Posted on 08/03/2021 12:58:56 PM PDT by RandFan
For the first time in American history, a federal judge last week authorized the government to admit as evidence in a criminal case in a public courtroom words uttered by the defendant that were obtained under torture.
The fruits of torture -- which is any cruel or degrading or intentionally painful or disorienting behavior visited upon a person in captivity to induce compliance or to gratify the torturer -- are not permitted in any court in the United States, and their inducement is criminal.
Here is the backstory.
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a low-level former member of the Taliban, is accused with others of plotting the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 that killed 17 American sailors. He has been in U.S. custody since 2002 and at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since 2004. When he was first captured, he was turned over to the CIA for interrogation, not the Department of Justice for prosecution.
The practice of the federal government immediately following 9/11, when it captured anyone overseas from whom it believed it could extract national security information, was to hand the person over to the CIA for torture -- the feds call it "enhanced interrogation" -- at a "dark site" in a foreign country with which the U.S. does not have an extradition treaty.
The reason for the location of the torture was the erroneous belief by DOJ and CIA officials that torture conducted or condoned by American personnel is not prosecutable if it occurs outside the U.S.
That has never been the law in the U.S., but it has been the practice of the DOJ and the CIA to shield their personnel with secrecy when they are caught engaging in torture in a foreign country.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I'm sure we will hear the facts in due course.
Has he defended the Trump supporters being held in solitary confinement? Most of these people committed misdemeanors at the most, yet the DOJ is allowed to hold them indefinitely.
If I had been there I’m not sure if I would have gone in the Capitol or not, if the police were allowing people to enter, probably depended on whether I had to use the restroom or not.
He defends terrorists’ rights, called GWB a “felon” for waterboarding.
I have no idea if he’s wrote or spoke about it. I would hope he does
But even Rand won’t touch that subject (yet), it’s very disappointing.
He is a deviant, a twisted, sexual pervert who performed unspeakable sicko acts on woodland animals and other assorted living beings. Other than that, he’s a great guy.
He defends the constitution even when unpopular.
One of the few in the media who dares do that which is why I’m suspicious about these allegations.
We will see
I’ve always found his interpretation of the Constitution to be inconsistent and in some cases not supported by seminal Supreme Court cases.
I have followed him. He wasn’t dealing with the Federal Constitution as a judge. He is similar to the ACLU.
Everyone has their opinion!
As for precedence, the judges also interpret and are capable of getting it wrong (in my opinion).
John Roberts thinks Obamacare is constitutional, for example.
They’re not saints.
A judge or legal writer should think and speak with some legal logic. I read key cases on the SC all the time. I just don’t see a legal mind in his writings, let alone a great legal mind.
For instance, in this editorial, he refers to waterboarding as torture. It’s not, I’ve seen many experience it in training. It is uncomfortable, but not torture. It’s hard to take somebody seriously, when they use loaded wording like, “torture”, instead of describing the act or using the accepted terminology.
I agree with you about the SC, getting it wrong sometimes, way too many times. But, Nap gets it wrong too. The horrible decision to treat terrorist war captives as US citizens, deserving constitutional protections, is a perversion of our justice system. Napolitano is an advocate for this belief, which is not supported in the Constitution.
BS
you do realize anyone can be a “terrorist” under the governments own expanded definition? including conservatives.
The kind of thing some people warned about when all these laws were passed (including Judge Nap, bravely in my opinion...)
Has he had the opportunity or has he been censored?.....You tell us
The kind of thing some people warned about when all these laws were passed
***Yup. But where are those folks now, here on FR, who pushed hard for this level of increased statism?
Again that is your opinion. A quick search shows many sources saying it is a form of torture
I’ve always found his interpretation of the Constitution to be inconsistent and in some cases not supported by seminal Supreme Court cases.
^ This + 1 Did he defend Trump one time while Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi were making a mockery of the impeachment process? The answer is no. I liked the judge early on when I watched Faux, but he went off the rails some time ago.
He might have gone off the rails but lets not ignore some good work he did this is all I’m saying.
And it would not surprise me if these allegations are a way of silencing someone... it worked.
“Again that is your opinion.”
As is your opinion. But, mine is supported by the legal definition of interrogation and enhanced interrogation.
We used enhanced interrogation against only 3 high value terrorists, and it led to tracking down of Osama Bin Laden.
Enemy combatants should get all the respect they deserve ... a 7 man squad with one firing a blank.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.