Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

xocetaceans

(4,263 posts)
4. Probably because they ostensibly water-boarded him 183 times. He should be locked away permanently at least...
Fri Jul 11, 2025, 05:33 PM
Jul 11

...but how does a government try someone who has been so blatantly tortured? Torture seems typically (if historical opinions are accurate) to lead to confession of anything whether it is true or not, and torture is a war crime. The plea deal with life without parole is probably the best that can be gotten if the allegations of the war crime of torture are to be avoided in court.

The rule of law has to take precedence over revenge. That should be clear, especially now that Trump has masked goon squads on the streets. (I would refer to them minimally respectfully as officers if they could be identified as such, but wearing masks as they are doing, they might also just be a bunch of cowardly goons.)

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the C.I.A.
By Dexter Filkins

December 31, 2014

...
In Poland, the interrogators subjected Mohammed to waterboarding, a form of torture that makes a person believe he is drowning, at least a hundred and eighty-three times.
...


https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-cia


Of course, I am all for an investigation and a subsequent prosecution of W, Cheney, Yoo, Addington, et al. who seem to have caused the commission of torture in the name of the US. Throwing out the plea deal might be a step down the road to that prosecution, but I doubt it.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»U.S. appeals court tosses...»Reply #4