Comments on: Government Abandons Effort to Use Tortured Evidence in Gitmo Habeas Case

By: Military Lawyer Claims U.S. Paid Gitmo Prosecution Witnesses « freedetainees.org

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:57:56 +0000

[...] although the Justice Department has conceded it can’t rely on those confessions and can no longer imprison Jawad based on the laws of war, it’s said it may file new criminal [...]

By: Progressive Nation » Blog Archive » Gitmo Detainee Claims U.S. Paid Prosecution Witnesses

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:38:24 +0000

[...] although the Justice Department has conceded it can’t rely on those confessions and can no longer imprison Jawad based on the laws of war, it’s said it may file new criminal [...]

By: Blanchy

Blanchy — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:04:57 +0000

Serena, there are actually I believe 30 exceptions where hearsay evidence can be used in US courts of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_...

By: mudshark12

mudshark12 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:13:35 +0000

“Mohammed Jawad who was arrested as a CHILD in Afghanistan, interrogated under torture, and then locked up at Guantanamo Bay for the last six and a half years.” (Emphasis added)

What are we doing arresting children? And torturing them also!!! I find this whole detainee/torture saga is getting harder and harder to bear when I keep reading about (and seeing pictures of) despicable acts of brutality by the CIA. We need to either formally charge each detainee and try them or give them transportation back to their home countries. I believe these 2 wars and the torture was motivated by revenge and retribution by an outgoing administration that needs to be brought up on charges for their many war crimes.

By: serena1313

serena1313 — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:28:35 +0000

Evidence based on hearsay and/or obtained by coercion and torture cannot be used against any defendant in any court of law. Considering a military judge ruled Jawad's torture-induced confession inadmissible with the lead prosecutor's sworn affidavit validating that and the interrogator who testified as a defense witness the Justice Department was bound to lose.

This may be presumptuous of me, but perhaps the DoJ previous stance may have been more political than anything else. Bush spent years trying to convince us "enhanced" (torture) interrogation methods produced actionable intelligence. With Cheney's recent appearances on cable news and on the airwaves telling anyone and everyone who would listen that ending the "torture" programme and shutting down Guantanamo puts the country in grave danger, imagine the hell Cheney and Liz would raise if the Justice Department had announced it would not rely on Jawad's torture-induced confession to prosecute him. If true, it would be inexcusable.

How can the DoJ justify the unjustifiable, defend the indefensible, argue the inarguable and claim justice was served?

By: grf67

grf67 — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:36:42 +0000

So respect for the law has come back to town? Time for the trials of those who should be facing war crimes charges.

By: Government abandons effort to use torture-obtained "evidence" « Later On

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:23:06 +0000

[...] Daily life, Government, Law, Obama administration, Philanthropy at 1:22 pm by LeisureGuy Daphne Eviatar in the Washington Independent: The Justice Department informed a federal district court Wednesday that it was no longer seeking [...]