Torture and Terror Trials

Rooting against the United States once again, RedState exults in a federal judge’s decision to bar testimony on the grounds that it appears to have been coerced, and a product of torture. Here’s the AP on just how bad it was:

The detainee says that after five days in a Pakistani prison, he was handed over to U.S. forces and flown to a pitch-black prison he believes was in Afghanistan. He says he was suspended in his cell by his left hand and that guards blasted his cell with music 24 hours a day.

He said that he confessed to whatever allegations his interrogators made and that harassment and threats continued after he was moved to a different prison in Afghanistan.

Erickson takes this as proof that terrorism is incompatible with the civilian courts. No. It’s proof that torture is incompatible with a civil society, and with the orderly administration of justice. Those are two wildly different things.



  1. Wait, his argument is because terrorist suspects are tortured and evidence obtained under torture is not admissible in courts, therefore terrorist should not receive trials in courts as terrorist are tortured? How can an intelligent person fail at logic so bad?

  2. Because “intelligent people” do not want to admit that their government did heinous and criminal things in the name of keeping us “safe.” To do so would be to acknowledge that we, the people, are allowing ourselves to be lead like sheep in the wilderness, without any ability to control what our “leaders” do. That’s too much for many folks, thus we se ethe rise of this sort of cognative dissonance.

  3. Clearly, Erickson must take as given that it is necessary and proper to torture terrorists. Thus, his objections.

%d bloggers like this: