(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

[travlr1]

nevermind the obvious fact that the plane itself is one big liquid explosive.

i think the terrorists planned to use mentos + diet pepsi to "blow up" the planes.

[kateorman]

That plan would make a great action film - I just can't quite think of a title.

[redstarrobot]

Snacks On a Plane!

[drhoz]

you are evil

[hiraethin]

Certainly the way he was treated initially by interrogators was shameful. Evidently they thought they were less accountable in handling suspects, and perhaps they were, but in acting the way they reportedly did they torpedoed the criminal case

[peteyoung]

massive media and public attention on why the security services and the government were negligent, incompetent, or even complicit

del_c counters this point effectively, IMO.

[hiraethin]

My view is Australian-based (since that's where I live), but...

Australian intelligence agencies had numerous reports about imminent terrorist operations but misread the signs and failed to predict the 2002 Bali attacks..."

Inquiry finds intelligence failure over Bali

Intelligence agencies and authorities received even more warnings than first thought before the Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta, it has emerged.

Negative media attention is hard to miss when you're the subject of it.

[kateorman]

As I've said, it's understandable that the police and intelligence agencies, knowing that they'd missed warnings of previious atrocities, would be keen to follow up even the flimsiest leads. However, the Australian government hasn't been damaged by the threat of terrorism; if anything, it's thriven on it.

[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!