US Government Says CIA Black Site Prisoners' Memory Of Their Own Torture Is Classified And Cannot Be Revealed
from the are-they-serious? dept
I'd missed this story when it came out a few weeks ago, but thanks to Rob Hyndman for calling it to my attention. There was plenty of press around the fact that one of the guys being held by US forces in Guantanamo, and who faces trial as one of the co-conspirators for 9/11, supposedly sustained head injuries while being held by the CIA. But, that's just the tip of the iceberg of the story. Apparently Ammar al Baluchi, and some of the other prisoners are trying to argue that the US violated the UN Convention Against Torture with how they treated prisoners at the infamous black sites. But here's the crazy part: the US is arguing that the prisoners' own recollections of what was done to them cannot be used in court, because it would reveal classified information. Talk about adding insult to injury.Yes, the US government is arguing that it can torture people (though, of course, it won't call it that), but if you try to call them on it via various courts, domestic or international, the very people who were tortured are not allowed to present evidence of their own torture, because it would reveal classified information. Classified information like how the CIA tortured people. Now, the people in this case may be very bad people, who really were involved in planning 9/11, and if that's true and proven as such, I have no problem with them being punished for their actions. But that doesn't excuse torturing them, no matter what some misguided authoritarians believe. And, furthermore, if the government is going to torture them, then they should at least have the balls to stand up in court and discuss what they did and why -- not telling the people they tortured that their own recollections of how they were tortured are considered classified material.
In the al Baluchi case, his lawyer has been using unclassified medical records to try to show that he was tortured, but remains barred from using anything beyond that.
Attorney James Connell invoked two of Baluchi’s unclassified Guantánamo medical records in a bid to argue that not everything the captives say about their treatment at the CIA’s overseas prison network from 2002 to 2006 constitutes national security secrets.Another (military) lawyer representing some of the accused notes how ridiculous the situation is:
At issue is the 9/11 defense attorneys’ challenge of a military commissions protective order that, the defenders say, oblige the attorneys to make sure the prisoners don’t tell foreign courts or human rights groups their memories of what the CIA did to them during the years before they were brought here in 2006.
“You cannot use state secrets to classify the observations and experiences of someone who was exposed to torture,” said Army Maj. Jason Wright, Mohammed’s defense attorney, arguing that the U.S. government was using a classification regime to hide what the CIA did to the men in secret overseas prisons, out of reach of U.S. courts and the International Red Cross, from 2002 until 2006.And yet that's exactly what the government is trying to do.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: black sites, cia, classified, prisoners, terrorists
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They insisted, and got their way after 9/11, that torture was the most effective means of getting useful information. This is despite the fact that for over a century before 9/11 the US had lots of interrogation experience at getting real and useful information from POW without torture.
Plus, we had over a centuries worth of information about enemies we were fighting that DID torture. The conclusion? That torture very often got false and misleading confessionals that said what the prisoners thought the torturer wanted to hear, rather than any actual useful or truthful information.
And really, when there's stories that we tortured some prisoners over 50+ times them in a single month, we should really stop and just admit "if we need to torture someone 50+ times in a month then what we're doing clearly isn't working at getting the information we want/need".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eliciting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually the statement is nonsensical one way, because illicit is not a verb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show Trial
Sure you can too!
It's a SHOW TRIAL. You can do anything you have the guts for—as long as you entertain the crowd. This is SHOW BUSINESS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Show Trial
Unless of course the defendant is a US military person rather than a foreigner, then they often get away with all sorts of crimes way more then in civilian courts, including rape. (see all the recent stories about problems with rape in the military if you don't know what I mean. The military handles it so badly that some rape victims in the military have said that what happened to them after reporting the rape was worse then the rape itself)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The military commission system is set up —primarily— in order to make a practical decision on what to do with these prisoners.
As a political matter, that is, as a matter of prudent statecraft, the most sensible thing to do is probably to take them all out back and put a bullet in their heads. Whether they're ‘guilty’ or not. For some value of ‘guilty’. For any value of ‘guilty’.
Once the state has tortured them, it's most probably just better to not release them alive. So the real, basic, practical decision that needs to be made is how to dispose of the bodies cleanly.
Holding a show trial, filled with obvious and blatant [redacted], that the whole world is going to look at and say, “That's ridiculous! That's [redacted]!” is not a real clean way of getting rid of the bodies. Unless maybe you can keep the press under tighter control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Show me the law that says so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ AC: Common law may be unwritten, but it's PRIMARY law.
“You cannot use state secrets to classify the observations and experiences of someone who was exposed to torture,”
Show me the law that says so.
Common law based on facts of existence is what authorizes the Constitution, and statute is tertiary. Common law is the general opinion of We The People; truths are self-evident, gov't is only a servant of The People, and everyone is equal before The Law.
I can show it you in action where a jury of your peers, NOT the military tribunal as here, which weighs not only the alleged crime, but the application of the law, and even the law itself. A jury of your peers is precisely to protect against this aspect of tyranny.
That's The AMERICAN System of gov't, ever since we told the Inherited Tyrants of England that they don't own us and get the hell out. (Yeah there were and are flaws in the former US of A, but we had corrected most up until now, when the Inherited Rich are again seeking to impose literal feudalism. The Rich had better again be limited by high tax rates on their unearned income before they again wreck civilization.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ AC: Common law may be unwritten, but it's PRIMARY law.
Taxing unearned income is taxing $0. Any money I didn't make won't get taxed. So no matter how high you tax $0 it will still be $0. What would work better would perhaps have a different tax level for luxury items. As an example, a much higher tax rate on houses over 10 million or a much higher registration cost for luxury vehicles. But overall, I don't think taxing the rich will help with governmental problems. That is like giving alcohol to an alcoholic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ AC: Common law may be unwritten, but it's PRIMARY law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: @ AC: Common law may be unwritten, but it's PRIMARY law.
And now, you're showing that you don't know what you're talking about when you say "common law." Here's a hint: when talking about "common law" vs. "statutory law," common law basically means "case law."
Common law based on facts of existence is what authorizes the Constitution,
The Constitution isn't "authorized" by common law. If the two are in conflict, the Constitution overrides common law. (Just as it does statutory law.)
and statute is tertiary.
When statutes and common law are in conflict, statutory laws override common law decisions. A judge cannot override a statute because case law conflicts with it; if the statute conflicts with case law, it is the statute, not case law, that is binding.
Common law is the general opinion of We The People; truths are self-evident, gov't is only a servant of The People, and everyone is equal before The Law.
That is not what common law means.
You know, you would be less of an idiot if you did even the merest sliver of preliminary research before spouting off falsities between insults:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: @ AC: Common law may be unwritten, but it's PRIMARY law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ AC: Common law may be unwritten, but it's PRIMARY law.
Well, that's how it's supposed to work, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
——Schenck v United States (1919) (“fire in a theatre”)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why? Why should they get any opportunity?
Mr Bush's administration made the decision to torture them at the highest levels. That decision cannot be undone. Nor can its corrosive effects be reversed.
Now the question is what is to be done with the prisoners?
The military commission is not a trial court in any conventional sense. Rather, the military commission is charged with making a practical decision. The commission's decision might as well be based on the most crass, rank and rancid considerations of political expediency. It's better to frame it that way, than to honestly point out that prudent statecraft calls for the same end result.
We can't let these prisoners go. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Early on in his presidency, Mr Obama made a political decision not to prosecute the outgoing admininistration. Whether or not the was the best or wisest decision, Mr Obama does not appear inclined to reverse it.
So we are stuck with what Mr Bush's administration did. Putative war crimes and all.
Looking back into our history, General Curtis LeMay had no doubt that he would have been put on trial for firebombing Tokyo—had we lost that war. Luckily for General LeMay, we didn't lose that war, and he wasn't put on trial for war crimes. The other guys were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are dangerous to us. They can't be cut loose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
People with your mindset are the true danger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether or not they acted—we did. The Bush administration tortured these people. If you listened to the Congressional hearings on the matter a few years ago —if you read the reports— then you understand that the torture was approved at the highest political levels. It was an act of the United States.
Now, neither Mr Obama's administration nor any successor administration is going to prosecute those responsible for the torture. That, unfortunately, further leaves the United States in breach of our international treaty obligations. On the positive side, most of the world has forgotten or chooses to forget what happened. Another decade or so, and it'll just be history.
If these prisoners are cut loose, though, then, at the very least, they will be used as propaganda against the United States.
You don't leave a weapon and ammo lying on the ground where it will be picked up and used against you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Say, here's an idea.
If the torture of prisoners can be used as propaganda against the United States, then maybe the United States should stop torturing prisoners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If these prisoners are cut loose, though, then, at the very least, they will be used as propaganda against the United States.
First and foremost, I have to say I find it completely revolting that you consider 'most of the world forgetting' that the US condoned and ordered torture of prisoners a good thing, and find the idea that it'll just 'fade into history' if no pesky 'witnesses/victims' are able to talk about it plain disgusting.
Good would be such actions never happening in the first place.
Good would be, if such abominable actions did somehow happen, it was stopped immediately and the person(s) responsible were charged, publicly, with committing war crimes, to make it absolutely clear to everyone that such action are never acceptable.
The most obvious bit out of the way, is it propaganda if it's true? The US did, and likely continues, to torture prisoners(oh I'm sorry, the PC term these days is 'enhanced interrogation' isn't it?), either directly or by handing them off to others, knowing they would do so. Pretending otherwise to avoid looking like massive hypocrites and/or just as bad as terrorist groups is naive at best, as well as being completely dishonest.
Worse still, acting like such actions didn't happen, or hiding them, does nothing from keeping them from happening again, and in fact encourages them to do so in the future.
You seem to be arguing that committing one atrocity(permanent detainment of someone because their release might endanger the US) is an acceptable way to cover up for another atrocity(the torture of prisoners), which not only does not get rid of the original action, it compounds it and makes it all the worse.
The idea you seem to be suggesting, that life imprisonment and (likely) continued torture of prisoners, just so they don't inconvenience or are used against the USG at some point in the future were they released, is in direct conflict with the most basic human rights, decency, and the core ideas of justice.
Were I you, I'd step back and take a good, long look at what you consider acceptable in the name of 'safety' and 'security', and in particular examine how much it has apparently eroded or flat out eliminated any empathy, decency, or even humanity you would otherwise have with regards to your fellow man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dummy down society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guantanamo Project Monarch
http://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/origins-and-techniques-of-monarch-mind-contro l/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So there's no hope of release
(Unless, through further inhumane treatment, they drive the prisoners insane enough that no one listening to them can distinguish the reality from the hallucination.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assuming this is true and assuming the prisoners do not have a security clearance, those individuals responsible for giving the prisoners those memories - that is, the ones who tortured them - should be prosecuted for divulging classified information. To the enemy, no less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this administration, and under Commander-In-Chief Barack Obama, those individuals are not going to be prosecuted. Shall not be.
So, if you want to give the torturers notice that they fucked-up —a little bit of administrative punishment— then the best thing to hope for is that those individuals are personally given the orders to execute the prisoners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You and what army?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: dealing with the unstable
well you know what they say about trying to restrain a guy with alot of guns alot of freinds and a god complex....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was Al-Queda right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Was Al-Queda right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Was Al-Queda right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Was Al-Queda right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Was Al-Queda right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The copyright trolls will love this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just do it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]