a United States court... PERIOD... He can waive his right, and provide voluntary testimony... But in such case requires that the prosecution provide evidence of this waiver before admission... Neither the prosecution nor the judge is constitutionally empowered to force the accused to testify in the court... This judge FORCED the accused to testify agaisnt himself, a GROSS violation of the 6th Amendment... He did this by empowering the prosecution to admit involuntary confession before a foreign force into the our judicial procedding...

END OF DISCUSSION...

Now batting for team Corneliu, number 34, KRYOZERKIA!

I can see why the courts would admit the evidence.

1 - It was legally obtained in Saudi Arabia after the guy was legally arrested for suspicious activity.
2 - There is no international law that Saudi Arabia has signed onto that prohibits the gathering of information and intelligence via torture.
3 - The form of torture hasn't been disclosed. Thus, the contextual meaning can be called into question.
4 - The 6th amendment protects American citizens detained on American soil.
5 - The guy was never deported to Saudi Arabia, he had gone voluntarily and thus, voluntarily subjects himself to the laws of the Saudi Kingdom.
6 - Unless the crime he committed doesn't exist in the states, there is no reason why he can't be tried.
7 - When prosecuting the accused, all channels for evidence shouldn't be closed; it hinders the prosecution's case.
8 - Even if he was tortured, he was never soiled on US soil and he was returned to his home country for due process.

Feel free to provide me with credible evidence to suggest otherwise, including full citations of US law on the matter.

Now batting for team Corneliu, number 34, KRYOZERKIA!

I can see why the courts would admit the evidence.

1 - It was legally obtained in Saudi Arabia after the guy was legally arrested for suspicious activity.
2 - There is no international law that Saudi Arabia has signed onto that prohibits the gathering of information and intelligence via torture.
3 - The form of torture hasn't been disclosed. Thus, the contextual meaning can be called into question.
4 - The 6th amendment protects American citizens detained on American soil.
5 - The guy was never deported to Saudi Arabia, he had gone voluntarily and thus, voluntarily subjects himself to the laws of the Saudi Kingdom.
6 - Unless the crime he committed doesn't exist in the states, there is no reason why he can't be tried.
7 - When prosecuting the accused, all channels for evidence shouldn't be closed; it hinders the prosecution's case.
8 - Even if he was tortured, he was never soiled on US soil and he was returned to his home country for due process.

Feel free to provide me with credible evidence to suggest otherwise, including full citations of US law on the matter.

Point 4 illustrates the problem... He is an American citizen in an American court, a court which has evidentiary restrictions upon it. Involuntary testimony by the accused is not permitted to be entered as evidence in a US court under the 6th amendment (torture or no torture)... The court, by entering this "Evidence" forced the accused to "testify against himself".

Point 7 is rank blasphemy (from a constitutional point of view), indeed, in many cases lines of evidence are closed to the prosecution because they violate constitutional restrictions... The 6th amendment is not a police restriction, nor even a prosecutional restriction, it is a restriction upon what the courts are allowed to do... This court (the US Court) compelled the accused to testify against himself, by entering the accused own testimony derived under cooersion... A DIRECT violation of the 6th Amendment. It would have been no different than the judge calling the defendant to take the stand agaisnt his will... Both are equally unconstitutional despite you and Corneliu's complancency of this perversion of US jurisprudence.

this case has set a torturous precedent

Point 4 illustrates the problem... He is an American citizen in an American court, a court which has evidentiary restrictions upon it. Involuntary testimony by the accused is not permitted to be entered as evidence in a US court under the 6th amendment (torture or no torture)... The court, by entering this "Evidence" forced the accused to "testify against himself".
But then you get similar claims from accused individuals who choose not to speak to investigators but then take the chance in the cell to brag. The law enforcement officers can plant one of their own in the cells to gather information.

Is this admissable? If the accused didn't know, it could be considered involuntary and thus, inadmissable. However, it is usually admissable.

And I argue this because there is no clear indication exactly HOW the accised individual was tortured. After all, there are multiple uses for the word 'torture' in the English language.

Point 7 is rank blasphemy (from a constitutional point of view), indeed, in many cases lines of evidence are closed to the prosecution because they violate constitutional restrictions... The 6th amendment is not a police restriction, nor even a prosecutional restriction, it is a restriction upon what the courts are allowed to do... This court (the US Court) compelled the accused to testify against himself, by entering the accused own testimony derived under cooersion... A DIRECT violation of the 6th Amendment. It would have been no different than the judge calling the defendant to take the stand agaisnt his will... Both are equally unconstitutional despite you and Corneliu's complancency of this perversion of US jurisprudence.
Define 'cooersion'... I've never seen that word before.

However, if you meant 'coercion', I might know what you're talking about.

After all, there has been no documents disclosed that speak of exactly how this individual was tortured and there is no real way to know if he was tortured. After all, the confession could've been coerced from him by means other than torture. He could've while in the cell, come out and say that he didn't want to speak of anything related to the charges and someone wouldn't let up.

Further, even if it was in violation, the ones who would be in any position to make a ruling on it based on the overall interpretation of the law would be the judges in this case.

I'd like you to cite me exactly the wording that says that admitted or didn't admit the questionable evidence.

Lastly, I'm complacent with US law because I don't live there and don't give a damn. Plus, I like irritating Democrats, it's fun. It's tiresome to go after the Republicans and the socialists are my friends.