

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Yesterday a Spanish judge chose to dismiss a politically charged case against six former Bush administration officials for their part in creating a legal framework that permitted the torture of detainees held in U.S. custody. Judge Eloy Velasco made his decision claiming the U.S. would conduct its own investigation, freeing Spain from the obligation of investigating under its universal jurisdiction law. He based this on a mere seven-page submission by the U.S. despite its clear statement that "the Department of Justice has concluded that it is not appropriate to bring criminal cases with respect to any other executive branch officials, including those named in the complaint, who acted in reliance on [Office of Legal Counsel] memoranda during the course of their involvement with the policies and procedures for detention and interrogation."
In a statement, the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents Guantanamo detainees and other victims of the U.S. torture program and has been involved in the two cases in Spain, said, "This decision is a cowardly political act by a judge afraid to pursue justice under his country's own laws. He is hiding behind the fig leaf of the U.S.'s scant seven-page response, but the submission made clear the U.S. has no intention of investigating these crimes or holding higher-level officials accountable for torture. As we saw from the WikiLeaks cables, the U.S. has been pressuring Spain to drop the case and interfering with the independence of judges. A second U.S. torture case remains open in Spain after a higher court ruled it should continue on February 25. Judge Velasco asked for opposing views but then issued his decision without even looking at our detailed submission refuting the U.S. claims. We will fight this decision and continue to demand accountability for torture."
The Center has made numerous submissions in the case, as well as in the second U.S. torture case that remains open before a different Spanish court.
The named defendants in the case are torture memo authors Jay Bybee and John Yoo, and David Addington, Douglas Feith, William Haynes and Alberto Gonzales.
More information:
Yesterday, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights issued a public response to the U.S. submission, available here.
The U.S. submission is available here in English and here in Spanish.
A document summarizing the public response is available in English and Spanish on the CCR case page here.
CCR and ECCHR have filed three joint expert opinions in the "Bush Six" case, including one setting out the legal framework for holding government lawyers, such as the defendants, liable for violations of international law, and two in which the groups detailed the Obama administration's efforts to ensure impunity, not accountability, for former U.S. officials, including by exerting pressure on Spanish government officials to have these cases dismissed. Both organizations are also involved in a second criminal investigation pending in Spain related to the U.S. torture program, brought on behalf of released Guantanamo detainees. In January, CCR and ECCHR asked another Spanish judge to subpoena the former commanding officer at Guantanamo Bay, Geoffrey Miller, to explain his role in the torture of four former detainees.
For more information on the investigations of U.S. torture pending in Spain, see: https://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/spanish-investigation-us-torture. For more information on CCR and ECCHR's work to hold U.S. officials accountable using universal jurisdiction, see: https://www.ccrjustice.org/case-against-rumsfeld and https://www.ecchr.org/index.php/us-accountablity/articles/rumsfeld-torture-cases---criminal-charges-filed.html.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464The US military has publicly confirmed using "a variety of advanced AI tools" in the Iran assault to "help us sift through vast amounts of data in seconds."
A group of more than 120 Democrats in the US House on Thursday pressed Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth on whether American forces used artificial intelligence in the deadly bombing of an elementary school in southern Iran.
"What is the role of artificial intelligence, if any, in selecting targets, assessing intelligence, and making legal determinations during Operation Epic Fury?" the Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), asked in a letter to Hegseth. "If AI is used, is it subject to human review and at what point? Was artificial intelligence, including the use of the Maven Smart System, used to identify the Shajareh Tayyebeh school as a target? If so, did a human verify the accuracy of this target?"
The letter to Hegseth was sent a day after The New York Times reported that Pentagon investigators preliminarily concluded that US forces were responsible for the bombing of the girls' school in Minab, Iran—a strike that killed at least 175 people, mostly children.
The Democratic lawmakers cited the Times' reporting in their letter, writing that they "are particularly disturbed" by the school bombing, which President Donald Trump initially—and without a shred of evidence—tried to pin on Iran before later saying he didn't "know enough about it" to assign blame.
According to the Times, the school strike "was the result of a targeting mistake by the US military, which was conducting strikes on an adjacent Iranian base of which the school building was formerly a part."
The US military has confirmed using AI tools in its illegal war on Iran, which is being carried out in partnership with Israeli forces that have used artificial intelligence extensively in their genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip.
“Our war fighters are leveraging a variety of advanced AI tools," Brad Cooper, the head of the US Central Command, said in a video message released Wednesday. "These systems help us sift through vast amounts of data in seconds so our leaders can cut through the noise and make smarter decisions faster than the enemy can react."
NBC News reported earlier this week that the US military is "using AI systems from data analytics company Palantir to identify potential targets in the ongoing attacks."
"The use of Palantir’s software, which relies in part on Anthropic’s Claude AI systems, comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth aims to put artificial intelligence at the heart of America’s combat operations," the outlet noted.
During his tenure as head of the Pentagon, Hegseth has worked to dismantle initiatives aimed at reducing civilian killings, scoffed at "stupid rules of engagement," and touted "maximum lethality" as a top priority for the US military.
In their letter on Thursday, the House Democrats wrote that mass civilian deaths in the US-Israeli war on Iran are "alarming yet unsurprising" given Hegseth and Trump's open contempt for legal constraints on American forces.
"The US and Israel have reportedly struck or impacted numerous civilian sites—including schools, hospitals, gymnasiums, public gathering spaces, and a UNESCO heritage site," the lawmakers wrote. "Civilians and civilian infrastructure may under no circumstances be the object of attack and must at all times be respected and protected by all parties."
"This is a huge moment, a win that builds a foundation for a new precedent in the US," said one plaintiff. "Those who believe they are above the law will now think twice before violating human rights."
A federal appellate court on Thursday upheld a historic verdict against CACI Premier Technology, a military contractor found liable for its role in the torture of three prisoners at Abu Ghraib during the George W. Bush administration's invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s.
The three plaintiffs—middle school principal Suhail Al Shimari, fruit vendor Asa'ad Zuba'e, and journalist Salah Al-Ejaili—are represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and two law firms. CCR noted Thursday that Al Shimari v. CACI was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute and "is the only lawsuit brought by Abu Ghraib torture victims to make it to trial."
These three survivors of Abu Ghraib—where US captors subjected prisoners to broken bones, death threats, electric shocks, extreme temperatures, sexual abuse, and more torture—finally got their day in court in April 2024. The following November, a federal jury in Virginia ordered CACI to pay each plaintiff $3 million in compensatory damages and $11 million in punitive damages, for a total of $42 million.
"This victory isn't only for the three plaintiffs in this case against a corporation," Al-Ejaili said after the verdict. "This victory is a shining light for everyone who has been oppressed and a strong warning to any company or contractor practicing different forms of torture and abuse."
CACI unsuccessfully sought a new trial at the US District Court for the District of Virginia, then turned to the 4th Circuit, which heard arguments last September.
"We affirm the jury’s verdict in full," wrote Senior Judge Henry Floyd, joined by Judge Stephanie Thacker—both appointees of former President Barack Obama. Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., who was appointed by President Donald Trump, dissented.
CCR legal director Baher Azmy, who argued the appeal, said Thursday that "we are gratified yet again that the 4th Circuit rejected CACI's cynical arguments for impunity for its responsibility for the torture of our clients, which the jury confirmed in a historic judgment last year. Our courageous clients have waited so long for recognition and justice, and we are happy for them that this judgment affirmed their entitlement to it."
Al-Ejaili also celebrated the development, declaring that "this is a huge moment, a win that builds a foundation for a new precedent in the US."
"This will cause a positive difference in the future. Those who believe they are above the law will now think twice before violating human rights," the plaintiff added. "Thank you to the US legal system and thank you to everyone who had anything to do with this win."
The appellate court's decision notably comes as the Trump administration and Israel have launched another war in the Middle East: a joint assault of Iran, alongside Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Evidence of war crimes—including attacks on schools, hospitals, and other civilian infrastructure—has quickly mounted, fueling global demands for a diplomatic resolution.
The BBC has long been accused of centering Israel and dismissing the humanity of Palestinians in its coverage of Gaza.
British journalist Owen Jones on Thursday celebrated a UK High Court judge's ruling in his favor in a libel lawsuit that a BBC editor brought against him—and said that should the editor choose to move forward with his case despite the decision, he was looking forward "to defending my article in court."
The High Court ruled that Jones was expressing an opinion when he wrote an article for Drop Site News in December 2024 titled "The BBC's Civil War Over Gaza," in which he spoke to BBC staffers about Middle East online editor Raffi Berg's influence over the news outlet's coverage of Israel and Palestine.
The court also said Jones had expressed his opinion and that of his sources based on concrete examples of Berg's editorial role and journalism.
Jones' article described staffers' allegations that "internal complaints about how the BBC covers Gaza have been repeatedly brushed aside" as Berg "sets the tone" for the outlet's online coverage of Israel's onslaught in the exclave, where more than 75,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023 in what's been called a genocide by top Holocaust scholars and human rights groups.
It noted that the BBC failed to report on Amnesty International's finding that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza and displayed an on-screen chyron reading, "Israel rejects 'fabricated' claims of genocide.'"
"Journalists expressed concerns over bias in the shaping of the Middle East index of the BBC news website," wrote Jones. "Several allege that Berg 'micromanages' this section, ensuring that it fails to uphold impartiality."
The BBC has long been criticized for centering Israel and "dehumanizing" Palestinians, as more than 1,000 artists said in a letter last year when they condemned the network for refusing to air a documentary about the impact of Israel's attacks on children in Gaza, on the grounds that it featured the child of the exclave's deputy minister of agriculture—suggesting "that Palestinians holding administrative roles are inherently complicit in violence."
The article also pointed to Berg's own history of pro-Israel coverage, including a 2002 story "that presented young [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers as courageous defenders of their country while failing to mention the occupation and settlement of Palestinian land or the widespread allegations of crimes" documented by human rights groups and the US government.
Berg also presented Israeli settlers in the West Bank as "victims seeking 'a better quality of life' and did not mention the fact that the settlements have been repeatedly deemed illegal," and wrote about the Mossad "in glowing terms" in a book he wrote with extensive cooperation from the Israeli intelligence agency.
He also posted a photo on social media showing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a copy of Berg's book on his bookshelf, Jones reported.
Berg's lawyer said last year that Jones' reporting attacked Berg's "professional reputation as a journalist and editor," and led to death threats.
In order for his case against Jones to proceed, Berg would now need to prove in court that "Jones did not genuinely hold the opinion he expressed in his reporting, or demonstrate that the opinion is not one an honest person could hold on the basis of any fact that existed at the time of its publication," Middle East Eye reported.
"I am proud to stand by my journalism," said Jones Thursday.