<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<SHOW TRIAL DEFINITION: THE END>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, anyway, about this trial: it seems that the key evidence against this guy was a witness, whose name was discovered through unlawful interrogation. The fruit from the poisonous tree can not be admitted as evidence. This is a fundamental principle to our legal system.
This appears to be the first real consequence of harsh interrogations. While they might yield information which prevents other terrorist attacks (some would say that makes them worthwhile), the information they yield can not be admitted at a trial as evidence.
I would say this also makes a civilian trial for KSM impossible, since his confession was post-interrogation, no? I don't know what to make of this. I can't say I want him walking around, but what choice do they have?
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.
"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."
Last edited by Cimarron29414; 11-19-2010 at 10:02 AM..
|