|
I don't know why the US didn't make him available for testimony. I wonder -- did the prosecution seek to use him to make its case-in-chief or did the defense seek to use him to rebut the prosecution's evidence? If it was only the defense that wanted to use him, the US may have rightly seen it as a ploy to grandstand a courtroom and use the witness chair as a pulpit for Al Queda and radical Islam or, worse, accomplish some even more nefarious purpose (like pass information from captured terrorists in Gitmo to their Euro network). Who can know why he was not produced? I'd like to know, of course.
Regarding the use of a decreased sentence to reflect relative levels of culpability, that may be the case. One could see a fair system of justice set up to where doubts in culpability reduce the sentence. In the US, the setup is that once guilt is determined, the rightness of the determination is (supposedly) presumed at sentencing. One goes into the sentencing hearing 100% guilty -- the ONE thing you CAN'T argue at sentencing is lack of culpability. You can argue there were mitigating factors, that you have been a good guy until this crime, that your sick momma beat you, etc -- but the court frowns heavily on denying guilt after a conviction. It's seen as a refusal to be rehabilitated. In fact, this is one problem wrongfully-convicted persons face -- no parole board is going to let you out of jail until you admit and accept your guilt.
The article mentions that there was insufficient evidence without the Gitmo prisoner's testimony. If anyone runs across more info on what this prison was supposed to add to the trial, please post it. Thx.
__________________
 
|