The law to set up military commissions at Guantanamo Bay's new portable courthouse bans the use of evidence obtained through torture, according to the NYT. The presiding judge has to decide whether or not to admit evidence obtained through techniques that seem to be torture, like waterboarding.
Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, points to the obvious problem: “Every time they try to introduce a piece of evidence, the defense lawyers are going to say, ‘This piece of evidence is unreliable,’” because it was obtained through coercion.
So, if America tries the planners of the Sept. 11th attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi and Walid bin Attash, using evidence obtained through waterboarding and other tortuous techniques, then doesn't it stand to reason that a good deal of this evidence will be thrown out?
That is a question I have been asking myself lately. Evidently, many government officials have been asking themselves the same thing. Their answer? Make new evidence!
I feel sick. Justice should not have to resemble a Soviet show trial. In this case, it does.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
i was reading about this too, i think it's funny that a lot of articles make it sound like it's some big news we waterboarded Khalid Shaihk Mohammed. i remember downloading a pdf of his statement like three years ago, and it there was a disclaimer: "This statement was obtained through the use of waterboarding." seriously.
today the NYT had the Not Un-Confusing headline "Waterboarding Not Legal Now"
Post a Comment