Mistranslation, you mean.
Anyway, what I said requires no translation from you.
Waterboarding, by the way, still isn't "torture." But the acquisition of such coerced statements need not be acquired by "torture" to be deemed inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial.
What SHOULD have happened, of course, was that the fuckbubble should have been compelled to give up every ******* scrap of intel WE needed to minimize the threat he and his cohorts represented. Having done so, obviously none of that intel could be used against him in any criminal trial. There should never have been any criminal trial.
He was captured. He was an unlwaful enemy combatant. He should have been detained and HELD in a way similar to how we may legitimately hold captured legal enemy combatants. True, THEY would be POWs and given HIS illegal status HE would NOT be a "POW." Irrelevant to the point. If we could legitimately hold LAWFUL enemy combatnats captured during battle as POWs, there's NO rational reason why we couldn't do the same for the unlwaful variety.
If POWs could be held until the war is over, so too could the illegal enemy combatants.
If the "war" is endless, ok. Their detention is forever. Who cares? They brought it on themselves.
When we capture saboteurs in time of war, they are subject to summary execution. Ditto that for enemy spies. There is no valid reason why these mutant illegal savage motherfucking illegal enemy combatants ***** ("terrorists") could not also be subjected to summary execution. But, since we are not the savages and since killing them summarily might deprive us of the ability to extract from them the intel we need, we instead give them three hots and a cot and medical attention and similar civilized courtesies in their lovely new Gitmo abodes. That works.
The fact remains: there is no issue of criminal law guilt or innocence to even be decided. **** that. Hold them until all hostilities are terminated. Simple enough. And right.