Obama Administration Using Coerced Confessions In Military Commission Cases

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:51:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As someone who has spoken out in favor of the stated goals of the Obama Administration in 2009 with regard to the handling of accused enemy combatants and indefinite detention, I am very dismayed by what we are discovering about the Obama Administration's handling of these matters. Glenn Greenwald writes:

Military commissions were one of those Bush/Cheney policies which provoked virtually universal outrage among progressives and Democrats back in the day when executive power abuses and rule of law transgressions were a concern. The Obama administration's claim that the commissions are now improved to the point that they provide a forum of real justice is being put to the test -- and blatantly failing [. . .] The commission has already ruled that confessions made by Khadr which were clearly obtained through coercion, abuse and torture will be admitted as evidence against him.

This is outrageous and, in my view, a violation of the Laws of War and the Geneva Conventions. When I have a bit more time, I will write on this point at length. For now, I just want to register my disgust about this.

Speaking for me only

< McInnis Loses, Maes and Tancredo to Face Hickenlooper for Gov | Right Outraged That Reid States The Obvious: GOP Despises Latinos >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Administration Using Coerced Confessions In Military Commission Cases | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The really frightening thing here (5.00 / 5) (#1)
by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:02:40 AM EST

is that when Bush did it, it was outrageous and offensive.

Now that Obama is doing it too, it's normal.

This is just what our counrty "looks like" now. That's not acceptable.

The one bright side to all of this is that the international community isn't sleeping. Because this kid was 15-years old, it's gotten the UN and others to wake up and say something. The only hope I have at this point is that pressure from the international community might make some impact.

Because unfortunately, I don't see it coming from home. Not in this climate.

: Still outrageous and offensive to me too (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by ruffian on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:15:41 AM EST

How can this possibly be right? I'm no lawyer or 'constitutional scholar' but I do like to think I know wrong when I see it, and this is just wrong.
I really hope the international community makes plenty of noise because we on the professional and unprofessional left have been told we are irrelevent.

Not to mention that (5.00 / 5) (#3)
by scribe on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:21:36 AM EST

the interrogator who did the coercing was sentenced to prison for similarly coercing other detainees.

In what civilized country are statements elicited by agents of the government who are committing crimes to elicit them admissible against the person who was the victim of those crimes?

Obama is such a profound piece of NOTHING (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Dadler on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:42:05 AM EST

Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces and he doesn't even have the testicles to stop the worst of the Bush nonsense. Doesn't have the nuts to say, that's it, gays can serve openly in the military and if you don't like it...there's the door. The guy has gonads like raisins. Then again, he evidences very conservative tendencies, so...maybe he really was a charlatan.

Phuck him.

Isn't this the reason why a (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Anne on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:54:47 AM EST

military commission was chosen as the means to try Kadr, as opposed to a trial in a civilian court? What case would the government have if Kadr's statements were ruled inadmissible? I'm guessing, not much, which makes Kadr's decade-long detention even more difficult to justify.

I am not just disgusted, but angered and saddened; this is not what I want my country to stand for, and never in a million years did I ever think I would see a Democratic president (however nominal that label is) taking us down a path that doesn't just undermine our credibility as a great democracy, but ultimately threatens the rights of each and every one of us.

As Glenn points out at the end of the cited post:

Regarding the Obama administration's efforts to have the scope of National Security Letters expanded to include your email and Internet "transactional" records, Harper's Scott Horton examines how abusive a power that is by looking at one case that recently became public (see an excellent Democracy Now interview from this morning with the true hero of that story, Nick Merrill). Relatedly, I have an essay in Cato Unbound on the ongoing explosion of the unaccountable Surveillance State.

Even if, from a purely conceptual standpoint, one supports a policy of preventive detention, how is that support affected by the actual practices being carried out within that general detention system? And, given this kind of blatant disregard for anything but obtaining a guilty verdict and another "victory" in the war on terror, is it still worth supporting?

I don't see how it can be. But then, I don't see how it is ever going to be possible to trust someone who apparently believes that the oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States " means this; he might as well have said, "to use the Constitution any way I want to, or ignore it altogether, whether you like it or not."

For myself, I am having a very hard time understanding how these policies and decisions comport with that oath, and I see him as more of a threat to that document than I do a defender.

With all due respect (none / 0) (#7)
by BTAL on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:01:39 PM EST

... this is not what I want my country to stand for, and never in a million years did I ever think I would see a Democratic president (however nominal that label is) taking us down a path that doesn't just undermine our credibility as a great democracy, but ultimately threatens the rights of each and every one of us.

Executive Order 9066, February 19, 1942.


I wasn't alive in 1942, so it would have (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Anne on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:19:44 PM EST

been kind of hard for me to have any contemporaneous feelings about that EO, wouldn't it? Or to imagine what a Democratic president would or would not be doing.

It's a shame you have so little to do that you can spend your days and nights poised to pounce on comments with these annoying and constant attempts to play "gotcha."

If you have a point, or wish to actually discuss somethng, try a different approach.

My comment is in connection with what this president is doing now, in my lifetime, what my expectations were/are for a Democratic president, and my disgust that Obama is not just normalizing these policies, but setting the stage for extending and broadening them.

Try discussing that, if you can.


I am very open to discuss the challenges facing (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by BTAL on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:40:36 PM EST

our country. All need to apply reasoned analysis to the actual threats and the govt's actions in dealing with those threats while always keeping a weather eye on the legitimacy and or legality of said actions.

The point of my post (and even the title because I do admire your comments) was that it is not an R or D issue. To lament the fact that a D POTUS could even contemplate the evil deeds of GWB is not in keeping with your normally well thought out commentary.


Sadly (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by hookfan on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:00:33 PM EST

I mostly agree with you, because, I, like Anne, had maintained false expectations that the current administration would live up to at least some of my expectations for what a Democratic administration with Democratic majorities would be about. Why I would maintain those illusions after the limp performance of the Democratic congress of 2006 to 2008 (of which Obama was a co-participant) in caving endlessly to Bush is an embarrassment that is mine to deal with. You are right. Both parties are complicit in bringing about this, imo, travesty. We did not get Patriot Acts and extensions, and assignations of assasination intent without due process upon American citizens, nor the injustices now being perpetrated in the Military Trials by acts of one Party alone.


If you are so concerned with the supposed (none / 0) (#10)
by scribe on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:51:41 PM EST

"threats", then waltz on down to the local post office or strip mall, find a recruiter, and sign up. You want to choose MOS "11B" or, if you're feeling really intelligent, "21B" (F/k/a "12B".

They'll be so happy to see you, they might even buy you lunch.


: I have already done that sport (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by BTAL on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:52:45 PM EST

Retired U.S. Air Force.
Try again.

Just remember (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by scribe on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:53:11 PM EST

wen someone uses the term "With all due respect". it really means that the person saying it gives absolutely no respect to the other side and they are using that phrase to cover their disrespect and arrogance.

So, we know whence you come, pal.


Good timing for the Springsteen lyrics (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by ruffian on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:30:01 PM EST

I was singing to myself this morning, thinking about the change we hoped was coming after GWB:

Long Walk Home
.....
You know that flag flying over the courthouse
Means certain things are set in stone
Who we are, what we'll do and what we won't"
It's gonna be a long walk home....

Apparently it is going to be even a longer walk than I thought.

Change.... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by coast on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:41:36 PM EST

didn't know its was synonymous with indistinguishable.

Jeeze. (none / 0) (#4)
by Edger on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:34:32 AM EST

They never had to coerce confessions out of Bush and Cheney and Yoo and Bybee and Gonzo, and, and, and... most of the republican party and all the wingnnut bloggers.

I guess they protect their own.

I'm sure the Truth Commission (none / 0) (#13)
by lilburro on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:29:56 PM EST

is coming right down the pipeline. A few delusional folks thought it was going to come in 2012, after Obama's first term.

More likely, a loosening of Obama's anti-torture restrictions. If torture can be used in court, why not just use it, period.

Absolutely Disgusting (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:14:12 PM EST

But evidentially, Muslim hatred is very popular America, so most will give it a pass.

Can't wait for the war crimes tribunal to hear what Obama has to say about the geneva conventions and the "stain on america".

Has the Nobel Committee ever rescinded a Peace (none / 0) (#18)
by jawbone on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 11:31:56 AM EST

Prize? If not, this might the right year to do so.