dreamer_easy | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

More fuel for the fire for those of us suspicious of the war on terrorism...

An alleged Australian terrorist has had his conviction quashed because of how his confession was extracted. According to the news item, after his arrested, he was assaulted, threatened with castration, threatened that his wife would be raped, and essentially told that if he didn't give the Australian police interviewers what they wanted, he'd end up in Guantánamo. The twist in the case is that, in other circumstances, he has pretty much admitted the crimes of which he was accused. A retrial may return him to prison; if it doesn't, then an apparently guilty man will walk free because his interrogation was against the law. What could be more counterproductive?

flyingsauce links to commentaries which cast doubt on the alleged liquid explosives plot. If it's true that liquid explosives would be extremely unlikely to succeed as bombs, then of course the alleged plot could still be for real, and horrific - but not the "unimaginable" threat we were told about.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

nevermind the obvious fact that the plane itself is one big liquid explosive.

i think the terrorists planned to use mentos + diet pepsi to "blow up" the planes.

That plan would make a great action film - I just can't quite think of a title.

Snacks On a Plane!

you are evil

Certainly the way he was treated initially by interrogators was shameful. Evidently they thought they were less accountable in handling suspects, and perhaps they were, but in acting the way they reportedly did they torpedoed the criminal case.

The price of having a legal system based on the adversarial model, which is IMHO the best protection for defendants, is that some prosecutions will be rendered useless by errors or even inappropriate behaviour by members of the investigative team. That means that some villains will get off, or get off lightly, despite having done bad things. It's considered a good trade for minimising the chances of an innocent man being railroaded.

WRT the scepticism of the chemistry aspect of the liquid explosives plot, I would submit that, in the event security services become aware of a group of people planning to explode liquid IEDs aboard airliners in flight, that they might consider the poor chances of success using liquid explosives to be irrelevant to whether an investigation, arrests, and tightening of security to be warranted. There's some smart comments at flyingsauce's post, too.

There is a steady trickle of plots emerging of people trying to kill, in large numbers, innocent civilians in various countries. The public has a right to question, to express scepticism, and to oppose the steps taken by governments and security services in response or in an attempt to seize the initiative. Just remember that for those in the security services, failure in their work means large numbers of deaths and then massive media and public attention on why the security services and the government were negligent, incompetent, or even complicit.

massive media and public attention on why the security services and the government were negligent, incompetent, or even complicit

del_c counters this point effectively, IMO.

My view is Australian-based (since that's where I live), but...

Australian intelligence agencies had numerous reports about imminent terrorist operations but misread the signs and failed to predict the 2002 Bali attacks..."

Inquiry finds intelligence failure over Bali

Intelligence agencies and authorities received even more warnings than first thought before the Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta, it has emerged.

Negative media attention is hard to miss when you're the subject of it.

As I've said, it's understandable that the police and intelligence agencies, knowing that they'd missed warnings of previious atrocities, would be keen to follow up even the flimsiest leads. However, the Australian government hasn't been damaged by the threat of terrorism; if anything, it's thriven on it.

I think you need to draw a clear division between the security services and the governments they work for. Yes, governments seem to gain from intelligence failures, but the security services really are sledged in the media when they miss things.

Certainly there was a lot of negative press against the CIA and the FBI following 9/11. Likewise ASIO and the ONA copped flak after the Bali bombings.

An article from the New Yorker on FBI and CIA interests in the 9/11 bombers prior to the attack

And it's not a surprise either - security services are (and should be) treated like any other public service organisation. If they're not doing their job properly, the people have a right to ask why, and to ask what could be done better. If it then turns out that an intelligence failure was the result of a government policy, then it's the government who should cop the blame, not the intelligence service.

This point I must concede.

The more self-aware individuals in the security services are a bit conflicted about this - terror is a bad business and frankly everyone would rather that robbery and hot-blooded murders were the worst thing about. Recent years have seen much $$ pumped into the security services. In that sense, it's been good for business. But I'd still rather it wasn't necessary.

Mind you, i the money's being spent on improving intelligence, then I have no problem with it - even a cursory glance at Hersh's chapter on 9/11 makes it clear that problems like shite computers and lack of translators were impeding US intelligence.

I think the tragedy is letting an obviously guilty person walk free.

But that's just me.

According to the news item, after his arrested, he was assaulted, threatened with castration, threatened that his wife would be raped, and essentially told that if he didn't give the Australian police interviewers what they wanted, he'd end up in Guantanamo

I'm suspicious of this. In fact I flat out think this is a load of bull. No names, no pictures, no cameras?

Was this military that did the interview? If it was... I seriously doubt that.

In a personal opinion- I could care less what people threaten in order to get guilty people to talk. Did it scare him? Yes? Good. Then tell us what you know and names.

But then again I was brainwashed by the military ^_^

[quote]I could care less what people threaten in order to get guilty people to talk[/quote]

If you already know they're guilty, why bother to get them to admit it?

I don't think that's quite the point childofares is making. And it doesn't matter who believes they're guilty, other than the jury. That's why investigators want to get offenders to admit their guilt; because it makes convictions much easier to obtain in court. Investigators try hard to get confessions because it's part of their job.

I think what childofares was getting at was that threats made in interrogation are just threats. Threatening people with violence is, of course, itself a crime, and I can't condone that; but applying psychological pressure of various sorts is pretty much the only legal tool that can be applied when interviewing a suspect, other than asking them nicely to confess.

I don't think those are the points

childofares is making, but I'd better wait for her response to my question - which is really asking whether it's all right to threaten a suspect, who is technically innocent, and may actually be innocent.

OTOH, while we have quite different perspectives, I don't think you and I actually disagree very much when it comes to this entire issue!

Actually those were my points :)

It's a common practice really. Police have used it for years. Paint a bleak picture for the criminal, shake em up, and maybe..just maybe they will confess. And of course like I said before, you never know what they will admit to!

Or how true it will be. That's the danger of scaring your suspect too badly, especially when you tell them their confession will avert something like the rape of their wife.

Now I'm not clear on whether you mean which of several threats you're referring to. The police may bandy about warnings of grim sentences, but they don't typically threaten castration. At least, not if we're both watching the same cop shows.

No I agree! If in fact they did threaten such a thing then they are 100% in the wrong. But in all honesty I doubt they actually did. I have no problems with some of the tactics used by police and military in interrogation purposes however there is a line.

But I'm typically pessisimistic about taking a criminals word anyway. Too many lawsuits from people trying to get a lessor sentence have jaded me I think.

I had a suit filed on me for physical abuse while I was an MP. Now I'm a 5'8" female weighing about 130 and the drunk guy was about 6'2" and 220-230 pounds. Except for putting cuffs on him, I never touched him except to check for weapons. But he claimed I physically abused him. I'm telling you this so you don't think I'm a crazy "kill them all!!!1!" type of person :)

Just a cynical one.

Sadly, I find it entirely plausible that US interrogators could have made those threats. But the news reports are vague and conflicting at this stage - I want to get my hands on the exact judgement, which should show up here, and should contain the details.

Oh dear. That wasn't directed towards me.

Sorry!

I've been reading more news items on this, and now I'm not clear whether Thomas was actually refused a lawyer at his Australian police interview, or agreed to be interviewed without one, ostensibly because he had been terrorised by Pakistani interrogators. Anyway, I've bookmarked the relevant AustLII page in hopes of having a look at the actual judgement.

You never know what else they will admit

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only