This story is archived
Pentagon Sets Rules for Detainee Trials, including hearsay »
Posted by: TechnologyExpert 2 years, 9 months agoThe Pentagon has drafted a manual for upcoming detainee trials that would allow convicted terrorists to be imprisoned or put to death using hearsay evidence and coerced testimony.
Read Full Story at breitbart.com »
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 584
-
Wil
Jan. 18, 2007, 2:05 p.m.Gosh, I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong with this.
I mean, there's just no way in the world that someone who was tortured would just make up a big bunch of crap and 'testify' against anyone else, just so the torture would stop, right?
Yay for justice! Yay for the rule of law! Bush FTW!
-
Locky12
Jan. 18, 2007, 6:27 p.m.FDR did the same thing when he rounded up 110,000 Americans and threw them into internment camps. And when over 90 Nazi saboteurs were found including an American citizen and FDR wanted his Attorney General to set up the death penalty for them.
Not ONE person at Gitmo has been executed.
Wake up people, we are at war!
-
BravoSierra
Jan. 18, 2007, 10:51 p.m.The logic in the statement, executing convicted terrorists based upon hearsay evidence...lol...you can't be convicted on hearsay evidence. lol. It's such foolish logic. And when it is applied here in the US during the next national crisis like Katrina and the National Guard is authorized to summarily execute people in the streets based upon the hearsay that they were looting, or committed a violent crime...you'll be very sorry you allowed this precedent to be set.
-
BravoSierra
Jan. 19, 2007, 12:40 a.m.A country survives on its ability to see itself as moral. When you do things you despise in others you begin to despise yourself and loose moral courage. Napoleon said the moral component is a force multiplier of 3 times. Patton said Napoleon underestimated the importance of the moral and rated it as a force multiplier of 5 times. Listen to our historical values, read Pattons speeches to his troops, read our great military commanders, watch our own mythology in movies like "12 O'clock High" and read the biographies of people like Jimmy Stewart. The US has won and has grown by keeping itself clean and able to maintain its moral indignation that makes the moral a force multiplier of 5. We are destroying this. This is a very, very sad thing that this administration is doing to us and that we are allow to happen. We are giving the strength of the the moral to our enemies with this Administration's foolish policies and by losing our moral courage.
-
-
Neophile
Jan. 18, 2007, 2:17 p.m.This is ridiculous. These people are being detained without being told why. They have no right of habeas corpus. Now they're going to be tried and executed based on coerced hearsay evidence.
Why even have a trial? Why not go the more cost-effective route and just round them up in gas chambers?
-
-
Beau7890
Jan. 18, 2007, 3:55 p.m.They'd like to, but even they don't think they could get away with that.
Perhaps I'm restating the obvious, but it's clear the Bush administration puts its misguided strategies to win its "war on terror" above all else, including the principles of fairness upon which the country was founded.
-
-
walden3
Jan. 18, 2007, 2:57 p.m.bush's idea of spreading freedom abroad and at home and nothing sets someone free like a firing squad.
-
jordan11
Jan. 18, 2007, 3:05 p.m.Have Americans so desensitized themselves, that they can't see the immorality of what is being done in their names? What is wrong with us?
-
Bkumm
Jan. 18, 2007, 3:06 p.m.Well, here they go again. You know, if the rule of law applies to everyone then it should apply to everyone equally.
There is no excuse for this and it makes us look bad. If we just had these trials completely out in the open, under the rules of American jurisprudence, this could be the beginning of the end of terrorism.
I would think that it would be a lot harder to recruit terrorists if they saw these trials on CNN and realized that the detainees were being treated fairly.
On the other hand, this kind of hidden agenda and disregard for the rule of law helps make the point that we ARE treating other people unfairly.
If America wants to be a beacon of hope to the world, we need to treat everyone equally.
-
donald51
Jan. 18, 2007, 4:42 p.m.Did you see any of the stories on the soldiers tried at Fort Hood from Abu Ghraib? They were told right from the start by the judge that their former chain of command would not be available for testimony - hence, no links to Dubya and Gonzales who surely oversaw the writing of this prosecution manual. Also, Gonzales no longer has those upright, non-partison lawyers working for him that resigned over his definition of torture being only that which kills. This is what happens when ideologues fire anyone that disagrees with them (or don't allow access to reporters who disagree with them)(UNPATRIOTIC TOO!)!
-
-
BravoSierra
Jan. 19, 2007, 12:47 a.m.Let's see, Bush's rational for removing Saddam was that he had secret prisons, tortured people and killed them without fair trials. My god, I'm so sad to see our military losing its moral courage...it used to be one of the boxes checked on an Officer's performance evaluation. My heart hurts, it's like watching someone I loved and respected commit suicide. A bunch of us old-timers need to go back and remind our military what moral courage and faith in your core values is...or more frightenly...perhaps these are the new military's core values. Maybe, we don't have patriots anymore...but mercenaries.
-
-
looter
Jan. 18, 2007, 3:15 p.m.What is the difference between Nazis and Republican Party? With these kinda things I can say it aloud... NONE... What is the difference between Hitler and Bush.... well... people will look at each other and say... BUSH IS STUPID.
-
entropy
Jan. 18, 2007, 3:29 p.m.It's kind of ironic how we always question how the German people prior to WWII could be so stupid to allow Hitler to do what ever he pleases. And worst of all, a majority of them supported him. It just boggles our minds.
It's now a fact that Hitler ordered the Reichstag building to be attacked in order to blame it on political opponents as well as other groups. It was an INSIDE JOB! This is Fact. Of course the German people believed their leader and allowed him to invade the countries he did. He used their fear as a way to control them. Sound familiar?
If this happened in Nazi Germany, who's to say it can't happen again? Or...has it already happened again? 1 in 3 Americans would say Yes.
They say we learn about our world's history in order to prevent history from repeating itself....Right.
-
-
-
Spadecaller
Jan. 18, 2007, 3:23 p.m.Amidst this insanity, there is a glimmer of light. Bush "decided" to not renew the civilian surveillance program. While the senate gears up to question Roberto Gonzales, Bush withdrew his plan on renewing this unconstituional program.
For the first time, Bush is afraid. The Democratic-run Congress, the ongoing investigations, the Libby trial, and his Vice President's involvement in Halliburton, provide too many avenues leading to the White House. I would expect that, as any coward and philanderer would do in these same circumstances, he will seek the easiest road to avoid further problems.
Perhaps, I am wrong. This is only a hunch; but he is already behaving like a man that is scared of what may soon come down. We will see, but I would expect the abuses at Guantanamo, Abu Graibe, and the "not-so-secret" POW camp in Poland, will be addressed and amended promptly. I know that sounds strange; but I do believe he is truly scared.
-
uncle-dave
Jan. 18, 2007, 3:54 p.m.I'm sure that Generalisimo Gonzales had a hand in drafting this manual.
-
-
not2needy
Jan. 18, 2007, 3:31 p.m.Bush is in a hurry to get his ducks in a row, get all the laws he can passed to exonerate him from the war crimes he has committed and his blatant disregard of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution. He knows he has less than 2 years to clean up his bloody mess. I don't see him being able to do it, and shame on us if he gets away with all he has done.
-
-
thenewyorker
Jan. 18, 2007, 8:42 p.m.That's exactly what I was thinking...I was just waiting for someone else to say it.
It's exactly like that, in some of the "trials" for supposed "witches" (it depends where you look) the same system was used, admissions of guilt under torture were admissible there...haven't we learned anything from that (or any of the other cases where people have been convicted from things they say under torture).
Why does no one seem to notice- people will say ANYTHING under torture, who cares if its true or not.
-
-
-
time4change
Jan. 18, 2007, 4:12 p.m.WOW !! We have held these men for years without stating charges and without due process. Law firms who have sought to provide legal counsel have been admonished by this administration and 'outed' to their clients in the hopes that they will not assist the detainees. We have moved them to countries where we tortured them.....all in violation of the Geneva Convention....now we'll murder them based on hearsay evidence and coerced testimony.....can it get any worse ???
-
questionseverything
Jan. 18, 2007, 6:15 p.m.its already being done on american soil to an american citizen...padilla has been held for almost 4 urs now w/o a trial
and his defense says has been tortured to the point his mind is gone so he prob couldnt help much with his defense anyway
sad times for our country
-
SusanParrishComment has been removed: User banned.
-
AnvilHead
Jan. 18, 2007, 7:28 p.m.There are a few exceptions but by and large these (innocents) were taken on the battlefield they know what they did, we know what they did. If it is war and not criminal activity they are protected under the Geneva Convention. If we convene a war crimes trial prosecution should be held under international standards.
-
-
spkguy
Jan. 18, 2007, 4:34 p.m.George Bush: "You cant expect me, and people with in this government to do what we need to do to protect you and your family. If we don't have the tools that we think are necessary to do so."
Matt Lauer: "And you said with in the law, and yet you admitted that there were these secret CIA facilities"
George Bush: "So what! Why is that not with in the law?"
Matt Lauer: "The head of Amnesty International says that these secret sites are against International Law."
George Bush: " Well we disagree with them."
Bush on torture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp4vLBvU1bA
Watch this also!
-
glaswolf
Jan. 18, 2007, 4:38 p.m.War is not exactly the best embryonic setting in which to develop beyond a doubt scenarios. These trials should be held by military officers who would be foolish to place the exigencies of war second to any concept of fairness. The alternative to military trials is martial law. The military officers should be rotated enough so that good officers will eventually enter the realm of any crew of bad officers who might be considered excessive in their methods, if not crude in their techniques. It is up to the good officers to stop the bad officers, bullets do work well in the folklore related to such contests of realtime will among functional officers. If people can't appreciate the fact that the core of American officers are college educated and formally gentlemen to the point of confusing or obstructing the execution of war, then martial law becomes necessary. If the number of good willing officers with science degrees dwindles, we most certainly need a national university level draft.
-
Amazing1
Jan. 18, 2007, 4:40 p.m.This is outrageous. I hope the Congress has the spine to come down on this HARD! The things done to others in our name could be done to us. That's Karma.
The Bush administration has ruined our reputation, gotten us into an unwarranted occupation based on false information, expanded our debt to nearly 9 trillion, and trashed the Geneva Conventions.
He should be impeached. I thought Clinton's behavior was sleazy, but no one died for it. I wouldn't leave him alone with my goats. But the actions of Bush go way beyond that in the harm that he has done.
Write to your representatives and demand impeachment.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
Type in your zip code and it brings up the representatives for you.
Either we impeach him or as a people we look powerless, stupid or spineless. Possibly all three.
-
joeblowe
Jan. 18, 2007, 4:42 p.m.You know, when that whole deal came out before about ALLOWING torture and military tribunals and the like, I actually READ the bill. Funny thing, when you take a moment to actually read what it says, instead of taking it for granted that the media is telling you the truth, you find that the media has, yet again, sensationalized the story so that it SOUNDS much worse than it really is. I can't help but wonder if maybe some of that isn't going on here too. It's very rare anymore for any media outlet to get a story told accurately and without a big dollop of editorial bias thrown into the language. For all we know right now, "hearsay" might just mean that one person "heard" another planning an attack. Not good enough? good enough for me. And coerced testimony? Maybe that just means they will NOT have the right to avoid self incrimination. No taking the 5th for terrorists. That, too, is OK with me. As long as they aren't U.S. citizens.
-
Wil
Jan. 18, 2007, 4:54 p.m.Okay, first of all, just because someone is rounded up and sent to one of these secret CIA prisons or to Guantanamo Bay, they are not automatically a terrorist. That's the whole point of putting them on trial: so we know if they're real terrorists or not. Don't forget that as long as America has existed, the accused have been given the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by the prosecution.
As long as courts have existed, there have been basic rules of evidence and conduct, to protect innocent people from being railroaded through by an angry mob or a prosecutor with a personal vendetta against the accused. "Hearsay" evidence is not permitted in courts because it can't be cross-examined, the accused doesn't have access to the accuser, and it can be created entirely out of whole cloth by a Kangaroo Court.
Continued . . .
-
endtyranny
Jan. 18, 2007, 4:55 p.m.I'm sure our forefathers didn't write the constitution as guidelines on how not to treat non-Americans. Most of these suspected terrorists were taken from countries other than ours. They were taken from their home by foreignors and brought to our prisons and now are subject to our laws and our military and government's discretion. Isn't it only right that they have our rights to protect themselves?
-
Landshark
Jan. 18, 2007, 4:58 p.m."For all we know right now, "hearsay" might just mean that one person "heard" another planning an attack. Not good enough? good enough for me"
seriously? someone saying that they heard another person planning out an attack would be good enough for you?
because nobody lies anymore?? :o)
-
-
ningyo
Jan. 18, 2007, 4:53 p.m.these are by and large not american citizens--and not entitled to our bill of rights or legal system--they are politely called "enemy combatants"--what we and every other country used to call spies--and pretty much summarily execute--the bush haters only want to see the worst and demand all this proof about whats going on in our most secret intellegence--our military cant tell us all how they are hunting or finding the bad guys--they know we are trying to kill-- we just cant keep telling them how--its not how you win a war--but most of you posting here i expect dont think we are in a war--but we are--and syria and iran have been at war with us since jimbo gave away the farm at the embassy--
-
donald51
Jan. 18, 2007, 5:22 p.m.CPT Yee, first US Army Moslem cleric to Gitmo and a West Point graduate, imprisoned without charges for 6 months and unable to call his wife and child resulting in his divorce - finally released with no charges!
-
-
Candida
Jan. 18, 2007, 10:15 p.m.ningyo, you are teaching me all kinds of new things here. "they are politely called "enemy combatants"--what we and every other country used to call spies-and pretty much summarily execute-"
So they are really neither terrorist, nor combattants, but spies? How do we know that, and against whom did they spy? Are you sure that the proper punishment for spies is summary execution? I seem to recall at least a few cases where spies were tried in a court, and even some cases where they were exchanged for other spies and nothing happened to them. I guess that must have been a long time ago, and rules have changed.
-
-
2sidestoeverything
Jan. 18, 2007, 4:56 p.m.This is so wrong. America is really becoming scary talk about taking decades of steps backwards.
-
Neophile
Jan. 18, 2007, 5:11 p.m.This will put America's troops in greater danger than they already are in. Enemies would sooner fight to the death or run to the hills to fight another day than they would surrender knowing that they'll face torture and inevitable execution.
In WW2 the Germans would rush to surrender to Americans to avoid being captured by the Russians and thrown in a Gulag camp. They knew that at least the Americans would treat them decently. Who knows how many American troops' lives that saved.
-
Bruedaddy
Jan. 18, 2007, 5:15 p.m.absolutely Neo, you don't mond if I call you Neo do ya?
what the righties who so staunchly (to my utter amazement) defend bush and the administration just don't get is...
what goes around WILL come around...
dig?
-
Bruedaddy
Jan. 18, 2007, 5:24 p.m.good question. I'm sure any terrorist coould find the manual online.
Bush admin.= a bunch of chuckleheads...
-
jordan11
Jan. 18, 2007, 5:29 p.m.In WW2 the Germans would rush to surrender to Americans to avoid being captured by the Russians and thrown in a Gulag camp. They knew that at least the Americans would treat them decently. Who knows how many American troops' lives that saved.>>>>
And I think that went a long way in our being able to mend the fences between us and the German people. We didn't leave a history of being as monstrous as the third reich was, & the German people had no scores to settle with us. We had several concentration camps right here in this country, though many don't know that. Many of those prisoners stayed after the war, and became citizens. They were well treated, and even ate better than Americans did at a time of food shortages. All we're doing now, is collecting more enemies.
-
-
-
questionseverything
Jan. 18, 2007, 6:21 p.m.how do u know they r terrorists if u didnt give them a fair trial?
the answer there is simple..u dont know
-
kaizersozey83
Jan. 18, 2007, 7:16 p.m.Bush doesn't recognize the geneva convention, didn't sign the kyoto treaty, and has completely done away with nuclear non-proliferation. Is he a monster, and does that make us monsters?
-
Gransater
Jan. 18, 2007, 5:36 p.m.I'm continually amazed on how some people repeatedly crow about morals, ethics and compassion while browbeating so called liberals. Two breaths later, they talk about enemy combatants, and how to extract information from them, and how to punish them without any second thoughts about moral, ethical or compassionate behaviour, all in the name of Homeland Security.
I thought we were suposed to be better than that. All this secrecy reolving around enemy combatants, is acting as a light in the dark atracting attention. The secrets that matter, the behaviour that matters, is by now part of public knowledge domain.
This alone, this attitude of intellectual supremacy is by itself creating, fostering more enemy combatants, than could the prescense of a regiment of infantymen ever hope to achieve/or to supress.
This democracy we are exporting, in the view of the world is pretty hollow. We are instead exporting a perception of world dominators, by any means nescessary.
This is NOT OUR WAY.!
-
-
hamy
Jan. 18, 2007, 6:36 p.m."my point here is thus: anytime you try to have a point by point debate with a lib, there come backs bear no relation to what you have just said. they jump from one dumb as* point to the next, so ya can't nail 'em. kidda like arguing with a guy with ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER."
Here is your exact quote. Now, the above post is nothing but name calling and idiocy. Condi Rice has admitted that Fox is in the pocket of this administration. They started during this administration and hitched their wagon to him. Why do you think their ratings have fallen lately? You simply have hate filled blinders on for anyone who is different from you.
-
donald51
Jan. 19, 2007, 12:43 a.m....and when Cheney travels his room TV must always be only on FOX News, that's Fox Faux Facts!
If Reagan would have approved instead of vetoing the Truth in Telecommunications Act, then Fox would never have been born since the network only tells one side of the story!
Which Fox reporter will follow the current Presidential Press Secretary when he reaches burnout from all the lies and deceptions?
-
-
The first 187 comments are shown. Show all 584 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
