usmarine wrote:
well did they know he was innocent and still tortured him?
since they are not ms. cleo, mistakes happen.
so, if he was guilty, are those methods torture?
Your idiocy boggles me sometimes usmarine.
They detained him on a hunch-based, circumstantial suspicion and then proceeded to torture him to try and find out if they had the right man. He had nothing to tell them because he was innocent so they used the internment legislation to keep him detained and subject him to prolonged torture - still he had nothing to give. However, the authorities thought he was holding out and so they stepped up the torture techniques (just like ol' Kiefer in 24) and lo and behold he confessed.
The authorities began to realise they had the wrong man once they had started to build their case off of the back of the confession. They found out he had an alibi and suppressed this information so that his defence couldn't get it. Their case was finally confounded when a subsequent IRA detainee who had confessed to his crimes informed them they had the wrong man for the Guildford bombing...the authorities at this stage though had decided they had gone too far down their chosen path to backtrack.
Torture in this case led to the lives of Gerry Conlon and 10 other innocent Irish people being arguable ruined (bear in mind that one died in prison).
Fuck your mistakes, it's not good enough.