Email List
Most Popular This Week
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Picture of the Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Bradley Manning is Off Limits at SF Gay Pride Parade, but Corporate Sleaze is Embraced
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- What Does It Mean To Be An “American” Corporation?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Guantanamo Detainee Asks Court to Declare That He Was Tortured
In a filing made public Friday, lawyers for a Guantanamo detainee have asked a federal court to examine the way he was questioned while in secret CIA custody for three years and decide whether he was tortured.
If the court takes up the request, it would shift from Congress to the courts the ongoing debate over whether so-called enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by President Bush against al Qaida suspects included illegal torture. Among those techniques was waterboarding, which simulates the sensation of drowning.
Justice Department spokesman Erik Ablin said Friday the Bush administration had no immediate comment, and would respond in a brief on Thursday.
Lawyers for Majid Khan, 27, filed the motion Dec. 6 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the only civilian court authorized under the Military Commissions Act to hear matters involving detainees at Guantanamo.
The filing was made public on Friday after an intelligence review. Two full pages of the 15-page filing were blacked out as were large sections of six other pages, apparently because they contained descriptions of Khan's treatment, which the Bush administration considers classified.
Khan, who was raised and educated in suburban Baltimore, says Pakistani security forces handed him over to the CIA in March 2003 and subjected him to a U.S. program of "state-sanctioned torture.''
President Bush announced Khan had been sent to Guantanamo in September 2006, along with 13 other "high-value detainees.'' The Pentagon, which has yet to charge him with a war crime, alleges that reputed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed assigned Khan to research how to poison U.S. water reservoirs and blow up U.S. gas stations.
There's no way to verify either Khan's or the Pentagon's assertions.
The allegations of torture first arose at Guantanamo on April 15 when a panel of military officers met to determine whether Khan should be declared an enemy combatant. News reporters were not allowed to attend the hearing, but a censored transcript released later deleted sections where Khan's treatment was discussed.
Khan remains the only high-value detainee to have met with his lawyers. The filing made public Friday refers to declarations written by Khan's lawyers, Gitanjali
Gutierrez and Wells Dixon, in which Gutierrez describes alleged CIA interrogation techniques used on Khan and Dixon describes those allegedly used on other individuals. Those declarations have not been made public.
Earlier this week, the appeals court ordered the government to preserve any evidence of how Khan was treated while in CIA custody. The CIA recently disclosed that it had destroyed tapes of interrogations of another suspected al Qaida member, Zayn Abidin Abu Zubaydah, who was subjected to waterboarding.
But the court said the order was only preliminary, until it had time to consider both Khan's and the government's arguments.
A decision to hear the case would be a major turn in the ongoing debate on what constitutes torture.
"We don't have any case law since 9/11 to give us guidance as to what techniques fall above or below the line of what constitutes torture or ill treatment or cruel or unusual or degrading treatment,'' said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey F. Addicott, a law professor and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, Texas.
Addicott, who retired in 2000, was senior legal counsel to the U.S. Army's Special Forces or Green Berets and argues that waterboarding is not torture because it is essentially trickery that takes seconds and "does not constitute severe physical or mental suffering.''
But others disagree. The Army's field manual specifically prohibits the procedure, and the House of Representatives this week approved a bill that would outlaw its use by the CIA as well. Republicans in the Senate, however, on Friday blocked the bill, which President Bush had threatened to veto, if passed.
© McClatchy Newspapers 2007
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



8 Comments so far
Show All"The Army's field manual specifically prohibits the procedure, and the House of Representatives this week approved a bill that would outlaw its use by the CIA as well"
Can it be possible to force the CIA to adhere to the Geneva Accords (as the Army does) when it is permanently shrouded in a cloak of secrecy?
The courts think it is, but the practicalities of espionage say it isn't.
Majid Khan is asking the court to rule on whether he was tortured, but the Bush administration redacted all the passages in his case documents that pertain to how he was treated. This is an abuse of secrecy that is an obvious obstruction of justice. Free Majid Khan and put Bush in prison.
As has been pointed out before waterboarding does not "simulates the sensation of drowning", rather waterboarding IS (controlled) DROWNING.
Words do matter. Waterboarding IS TORTURE. Is it that difficult to state?
Citizen 1: Thank you. I am so tired of hearing about "Enhanced" Interrogation (torture)and "simulated" drowning (actual drowning).
What I don't get is why there is even a discussion about what is or is not torture. That has been established since at least the Spanish-American War. It has been defined in case law and people convicted. Same is true for cases in American military cases and at Nuremberg. The fact that there is even a debate on the definition of torture is stupid. Further, there cannot be any claim that torture is okay for one group (the CIA) but not okay for another (the American military).
What is even more evil is that our government is now saying that information obtained by torture has saved lives to justify torture. Of course no proof is given because it has been long established that any info obtained by torture is unreliable. Torture is torture period. It flies in the face of the Constitution and international law. There can never be a justification for torture in any circumstance or by anyone on the planet.
And those that authorize or commit torture should be publically tortured by the same means that they authorized. That would probably get the attention of those in the future that want to "redefine" torture.......But I guess we really can't do that because torture is illegal......Oh well......
It is quaint that we (rather the MSM) pretend that if only congress could pass an anti-torture law, torture would stop.
Here is an way of talking about the torture issue that I have not heard from any public officials but I wish they would talk this way.
Rather than scream about what is and isn't torture, say something like this. Mr. Bush: Are you saying that it's OK for waterboarding to be done to our troops, in the event they are taken prisoner? Because that's what your policy is saying to our brave young men and women in the service. If you think so, then I dare you to have the guts to come right out and tell our troops who serve you, and their families, that you don't mind if this is done to them by our enemies.
A "journalist" is somebody who needs an appeals court opinion of the definition of a word before using it in a sentence. Journalism is more like dancing than singing.
Once and for all, why not impeachment, especially that Robert Wexler and other congresspersons on the US House Judiciary Committee have said let the impeachment hearings commence?