Sound legal policy?

[Little Raven]

This troubles me.

U.S. military panels reviewing the detention of foreigners as enemy combatants are allowed to use evidence gained by torture in deciding whether to keep them imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the government conceded in court Thursday.

...

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon asked if a detention would be illegal if it were based solely on evidence gathered by torture, because "torture is illegal. We all know that."

Boyle replied that if the military's combatant status review tribunals (or CSRTs) "determine that evidence of questionable provenance were reliable, nothing in the due process clause (of the Constitution) prohibits them from relying on it."

I'm no lawyer, so maybe I'm reading this wrong. But it seems to me that Boyle is saying that even if all evidence against an alledged combatant were based on information gathered via torture, the tribunal could still rely on that evidence to render it's verdict. Is that right?

[Tareeq]

The panel's not rendering a verdict. This isn't criminal court, since no one's charged with anything.

It's still troubling.

[Little Raven]

Ah...what does the panel render? A judgement? A ruling? What's the legal term for what they actually produce?

I mean, I assume they produce something...

[Dogstar]

I have a hard time believing we'd use evidence obtained from torture in a criminal proceeding against someone, regardless if it was verified or not. The government shouldn't have to resort to such means in order to convict someone. If they do, it's just another step backward for us as a country.