Lawyers: Threats Used Against Marines

[kskiska]

SAN DIEGO

Pentagon investigators threatened the death penalty and used other coercive techniques to obtain statements from some of the seven Marines and a Navy corpsman jailed for the shooting death of an Iraqi civilian, two defense lawyers say.

Attorney Jane Siegel, who represents Marine Pfc. John Jodka, 20, said Naval Criminal Investigative Service officials spoke to her client three times after he was taken into custody May 12. Jodka was questioned for up to eight hours at a time and was not offered water or toilet breaks, Siegel said.

"They used some really heavy-handed tactics to extract the information," Siegel said, adding that her client was not read his rights prior to questioning _ a fundamental right to which all accused troops are entitled _ and was threatened with the death penalty.

Jeremiah Sullivan III, the attorney representing the unidentified Navy medic, said his client was treated similarly.

Marine Lt. Col. Scott Fazekas, a Pentagon spokesman, referred questions to Camp Pendleton, where the troops are being held. Officials there declined to comment.

more…
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/16/D8I9KJA80.html

[UpInArms]

1. It seems that abuse is SOP for all reasons and seasons these days.

:eyes:

[Kagemusha]

2. So now marines get to use the US' bad reputation as a defense.

How funky is that.

[Rose Siding]

3. Negotiating to take the DP off the table is SOP in civil interrogations

isn't it? -and I've heard of extended interviews and denying bathroom breaks, but usually in the context of false confessions that they produce.

[PSPS]

4. Quit your whining

At least you didn't get the waterboard treatment.

Thanks to bush for our new culture of brutality.

[Mikimouse]

5. I saw a video yesterday with the parents of one of these...

guys, and my response was immediate furor.

"They used some really heavy-handed tactics to extract the information," Siegel said, adding that her client was not read his rights prior to questioning _ a fundamental right to which all accused troops are entitled _ and was threatened with the death penalty."

OMG! Such evil tactics!, OOps, I forgot...it's ok to torture people according to the American government. I hope tha the people who are whining about this remember that we are doing the same or worse to the un-charged detainees in Guantanamo; never mind what we have done at Abu Ghraib, and let's not forget 'extraordinary rendition. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Don't like it? Tough.

[saigon68]

8. Look what happened to this POW

Beaten to death by THUGS AND HOODLUMS

[Towelie]

9. What does this Marine have to do with Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo?

Absolutly nothing, but he's in the same massive branch of government as the other trouble-makers, so screw him...right? I mean, Lynndie England had fun abusing prisoners, so who cares if this guy is denied his rights? If you ask me, the parents should have praised the interrogator and demanded their son be treated cruelly until he pays for what those people he never met have done at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. :sarcasm:

[SlavesandBulldozers]

11. nobody said "screw him". you must admit that the irony is a little

interesting though. Before you get all "our troops, right or wrong, go USA!", you must admit that there is a bit of irony here.

Which is what Saigon pointed out before you reduced his argument down to an elementary level.

[Towelie]

12. It is ironic in a way...

But what irked me is that it seemed the person I replied to was implying that the parents would be better off to remain quiet about their son's rights being violated just because of what some other service members in a completely different branch and area of operations have done in the past. Maybe I misread it, who knows. I don't think that troops are above the law, or that their wrongdoings should go unpunished, but when rights are being infringed, regardless of the person's history or organization, I think anybody who bears witness to that needs to speak out against it, and it amazes me that people get upset when they do so.

[Mikimouse]

13. That would be me, and I didn't imply that they should be silent...

I stated that they insisted on seeing only one side of the picture, ignoring the fact that others, simply by virture of * deciding that he could, were being treated far more badly than that soldier. In my opinion, their position is one of profound ignorance. If they are so concerned about what is being done to their son, then they should be even more concerned about 'detainees' being waterboarded, attacked by dogs, beaten to death, etc. However, that doesn't seem to be an issue for them.

" but when rights are being infringed, regardless of the person's history or organization, I think anybody who bears witness to that needs to speak out against it, and it amazes me that people get upset when they do so."

It also amazes me that people should be SO concerned about the treatment of 'detainees'; after all, they are just 'ragtops' anyway.:sarcasm:

How about when the rights of HUMANS are infringed?

[HuffleClaw]

6. hmmm, so its only ok to coerce 'detainees' ???

what a joke.

[shadowknows69]

7. Only Americans are human

didn't you know. I feel ill. These poor marines being bullied into admitting they're murdering monsters. Do I really need the sarcasm smiley?

[truthisfreedom]

10. my god, thank bush. oh my, i never appreciated him before this.

<pure sarcasm.>