3 Reasons the Guantánamo Military Commissions Need the Senate Torture Report
On August 1, President Obama acknowledged again that "We tortured some folks." Last week, one of those people, Abd al-Rahim Hussayn al-Nashiri, was back in the courtroom in the Guantánamo military commissions, where he faces the death penalty for his alleged role in the bombing of the USS Cole.
While the CIA's torture program is now shuttered, its consequences still reverberate in Washington and at the commissions. As the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee fight over the spy agency's redactions to the Senate torture report summary, here are three key ways in which release of information in the report could impact the transparency and fairness of al-Nashiri's military commission trial.
- Defense lawyers, the judge, and the public may get a more complete picture of the CIA's torture of al-Nashiri and its impact on him and his case.
Currently, the government claims that details of al-Nashiri's torture are classified. This means the government seeks to limit the information his defense lawyers may obtain, share with their client, and submit to the judge in adversarial briefing on matters that could help determine whether al-Nashiri lives or dies. The government's classification claims also severely limit what information becomes public about the CIA's torture of al-Nashiri and its impact on him.
For example, although a judge in this case previously ordered the prosecution to provide defense counsel detailed information about al-Nashiri's treatment in CIA black sites, the prosecution wants to provide its own summaries of that information rather than original documents, which are the best evidence of what happened. Public release of detailed information in the Senate report would mean justifications for government-created summaries might fall away, defense lawyers could more effectively represent their client, and the commission trials would be more transparent.
Relatedly, release of the Senate report could mean that witnesses would be able to testify more fully about torture and its impact. In April, defense expert Dr. Sondra Crosby's testimony was considerably hobbled during a hearing on whether the case should be halted until al-Nashiri gets medical treatment. Crosby testified that al-Nashiri was subjected to physical, psychological, and sexual torture that caused chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. But she couldn't say anything about the specific instances of abuse that caused his mental trauma because that's classified, leaving Col. Vance Spath, a judge newly appointed to the case, with potentially incomplete facts upon which to base his ruling.
The release of the Senate report could change all of this and put crucial information in front of Judge Spath, the members of the military commission panel who will ultimately decide al-Nashiri's fate, and the public.
- Statements that may be the fruit of coercion are less likely to be admitted as evidence.
The prosecution has indicated that it will seek to use at trial statements al-Nashiri made to interrogators after he was brought to Guantánamo. Presumably, under the prosecution's view, the CIA's torture of al-Nashiri had stopped by then, so these statements aren't barred as impermissible coerced evidence. The information in the torture report may further detail, however, the extent and cruelty of the CIA's torture. It could strengthen his defense counsel's likely argument that the government's conduct was so outrageous – and had such a long-lasting effect – that all of al-Nashiri's statements must be excluded from trial.
- Al-Nashiri may get medical care for the consequences of torture.
The defense has asked Judge Spath to stop the proceedings until al-Nashiri obtains treatment for PTSD, and it has also asked for an MRI to determine if he sustained a traumatic brain injury from torture. The prosecution opposes both requests. While Judge Spath could rule without further evidence, the narrative of torture in the Senate torture report would surely frame public perception of the government's arguments and the judge's rulings. With more information in the public domain, the government would likely have a harder time arguing against additional diagnosis and medical care for the consequences of the torture to which it subjected this capital defendant.
There's an old adage about justice – it not only has to be done; it has to be seen to be done. While there are still multiple defects in the commission system, there can be no justice, or anything remotely approximating it, if crucial, devastating elements of al-Nashiri's story remain secret. Prompt release of the Senate torture report would help serve justice.
Learn more about military commissions and other civil liberties issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
National Security
Where Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil LibertiesWhere Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil Liberties
The ACLU has more than 100 years’ experience holding power accountable. As President-elect Donald Trump rolls out his cabinet picks, we analyze how his nominee for secretary of defense will impact civil liberties. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions.