'Morally Abhorrent' Censorship of Torture at Gitmo Trials Challenged
The U.S. government's censorship of torture testimony by defendants at the Guantanamo military commission has been challenged by the ACLU, which called the practice "legally untenable and morally abhorrent."
On Thursday, the ACLU filed a petition "to enforce the public's constitutional right of access to the military commission prosecution of individuals accused of committing the September 11, 2001 attacks," and adds:
The U.S. government's censorship of torture testimony by defendants at the Guantanamo military commission has been challenged by the ACLU, which called the practice "legally untenable and morally abhorrent."
On Thursday, the ACLU filed a petition "to enforce the public's constitutional right of access to the military commission prosecution of individuals accused of committing the September 11, 2001 attacks," and adds:
There is simply no basis in law for the Orwellian proposition that the government owns or controls--and thus can classify and seek to censor--defendants' personal experiences and memories of a torture and unlawful detention program whose entire purpose was to forcibly "disclose" the torture and detention to the defendants. Additionally, the government chose to disclose its secrets to defendants, who the government concedes were not authorized to receive them; it has no legitimate interest now, let alone a compelling one, in censoring those secrets from the public. [...]
The public's interest in the openness and legitimacy of these proceedings--the most important terrorism prosecution of our time--could hardly be greater. The protective-order provisions censoring from the public defendants' testimony about government torture and other abuse could hardly be more extraordinary or draconian.
In December, Military Judge Col. James Pohl, who is presiding over the trial, approved the US government's request to keep the details of defendants' torture from the public, and allowed for a 40-second delay on the audio feed of the proceedings.
"The judge's decision to keep testimony about torture secret did not even mention the American public's First Amendment right of access to the Guantanamo commissions, let alone apply the high standard that must be met before testimony is suppressed," Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in a statement.
"The government's claim that it can classify and censor from the public a criminal defendant's personal experience and memories of CIA-imposed torture is legally untenable and morally abhorrent. Even if the government somehow had that Orwellian classification authority, copious details about the CIA's torture and black-site detention program are already public knowledge, and the government has no legitimate reason to censor the defendants' testimony about their own memories of it," stated Shamsi.
_______________________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The U.S. government's censorship of torture testimony by defendants at the Guantanamo military commission has been challenged by the ACLU, which called the practice "legally untenable and morally abhorrent."
On Thursday, the ACLU filed a petition "to enforce the public's constitutional right of access to the military commission prosecution of individuals accused of committing the September 11, 2001 attacks," and adds:
There is simply no basis in law for the Orwellian proposition that the government owns or controls--and thus can classify and seek to censor--defendants' personal experiences and memories of a torture and unlawful detention program whose entire purpose was to forcibly "disclose" the torture and detention to the defendants. Additionally, the government chose to disclose its secrets to defendants, who the government concedes were not authorized to receive them; it has no legitimate interest now, let alone a compelling one, in censoring those secrets from the public. [...]
The public's interest in the openness and legitimacy of these proceedings--the most important terrorism prosecution of our time--could hardly be greater. The protective-order provisions censoring from the public defendants' testimony about government torture and other abuse could hardly be more extraordinary or draconian.
In December, Military Judge Col. James Pohl, who is presiding over the trial, approved the US government's request to keep the details of defendants' torture from the public, and allowed for a 40-second delay on the audio feed of the proceedings.
"The judge's decision to keep testimony about torture secret did not even mention the American public's First Amendment right of access to the Guantanamo commissions, let alone apply the high standard that must be met before testimony is suppressed," Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in a statement.
"The government's claim that it can classify and censor from the public a criminal defendant's personal experience and memories of CIA-imposed torture is legally untenable and morally abhorrent. Even if the government somehow had that Orwellian classification authority, copious details about the CIA's torture and black-site detention program are already public knowledge, and the government has no legitimate reason to censor the defendants' testimony about their own memories of it," stated Shamsi.
_______________________________
The U.S. government's censorship of torture testimony by defendants at the Guantanamo military commission has been challenged by the ACLU, which called the practice "legally untenable and morally abhorrent."
On Thursday, the ACLU filed a petition "to enforce the public's constitutional right of access to the military commission prosecution of individuals accused of committing the September 11, 2001 attacks," and adds:
There is simply no basis in law for the Orwellian proposition that the government owns or controls--and thus can classify and seek to censor--defendants' personal experiences and memories of a torture and unlawful detention program whose entire purpose was to forcibly "disclose" the torture and detention to the defendants. Additionally, the government chose to disclose its secrets to defendants, who the government concedes were not authorized to receive them; it has no legitimate interest now, let alone a compelling one, in censoring those secrets from the public. [...]
The public's interest in the openness and legitimacy of these proceedings--the most important terrorism prosecution of our time--could hardly be greater. The protective-order provisions censoring from the public defendants' testimony about government torture and other abuse could hardly be more extraordinary or draconian.
In December, Military Judge Col. James Pohl, who is presiding over the trial, approved the US government's request to keep the details of defendants' torture from the public, and allowed for a 40-second delay on the audio feed of the proceedings.
"The judge's decision to keep testimony about torture secret did not even mention the American public's First Amendment right of access to the Guantanamo commissions, let alone apply the high standard that must be met before testimony is suppressed," Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in a statement.
"The government's claim that it can classify and censor from the public a criminal defendant's personal experience and memories of CIA-imposed torture is legally untenable and morally abhorrent. Even if the government somehow had that Orwellian classification authority, copious details about the CIA's torture and black-site detention program are already public knowledge, and the government has no legitimate reason to censor the defendants' testimony about their own memories of it," stated Shamsi.
_______________________________