Judge on 9/11 Case Signals Willingness to Rule on Suppression Dispute | Lawdragon

It's not as simple as it sounds. First, what is "torture?" There must be a mutually agreed upon definition, and the abuse must rise to the level required for the definition to be in effect. Second, EIT did not fit the internationally accepted definition of torture at the time a handful of detainees at the US military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were waterboarded in order to obtain valuable information that saved many lives. Third, if the confessions were TRUE, and the information saved many innocent lives, there is value to the method, especially if the method did not rise to the level of torture. Remember, over 740 detainees have been RELEASED from Gitmo, and about 40 remain. NONE have been executed, beheaded, blown up, hacked to death, dragged naked and lifeless through the streets, drowned or burned alive. All things our enemies have done to US and/or our allies. There is no moral comparison between Gitmo and how our enemies treat their captives.

MAJ Montgomery Granger Sir the fact that they torture WORSE than us does not excuse our own torture.

We have gone round this bush many times, and you continue to hold fast to your denial of torture. That is fine. I understand you will not see reality here, so I won't rehash that argument.

But this is not about the value or the nature of the torture it is about the admissibility of confessions garnered from said torture. And there is pretty clear precedence on that.

As to whether it *was* torture, that will be up to the judge. I don't think there is a lot of doubt, but I am not the judge.

Two points. One, you continue to discuss an acceptable DEFINITION of torture. That actually exists, and it existed in 2005-6 when a handful of detainees were waterboarded yielding valuable information that saved many lives. Two, if the confessions under lawful treatment, even if it was abusive (not rising to the level of torture) were TRUE, and yielded valuable information that saved many lives, that evidence should absolutely be allowed in court for the prosecution. If these men are GUILTY of WAR CRIMES, that should take precedence over the defense trick of claiming ALL TREATMENT was "torture." It's a trick; a slight of hand.