Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
statements made without access to a laywer and in secret and quite possibley under duress are not considered admissible evidence in democratic countries.
|
Well, no shit. If you read the speech made by the AUSA, you will find he states this at least 4 times, mentioning that those statements cannot be used in a prosecution because he did not have a lawyer.
Don't get me wrong -- I don't like him being denied counsel either. Here's what is likely to happen with this, like it or not: he will be continually detained in a jail of one form or another for years until the "war on terror" blows over, at which time he will likely be released with nary a charge ever being filed. He committed no acts to garner him a prosecution, except perhaps a charge of "conspiracy." Regarding such a charge, it is highly unlikely that proof will be available to effectively prosecute him (because the conspiracy had not progressed far enough in action to be criminal under the law, I believe). So, he will likely be set free at the end of it all.
Is it a travesty of justice? You decide. While I highly support the rights of individuals against any government, I must say that he gave up some very useful information in bringing high-level terrorists to justice. Is it worth the trade-off? Sadly, only time will tell. If his years in jail and his interrogation result in high level A.Q. members being caught, then in my mind, yes, it was worth commuting his rights for a few years, and it was worth foregoing a real criminal charge against him.
[ 06-04-2004, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]