• commentary
  • SATURDAY NOVEMBER 4 2006 2:30 PM

Victims of US Torture Can't Discuss it Because of "National Security"

The story just keeps more and more absurd. First there was talk of secret CIA prisons where the US could keep suspected terrorists held outside of the protections of US laws. Then the discovery of widespread torture of inmates at the US holding facility in Guantanamo bay, Cuba. The realization that suspected terrorists in these facilities did not have access to an actual public trial, but had to submit to a military tribunal's decision if they attempted to challenge their imprisonment (later found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.) Now the Bush administration has decided that these torture practices that the US "does not practice" have become a matter of "sensitive national security." And as such, their victims may not discuss the conditions of their "interrogations" with anyone, even their attorneys.

The Bush administration has told a federal judge that terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons should not be allowed to reveal details of the "alternative interrogation methods" that their captors used to get them to talk.

The government says in new court filings that those interrogation methods are now among the nation's most sensitive national security secrets and that their release -- even to the detainees' own attorneys -- "could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage." Terrorists could use the information to train in counter-interrogation techniques and foil government efforts to elicit information about their methods and plots, according to government documents submitted to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton on Oct. 26.


Majid Khan, the complainant in the case, was held captive in US facilities for years in what can only be described as horrendous conditions, while his family did not know his whereabouts.

All of these tactics, when combined, point to a regime that goes beyond any notion of a Nixonian "imperial" presidency. It is tyranny, plain and simple, in the guise of democracy and a "war" against terrorism. Naysayers are often quick to dismiss this type of characterization of the US, assuring people that the secret police have not begun coming in the middle of the night to abduct suspects. Think again.

The family said Khan was staying with a brother in Karachi, Pakistan, in March 2003 when men, who were not in uniform, burst into the apartment late one night and put hoods over the heads of Khan, his brother Mohammad and his brother's wife. The couple's 1-month-old son was also seized.

Another brother, Mahmood Khan, who has lived in the United States since 1989, said in an interview this week that the four were hustled into police vehicles and taken to an undisclosed location, where they were separated and held in windowless rooms. His sister-in-law and her baby remained together, he said.

According to Mahmood, Mohammad said they were questioned repeatedly by men who identified themselves as members of Pakistan's intelligence service and others who identified themselves as U.S. officials. Mohammad's wife was released after seven days, and he was released after three months, without charge. He was left on a street corner without explanation, Mahmood said.

Periodically, he said, people who identified themselves as Pakistani officials contacted Mohammad and assured him that his brother would soon be released and that they ought not contact a lawyer or speak with the news media.

"We had no way of knowing who had him or where he was," Mahmood Khan said this week at the family home outside Baltimore.


Khan may be an actual terrorist. He may be involved in planning terrorist actions against the US and its allies. As such he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But that statement only means something when the law itself means something. A government that is willing to place itself above its own constraints in such fundamental aspects of civilization as a right to a fair and public trial, access to an attorney, imprisonment and interrogation in humane conditions and presumption of innocence in order to pursue a political agenda has lost all credibility and moral authority. A complete lack of Congressional oversight on the actions of the Bush presidency have contributed to this disaster, a situation which will hopefully be remedied soon in a few days when the Republicans who toed the line as their president pissed on the constitution are stomped on by their Democratic opponents in the election.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
MschfMayhemSoap

MschfMayhemSoap

Phoenix, AZ
April 2006

NOV 04, 2006 02:48 PM

The Law is worthless if the creators arent willing to follow it themselves.

Anyone to share a farmhouse in canada? Anyone?

brett54

brett54

Australia
November 2004

NOV 04, 2006 03:12 PM

yawn ..... so what's new about the US trampling over people's and other nation's rights?

Just face facts, the US is an Imperialist nation (of the worst kind).

hmmm ..... do you think secret torture prisons will help stop the Jihadi'ist? Unfortunately, as history points out, your cretinous leaders think it will.

theseeman

theseeman

Asheville, NC
December 2002

NOV 04, 2006 03:48 PM

I'd had this fantasy that someone aducts and torture Rove or Cheney in the exact same ways they have had people abducted and tortured. But maybe we'll all get the gift of impeachment/. Oh that would be lovely.

The Aussie is not very constructive. He should give a fellow ex colony of the British Empire some credit. And Jihadi'ist is not a dirty word. It is a complement to those he speaks of.

Waldo_Jeffers

Waldo_Jeffers

United Kingdom
OLD SKOOL

NOV 04, 2006 03:53 PM

brett54 said:
yawn ..... so what's new about the US trampling over people's and other nation's rights?.


If people stop talking about it and condemning it then everyone will conveniently forget that it ever happened.

DieWhiteGirls

DieWhiteGirls

Madison, WI
July 2005

NOV 04, 2006 04:31 PM

I've got to be honest...this could be legitimate. I know it's easy to demonize everything that the Bush administration does, but the potential leak of interrogation techniques would be catastrophic for interrogators. I'm not saying it isn't suspicious, but we really should wait before we automatically assume that they're covering up torture. There is no difference between this and every other conspiracy theory and that's exactly what this is. It's more probable than others, but nonetheless a conspiracy theory. Let's give them an inch to breathe for once.

MikeofEvil2

MikeofEvil2

United Kingdom
September 2003

NOV 04, 2006 04:58 PM

Wait for what? We're never going to find out what the methods are, because that would be a security risk, so we'll never know if it's torture or not.

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

NOV 04, 2006 05:00 PM

DieWhiteGirls said:
I've got to be honest...this could be legitimate. I know it's easy to demonize everything that the Bush administration does, but the potential leak of interrogation techniques would be catastrophic for interrogators. I'm not saying it isn't suspicious, but we really should wait before we automatically assume that they're covering up torture. There is no difference between this and every other conspiracy theory and that's exactly what this is. It's more probable than others, but nonetheless a conspiracy theory. Let's give them an inch to breathe for once.



No , lets not.

Secret prisons ? Secret interrogation techniques ? You think that MIGHT be legit so let it slide ?

These are not stardards I was led to believe my country stood for.

DieWhiteGirls

DieWhiteGirls

Madison, WI
July 2005

NOV 04, 2006 05:07 PM

chainlink said:

DieWhiteGirls said:
I've got to be honest...this could be legitimate. I know it's easy to demonize everything that the Bush administration does, but the potential leak of interrogation techniques would be catastrophic for interrogators. I'm not saying it isn't suspicious, but we really should wait before we automatically assume that they're covering up torture. There is no difference between this and every other conspiracy theory and that's exactly what this is. It's more probable than others, but nonetheless a conspiracy theory. Let's give them an inch to breathe for once.



No , lets not.



If we do that, we're no better than them. We are probably going to be in a great position 2 months from now (with the house and senate controlled by Dems) and then we'll really know if things like this are conspiracies or in fact, just national security. I'm not saying that we should cut them slack on every issue, but in a situation like this, with nothing but hearsay and conjecture to back up the validity, we should at least ALLOW for the possibility of it being true.

DieWhiteGirls

DieWhiteGirls

Madison, WI
July 2005

NOV 04, 2006 05:10 PM

chainlink said:

Secret prisons ? Secret interrogation techniques ? You think that MIGHT be legit so let it slide ?

These are not stardards I was led to believe my country stood for.



Ok, you edited this before I posted, so I'll reply to this as well.

I'm not targeting this part of the article. The part about keeping people quiet regarding interrogation techniques used is what I'm referring to. Until the time Bush recommended this, they could have come out and let us know if anything horrible happened and they didn't.

Westley

Westley

Vatican City
April 2004

NOV 04, 2006 05:18 PM

DieWhiteGirls said:

chainlink said:

Secret prisons ? Secret interrogation techniques ? You think that MIGHT be legit so let it slide ?

These are not stardards I was led to believe my country stood for.



Ok, you edited this before I posted, so I'll reply to this as well.

I'm not targeting this part of the article. The part about keeping people quiet regarding interrogation techniques used is what I'm referring to. Until the time Bush recommended this, they could have come out and let us know if anything horrible happened and they didn't.



Yeah, where were all those people stored away in secret prisons before all this? Why didn't they come forward and tell us their stories?

......

DieWhiteGirls

DieWhiteGirls

Madison, WI
July 2005

NOV 04, 2006 05:28 PM

Westley said:

DieWhiteGirls said:

chainlink said:

Secret prisons ? Secret interrogation techniques ? You think that MIGHT be legit so let it slide ?

These are not stardards I was led to believe my country stood for.



Ok, you edited this before I posted, so I'll reply to this as well.

I'm not targeting this part of the article. The part about keeping people quiet regarding interrogation techniques used is what I'm referring to. Until the time Bush recommended this, they could have come out and let us know if anything horrible happened and they didn't.



Yeah, where were all those people stored away in secret prisons before all this? Why didn't they come forward and tell us their stories?

......



By the same logic, what difference does it make if they can't talk about this if they're in secret prisons?

swedrock

swedrock

Louisville, KY
October 2005

NOV 04, 2006 05:31 PM

From the Washington Post it sounds as if they worry about someone finding the locations rather than the methods:
"Because Khan "was detained by CIA in this program, he may have come into possession of information, including locations of detention, conditions of detention, and alternative interrogation techniques that is classified at the TOP SECRET//SCI level," an affidavit from CIA Information Review Officer Marilyn A. Dorn states, using the acronym for "sensitive compartmented information."

This guy looks bad to me, and he was arrested by the Pakistani's. There are protests in Pakistan this afternoon. His brother, wife and child were released after 1 week according to Washington Post. His family is frustrated because they can't communicate with him. He is in the Cuba Military Jail.

Well, on a positive note, our government seems only worried about the upcoming transfers from the secret jails in other countries, not about all the people who have been at the Cuba jail for the last few years.

I'm thinking too much for this late on a Friday afternoon... excuse all the words.

Westley

Westley

Vatican City
April 2004

NOV 04, 2006 05:32 PM

DieWhiteGirls said:
By the same logic, what difference does it make if they can't talk about this if they're in secret prisons?


You mean, considering they are no longer secret and stories have been piling in for quite some time now? (which is what necessitates this new bullshit attempt at obstruction by the administration in the first place)

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

NOV 04, 2006 05:36 PM

DieWhiteGirls said:

chainlink said:

Secret prisons ? Secret interrogation techniques ? You think that MIGHT be legit so let it slide ?

These are not stardards I was led to believe my country stood for.



Ok, you edited this before I posted, so I'll reply to this as well.

I'm not targeting this part of the article. The part about keeping people quiet regarding interrogation techniques used is what I'm referring to. Until the time Bush recommended this, they could have come out and let us know if anything horrible happened and they didn't.




Maybe you haven't been paying attention but they HAVE been coming forward and saying all manner of horrible shameful things. One specific case is even talked about directly above.
The bottom line is if they are using legitimate interrogation techniques they are already widely known. No need to hide it. Most of the illegal ones are widely too. So what could they possibly need to hide ?
Think they got some ultra new way to talk to people that makes them just fall in love and automatically share everything they know ? Think it must remain a national secret for our security because if word leaked out the terrorist would understand the " good cop / bad cop routine " ?

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

NOV 04, 2006 05:40 PM

swedrock said:

This guy looks bad to me



BIG flaw in your logic there champ. Unless you have some magic power that enables you to see into mens souls.

Usually we don't convict people based on how they look.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next