confess

confession 1:

Reporter to Tony Snow on Iraq:

"What went wrong?" the reporter reasonably asked.
Snow replied: "I'm not sure anything went wrong."

Here's a little reason why, a declassified report from prior (2002) to the Iraq Invasion giving the good oil on what would be the most likely outcome:

following the release of military documents from 2002 that revealed that the U.S. expected that by now (well end of 2006) a token American force of 5,000 would be able to keep things under control in Iraq -- and the occupation would require only a two or three month "stabilization" period.

the follow up question brought a howler of a response:

Q: But this estimate was monumentally wrong. So would the President, knowing what he knows today, still have decided to go into Iraq?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

and you wonder why people are talking of war with Iran, stupid people do stupid things and you cant then blame for exercising their stupidity, even when the facts are piled high atop their heads. The exact same people are compiling and planning the dossiers on Iran as we speak.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6364507.stm

Confession 2: (hypothetical)

Imagine you are a juror on a trial.

You are presented with a signed confession by the accused (Mr X) stating that he murdered Mr.Z (not his real name).

You are then shown a video of the confession, the accused is shackled to a chair and beaten with a baton for 12 hours straight until he signs the confession.

Do you convict on the basis of the "confession"?

Confession 3: (allowed under US miltitary tribunal)

You are a juror on a trial.

You are presented with a statement by Mr A, which reads, "I heard from a friend of mine Mr Y, that Mr X had attempted to or wanted to murder an American. No I have never met Mr X."

This is read into court documents as a fact, not as hearsay, the basis being that Mr X was within a radius of say 60 miles of where Mr Y was and may have been present at a given location. Giving the hearsay a probability that it is materially correct and factual.

You are not given a video of Mr A being shackled to a chair for up to 6 months, 8 hours at a time, with his hands handcuffed to his feet in a freezing room while cold water is poured into his nose and mouth. He has also not had more than 20 minutes sleep a night for more two weeks, and the statement is dictated by a CIA operative, this treatment continues until he signs the statement. Prior to his arrival into the hands of the American military justice system, he had been shipped off to Egypt by the CIA where he was held in a dungeon for 6 months while his fingernails were torn out and he was tortured everyday of the time he was there.

None of what the CIA did to Mr A in the American system is classified as torture.

The American justice system does not acknowledge that Mr A was in any way mistreated in the Egyptian dungeon and even refuses to acknowledge that Mr A was ever in Egypt on the grounds of national secturity.

The only fact you know is that Mr A is treated as a witness and the system believes his statement to be materially factual, therefor perfectly legal and admissable evidence.

Do you convict?

Welcome to David Hicks country, feel the fairness.