OT - AP: U.S. Seeks to Silence Terror Suspect

[NoMyths]

The Bush administration is now seeking to bar a terrorism suspect from speaking to his attorney. Their reason? Because he might reveal the secret details of the interrogations heunderwent in a secret CIA prison.

Link: ABC News: U.S. Seeks to Silence Terror Suspect

Full Text:
AP: U.S. Seeks to Silence Terror Suspect
U.S.: Detainee Shouldn't Be Allowed to Tell Attorney About CIA's Interrogation Techniques

By MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON Nov 4, 2006 (AP)— A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques.

Human rights groups have questioned the CIA's methods for questioning suspects, especially following the passage of a bill last month that authorized the use of harsh but undefined interrogation tactics.

In recently filed court documents, the Justice Department said those methods, along with the locations of the CIA's network of prisons, are among the nation's most sensitive secrets. Prisoners who spent time in those prisons should not be allowed to disclose that information, even to a lawyer, the government said.

"Improper disclosure of other operational details, such as interrogation methods, could also enable terrorist organizations and operatives to adapt their training to counter such methods, thereby obstructing the CIA's ability to obtain vital intelligence that could disrupt future planned terrorist attacks," the Justice Department wrote.

The documents, which were first reported by The Washington Post, were filed in opposition to a request that terror suspect Majid Khan should be given access to an attorney. Khan, 26, immigrated from Pakistan and graduated high school in Maryland.

According to documents filed on his behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Khan was arrested in Pakistan in 2003. During more than three years in CIA custody, Khan was subjected to interrogation techniques that defense attorneys suggest amounted to torture.

President Bush acknowledged the existence of the CIA system in September and transferred Khan and 13 other prisoners designated as "terrorist leaders" to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Under a law passed last month, they are to be tried before special military commissions and may not have access to civilian courts.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is among several advocacy groups challenging that law. They say the Constitution guarantees prisoners a right to challenge their detention.

The Justice Department argues that civilian courts no longer have jurisdiction to intervene in the case. They say keeping details about the CIA program secret is essential because national security is at stake.

"Information obtained through the program has provided the United States with one of the most useful tools in combating terrorist threats to the national security," the government argued in court documents.

"It has shed light on probable targets and likely methods for attacks on the United States, has led to the disruption of terrorist plots against the United States and its allies, and has gathered information that has played a role in the capture and questioning of senior al-Qaida operatives," it said.

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, responded in court documents Friday that there is no evidence Khan has classified information. Gutierrez accused the administration of using national secrecy concerns to "conceal illegal or embarrassing executive conduct."

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has not indicated when he will rule.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm impressed. I wouldn't have thought of that off hand.

[Dutch]

Smart.

[cartman]

So much for the view of the US being the shining beacon for the rest of the world to follow. They still are going to follow, using this as an example. Now, anytime anyone is arrested, not told what their charges are, and denied any contact with a lawyer, they can point to the US example they are following.

I'm all for prosecuting these guys, but why are the powers that be so afraid of being wrong on individual cases? Instead of running these trials the way others have run throughout history, they are running everything in the shadows and trying to avoid any oversight at all. If they are sure that these guys are as bad as they say they are, it shouldn't be a problem to have a Nuremburg type event to try them.

[JPhillips]

What training could a terrorist receive that would make waterboarding less effective? Or sleep deprivation? Or stress positions? As always, this has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with covering up things they don't want to debate.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by from the article

In recently filed court documents, the Justice Department said those methods, along with the locations of the CIA's network of prisons, are among the nation's most sensitive secrets. Prisoners who spent time in those prisons should not be allowed to disclose that information, even to a lawyer, the government said.

"Improper disclosure of other operational details, such as interrogation methods, could also enable terrorist organizations and operatives to adapt their training to counter such methods, thereby obstructing the CIA's ability to obtain vital intelligence that could disrupt future planned terrorist attacks," the Justice Department wrote.

A couple of things. First, how do these prisoners know where the secret prisons are? I'm assuming that they are kept in solitary cells while in secret prisons and are transported without knowing where they are or where they're going. So how could they have any idea if they're in Germany, Spain, or even Georgia?

Second, how does letting knowledge of your interrogation tactics known hinder their effectiveness? Does it really make a difference if you know that you're going to have electrodes attached to your genitals? Is that going to stop you from spilling your guts when the juice gets turned on? I've never been tortured, um, I mean interrogated by the CIA, so I honestly don't know. I just can't picture how you can ever really prepare yourself for such techniques.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Second, how does letting knowledge of your interrogation tactics known hinder their effectiveness?

Preparation for likely interrogation techniques has been around for at least 50+ years. It isn't foolproof by any means, but it would tend to enhance the ability to resist, at least extending the amount of resistance possible.

[Peregrine]

Well the United States has the best technology in the world, if they learn to resist what we've got, I'm sure we can use our best scientists to come up with something new...I know, how about some kind of metal coffin full of spikes?

[WVUFAN]

Terrorists should not have the constitutional rights citizens do.

I don't have a problem with what the administration is doing in this instance.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Terrorists should not have the constitutional rights citizens do.

I don't have a problem with what the administration is doing in this instance.

So you wouldn't have a problem with this if you or someone you loved was determined to be terrorist?

[WVUFAN]

I'm an American, and hense have rights under the Constitution. This "suspect" isn't.

That's the difference.

Why are you defending someone who would want nothing more than to kill you, and bashing those who are trying to get information to help defend this country? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

One of the problems of this country is the concern we feel for criminals at the expense of the rest of us.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I'm an American, and hense have rights under the Constitution. This "suspect" isn't.

That's the difference.

Why are you defending someone who would want nothing more than to kill you, and bashing those who are trying to get information to help defend this country? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

One of the problems of this country is the concern we feel for criminals at the expense of the rest of us.

What happens if a foreigner mugs someone in this country? Aren't they entitled to representation in our courts?

Do serial killers not get their day in court? Don't they want nothing more than to kill us?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I'm an American, and hense have rights under the Constitution. This "suspect" isn't.

That's the difference.

Why are you defending someone who would want nothing more than to kill you, and bashing those who are trying to get information to help defend this country? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

One of the problems of this country is the concern we feel for criminals at the expense of the rest of us.

It's hard to determine if someone is a criminal if you don't even know what they are accused of. Just because a party accuses someone of being a criminal doesn't make them one. Even if "The Decider" says so.

As for the part about being an American and having rights, with the recent legislation passed, if you are declared an "enemy combatant", those rights are tossed out the window and you are in the same boat as these guys.

As I said, I'm all for prosecuting these guys. But if these methods were used on an American in the custody of another country, we'd be screaming at the top of our lungs against it. If there isn't any doubt about the guilt of these guys, why not have the Nuremburg type tribunal? That's how this kind of stuff has been handled before, and it is not covered by the Constitution, but there are still International Law issues that have to be taken into account. It's the best of everything. We show why this person is a criminal and needs to be detained, and the evidence is presented against them, and the verdict is generally respected.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

One of the problems of this country is the concern we feel for criminals at the expense of the rest of us.

One of the great things about this country is the fact that no-one is a criminal until proven to be so.

[Glengoyne]

I don't see this attempt working out for the administration. The best they can realisticly hope for is to muzzle the attorney. That seems reasonable to me. It is sensitive information, but I really don't see this working out for the admin.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

What happens if a foreigner mugs someone in this country? Aren't they entitled to representation in our courts?

Probably. However, if I had my say, no. They would be deported. No appeals, no second chances.

Do serial killers not get their day in court? Don't they want nothing more than to kill us?

Yes, and if they are citizens they are entitled to a trial. I don't agree there should be the number of appeals they get. If they are convicted, they should get one appeal, judged quickly and put of of our misery.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I don't agree there should be the number of appeals they get. If they are convicted, they should get one appeal, judged quickly and put of of our misery.

Would you be saying the same thing if you were facing murder charges?

[WVUFAN]

[quote=cartman;1294819]

As I said, I'm all for prosecuting these guys. But if these methods were used on an American in the custody of another country, we'd be screaming at the top of our lungs against it.

I've said this before, and I still believe it -- an agreement is not valid when only one side abides by it (as in the case of the Geneva Convention). The Allied side are the ONLY ONES that even attempt to abide by the Geneva Convention. It's simply does not work anymore.

The US HAS to have means to extract information from known terrorists to protect this country. We're not SLOWLY slicing off heads like they are (I've seen the Pearl video, they don't chop, they slice). We don't terrorize people on a daily basis (they do). What the bleeding hearts are calling "torture" is nothing compared to what they do.

The argument that says we are better because we don't torture is a interesting fantasy that just doesn't fly in reality. If the means we extract information needs to be protected, so be it.

I do not care two cents of the lives of those terrorists. Whatever we need to do to get the information out of them, I'm all for it.

If there isn't any doubt about the guilt of these guys, why not have the Nuremburg type tribunal? That's how this kind of stuff has been handled before, and it is not covered by the Constitution, but there are still International Law issues that have to be taken into account. It's the best of everything. We show why this person is a criminal and needs to be detained, and the evidence is presented against them, and the verdict is generally respected.

I'm fine with that, as long as we are the ones presiding over the tribunal. I do not trust other countries (like France, Germany) to fairly judge.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Would you be saying the same thing if you were facing murder charges?

Having never faced murder charges, I wouldn't know.

Conversely, if you had a loved one murdered, would you want the murderer to get multiple appeals?

My point is the wrong person is getting the benefit -- instead of the victim or the family of the victim getting priority and all the "rights", it's the criminal. It SHOULD be the opposite.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Having never faced murder charges, I wouldn't know.

Conversely, if you had a loved one murdered, would you want the murderer to get multiple appeals?

My point is the wrong person is getting the benefit -- instead of the victim or the family of the victim getting priority and all the "rights", it's the criminal. It SHOULD be the opposite.

What part of the "suspect" part don't you get?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

What part of the "suspect" part don't you get?

What part of "victim" don't you get?

I never said suspects shouldn't get a trial. Once they are convicted, though, that should be it. That includes the terrorists ... er, "terrorist suspects" locked up right now.

People look at things from the perspective that "maybe we got the wrong person", from the viewpoint of the "suspect". I look at it from the victim's standpoint. They are the ones that deserves the attention and the concern of the citizens, not the criminal.

The rights of the victim supercedes the rights of the criminal.

[cartman]

Since when did we start advocating Napoleonic Law, where you are guilty until proven innocent?

I think this is what is the gist of the issue. No one I've seen post so far is against punishing those who have been found to have committed terrorist acts. What I see people protesting is the concept of simply being detained as being the same as being found guilty of committing terrorist acts.

[Klinglerware]

If the difference between "suspect" and "criminal" cannot be comprehended, then I'm not sure if there is anything more to say here.

[Anthony]

i saw we kill them all. if it turns out they were innocent we can always write a letter of apology to their families.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

If the difference between "suspect" and "criminal" cannot be comprehended, then I'm not sure if there is anything more to say here.

Spot on.

[molson]

A trial for every terrorist suspect is not practical. Hell, a trial for every domestic misdemeanor suspect is not practical. That's why we just lock most criminals up once they've been arrested, and once they've been in there long enough, they plead guilty, get credit for the time they served, and then go home and commit more crimes.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

If the difference between "suspect" and "criminal" cannot be comprehended, then I'm not sure if there is anything more to say here.

Then I guess there's nothing more to say here. I consider EVERY SINGLE terrorist in prison in Cuba or in the secret Prisons an enemy of the United States, and unworthy of any privilage or right that a US citizen may be entitled to.

Just my opinion.

[albionmoonlight]

What's wrong with giving him an attorney with Top Secret clearance? Then tell the attorney what kinds of things he is not allowed to reveal. It's not like this is the first suspected criminal who has access to information that the people in charge like to keep secret. Courts deal with stuff all of the time that has to be in sealed records.

[st.cronin]

Good Lord, Jamarcus Russell is strong.

haha wrong thread

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

What's wrong with giving him an attorney with Top Secret clearance? Then tell the attorney what kinds of things he is not allowed to reveal. It's not like this is the first suspected criminal who has access to information that the people in charge like to keep secret. Courts deal with stuff all of the time that has to be in sealed records.

I seriously doubt you'd need an attorney with a top secret clearance. Any clearance would do, and any military attorney is bound to at least hold a secret clearance.

But the civilian attorney's (anti-govt group) filing this protest on the terrorist's behalf would surely protest any military attorney support as unsatisfactory.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Conversely, if you had a loved one murdered, would you want the murderer to get multiple appeals?

yes, I would want to make absolute sure that the right person is behind bars, lest G-D be mad at me for supporting the incarceration of the wrong man or woman....my G-D works both ways.

It is not FREEDOM that allows the people in "power", whatever that means, to "suspect" whomever they choose and have them be guilty, without ever being able to defend themselves in court. It is not FREEDOM that allows a power to "remove" people from their lives, to disappear with no recourse to prove that they are innocent, that is NOT the FREEDOM we are fighting for... It is also NOT UN-patriotic to believe that all human beings are entitled to certain unalienable rights including those that revolve around the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is also a foregone conclusion that a year ago when I said that since we're claiming the moral high ground in this war, that we damn sure better walk the talk, that that claim is gone and the rest of the world does NOT view us as carrying the torch of morality in this battle....which is a total and complete shame. an abomination because I know that we are the "good" in this battle against Al Qaeda as much as they think that they are the "good"...I want our good to win, whatever that means.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Then I guess there's nothing more to say here. I consider EVERY SINGLE terrorist in prison in Cuba or in the secret Prisons an enemy of the United States, and unworthy of any privilage or right that a US citizen may be entitled to.

Just my opinion.

Hmm, apart from not understanding the difference between a suspect and a criminal, you also don't understand the difference between a detainee and a terrorist. Not everyone in Cuba is a "terrorist," some were people picked up in broad sweep searches. I'm sure you are aware that after several years in Cuba, many were finally released free with no charges made against them.

Of course, you probably feel that's ok for those who got out, hell they got out didn't they? -- missing out on 2-4 years of your life while living in a small cell and being subjected to "alternative interrogation methods" is no big deal.

Anyways, as pointed out, with the different viewpoints, this debate is pointless.

As for the main point of this thread, more of the same. I'm waiting desperately for Tuesday.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Hmm, apart from not understanding the difference between a suspect and a criminal, you also don't understand the difference between a detainee and a terrorist. Not everyone in Cuba is a "terrorist," some were people picked up in broad sweep searches. I'm sure you are aware that after several years in Cuba, many were finally released free with no charges made against them.

Of course, you probably feel that's ok for those who got out, hell they got out didn't they? -- missing out on 2-4 years of your life while living in a small cell and being subjected to "alternative interrogation methods" is no big deal.

I'm glad those guys got out since they didn't do anything. But war has never been an exact science. It's probably fair to point out that the US military gives a pretty good effort in getting it as right as possible when picking up battlefield prisoners. But that's good news, doesn't sell--and tragically--eventually forgotten.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Then I guess there's nothing more to say here. I consider EVERY SINGLE terrorist in prison in Cuba or in the secret Prisons an enemy of the United States, and unworthy of any privilage or right that a US citizen may be entitled to.

Does that include the guys in Guantanamo who were later found to be actual farmers in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm glad those guys got out since they didn't do anything. But war has never been an exact science. It's probably fair to point out that the US military gives a pretty good effort in getting it as right as possible when picking up battlefield prisoners. But that's good news, doesn't sell--and tragically--eventually forgotten.

well i think the administration has painted their own picture there.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I never said suspects shouldn't get a trial. Once they are convicted, though, that should be it.

Yeah, because our legal system is so perfect it has never convicted someone who was innocent.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

well i think the administration has painted their own picture there.

They may have painted a picture, but it's behind that big-assed AP billboard on I-95.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

They may have painted a picture, but it's behind that big-assed AP billboard on I-95.

Full circle to the liberal media bias....well done Dutch, I dont know how you do it, but the penchant to point the finger everywhere else other than you know where, is a talent.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

The US HAS to have means to extract information from known terrorists to protect this country. We're not SLOWLY slicing off heads like they are (I've seen the Pearl video, they don't chop, they slice). We don't terrorize people on a daily basis (they do). What the bleeding hearts are calling "torture" is nothing compared to what they do.

Are there different levels of torture like there are murder? Should we consider beheading First Degree Torture and waterboarding Second Degree Torture? No matter what you want to call it, though, it's still torture.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Yeah, because our legal system is so perfect it has never convicted someone who was innocent.

We've also convicted many, many GUILTY people as well. One innocent person convicted doesn't invalidate all the successes.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Are there different levels of torture like there are murder? Should we consider beheading First Degree Torture and waterboarding Second Degree Torture? No matter what you want to call it, though, it's still torture.

Dola -- Not really. From what I've read of what we do to terrorists, I would not call it torture, not in the way many people are thinking. This isn't "Hostel" territory here, where we cut off fingers or break bones, we're talking sleep deprivation, stress positions, ect.

It seems some of you want us to ask nicely where the terrorist cells are, and when they refuse, we smile and simply take them back to their air conditioned rooms.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

We've also convicted many, many GUILTY people as well. One innocent person convicted doesn't invalidate all the successes.

Oh, if only it were just one innocent person wrongly convicted.

The system is set up to help catch when someone is convicted incorrectly, thus all the appeals. It might be costly and time consuming, but it sure makes me feel better about the system that there are several chances to make sure the decision is correct. One innocent person in prison (or even worse, put to death) is one person too many.

You might see it as having too much concern for the criminal's rights over the victim, but I see it as having concern for my rights. The same goes for the supposed terrorists. I could care less about their rights, but this whole issue concerns my rights. Who's to say that the day won't come where I'm picked up and accused of being a terrorist? Or someone in my family? Or even you and your family?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Dola -- Not really. From what I've read of what we do to terrorists, I would not call it torture, not in the way many people are thinking. This isn't "Hostel" territory here, where we cut off fingers or break bones, we're talking sleep deprivation, stress positions, ect.

It seems some of you want us to ask nicely where the terrorist cells are, and when they refuse, we smile and simply take them back to their air conditioned rooms.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigat...ory?id=1322866

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

Now, do we let our police forces use these techniques while interrogating a suspect? No, because they're considered forms of torture.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Now, do we let our police forces use these techniques while interrogating a suspect? No, because they're considered forms of torture.

Again, these are not American citizens, and are not due the same rights as us. They are PRISONERS OF WAR.

I don't have a single bit of problem with any of those tactics. I suppose you don't think we should use any interrogation techniques at all. We'd never get any information that way.

The sooner people realize this is a war, the better things will be. We have NEVER treated prisoners of war the same as american citizens when it comes to crimes.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Now, do we let our police forces use these techniques while interrogating a suspect? No, because they're considered forms of torture.

While I'd readilly agree to call the things described above as coercion, I'm not really all that compelled to call them torture.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Again, these are not American citizen, and are not due the same rights as us. They are PRISONERS OF WAR.

I don't have a single bit of problem with any of those tactics. I suppose you don't think we should use any interrogation techniques at all. We'd never get any information that way.

The sooner people realize this is a war, the better things will be. We have NEVER treated prisoners of war the same as american citizens when it comes to crimes.

Prisoners of war are protected from torture. They might not have the same rights as U.S. citizens, but they do have rights.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

While I'd readilly agree to call the things described above as coercion, I'm not really all that compelled to call them torture.

You're fine with water boarding? Or being forced to stand on your feet for almost two days? Or open-handed slaps? That's all fine to you? So when the police start using these methods you won't object?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

You're fine with water boarding? Or being forced to stand on your feet for almost two days? Or open-handed slaps? That's all fine to you? So when the police start using these methods you won't object?

I'm fine with using those techniques against prisoners of war.

Seriously, what would you use to retrieve information?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Again, these are not American citizens, and are not due the same rights as us. They are PRISONERS OF WAR.

I don't have a single bit of problem with any of those tactics. I suppose you don't think we should use any interrogation techniques at all. We'd never get any information that way.

The sooner people realize this is a war, the better things will be. We have NEVER treated prisoners of war the same as american citizens when it comes to crimes.

Have you heard of human rights? I guess under your theory, we may as well just shoot them afterwards because they aren't American citizens. Do you get the idea ever that many are not prisoners of war? That many who were tortured were actually released. They were innocent. Do you know that many professional interrogators state that you don't get reliable information from this kind of interrogation -- the captive will say anything.

This is pointless.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I'm fine with using those techniques against prisoners of war.

Do you object to the terrorists that torture U.S. soldiers? What if they're just trying to get information, too?

Seriously, what would you use to retrieve information?

I'm not in the intelligence field, so I don't know what other means there are out there, but there are obviously alternative means to gathering information.