questionable terrorist "confession"

[redbird]

The press seem far too credulous about Khalid Mohammed's alleged confession. The BBC at least mentions Amnesty International's pointing out that the statement may have been coerced, but I feel as though I'm the only person looking at these stories and thinking "show trial." Maybe he did everything he said, maybe he did none of it, maybe he's been dead for a year and they'll announce three weeks from now that he's had a fatal heart attack.

To believe the claims that Khalid Mohammed confessed to these crimes means taking the words of the U.S. government for what he said. In the general case, it's not prudent to accept the prosecution's unsupported claims about a defendant. It's not just that the statement may have been coerced: it may never have been made at all. A blacked-out transcript isn't strong evidence.

In the second, I can't think of any motivation anyone involved in this has to be telling the truth: even if Mohammed said everything they claim he did, he may well be lying. He has reason to believe that, best case, he's stuck for life in Guantanamo, away from everyone he knows and cares about. A death sentence might seem like a relief in comparison.

Also, assuming he is an Al-Qaeda supporter, not a random person arrested by mistake, he might think it's tactically useful to draw attention to himself and away from Al-Qaeda members who are still free in the world and could plot further actions. And "we also were going to do X, Y, and Z" might just be a way of making the organization look bigger and more dangerous. Meanwhile, the people running those tribunals want us all to believe that Al-Qaeda is big and dangerous, but that they have captured one of the most important leaders of that group.

[crossposting from my weblog]

Comments

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

It was certainly MY instant thought.