Of self-incrimination by way of torture and national security: Next [challenge] for the Guantanamo detainees

I read an interesting article on today's 'Weekender' media site. This article reported on the admissibility of evidence obtained through torture against the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. It is a known fact that detainees are tortured for information to convict others and themselves as taking part in terrorist activities and also providing information to the USA government on other detainees that are taking part in such heinous activities. However, should this evidence be admissible in a competent court?

The Bush regime seems to be of the view that in the interest of national security such evidence should be admissible against detainees. However, when comparing national security to international humanitarian law principles against torture, what should take preference?

This blog will deal with the situation where an accused incriminated himself, because he was tortured to give such evidence.

Surprisingly, when it comes to national security, the USA seems to forget about the precedence the Supreme Court set in the famous case of Miranda v Arizona. This case dealt with the constitutionality of the privilege against self incrimination. The court stated: "We hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege... no evidence as a result of interrogation can be used against him". If the USA wants to deal with these detainees domestically, they should either (1) uphold the values placed within their Constitution, especially those relating to the rights to a fair trial or (2) uphold basic international human rights law, which also provides for fair trial rights. Self-incriminating evidence obtained by way of torture should not be admissible in court, according to the precedence set in the Miranda case.

On the other hand, any court of law that deems itself as an institution that upholds justice would not admit evidence obtained by way of torture, unless some valid evidential exclusion can be deemed justified to admit such evidence. I am still not convinced that 'national security' serves as an appropriate measure to admit evidence against others and the 'accused'. The International Tribunals have not admitted such evidence against accused persons who have actually committed of the most heinous crimes in the world, similar to that of 9/11.

My next question is thus the following: Is the Bush Regime exploiting the detainees and robbing them of their basic fair trial rights, because according to this regime 'They are criminals that do not deserve these rights'? That's the question I leave open to debate!