Coerced Confessions? Since When Do We Care?
Article: A
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - 4 Years in U.S Custody (6 Months in Guantanamo Bay) 
Couple of Weeks?
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - 4 Years in U.S Custody (6 Months in Guantanamo Bay) Confessed to everything imaginable, with many proven to be outright false.
Vs.
Article: B
Couple of Weeks?Confessed to passing a disputed border line on the Sea
Both are unrealiable, especially the first one. But each time the alleged sailer confessions are mentioned, they are always disputed for being under "duress" or "coercion," and each article I read so far always puts the sailors confessions in quotes (ex: British Sailors "Confessed")
But the media had no problem eating up Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confessions. Never once did they publish an article where it said (ex: Mohammed "Confessed" about 9/11)
Although there are obvious biases here involved and what not, but I still find it hilarious.
posted by NotALemming77 at 3:50 AM
5 Comments:
I actually did watch a news broadcast (can't recall which station) that explored the credibility of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession. The report stated that the CIA and American government had admitted to using extreme interrogaion tactics, including one that is designed to stimulate the feelings of drowning. However, the program went on to mention that although the reliability of a confession obtained under such great duress is suspect, Khalid Sheikh willingly confessed weeks later after the interrogation was conducted. This explanation was supposed to imply that although controversial confession methods may have been used, Khalid's statement is completely reliable because he clearly confessed in court where he was under no immediate threat. But isn't it possible that the tactics employed against him had been so awful that he would lie about anything just to avoid be tortured again?
But isn't it possible that the tactics employed against him had been so awful that he would lie about anything just to avoid be tortured again?
Absolutely. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors. My friend was interrogated by the police once before and he said they made up every lie in the book to make him confess. They made up a bunch of stories that were not true trying to get something out of him. And they interrogated him so badly even when he wasn't a prime suspect. So if it was a prime suspect in a one of the biggest terrorist acts in American history, you bet that the interrogation process must have been somewhat coercive and strenuous. I think that lying would get them out of a lot more tortuous scenarios instead of denying denying denying because God knows what they do that we don't know about. Therefore, answering your question, I totally believe that they utilize such cruel tactics enabling the "truth" to be said.
Yeah, Im sure there were some shows that delved deeper into Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession. But the regular Joe just saw the headlines and made up his mind after that. Also I keep seeing this smirk on the faces of many news anchors, each time they bring up the Sailors' confessions. Where was your smirk before Mrs. Soledad O'Brien? Who was really coerced? Unbelievable...actually believable in the world we live in.
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength
I knew this would happen. The newly-released soldiers are being blamed for not helping with the demonization of Iran. Some are starting suggest that the soldiers were smiling too much and were "too cooperative" with the most "evil" world leader alive. Check out a portion of April 5's transcript of CNN's Situation Room, shown below.
By the way, their is no doubt that Blair is pissed. He just lost an easy oppertunity to get more support for a future war with Iran. Maybe next time Blair, you have a ton of subversive tricks up your sleave anyway. In the end, Iran played its cards right, and showed the world who the real "bad guys" are.
FOREMAN (on camera): You want an extraordinary contrast to consider here? Back during the Vietnam War, Jeremiah Denton who is a retired senator -- he's a retired naval admiral, he was taken hostage by the Vietnamese. He was held for seven years. Tortured the whole time, and when he was put on TV, he not only did not cooperate, but while he spoke, he blinked in Morse code the message, "torture."
I spoke to the -- to the admiral today. He had some astonishing things to say. He said these young people should not be judged too quickly. That there should be a fair hearing into what they did as captives but there are still serious questions about that as well.
Not just what the Iranians did, but what these British folks did. Did they comport themselves as well as they might while in captivity? Serious questions from military people who are saying, the Iranians, we know the deal with them. What about this?
MALVEAUX: So the suggestion is perhaps they were too cooperative in their behavior when they were held captive?
FOREMAN: Nobody wants to say that but they are saying there was an awful lot of smiling, an awful lot of backslapping, you're being measured for suits. Maybe that shouldn't have happened.
MALVEAUX: Thank you so much. Tom Foreman. Thanks for joining us. I'm Suzanne Malveaux. Up next, PAULA ZAHN NOW.
It seems to boil down to a difference in perspective. In a particular situation, depending on the side, one is automatically labeled good, and the actions just, while the other is labeled evil and its actions unjust. Even when the actions in question are the exact same thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home