HERE WE GO again:
…the [Obama!] administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. [New York Times]
But why can’t we bring them to trial?
[Emphasis added.] The legal interpretation applies to detainees whom the government concludes should be held because they are a continuing danger to national security but who cannot be brought to trial for various reasons, like evidence tainted by harsh interrogations. [NYT]
Hard evidence is not “tainted” by what goes on in the interrogation room. Evidence can be corroborated, clarified, knitted together, by a good interrogator, but the physical evidence itself is not changed.
What is being alluded to here is that the information itself, obtained through harsh interrogations, is tainted. Let me reiterate what was said in this space just the other day: Our
harsh interrogation torture methods are not designed to elicit reliable information. It is not right to call what comes from these interrogations “evidence,” tainted or otherwise.
To rephrase: The Obama! administration will continue to hold detainees who have been tortured, without bringing them to trial, because the evidence against them was gathered by torturing them.