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"?
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
1More
1More
Will Bush's Torture Memo Team Face Justice in Spain? - 0 views
1More
American Vet to Sue Rumsfeld Over Torture - 0 views
1More
Calls Mount to Investigate Bush-Era Officials for Torture - 0 views
1More
Bagram detention centre now twice the size of Guantanamo - Asia, World - The Independent - 0 views
1More