|
|||
|
Gitmo Lawyer Alleges Torture Evidence DestructionPosted on Jun 9, 2008
A military lawyer for a Guantanamo detainee says it was standard operating procedure to destroy evidence of torture (or harsh interrogation techniques, as some call it) in order to “minimize certain legal issues.” Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler is concerned that, because of the policy, he will not be able to challenge the alleged confessions of his client, who was detained at the age of 15.
Advertisement Previous item: Mark Penn on Where Clinton Went Wrong Next item: Herpes Is Common Among New Yorkers CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By Purple Girl, June 10, 2008 at 4:33 am Link to this comment
funny how even Truthdig give no Print to the HOURS Kucinich spent on the Houe Floor going through the Multitudes of Crimes This admin has committed since the Theft of the ‘00 election.
Report thisAnother Media Lie via Omission!
Et Tu ‘Truthdig’?????
Another example of the Proof there is No REAL FREE Press regardless of their claims to be ‘Liberal’ or apparently Patriotic.
Sad this Site may have to go the way of HuffPo.Salon- unsubscribed. Covert operative who intentionally throw US Crumbs to divert Our attention away from what is Really happening. Look down Your Complicity is showing!
By Louise, June 9, 2008 at 6:47 pm Link to this comment
Given the painfully long, short period of time we have operated Gitmo, and given the equally painful knowledge of crimes committed by the administration in the name of pursuing wars for peace, this cant be a surprise. Particularly when we see the directive was issued in January 2003.
Golly gees, one more bit of arse covering for the POTUS, who was really much to busy being bothered with plans to attack Iraqi citizens to worry about the “bad” guys rounded up in Afghanistan. So he issues orders making them not count, and one to make bad things done to them not count either. 2003. A banner year for the criminal administration, when they issued so many of their orders to break Constitutional law, with the presidents blessing.
As usual, the wrong people are on trial.
Tell me, if the evidence [notes] taken that maintain the crime occurred were destroyed, doesn’t that place the “evidence” therefore the case and a possible conviction in jeopardy? Seems to me, to allege a crime has been committed without the original notes relating to the confession, whether taken under torture or not, would be an allegation a bit harder to prove.
But even that question isn’t near as important as why aren’t the right criminals on trial?
Report this