Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[kandrathe]

Well, I certainly agree that we''ll probably never get to see a proper accounting of what went on at Guantanamo, but even now it is not a matter of just "allegations," and there is plenty of corroborating evidence that the accounts of the people released from Guantanamo are not made up.

Look, I'm not saying that there would not be abuse, or maltreatment at this prison. There is some level of guard on prisoner violence at most prisons as I understand it. So, this clouds the issue of what is or is not a part of the "enhanced interrogation" and what is just cruel and inhumane treatment at the hands of a person who should be answering to a court martial.

Also, your example of the judge in Spain would be the case that even unsubstantiated claims of evidence by torture, or the probability of coercion would make much of the legal evidence inadmissible. As Pete said, there is a big difference between treating a conflict as "war" as opposed to building a legal case. The aim of Gitmo, right or wrong, was not to dispense justice, it was to extract actionable intelligence on potential threats. Trying them was an afterthought. In all those other barbaric nations that use "enhanced interrogation", there usually is not a problem with trials afterwards.