So you've tortured someone, and it comes out that your tortured them, and thus your evidence is questionable. So what do you do? You interrogate them again:
"The Washington Post leads the paper today with a story about how a "clean team" from the FBI and the military re-interrogated the 9/11 suspects who will be put on trial on capital murder charges, collecting the same information the CIA obtained from five of the six under far harsher conditions at secret prisons.:
"To ensure that the data would not be tainted by allegations of torture or illegal coercion, the FBI and military team won the suspects' trust over the past 16 months by using time-tested rapport-building techniques, the officials said."
Yeah...won their trust. Sure they did. Sorta reminds me of how slave owing whites pre-civil war looked at their slaves:
"They look so happy, smiling and singing as they picking that cotton--they just love their master!"
Yeah, love to break a foot off in their ass.
Then Tumulty states the obvious:
"But this revelation that the government felt the need for an interrogation do-over actually hurts the Bush Administration's case in the court of international public opinion. It also jeopardizes the legitimacy of any verdict that comes out of these trials. First, it seems to acknowledge that the CIA was on shaky legal ground with what are euphemistically known as coercive interrogation techniques. Second, it raises the question: If this information was obtainable through "time-tested rapport-building techniques," why didn't they use them in the first place? (Indeed, FBI Director Robert Mueller--whose agency deals with its share of tough characters, including Saddam Hussein--told the Senate Intelligence Committee last week that his agency never uses "coercive techniques of any sort" and has found the ones it does use "sufficient and appropriate.")"
Regardless of the ruling, this case can't help but be mired in doubt. Thanks for the torture fellas!