World | USA
Pentagon barred from using torture confession
A US military judge barred the Pentagon on Tuesday from using a Guantanamo prisoner's confession to Afghan authorities as trial evidence, saying it was obtained through torture.
- AP
- Published: 09:24 October 29, 2008
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba: A US military judge barred the Pentagon on Tuesday from using a Guantanamo prisoner's confession to Afghan authorities as trial evidence, saying it was obtained through torture.
Army Colonel Stephen Henley said Mohammed Jawad's statements "were obtained by physical intimidation and threats of death which, under the circumstances, constitute torture."
Jawad's defense attorney, Air Force Major David Frakt, said that the ruling removes "the lynchpin
of the government's case."
Guantanamo's chief prosecutor, Army Colonel Lawrence Morris, said he recognied how the judge made his decision and needed to study the ruling before making more comments.
Jawad, who was still a teenager at the time, is accused of injuring two U.S. soldiers with a grenade in 2002. He allegedly said during his interrogation in Kabul that he hoped the Americans died, and would do it again.
But Henley said Jawad confessed only after police commanders and high-ranking Afghan government officials threatened to kill him and his family - a strategy intended to inflict severe pain that constitutes torture.
"During the interrogation, someone told the accused, 'You will be killed if you do not confess to the grenade attack,' and, 'We will arrest your family and kill them if you do not confess,' or words to that effect," Henley wrote in response to a defence motion to suppress the evidence. "It was a credible threat."
Frakt said the ruling is a "further disintegration of the government's case," and that the Afghans' descriptions of Jawad's confession were never credible to begin with. He also praised the judge for "adopting a traditional definition of torture rather than making one up."
The judge said torture includes statements obtained by use of death threats to the speaker or his family, and that actual physical or mental injury is not required. "The relevant inquiry is whether the threat was specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within the interrogator's custody or control," Henley wrote.
Share this article
News Editor's choice
-
Daughters: Book on Sadat 'one-sided'
Pictorial collection excludes children from first wife
-
Over 6,000 Haj pilgrims to get vaccines
H1N1 and meningitis jabs compulsory for those going to Makkah in Saudi Arabia
-
Abu Dhabi residential city on track
Abu Dhabi Municipality says Dh651m infrastructure project to be completed
