Terror trials: ‘poisoned fruit’ evidence is out

I WAS very interested in Ali Soufan’s article on “enhanced” interrogation techniques applied to terror suspects by the US (April 24).

American evidentiary rules include the “fruit of a poisoned tree” thesis: all evidence, direct and indirect, resulting from illegal activity on the part of investigators is excluded from trial presentation. Illegal search and seizure creates a poisoned tree, as does torture or generally cruel and unusual punishment.

Until the Supreme Court rescinds or alters this thesis, no prisoner in Guantanamo Bay, or who has been routed through the secret prisons, can be convicted on evidence derived from their experiences or the experiences of their accusers. Secondly, Soufan contends that, while personally opposed to torture, he gave evidence in closed hearing for seven years concerning its effective inability to provide actionable intelligence. Thus, if he is to be believed, there was a clear knowledge of both torture and its ineffectiveness for intelligence-gathering in the wider US government. Thirdly, the article reads very much as a defence of the intelligence community; no “real” intelligence professional supported the use of torture.