esrosedotblog

WSJ?OTD

"Should evidence obtained through torture be admissible in military commission trials?"

My answer is a little more complicated than the YES/NO choice.

I want to know why the perpetrators of the torture aren't on trial and what that hell is going on that it took place in the first instance?

We shouldn't even be at this question.

So, I think that there is a deeper implication here; that we all agree there has been torture and a lot of it. Period.

And that we are going to have to deal with this question sooner or later.

The old theory is that information obtained during torture is unreliable in the first place. In addition, it can always be recanted. And would be.

In fact, the question does not make sense. It is a 'when did you quit beating your wife' type of question.

I voted NO of course as did 65% of the other respondents.

One can only assume that the 35% who voted YES are the same hard core of kool-aid drinkers who persist in supporting bush.

At least they convicted one of the dog guys yesterday.