(Untitled)

[kateorman]

More fuel for the fire for those of us suspicious of the war on terrorism...

An alleged Australian terrorist has had his conviction quashed because of how his confession was extracted. According to the news item, after his arrested, he was assaulted, threatened with castration, threatened that his wife would be raped, and essentially told that if

Comments

[childofares]

I think the tragedy is letting an obviously guilty person walk free.

But that's just me.

According to the news item, after his arrested, he was assaulted, threatened with castration, threatened that his wife would be raped, and essentially told that if he didn't give the Australian police interviewers what they wanted, he'd end up in Guantanamo

I'm suspicious of this. In fact I flat out think this is a load of bull. No names, no pictures, no cameras?

Was this military that did the interview? If it was... I seriously doubt that.

In a personal opinion- I could care less what people threaten in order to get guilty people to talk. Did it scare him? Yes? Good. Then tell us what you know and names.

But then again I was brainwashed by the military ^_^

[kateorman]

[quote]I could care less what people threaten in order to get guilty people to talk[/quote]

If you already know they're guilty, why bother to get them to admit it?

[hiraethin]

I don't think that's quite the point childofares is making. And it doesn't matter who believes they're guilty, other than the jury. That's why investigators want to get offenders to admit their guilt; because it makes convictions much easier to obtain in court. Investigators try hard to get confessions because it's part of their job.

I think what childofares was getting at was that threats made in interrogation are just threats. Threatening people with violence is, of course, itself a crime, and I can't condone that; but applying psychological pressure of various sorts is pretty much the only legal tool that can be applied when interviewing a suspect, other than asking them nicely to confess.

[kateorman]

I don't think those are the points childofares is making, but I'd better wait for her response to my question - which is really asking whether it's all right to threaten a suspect, who is technically innocent, and may actually be innocent.

OTOH, while we have quite different perspectives, I don't think you and I actually disagree very much when it comes to this entire issue!

[childofares]

Actually those were my points :)

It's a common practice really. Police have used it for years. Paint a bleak picture for the criminal, shake em up, and maybe..just maybe they will confess. And of course like I said before, you never know what they will admit to!

[redstarrobot]

Or how true it will be. That's the danger of scaring your suspect too badly, especially when you tell them their confession will avert something like the rape of their wife.

[kateorman]

Now I'm not clear on whether you mean which of several threats you're referring to. The police may bandy about warnings of grim sentences, but they don't typically threaten castration. At least, not if we're both watching the same cop shows.

[childofares]

No I agree! If in fact they did threaten such a thing then they are 100% in the wrong. But in all honesty I doubt they actually did. I have no problems with some of the tactics used by police and military in interrogation purposes however there is a line.

But I'm typically pessisimistic about taking a criminals word anyway. Too many lawsuits from people trying to get a lessor sentence have jaded me I think.

I had a suit filed on me for physical abuse while I was an MP. Now I'm a 5'8" female weighing about 130 and the drunk guy was about 6'2" and 220-230 pounds. Except for putting cuffs on him, I never touched him except to check for weapons. But he claimed I physically abused him. I'm telling you this so you don't think I'm a crazy "kill them all!!!1!" type of person :)

Just a cynical one.

[kateorman]

Sadly, I find it entirely plausible that US interrogators could have made those threats. But the news reports are vague and conflicting at this stage - I want to get my hands on the exact judgement, which should show up here, and should contain the details.

[childofares]

Oh dear. That wasn't directed towards me.

Sorry!

[kateorman]

I've been reading more news items on this, and now I'm not clear whether Thomas was actually refused a lawyer at his Australian police interview, or agreed to be interviewed without one, ostensibly because he had been terrorised by Pakistani interrogators. Anyway, I've bookmarked the relevant AustLII page in hopes of having a look at the actual judgement.

[childofares]

You never know what else they will admit