There's an interesting story in the Washington Post describing imposed limits placed on use of evidence obtained by "highly coercive" means -- aka torture.
There are a number of reasons why evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible in a respectable Court. Some of these reasons related to human dignity and so may be seen as weak or merely old-fashioned scruples. Perhaps a more cogent reason to exclude such evidence is that it is unreliable.
Under torture a person will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear. Police have long known statements extracted by physical pressure -- the Third Degree -- are useful for conviction but useless for fact finding.
In this context the ruling that prosecutors in the trial of Osama bin Laden's former driver cannot use as evidence some statements the defendant gave interrogators because they were obtained under "highly coercive" conditions while he was a captive in Afghanistan makes very good sense.
That said, the exclusion may cause a major problem for the Guantanamo prosecutions. The story notes:
Air Force Col. Morris Davis, who resigned last year as the chief prosecutor for military commissions in part because he refused to introduce evidence obtained by coercion, said he thinks the decision could cause prosecutors significant problems. He said it sets a precedent in which many statements elicited from other detainees cannot be used.
The link to the full story is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/21/AR2008072100778.html?referrer=emailarticle
1 comment:
So a kangaroo court cannot use "evidence" obtained by human rights abuse and torture against mastermind terrorist and chauffeur....
While interesting, it should have been common sense to these thugs....
In good news, the terrorist watch list in the U.S. is up to 1 000 000 names - Whoot!
Post a Comment