BUSHCO: "Essentially wanted to CLEANSE the information so that it could be used in court"

FBI ‘Clean Team’ re-interrogated 9/11 suspects
Agency tried non-coercive techniques to protect case against six detainees
By Josh White, Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick
Feb. 11, 2008

Fruit of the Poison Tree. WP:

FBI "Clean Team" Re-Interrogated 9/11 Suspects.

"FBI and military interrogators who began work with the suspects in late 2006 called themselves the 'Clean Team,' and set as their goal collecting of virtually the same information the CIA had obtained from five of the six through duress at secret prisons..... Prosecutors and top administration officials essentially wanted to cleanse the information so that it could be used in court, a process that federal prosecutors typically follow in U.S. criminal cases with investigative problems or botched interrogations. Officials wanted to go into court without any doubts about the viability of their evidence, and they had serious reservations about the reliability of what the CIA had obtained for intelligence purposes. ...

"Notably absent from the Pentagon's list (of those to go military commission trial) are Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein, commonly known as Abu Zubaida, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the detainees who, in addition to Mohammed, are known to have been subjected to waterboarding. Lawyers for the detainees have predicted that courts will throw out as illegal the evidence the CIA obtained in such sessions. ...

"'There's something in American jurisprudence called 'fruit of the poisonous tree': You can clean up the tree a little but it's hard to do,' said John D. Hutson, a retired Navy rear admiral and former judge advocate general. 'Once you torture someone, it is hard to un-torture them. The general public is going to be concerned about the validity of the testimony.'"

more at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23120362/

attack us.

by the Russians, not to judge too quickly. Nope, I can't honestly say how I would react in similar circumstances - and while we know how we would like to behave, you can't either.

I heard familiar terror in the voices of those who authorized these techniques and know that in closed hearings, they got an earful. But the system we've established is finally conducting oversight, so if we're not content w/our party in charge ... we have no biz in government.

But my point is more limited - and simply factual. We have constitutional rights that are not extended to foreigners ... and advocating it now is simply a political gimme to the GOP.

Can we agree on that legal point and disagree agreeably on everything else?

The Constitution does not extend to foreigners.

The point at which I am greatly concerned is in what appear to be violations of human rights. Not by a few bad apples, or even well meaning interrogators who may have crossed the line in times of great uncertainty. I could let myself let that go.

But, the torture was conducted systematically, highly organized and highly authorized. It looks as if it was even outsourced to contractors. These techniques are known to provide unreliable intelligence and information.

We are now looking a the prospect of 6 years after the event, we are going to try some people for the attacks. I don't think they will have a fair trial, and I don't think we will get convictions that hold up through the legal system.

They messed it all up.

session, I have no doubt the committee members heard more ... they imply as much in their statements.

So, now that our party has oversight - how should a good party member react? I believe your first instinct is correct: intelligence officials did what they did to a limited number of prisoners during a limited period of time.

If there's more, I'll demonstrate outrage. Until then, I must accept that my own reaction is based on traumatic events.

It's about finding out what really happened.

How do we know that these people who have been tortured are the only culprits without the full information on the record?

sessions. So can you. They're sober, sad and the administration officials who found themselves in office after the activities took place were appropriately stunned. That's the only expression I can describe for someone like Hayden, who normally talks w/a facial tic. I only saw him spasm once.

This is not an easy thing to go through, but we must place faith in our own party's capabilities or what are we doing here?

and is outlawed by every international organization I can think of. As for someone being tried in a US court--innocent until proven guilty. If these six men are indeed guilty, it should be able to be proven in a court of law.

I couldn't disagree with you more!

-Hoot

allegedly the planners, if not the perpetrators. Disagreeing on principle, but here we are ... thankfully, still agreeable.

Doesn't it matter to you that we allow our justice system to proceed without the poison of tortured "confessions"?

As I see it, granting prisoners their rights ensures greater accuracy and real accountability, for both citizens and non-citizens, and only enhances our national and international credibility at a time when both are sorely lacking. When we start making distinctions about which humans have more "rights" than others we start down a pretty nasty slippery slope.

more eager than ever to see how this proceeds. If * can find a way to mess it up, I'm sure he will.

I wish I could hold absolute principles regarding human rights, but I've heard first hand about retribution ... this doesn't qualify.

Your incredibly sad reaction to what you've seen and/or heard can be helped. I would hope that you could (some day) develop that sense of compassion and a belief in the value of equal justice for all humans.

It's not just some silly ideal for the naive. Many people who have experienced great tragedy, injustice and atrocity both personally and vicariously would vehemently disagree with your position.

I would confess or say anything just to make the torture stop. (See McCain in North Vietnam for more on this.)

Ike said no they must be tried and Neuremburg happened.

I stand for the rule of law, and for the Constitution. Tortured evidence is tainted and belongs nowhere near a real court.

-Hoot

I forget the exact quote, but the gist of it is that a German minister during WWII said that first they went after one group. He said nothing because he did not belong to that group. Then they went after another, and again he said nothing, for the same reason. Soon they came for him and there was no one left to speak for him.

"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."

Do we not have rule of law? Do we not have equal application of the law? Which "unalienable rights" did the Creator only give to American citizens?
Have you read the Constitution? Why is there a distinction between "citizens" and "persons", alluded to in the same amendments? For example:

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If the Constitution does not apply to foreigners within US jurisdiction, we do not deserve those rights ourselves. Once we lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists, we are no better than they are.
The more we dishonor the Constitution, the less we deserve it.

BTW, the Constitution does not "give" or "grant" rights, or "extend" rights. The rights are "unalienable", with which we "humans" are all endowed. The Constitution limits the powers of government to infringe on those rights. This was the whole argument against inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Some founders thought that if rights were enumerated in the BOR, the people would think that rights were granted and not "unalienable". Turns out those founders were right. Even idiots on the Supreme Court like Scalia do not understand this basic fact.

So now we have a situation where people think that they only have rights that the Constitution specifically "grants" them and only Americans have God-given rights. Wonderful.

I am not a constitutional scholar nor a lawyer, but these facts are self-evident, as the founders told us.

Look, citizens have privileges in addition to rights, foreigners ain't got. So let's get that strawman out of the way.

The accused in question weren't picked up next door and honestly, as someone who lived here 9/11/01, I would not want to sit on that jury.

Torture-coerced evidence is OK? You can torture anyone to say anything you want them to, then use that coerced testimony against them, in secret, without the necessity of their presence at their own trials and then put them to death? This is the American way? What a country!

You still haven't mentioned which rights God only gave to Americans. Nobody said that detainees deserved American jury trials, but they should be treated as we would treat any POW, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, which IS American law by treaty.

Otherwise, why don't we just parade them in front of the American people, draw and quarter them, disembowel them and then burn them at the stake? That would get better ratings than American Idol. It's just a damn good thing that Americans know when someone is guilty without that ridiculous encumberance known as a fair trial.

as Fredda mentioned the Nazis...why not have a Nuremburg trial for the al-Qaeda leaders?

A trial under international law and on the record. That seems the fairest way to me.

ON edit: not just fair but to make sure we get the right people, ALL of them.

at me because I won't share your perspective. I can't ... having seen what I've seen and known the people I've known. But as far as legal niceties go - my point remains: fruit of the poison tree is a principle that applies to our criminal courts. Look it up if you want to know if it applies to the international criminal court, for example ... it's more complicate than first appears.

but why swap atrocities? To get a rise when you can't prevail on your argument's merits?

But clearly you don't want that discussion. You just want to threaten to tell stories....

Look, many people have horror stories of their own. You persist in always bringing up "your atrocities" like you are the only one on DU with any credibility on the horror front. So why not for a change, assume everyone has their own horror story, their own little tale of injustice and outrage and atrocity, their own contact with inhumanity, and then begin your convo with people from there?

have to push mine, nor am I compelled to respond to yours.

technique, one which is very successful in politics.

However, let's look at the facts. The 9/11 Commission was chaired by a WH insider - Philip Zelikow. Bush & Cheney spoke to the commission behind closed doors and off the record. Even after that whitewash there were 28 "redacted" pages.

Now we find out that several detainees were tortured but the evidence was destroyed. Only a summary of the findings of the torture apparently exists. We don't even know who most of these people are.

So...it comes down to a matter of belief. You believe Bush-Cheney when they say these are the right guys. I don't believe them. It's a faith-based system of justice.

That's why in the old days there was a concept of the evidence-based rule of law with due process, checks and balances etc. Seems to me that's better system.

This is where we are as a country and the barbarity is becoming acceptable. The point is that there is no stopping all of this as long as we accept it. It is a slippery slope; the only question is how far do we want to descend into barbarism. Some people evidently think we need to lower ourselves to the level of the "terrorists", throw the rule of law out the window, be comfortable with our depravity and still call ourselves "the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave".

As another poster said in another thread, other countries (Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Far East, etc.) have been dealing with terrorism for decades but still manage to maintain their governments, their societies, their relationships with other countries and don't compromise their own laws and their own citizens' rights. Our country gets hit once with 9/11 and proceeds to deteriorate into a brutish, barbaric, failing empire that doesn't honor it's own citizens' rights, much less the human rights of any person, citizen or not. We are letting this happen. And creating more terrorists in the "bargain".

What did I say that was not civil?

would attack us until they've been tried. It's like saying torture was justified because the man eventually admitted to being a terrorist.

By the way-- treating foreigners in the way you describe is a good way to create more people who would like to attack us.

speaking unkindly of the king.

and they are so lost with out doughy piehead boy Rove that they actually introduce "INTERROGATION" into the discussion. Of course I am assuming that the MSM will mention it or point that out-because they sure as hell haven't before.

told the detainees "tell the FBI what we told you to say...or we'll torture you again"..?

:shrug:

let alone a real court of law. The fascists who have wormed their way into our government and our court system scare me. :scared:

Let's keep one thing in mind about our Constitution: it is only as strong as the people who are determined to uphold it as the supreme law of the land, and determined to hold accountable those who violate it. Otherwise, it's just a piece of paper.

Honestly, it is shocking that we have now have a system that advocates the abuse of prisoners. Regardless of who those prisoners may be. If it were one of us in another Nation's prison, we would be outraged, our people would be outraged. Confession obtained via the use of torture is meaningless. I know enough to know that if you push someone hard enough - far enough beyond the breaking point, they will do absolutely anything you say. They would confess to eating infants if it would stop their torment.

I have faced torture - of a different nature to be sure, yet I would have admitted to anything to make it stop.

There is no justification for this. It just goes to show how far our government has gone beyond reason, beyond having any respect for human rights. Put any one of us in the same situation, and I have little doubt that (at least) the vast majority of us would admit to all kinds of crimes of which we were not guilty.

Any trial in this case is a farce, and I denounce it as I would denounce any who considered it just or legit. Had it been any one of us... I would like to think that all would be outraged, regardless of guilt or innocence.

Once more, I find myself ashamed for America. The international world will know this to be the mockery of justice that it is, as do the majority of us. Where will the madness end? Should we torture any suspect who may possibly be related to terrorists in some manner? Provided, of course, that they are *foreign*? Damn sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in.

So how did the "clean team" know these men needed to be interogated? Lucky guess?

but it's OK to "cleanse" testimony gained through torture?

It's a sick nation that would allow this

...we're gonna shove this right in your face, and there's nothing you can do about it", to anyone who can see the deception.

Look, anyone with a clue knows by now that if they want the "suspects" to whistle Dixie, they will do it on cue in 4/4 time. By the Sixties, the agency could take a mind apart and put it back together again in short order. This, like everything else under the enemy occupation, has zero legitimacy.