He should have gotten 280 counts of murder, and he should be on death row. A minor conviction is not a win.
As for his confession, he was not waterboarded. The other enhanced interrogation techniques are not even close to waterboarding—which is the only EIT that you can even make an argument is torture. BTW, to be torture is has to cause "severe" physical or psychological harm, which is certainly grey enough to be debatable. The other EITs, again, and not even close to waterboarding, though.
Regardless, the same government (Clinton, Bush, then Obama) have killed people with no due process as a matter of course. Actionable intell, cruise-missle/JDAM through roof. Actionable intell, guy grabbed up at great risk to troops... that's "bad." I guess we can learn the lesson not to take prisoners, and simply kill anyone even suspected, instead.
Lower sentences for military tribunals should give lie to the notion that it is some sort of conspiracy to murder them. Bottom line is that virtually all evidence must be thrown out in a civil court, and certainly everything after they were captured since they were not Mirandized.
If these guys deserve constitutional protections, why are we allowed to summarily execute them? Shouldn't we need to convict them before dropping the JDAM?
|