'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.
_______________________________
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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.
_______________________________