Machiavelli's ApprenticeTHERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERSON WHO CAN RESIST TORTURE. Give me the man who thinks he "won't talk", and I guarantee he'll spill his guts by the time I get around to the third fingernail - perhaps the fourth one if he's really good.
There were some British and American secret agents that got through the brutal torture of Gestapo during WW II without giving any information. Propably there aren't many people like these, but there are some.
When a school or bus station is going to be blown up by a hidden bomb in 10 minutes - the terrorist's "human rights" would be my least concern.
Just a rhetorical question: are we any better people than terrorists if we torture them to death? Doesn't it go against the principles of humanity and the idea of fighting against brutal dictators, the very same values that the US have used to justify the Iraq campaign? Don't get me wrong, this isn't my opinion exactly, it's just a question.
Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
Why would he fasley confess? To earn a enjoyable sentence of six consecutive life terms? I dont think so.
False confessions are far from rare. It's not hard at all to dig up examples from people confessing to crimes they never commited. A recent example here was of a man who was accused of sexual abuse of a young girl and her brother and the murder on the girl (the boy escaped). The men was spotted in the area around the time of the crime, questioned and made a confession. However the boy never recognized the man but police talked to boy into cooperating and saying that the man was the one obe abducted and abused him and his sister. Later on the actually man ho did it confessed and was arrested (can't remember how). After an independant team investigated how an innocent person could confes, be sentenced for life -he served four or five years in jail- they concluded that the interogation methods by the police and the constant presure and accudations made the man give in, confessing was the easy way out. The police was sure this was the guy responsible and ended up in a tunnel vision basically only looking into evidence supporting their ideas and ignoring evidence that could prove otherwhys, prove such as the interview with the boy and DNA traces of a unidentified person on the body of the girl.
If you want an American example more related to the war on terror just look at the people at Guantanimo Bay, that group of three British citizens that ended up there and while at first denying everything also "admitted" things they never did or could have done due to presure. One of the man said "After such brutal treatment you begin to think that you must be guilty, why else would they treat you like this?" Only when M5 came up with evidence showing that the three where in the UK during some of the things they had been accused of they were released, without hearing any reason or apoligy.
A confession can aid in a conviction but it's far from being objective proof, certainly if people are interogated and put under pressure.
Yes yes I know you can't take the word of a suspect to be the actual truth, it's up to the policy to verify their statements, check on them and use them in their investigation.
So could Moussaoiry be inocent? Perhaps though unlikely. I'm not part of an investigation team that has acces to see of the prosecutors made fatal mistakes in their invesigation. I will asume they are right but no system is fail prove.