Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses 9/11

[Bob_the_lost]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/081B3141-A5FE-48DA-B56D-81FA26B51316.htm

Doesn't make them untrue, if he was involved in planning operations then he'll have seen and worked on hundreds of different plans, nearly all discarded or judged impractical.

This confesion isn't worth much, he'd need to give confirmable details (that only the planners could know) to make it belivable. Any details that could prove that he really did organise it will be classified up the wazzoo and certainly wont' be released. In this matter at least i don't trust the US authorities as far as i can throw a six foot blood drinking lizard.

 

[detective-boy]

Quelle surprise, confessions made under torture are never reliable.

Despite that, there is nothing to prevent them being right. I'm sure lots of things admitted during torture are actually 100% accurate.

 

[detective-boy]

Hmm, I wonder if you'd be so dismissive if he'd blabbed something along the lines of having been directly invovled with US administration officials in planning 9/11...

Of course he wouldn't have dismissed that ... because that's what happened, he knows that.

 

[Jazzz]

What would they want him for, except take a rap?

 

[pk]

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Despite that, there is nothing to prevent them being right. I'm sure lots of things admitted during torture are actually 100% accurate.

They may possess accuracy sometimes; but it's reliability you have to worry about.

 

[XerxesVargas]

The whole process stinks. He was tortured and now he is being tried in secret with out ay prentence of proper legal procedure, or any legal procedure in fact. Its a massive own goal for the US, yet again, as irrespective of what he really did do, it will all be dismissed as part of the wider conspiracy against Islam.

However, I have no doubt that he is guilty of some terrible things. Just would have been nice if they went about it in the right way.

 

[oake]

Well, his guilt has now been firmly established in the public consciousness, so the next steps (the tribunal 'guilty' verdict and death sentence) won't provoke too many questions.

 

[detective-boy]

They may possess accuracy sometimes; but it's reliability you have to worry about.

Er ... which is exactly my point ...

* Awaits Johnny Cannuck2 post pointing out that that was exactly my point ... *

 

[detective-boy]

Well, his guilt has now been firmly established in the public consciousness ...

But I thought that was what we wanted, nay, demanded these days ... public discussion and examination of the case before any legal process.

The public have a right to know, any holding back of the facts until a Court has a chance to decide upon on them is soooo 20th century ...)

 

[nino_savatte]

Despite that, there is nothing to prevent them being right. I'm sure lots of things admitted during torture are actually 100% accurate.

Really? And on what do you base your thesis?

 

[rhys gethin]

Despite that, there is nothing to prevent them being right. I'm sure lots of things admitted during torture are actually 100% accurate.

The whole point about concentration camps and torture is that they turn EVERYTHING into untruth, because nothing that comes out of them can ever be trusted. Legally such 'confessions' are bullshit, and there is nothing more to be said. Implicit in setting up concentration camps and torturing people is the end of all law, and all 'fact' as well. Bush and Bliar are following Hitler and Stalin into vile moronic barbarism.
This is what comes of chosing a lawyer as fuhrer, obviously.

 

[Aldebaran]

Despite that, there is nothing to prevent them being right. I'm sure lots of things admitted during torture are actually 100% accurate.

You must be joking, right? You can't be that delusional.

salaam.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You must be joking, right? You can't be that delusional.

salaam.

So if you do know something and you get tortured you lie automatically? Some of the information given as a result of torture will be correct, statistically if for no other reason.

Doesn't mean it's right, doesn't mean it's an effective method, but just because it was tortured out doesn't make it a lie, just suspect/unreliable unless there are ways to confirm it.

 

[Aldebaran]

Time for a little Reality Talk:

What this charade openly supports:

The abuduciton, indefinite imprisonment and torture of random people conveniently labelled "terrorist" while in fact only deemed "enemies" of the State (read: its US propped up/supported leaders and political establishment) in nations labelled "US Friendly" or - to make it soud even more arrogant patronising- "Western Friendly" .
Which begs the question: why would we need to be "Western Friendly" towards a West that has nothing but contempt, arrogance, meddling with our internal affairs -up to our religion and how we live and practice it - propping up dictatorships and invasions and mass murder to offer? But that is an other discussion.

It doesn't provoke these practices. They were already fully internationally legitimized by the US "war on terror", combined with the US examples of how to put that in practice and "asking" (HA) "friendly regimes" to "co-operate". (HA)

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

So if you do know something and you get tortured you lie automatically? Some of the information given as a result of torture will be correct, statistically if for no other reason.

If under torture no matter what is suggested to you, you confess to being guilty of this "no matter what".
It is as such impossible to make clear distinction between what a person confessing under - or as result of - torture effectively confessed to and what he confessed to from the "no matter what" suggestions. Add to this the person's own fantasies and how torture blurs the clear distinction between reality and fantasy and what you get as result is a completely distorted joke of reality. (Staying specifically with this case, you can bet on it that all he "confessed" to has been suggested to him repeatedly.)

salaam.

 

[rhys gethin]

Yes - It is exactly like the witch trials. There people 'confessed' to the weird sexual fantasies of the inquisitors and to doing all sorts of impossible things, like flying. 'Surely mere statistics means some of these were true?' asks our brainwashed chum. No - NOT A BLOODY ONE! THEY WERE ALL JUST INQUIITORS' BULLSHIT!

 

[Bob_the_lost]

If under torture no matter what is suggested to you, you confess to being guilty of this "no matter what".
It is as such impossible to make clear distinction between what a person confessing under - or as result of - torture effectively confessed to and what he confessed to from the "no matter what" suggestions. Add to this the person's own fantasies and how torture blurs the clear distinction between reality and fantasy and what you get as result is a completely distorted joke of reality. (Staying specifically with this case, you can bet on it that all he "confessed" to has been suggested to him repeatedly.)

salaam.

ust because it was tortured out doesn't make it a lie, just suspect/unreliable unless there are ways to confirm it.

Just because he was tortured into it does not make it a lie. Just because he confessed does not make it true.

You can bet all you like on what exactly he confessed, you may even be right. But we don't know that, as such there is a chance that the confession was him giving up information, just as there is a chance that the confession is a load of shite to stop them hurting him.

Both are possible, yet you seem to think that the former is not. Just because torture is involved it doesn't mean you can instantly dismiss it as lies. Just immoral.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Yes - It is exactly like the witch trials. There people 'confessed' to the weird sexual fantasies of the inquisitors and to doing all sorts of impossible things, like flying. 'Surely mere statistics means some of these were true?' asks our brainwashed chum. No - NOT A BLOODY ONE! THEY WERE ALL JUST INQUIITORS' BULLSHIT!

So if you take someone you saw beating someone up, strap them to a chair and connect electrodes to them before turning up the current till they admit to it the confession will be lies?

Of course not. Torture can get you false confessions or it can get you true confessions. How can you declare this to be one or the other categorically?

 

[laptop]

Just because torture is involved it doesn't mean you can instantly dismiss it as lies. Just immoral.

And unreliable. Of no evidential value.

It may be true, but it doesn't tell us anything about whether it is true.

 

[Yossarian]

Er ... which is exactly my point ...

* Awaits Johnny Cannuck2 post pointing out that that was exactly my point ... *

*Awards detective-boy the prize for most blatantly obvious point of the year*

 

[Aldebaran]

Just because he was tortured into it does not make it a lie. Just because he confessed does not make it true.

There is no way to confirm anything, unless you are yourself a first hand witness of the event and - in addition - do not have a distorted memory of it (distortion can be provoked by various factors).
Suspicion does not provide for confirmation but through free confession by the suspect. Even then there are cases where the confession is in fact a lie. (various reasons can lead someone to lie about his involvement in a certain crime or activity).
For all those reasons, an independent and public trial is the first requirement to create a possibility to find out what could be the real truth. Disregarding the fact that there are ample examples of failures to find out the truth by public trial.

salaam.

 

[rhys gethin]

So if you take someone you saw beating someone up, strap them to a chair and connect electrodes to them before turning up the current till they admit to it the confession will be lies?

Of course not. Torture can get you false confessions or it can get you true confessions. How can you declare this to be one or the other categorically?

Yes, the confession will be lies, certainly, because not freely given. The facts may be what you tell the victim to say, but it is not a confession at all - just a parrot act, demeaning more to you than your victim.

 

[oake]

It all rather depends on whether you believe that the purpose of torture is to obtain information, or to extract a 'confession'.

It might be argued that information obtained from someone held incommunicado for years on end would be of very limited use.

As I understand it, 'formalised' torture began after justice systems had been established, and the purpose was to obtain 'confessions' to save all that trouble actually proving guilt.

rg's Witch Trials are a case in point - the church wanted to stamp out the competition, and they didn't want a debate about the relative merits of paganism vs. catholicism, so they extracted 'confessions' as a short cut to imposing the death sentence.

I'm not sure this modern application of torture has any higher motive behind it.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

There is no way to confirm anything, unless you are yourself a first hand witness of the event and - in addition - do not have a distorted memory of it (distortion can be provoked by various factors).

Wrong.

If for example, he said that he stored the plans for an attack in a bank vault in Switzerland then it'd be possible to locate, retrieve and confirm his story. If he were to give details about how the identities of the hijackers were fabricated (if they were) and the methods used in a level of detail that the average terrorist would not be able to do so then it confirms his involvement in that phase. If you want to get picky about never being able to know the truth unless you see it (then you open up a whole new philosophical can of worms about hallucinations) then we can stop wasting our time now, 99% confidence is achievable and good enough for me.

I don't know if this confession is true or not. I merely commented upon your rather ignorant assertion that DB was wrong and the implication that all information gained through torture is incorrect.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Yes, the confession will be lies, certainly, because not freely given. The facts may be what you tell the victim to say, but it is not a confession at all - just a parrot act, demeaning more to you than your victim.

Did you read before you replied? If you did then you didn't think.

A false confession would be me saying "i blew up the pentagon with a nuke this morning" a true confession would be me saying "i had coco pops for breakfast this morning while i read a book". If you hit me around the head and put me in the stress position for hours on end, then simulate drowning then those answers would be no less true or false if given then. However i might be persuaded to sign my name to the former. A false confession and the reason torture is not a reliable method of gaining them.

If i was being forced to sign my name to the second one but didn't want to admit my breakfast reading habits then it doesn't make it a false confession. It makes it one that had to be extorted from me. That's all.

How do you know that the only facts in this case were the ones given parrot fashion by the interrogators? You don't, you assume. Don't waste time telling me about the ethical issues of torture, it's off topic and we're probably in agreement. This isn't about morality right now. It's about stupid assumptions.

 

[Aldebaran]

Wrong.

No.

If for example, he said that he stored the plans for an attack in a bank vault in Switzerland then it'd be possible to locate, retrieve and confirm his story.

He can invent that he did it himself while he only tells the story of sopeone else (told to him or with him as a witness).

If he were to give details about how the identities of the hijackers were fabricated (if they were) and the methods used in a level of detail that the average terrorist would not be able to do so then it confirms his involvement in that phase.

Mere knowledge does not automatically implies guilt by participation in the crime.

If you want to get picky about never being able to know the truth unless you see it then we can stop wasting our time now, 99% confidence is achievable and good enough for me.

99%? You must be an incurable optimist and appeal courts must have outlived their reasons for existence in your world.

I merely commented upon your rather ignorant assertion that DB was wrong and the implication that all information gained through torture is incorrect.

It *is* formally incorrect, since distorted by the very practice of torture, to begin with. To claim otherwise is ignorant by default.

salaam.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

No.

Yes

He can invent that he did it himself while he only tells the story of sopeone else (told to him or with him as a witness).

He could, doesn't mean that he did. But then you ask another question, and another, when he starts being unable to answer the details you know that he's distorting the truth and turn up the voltage a bit.

Mere knowledge does not automatically implies guilt by participation in the crime.

Depends what the crime is doesn't it, say conspiracy to commit murder?

99%? You must be an incurable optimist and appeal courts must have outlived their reasons for existence in your world.

So we're not wasting our time then, excellent.

It *is* formally incorrect, since distorted by the very practice of torture, to begin with. To claim otherwise is ignorant by default.

salaam.

Asssertion without the merest hint of reasoning or proof. Put up or shut up

 

[Aldebaran]

If i was being forced to sign my name to the second one but didn't want to admit my breakfast reading habits then it doesn't make it a false confession. It makes it one that had to be extorted from me. That's all.

That is not "all". The fact that you were under threat and/or torture made you unable to remember the event clearly and out of free will (let alone its details.) That on its own makes the confession a distortion of truth.

salaam.

 

[Yossarian]

That is not "all". The fact that you were under threat and/or torture made you unable to remember the event clearly and out of free will (let alone its details.) That on its own makes the confession a distortion of truth.

salaam.

Yep - I reckon after long enough in the hands of those skilled CIA 'interrogators', they'd not only be able to get you to confess to shooting JFK, they'd have you sincerely believing that you did shoot JFK.