don't virtually all progressives and Democrats argue that torture produces unreliable evidence? If it's really true (as Obama defenders claim) that the evidence we have against these detainees was obtained by torture and is therefore inadmissible in real courts, do you really think such unreliable evidence -- evidence we obtained by torture -- should be the basis for concluding that someone is so "dangerous" that they belong in prison indefinitely with no trial? If you don't trust evidence obtained by torture, why do you trust it to justify holding someone forever, with no trial, as "dangerous"?
1More
Would We Be Better Off If John McCain Were President? | World | AlterNet - 0 views
1More
Debt Ceiling Deal: The Democrats Take a Dive | Rolling Stone Politics | Taibblog | Matt... - 0 views
1 - 10 of 10
Showing 20▼ items per page