This Week's Torture News

Andrew Sullivan comments on a Wall Street Journal article in An American Conscience.

"More and more military prosecutors are refusing to prosecute 'enemy combatants' in the terror war. Why? Not because some of these combatants are innocent. Many are not. But because many have been subjected to torture by the U.S."

"in what he calls the toughest decision of his military career, Col. Couch refused to proceed with the [Mohamedou Ould] Slahi prosecution. The reason: He concluded that Mr. Slahi's incriminating statements - the core of the government's case - had been taken through torture, rendering them inadmissible under U.S. and international law."

"n the following weeks, Mr. Slahi said, he was placed in isolation, subjected to extreme temperatures, beaten and sexually humiliated. The detention-board transcript states that at this point, "the recording equipment began to malfunction." It summarizes Mr. Slahi's missing testimony as discussing 'how he was tortured while here at GTMO by several individuals'."

"Remember the missing critical Padilla DVD? Recall that David Hicks has been put under a gag-order against discussing the torture techniques used against him by the US? Evidence is 'disappeared.' Detainees are gagged. Verdicts are pronounced based on testimony procured through torture. Col Couch is not stupid. He must also know that using evidence procured by torture is a war-crime. Every military prosecutor tasked by Bush and Cheney to prosecute torture victims is being set up as a war criminal. Bush and Cheney, meanwhile, secured their own legal immunity in the Military Commissions Act last year."

SCOTUSblog has details on monday's denial by the Supreme Court to rule on a habeus peitition for the detainees (since they're mostly not charged with anything, why don't we call them hostages?). They chose "instead to wait until the Pentagon's detention decisions have been reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as prescribed in the Detainee Treatment Act and Military Commissions Act. What this obviously means is that Justice Kennedy was unwilling to tip his hand on the merits either way within the Court. (If either block of four Justices had been confident of gaining his vote, they presumably would have voted to grant the petition.)"

They also posted the first released petition from a detainee. I tried reading the 27 pages but it's too sad. He's been imprisoned without charges since February 2002, now entering his 6th year. In November 2004 a Combatant Status Review Tribunal ruled he was not properly classified as an enemy combatant. In January 2005 another CSRT ruled he was. If the military thinks he's dangerous, then charge him with something. Holding someone for 5 years without charging them, is not American.