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
NDAA Says Americans Can Be Detained Indefinitely - Business Insider - 1 views
Naomi Wolf: 'Obama can lock any US citizen up without trial' - YouTube - 0 views
-
Barack Obamas indefinite detention claim, coupled with the enemy combatant right he inherited, enables him to lock up any US citizen forever without a trial, author and political consultant Naomi Wolf told RT.
1 - 6 of 6
Showing 20▼ items per page