- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I wasn't saying that Obama intended to extend the rationale to future cases. I was asking you: what possible grounds is there for confining the rationale to past cases? If we decide now that it's worth it to use torture-obtained evidence to convict accused terrorists, what rationale is there for reaching a different conclusion in the future when the circumstances are identical?
Did you read the 1935 case, where the Supreme Court overturned murder convictions of African-American defendants because the confessions were obtained through beatings? Was justice served in that case? Is justice served whenever defendants are acquitted because of constitutional violations by the Government that taint the evidence? I think the answer is clearly "yes" and I don't change my views based on the defendant in question. These principles apply to all crimes, including (one might say "especially") the worst ones.
