Their lawyers are going to use them to “prove” their confessions were coerced and have all that evidence thrown out. Plus it’s going to be Abu Ghraib times a million.
A good republican candidate can use these issues to their advantage. Obama says in every speech "terrorism is being used to scare voters." My God a republican should be able to hit that out of the park.
My real fear about McCain is that like Thompson he may insist on being polite to his opponents. Politeness is not in order when a young leftist fool like Obama puts my life in jeopardy (or an old leftist witch like Hilary).
The tapes should be admissible in their military tribunal. However, the same rules don't apply to how civilians are tried in civilian courts as do in the military tribunals.
The tribunal should be able to not only look at evidence that the information may have been coerced, they should be able to look at where that evidence led investigators and it they were able to substantiate it.
They are alleging that the evidence is of questionable value because the terrorists had reason to lie. That is in itself a reasonable argument. However, what they want to do is treat it like a civilian court where the suspects rights have been violated and have not only the interrogation thrown out, but all evidence they discovered as a result of that interrogation. That shouldn't be allowed in these tribunals.
All the evidence should be presented. The tribunal should be able to weigh it's value not only based on how it was obtained, but how well it was confirmed after the fact.
Little faith should be placed in the evidence gathered through interrogation alone, but the interrogation and evidence it led to should not be tossed out.
If interrogators broke our laws or regulation, they do need to be held accountable for their actions, but we can't just toss out all of our evidence because it was related to an investigation that didn't follow the normal rules for questioning civilian suspects.