The torture legislation takes away the presumption of innocence from defendants as it allows
hearsay evidence to be admissible, so long as the accused can't prove it's 'unreliable' or of no relevance . . .
here are the provisions: (
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h6166_ih.xml)
“Except as provided in clause (ii),
hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial may be admitted in a trial by military commission if the proponent of the evidence makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to meet the evidence, the intention of the proponent to offer the evidence, and the particulars of the evidence (including information on the general circumstances under which the evidence was obtained). The disclosure of evidence under the preceding sentence is subject to the requirements and limitations applicable to the disclosure of classified information in section 949j(c) of this title.
“(ii)
“Hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial shall not be admitted in a trial by military commission
if the party opposing the admission of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence is unreliable or lacking in probative value.but, don't bother presenting evidence against the military tribunal, they have the power to decide whether your evidence is "unfair, confusing, misleading, or wasting their time."here is the provision:
“The military judge shall exclude any evidence the probative value of which is substantially outweighed—
“(i)
“by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the commission; or
“(ii)
“by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.