Prosecutors have already excluded statements that Mohammed made after his capture when he was held by the CIA in overseas prisons and subjected to brutal treatment including waterboarding before his transfer in 2006 to Guantanamo, the Times reported.
But the trial judge Lieutenant Colonel Michael Schrama has concluded that Mohammed’s subsequent interrogations in 2007 at Guantanamo were also inadmissible.
Schrama cited an “unbroken continuation of the CIA’s psychological conditioning and severe coercion,” and also found that FBI agents intentionally failed to tell Mohammed that he had a right to be silent and to consult a lawyer. (Reporting by AFP)
The United States justice system is based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. He has not been proven guilty. As such he is innocent in the eyes of the law.
If you imprison people based on what they might do, you no longer have a justice system. All you have is a lawless police state.
Well we’re doing a shit ton of the last thing you mentioned, so it appears we’re a lawless state.
As a Native American I and my ancestors have been saying this all along. It’s just that non wealthy white people are finally being targeted and are just now realizing it’s the case. Maybe they’ll eventually realize it’s always been the case.
If freed, there is every reason to believe he would have planned and executed further attacks, and probably that he would today. Which means all of those additional lost lives are the cost to free him. That’s not a cost that’s in our interest to pay. It’s certainly not a cost I’d be willing to pay.
Asymmetrical warfare is something that isn’t fully handled by a legal system and not a purely military issue. This is a not a case of easy answers and clear morality. If the families of those alternative timeline victims could blame you for their loss, would the right choice be so clear to you? It wouldn’t to me.
You clearly have no morality.
If it’s so clear that he did it then there should be plenty of evidence and torture shouldn’t even be necessary. As to the risk of him planning the next terrorism attack - incarceration “just in case” isn’t necessary (and not lawful for good reason) - planning crimes, especially terrorist offences, are already crimes themselves, so it doesn’t have to go that far to rearrest him if he really does tend to go in that direction.
According to who? The CIA and FBI agents that beat a confession out of him? The press that presumed him guilty the moment they chose to notice him? We have no idea who this guy actually is other than what they claim, because it’s never come out in a public court of law.
If there’s evidence to convict him, convict him and make him suffer the penalty of the law. Otherwise you’re destroying a man on the basis of hearsay, and undermining your own justice system in the process.