# The Al-Nashiri Case (Gitmo) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 6, 2009, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680 "2009-02-06T07:13:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/1 "2009-02-06T07:13:03Z")
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap\_on\_go\_ca\_st\_pe/obama\_guantanamo](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/obama_guantanamo) **Charges dropped in Guantanamo terror trial** OK, now, the title is a bit…well, not misleading so much as not as taut as it might be. This not about how he’s being flown to New York City for a naturalization hearing and to apply for food stamps… > [@](#): > > …new charges can be brought again later, and al-Nashiri will remain in prison for the time being… Not about that. About this part. Way at the end. > [@](#): > > …Last year, al-Nashiri said during a Guantanamo hearing that he confessed to helping plot the Cole bombing only because he was tortured by U.S. interrogators. The CIA has admitted he was among terrorist suspects subjected to waterboarding, which simulates drowning, in 2002 and 2003 while being interrogated in secret CIA prisons… Consider, then, this possibility. That al-Nisri is guilty as all git-out but! the only evidence we actually have is his confession. Which we obtained by torture. Are we obliged to release him? I think we are. If we hold ourselves to the same standards and rule of law that we preach, clearly, we have no option. If justice does not apply to our enemies, it is merely vengeance. (There are those who will claim that they are the same, I refuse to join them.) Well, what if there is corroborative evidence but the leads to that evidence were obtained by torture? Same thing. If we won’t accept that someone can be forced to testify against themselves in court, how can we accept them being forced to testify against themselves in an interrogation room? Do we parse our principles in such a convenient and self-serving way? Note: for the sake of the debate, my OP definition, I am not considering that he might be completely innocent. I cannot imagine anything but releasing him under those circumstances, having no doubt that we would be releasing someone who has every right and reason to hate our guts. But if the thread unwinds in that direction, I won’t try to play Thread Police… ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/2 "2009-02-06T07:58:26Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Are we obliged to release him? Yes. > [@elucidator](#): > > Well, what if there is corroborative evidence but the leads to that evidence were obtained by torture? Still yes. A more interesting interesting question is: “what if there is also evidence that **wasn’t** in some way found via torture?” Personally I’d very probably still say yes. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/3 "2009-02-06T13:18:47Z")
To play Devil’s advocate. And in this case, it’s way too close to the actual Devil… The exclusionary rule is the rule that keeps otherwise relevant, admissible evidence, from introduction in legal proceedings. Although it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, it was developed by the Courts as a rule to show disfavor and to provide a deterrent to the police and prosecutors for violations of the Constitution. That rationale should not apply to wartime cases of national security involving the military or intelligence gathering agencies. In those cases, the overwhelming rationale for the illegal activity is not to find evidence to convict someone, but rather to protect our national security in wartime. The deterrent reason for the exclusionary rule simply doesn’t apply when the thing being deterred doesn’t matter. The detainees weren’t tortured to get evidence of a crime for criminal proceedings, but rather to protect our country from possible future attacks. The deterrent effect simply wouldn’t deter. The other main reason is that the exclusionary rule, and many of the admissibility rules in court, care not one whit for Truth. When making a determination of guilt for non-Citizens detained in foreign lands, the important determination is not about following the rules of evidence, but instead trying to make a determination of Truth. And any evidence that is relevant should be admitted. The judges should be allowed to hear ALL the evidence and make a determination if the evidence elicited by torture is relevant and reliable. If there is sufficient corroboration of the confession to overcome the baseline unreliability of confessions obtained by torture, it should be considered. After all, we are searching for the TRUTH. OK, I tried. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/4 "2009-02-06T13:40:52Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > The exclusionary rule is the rule that keeps otherwise relevant, admissible evidence, from introduction in legal proceedings. Although it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, it was developed by the Courts as a rule to show disfavor and to provide a deterrent to the police and prosecutors for violations of the Constitution. > > That rationale should not apply to wartime cases of national security involving the military or intelligence gathering agencies. In those cases, the overwhelming rationale for the illegal activity is not to find evidence to convict someone, but rather to protect our national security in wartime. The deterrent reason for the exclusionary rule simply doesn’t apply when the thing being deterred doesn’t matter. The detainees weren’t tortured to get evidence of a crime for criminal proceedings, but rather to protect our country from possible future attacks. The deterrent effect simply wouldn’t deter. > > The other main reason is that the exclusionary rule, and many of the admissibility rules in court, care not one whit for Truth. When making a determination of guilt for non-Citizens detained in foreign lands, the important determination is not about following the rules of evidence, but instead trying to make a determination of Truth. And any evidence that is relevant should be admitted. The judges should be allowed to hear ALL the evidence and make a determination if the evidence elicited by torture is relevant and reliable. If there is sufficient corroboration of the confession to overcome the baseline unreliability of confessions obtained by torture, it should be considered. After all, we are searching for the TRUTH. > > OK, I tried. I sort of agree with this, but still don’t think that the confession should be admissible. The reason is not because it should be excluded to discourage torture, but simply because a confession under torture doesn’t really mean anything. I don’t think people in 17th century England who confessed to being witches when crushed under a bunch of rocks were really witches, and while the defendant in question may or not be a terrorist, I don’t think a confession we tortured out of him tells us one way or another. So admitting it not only encourages law enforcement to commit an illegal act, it also gets us no closer to discovering the TRUTH. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/5 "2009-02-06T13:57:50Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I sort of agree with this, but still don’t think that the confession should be admissible. The reason is not because it should be excluded to discourage torture, but simply because a confession under torture doesn’t really mean anything. I don’t think people in 17th century England who confessed to being witches when crushed under a bunch of rocks were really witches, and while the defendant in question may or not be a terrorist, I don’t think a confession we tortured out of him tells us one way or another. DA again. But excluding it automatically says that information gathered by torture is NEVER true, which is wrong. It should be admissible, and leave the determination of reliability and sufficient corroboration, to the judges. While I agree that it is, by nature, not reliable, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It depends on the other kinds of evidence. > [@Simplicio](#): > > So admitting it not only encourages law enforcement to commit an illegal act, it also gets us no closer to discovering the TRUTH. It’s not “law enforcement”. It’s intelligence agencies. Hence the lack of deterrence. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/6 "2009-02-06T20:26:13Z")
Yeah, I’m sort of with Hamlet, here. Let the judges see it, flagged with a note that it’s not reliable. But in a jury trial, I’d be tempted to exclude it from the jury for utter lack of reliability–& I’m no great fan of exclusion.] Note I say ‘tempted.’ I’m not sure that’s right, but it seems like a place where exclusion would make sense. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/7 "2009-02-06T20:53:39Z")
Not being a lawyer I’ll just weigh in with my uninformed opinion…the evidence should not be admissible and this guy, no matter how guilty, should be released. Obviously I don’t know all the finer points here, but I’d have to agree with Simplicio…any evidence gained in this manner would be HIGHLY suspect. Not because torture is evil (it is) but because people are bound to tell you what you want to hear just to get you to stop doing it to them. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/8 "2009-02-06T21:16:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Consider, then, this possibility. That al-Nisri is guilty as all git-out but! the only evidence we actually have is his confession. Which we obtained by torture. > > Are we obliged to release him? Seems to me that the whole point of the trial is to weigh the evidence against him. If it’s not enough, release him. If it’s enough, then punish him. And, after years of flaming Bush for not putting these guys on trial, its finally happening… That is, until Obama takes office and suspends all the trials, putting us back where we were before hand. Incarceration without trials. If you really wanted the evidence against this guy to evaulated in court, shouldn’t you be clamoring for Obama to let the trials continue? ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/9 "2009-02-06T21:21:27Z")
I completely agree with **xtisme** - this guy has to be released. If he turns out to be guilty as all hell, then that just means our mistake was all that more severe. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/10 "2009-02-06T21:25:24Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yeah, I’m sort of with Hamlet, here. Let the judges see it, flagged with a note that it’s not reliable. But in a jury trial, I’d be tempted to exclude it from the jury for utter lack of reliability–& I’m no great fan of exclusion.] > > Note I say ‘tempted.’ I’m not sure that’s right, but it seems like a place where exclusion would make sense. I think I might go a little stronger than this-and say it ought to be excluded. I am in favor of the exclusionary rule–but my reasoning here would even appeal to a critic: Criticisms of the exclusionary rule are strongest when the evidence gained is indisputably reliable and incriminating. For example, a cop illegally searches you, and finds ten pounds of cocaine. The fact that the search was illegal doesn’t change the fact that it’s cocaine, or that you had it. This is, usually, the kind of hypothetical used when arguing we should get rid of the rule–one in which the reliability of the evidence isn’t affected by how it was acquired. This is, to me, not the case here. It’s more like if a cop says he found ten pounds of cocaine in a bag, and then beat you up until you admitted it’s your bag. The problem in the second hypo is that the very thing that makes the cocaine good evidence against you (that you admit it’s your bag) is also the thing brought into question by the bad conduct of law enforcement. The evidence isn’t reliable because of how it was acquired. And in the gitmo case, I’d exclude the confession. It’s not just of questionable reliability–the reason we exclude tortured confessions is that they’re not reliable at all. Hence, if he was tortured into confessing, it ought to be totally excluded. Edit to add: I totally agree with this: > [@LilShieste](#): > > I completely agree with **xtisme** - this guy has to be released. If he turns out to be guilty as all hell, then that just means our mistake was all that more severe. If we really did have evidence he was a bad guy, the people who authorized his torture were criminally negligent–they’re the ones who ruined good evidence by using torture. If we’re angry at someone for making us let people like this go, it shouldn’t be at the courts, but at the people whose illegal acts ruined the evidence against him–especially if there’s no sign that their actions helped us at all. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/11 "2009-02-06T21:25:58Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > DA again. > > But excluding it automatically says that information gathered by torture is NEVER true, which is wrong. It should be admissible, and leave the determination of reliability and sufficient corroboration, to the judges. I think we’re talking about two different things. I’m talking about a _confession_, under torture, which I’d say is intrinsically untrustworthy and ought to be disallowed for that (and many other) reasons. Of course it may be true, but then, if I flip a coin to tell whether it’s going to be rainy out tomorrow, that might give the correct result as well, but it doesn’t really tell me anything about the future weather. According to the first hypothetical in the OP, this confession is the only evidence against Al-Nashiri. Information garnered under torture (which I think is what your talking about) can be confirmed by further, less evil, methods of investigation. The question of whether these investigations ought to be then admissible is a bit more of a grey area. Personally I think it should still be inadmissible, though I grant that it may actually provide useful information about whether the accused is guilty. While I agree there may be some weakening of the exclusionary rule in cases like this, for the reasons you mentioned, I’d say that intelligence agencies (and their politician bosses) do have _some_ desire to see a person they’re interrogating imprisoned, and torture is such an egregious breaking of both domestic and international law that even if excluding evidence garnered using it is only a minor deterrent to its use, we should still do so. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/12 "2009-02-06T21:30:02Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Seems to me that the whole point of the trial is to weigh the evidence against him. If it’s not enough, release him. If it’s enough, then punish him. That’s the thing - the fact that we’ve tortured this guy into confessing to something he may/may not have had something to do with, means that we’ve _tainted_ the evidence against him. This kind of throws doubt over other evidence that might be used against him (i.e., “If they were willing to torture this guy to tell them what they wanted to hear, what else could they have done to make things appear as they wanted them to appear?”). This is one of the reasons our (U.S.) courts don’t allow the admission of evidence that was obtained illegally (e.g., without a warrant). We need to make sure our trials are as “pure” as possible; any corruption of the evidence reduces the certainty behind a guilty verdict. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/13 "2009-02-06T21:35:50Z")
> [@LilShieste](#): > > This is one of the reasons our (U.S.) courts don’t allow the admission of evidence that was obtained illegally (e.g., without a warrant). . Exactly. That only happens in the trial process. IF the judge throws out the confession, boom. Done. But that’s not gonna happen while the guy is sitting in a cell, waiting for Obama to get time to ‘review’ his case. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/14 "2009-02-06T21:38:36Z")
Keep in mind, its a lead pipe cinch that some of them will be guilty as hell. Even if they didn’t hate America _then_, they have every good reason to hate us _now_. And sure as the Goddess made little green apples, some people are going to point at that and begin screeching about how the wishy-washy liberals turned America’s enemies loose. And it will be true. Sorta. Hell, if there’s a guy there who’s completely innocent and suffered this shit at our hands, and doesn’t hate America, he oughtn’t be released, he ought to be canonized. You know, just thinking conspiratorial…if I was one of them awful AlQ guys, I would turn in American sympathizers, with just enough cooked up “evidence” to pass. Given how often people will believe what justifies their actions, that’s a very low bar. It’s all upside, isn’t it? You get an enemy out of the way, you have a very good chance of turning him and everyone who knows him to your side, and if he breaks under torture, he has nobody to hand up, since he isn’t guilty. He doesn’t know anything to tell, the only people he can hand up are \*other \*people who aren’t guilty! And if this occurs to me, who is not an evil conspirator bent on destruction, then how much more likely that it occurred to those who are? The only way it couldn’t happen would be if our enemies have more scruples than we have. I don’t want to think about that much, I’m making an effort to stay sane and sober, and things like that might force me to choose. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/15 "2009-02-06T21:38:48Z")
[QUOTE=Sinaijon] But that’s not gonna happen while the guy is sitting in a cell, waiting for Obama to get time to ‘review’ his case. [/QUOTE] I’m curious…what do you think Obama SHOULD do if what he’s doing isn’t acceptable? The man just started as President and it takes time to review all of this stuff, especially considering the cloak of secrecy that the previous administration put over everything. Do you just want Obama to come in and make a bunch of arbitrary decisions without giving them proper consideration?? -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/16 "2009-02-06T21:45:02Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Keep in mind, its a lead pipe cinch that some of them will be guilty as hell. Even if they didn’t hate America then, they have every good reason to hate us now. And sure as the Goddess made little green apples, some people are going to point at that and begin screeching about how the wishy-washy liberals turned America’s enemies loose. And it will be true. Sorta. [/QUOTE] Life is tough sometimes. Basically I feel pretty certain that liberals will be able to somehow stand up to (certain) conservatives criticism on this issue, especially considering that in this case they are RIGHT! Leaving aside the political backbone aspect though, if we set aside the ideals of our own system to do the expedient instead of what is right then the terrorists have pretty much won. Besides, the way things have been going for the terrorist side, especially their command level, setting this guy loose will probably just mean he’s killed somewhere along the line in any case. Or captured again…and perhaps the next time proper procedures will be followed. > [@](#): > > And if this occurs to me, who is not an evil conspirator bent on destruction, then how much more likely that it occurred to those who are? The only way it couldn’t happen would be if our enemies have more scruples than we have. I don’t want to think about that much, I’m making an effort to stay sane and sober, and things like that might force me to choose. I don’t think there is much danger that our enemies will suddenly and magically gain more scruples than we have…nor that they will wise up on this issue at all. Just look at their brothers in Palestine…there seems to be several large learning blocks or gaps in their education to account for it. -XT ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/17 "2009-02-06T21:45:34Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > That rationale should not apply to wartime cases of national security involving the military or intelligence gathering agencies. In those cases, the overwhelming rationale for the illegal activity is not to find evidence to convict someone, but rather to protect our national security in wartime. Never mind what you think \*should \*be the law (or its absence in situations that can be decided to exist by, um…). What \*is \*the law? > [@](#): > > The detainees weren’t tortured to get evidence of a crime for criminal proceedings, but rather to protect our country from possible future attacks. You sound pretty certain of that. On what basis? > [@](#): > > When making a determination of guilt for non-Citizens detained in foreign lands, the important determination is not about following the rules of evidence, but instead trying to make a determination of Truth. Mighty convenient exceptions there, ain’t they? > [@](#): > > And any evidence that is relevant should be admitted. How about factual? Does factuality mean anything in your definition of Truth? If the “evidence” exists only because somebody said whatever it took to make the torture stop, on what basis are you confident of its Truthiness? > [@](#): > > The judges should be allowed to hear ALL the evidence and make a determination if the evidence elicited by torture is relevant and reliable. The \*civilized \*world already knows the answer to that, _a priori_. That’s what these “quaint” and “obsolete” treaties we’re obliged to follow are based on. > [@](#): > > After all, we are searching for the TRUTH. And justice. Justice has something to do with it somewhere, I hope. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/18 "2009-02-06T21:45:48Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > Exactly. That only happens in the trial process. IF the judge throws out the confession, boom. Done. What does this say about any of the other evidence we might have on this guy? How do we know it hasn’t been tampered with? The people who tortured this guy had a specific outcome in mind - they expected him to confess, and would potentially stop at nothing short of that. That is, they’d already come to a conclusion, and were looking for evidence to support that conclusion. This could mean that evidence was manipulated, completely fabricated, or even excluded - just to fit the preconceived conclusion. It casts doubt on the entire case. That’s why the case needs to be reviewed _before_ going to trial. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/19 "2009-02-06T21:49:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > some people are going to point at that and begin screeching about how the wishy-washy liberals turned America’s enemies loose. And it will be true. Sorta. Hell, the \*Cheney \*administration already turned loose 61 (or some such number, it keeps changing) of these guys who promptly “returned to terrorist activities”. Imagine what the liberal pussies will do? > [@](#): > > Hell, if there’s a guy there who’s completely innocent and suffered this shit at our hands, and doesn’t hate America, he oughtn’t be released, he ought to be canonized. If he isn’t just stark raving by now. There have been reports of that happening, not surprisingly. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680/20 "2009-02-06T22:00:05Z")
Rep. Lamar Smith, (R-Texas) has no such qualms. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap\_on\_go\_pr\_wh/obama\_guantanamo](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090206/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_guantanamo) > [@](#): > > …Smith said al-Nashiri had “orchestrated the mass murder of American soldiers” and must be punished… Well, there you have it! Rep. Smith clearly has all the evidence right at his fingertips, and has no concerns about al-Nahiri’s guilt whatsoever! Rather a pity he didn’t share that with us. Security reasons, no doubt. Yes, that must be it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-al-nashiri-case-gitmo/484680.md?page=2)