More Selling
More information about the White House's plans for alleged terrorists, "The bill would also bar “statements obtained by the use of torture” from being introduced as evidence, but evidence obtained during interrogations where coercion was used would be admissible unless a military judge found it 'unreliable.'"
CNN's version just had the first sentence but left the key clause about "coersion" out of the article.
Notice that the judge only rules if the information is "unreliable" not if the information was obtained through "torture" or "coersion." Also note that, according to the administration, waterboarding, a "coersive" technique that mimicks drowning-and can cause permanent injury or death, is not considered "torture."
Posts
2 comments:
What real-world leader wouldn't without comment reserve what he or she no doubt believes is his or her implicit and moral "right" to do what at the time and under the circumstances appears to be necessary?
For me it has to do with rule of law v. rule of man.
It is implicit in a democracy that the people are insulated from the whims and inclinations of one man. I have no doubt that doing what one thinks is best can conflict with the laws of the nation, but the winning view in that conflict should be addressed when he takes the oath to uphold the laws of the land. It's incumbent on the elected to rule according to law, not according to what they think is necessary.
There exist many opportunities to change the law, legaly. Use those.
Post a Comment