The Guantanamo military tribunals are underway. It seems that evidence obtained under torture will be admissible. Why? It has to do with the definition of torture. If it's not akin to putting a red hot needle in the prisoner's eye, it may not be torture. One of the hearing officers said:

Colonel Peter Brownback declined to commit to a blanket ban on evidence obtained as a result of torture. "What you and I mean by torture could be different," Brownback told defense lawyer Major Tom Fleener.

He said "a red-hot needle in the eye" constitutes torture but was not ready to commit to a prohibition in advance of the trial. "My personal belief is that torture is not good," he added. But he said it would depend on the circumstances and how the prosecution presented the evidence.

Two lawyers from Human Rights First are in Guantanamo observing the proceedings and blogging here.