<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>Blog an End to America&apos;s Use of Torture</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3</id>
   <updated>2008-08-07T18:27:15Z</updated>
   
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 3.34</generator>

<entry>
   <title>Hamdan Found Guilty by Military Commission in Split Decision</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/08/hamdan_found_guilty_by_militar.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1249</id>
   
   <published>2008-08-06T18:51:27Z</published>
   <updated>2008-08-07T18:27:15Z</updated>
   
   <summary>From New York Times Guantanamo specialist William Glaberson, providing a little insight on the highly complicated case and journey of Salim Ahmed Hamdan: GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — A panel of six military officers convicted a former driver for Osama bin...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>anita</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[From <em>New York Times</em> Guantanamo specialist William Glaberson, providing a little insight on the highly complicated case and journey of Salim Ahmed Hamdan:

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — A panel of six military officers convicted a former driver for Osama bin Laden of a war crime Wednesday, completing the first military commission trial here and the first conducted by the United States since the end of World War II.

But the commission acquitted the former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, of a conspiracy charge, arguably the more serious of two charges he faced. His conviction came on a separate but lesser charge of providing material support for terrorism. 

<strong>UPDATE: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/washington/08gitmo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin">Hamdan Speaks at Sentence Hearing</a></strong>]]>
      Mr. Hamdan, who has said he is about 40, faces a possible life term. The sentence is to be set in a separate proceeding before the same panel that is to begin this afternoon. As the verdict was read, Mr. Hamdan, who has been in custody since he was detained in Afghanistan in November of 2001, stood passively at the defense table in a white headscarf, his head bent slightly down.

The conviction of Mr. Hamdan, a Yemeni who was part of a select group of drivers and bodyguards for Mr. bin Laden until 2001, was a long-sought, if somewhat qualified, victory for the Bush administration, which has been working to begin military commission trials at the isolated naval base here for nearly seven years.

Mr. Hamdan was convicted by a panel of six senior military officers who, according to an order of the military judge, could not be publicly identified. The panel deliberated for eight hours over three days. As permitted under the law Congress passed for trials here in 2006, the trial included secret evidence and testimony in a closed courtroom.

Critics have long claimed that the military commission system here does not meet American standards of fundamental justice, in part because the Military Commissions Law allows hearsay evidence and evidence derived through coercive interrogation methods. The public is not allowed in the courtroom, and legal documents are often never released.

After closing arguments Monday, Charles D. Swift, a former Navy lawyer who has represented Mr. Hamdan for years, said the two-week proceeding here had been a trial that did not follow the American rule of law and that the defense believed American courts would eventually correct the legal errors here. Mr. Swift called the military commission “a made-up tribunal to try anybody we don’t like.”

The not-guilty verdict on the conspiracy charge was a setback for the military prosecutors. The charge had asserted that Mr. Hamdan joined in the conspiracy that included the 2001 and other major terror attacks by helping transport and protect Mr. bin Laden.

But the verdict was also a vindication of sorts for the military commission system here, which critics had long said would simply rubber-stamp the charges of Pentagon prosecutors.

Michael J. Berrigan, the deputy chief defense counsel for Guantánamo, said the defense was encouraged by the verdict. “For a team that was expected to strike out at every pitch,” he said, “we at least hit a triple.”

He described the conspiracy charge that was rejected by the panel as the government’s main charge, and noted that when Mr. Hamdan was originally charged in 2003 the only charge he faced was conspiracy.

Defense lawyers have long argued that material support has not historically been part of the international law of war, which is the law applied by the military commissions here. In civilian law, material support for terrorism is a relatively recent concept, designed as a broad law-enforcement tool to contend with the new challenges of terrorism.

Prosecutors argue that, although the terminology “material support” may not have existed historically, the laws of war have long prohibited stealthy attacks on civilians, the mainstay of terrorism groups and the target of material-support charges. Mr. Berrigan said the defense would soon begin efforts to raise its challenges to material support charges here.

After an appeal to a military commission appeals court, convicted detainees are permitted to take their cases to American federal court.

The panel members rejected each of two specifications that would have supported a conviction for conspiracy. One of those asserted that Mr. Hamdan was part of the larger conspiracy with senior al Qaeda leaders and shared responsibility for terror attacks like the 1998 bombings of United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2001 terror attack.

The second conspiracy specification asserted that Mr. Hamdan was part of a conspiracy to kill Americans in Afghanistan in 2001 with shoulder-fired missiles. When he was captured by Afghan forces on Nov. 24, 2001, he had two of the missiles in the car he was driving.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Guantánamo Bay Judge Admits Possible Error (August 6, 2008)
Readers&apos; Comments

    Share your thoughts on this article.

    * Post a Comment »
    * Read All Comments (144) »

The charges concerning the missiles were among the most hard-fought at the two-week trial, and were prominent in bitter arguments Tuesday after the jury had begin deliberations. Prosecutors claimed that the military judge had improperly defined the allegation in his instructions to the panel members Monday. The prosecution claim was that the conspiracy involved “murder in violation of the law of war.”

But the panel voted to convict Mr. Hamdan of five of eight specifications that made up the charge of providing material support for terrorism. A guilty vote on a single specification would have been enough for conviction.

The specifications of which Mr. Hamdan was convicted included allegations that he drove Osama bin Laden, served as his bodyguard and knew al Qaeda’s goals. One specification said that he provided those services “knowing that by providing said services or transportation he was directly facilitating communications and planning for acts of terrorism.”

For the Bush Administration, a conviction on any charge represented a victory as the first in a legal system that has been the subject of bitter debate for years, and also because a case brought on behalf of the same accused detainee reached the Supreme Court in 2006. That case, Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, ended with a ruling that derailed the Bush administration’s first plan for military commission trials here.

Tony Fratto, the deputy White House press secretary, said the administration was pleased that Salim Hamdan received a fair trial, with an opportunity to present a defense against serious charges.

“The military commission convicted Hamdan of material support for terrorism,” he said in a statement. “The Military Commission system is a fair and appropriate legal process for prosecuting detainees alleged to have committed crimes against the United States or our interests. We look forward to other cases moving forward to trial.”Lawyers for Mr. Hamdan have been saying here this week that a conviction would certainly bring appeals, perhaps back to the Supreme Court, to deal with claims that the tribunals here do not meet American standards of fundamental fairness.

“History and world opinion will judge whether the government proved the system to be fair,” the defense said in a statement.

The case included references by both sides to the trials of Nazi leaders at Nuremberg decades ago that may be the best known modern war-crimes trials. Both sides employed Nuremberg references to make their points about Guantánamo.

Prosecutors, eager to shore up the image of the commissions here, presented a video that included graphic footage of Qaeda terror attacks and their victims.

The prosecutors titled their video “The al Qaeda Plan,” the filmmaker testified, in reference to “The Nazi Plan,” a film shown at Nuremberg to document the Holocaust.

The defense lawyers employed the Nuremberg references to argue that the Pentagon had overreached with its case against a bin Laden driver they described as a poorly educated worker without access to Qaeda’s terror plans. The defense noted that Hitler’s driver, Erich Kempka, was not prosecuted as a war criminal.

Much of the case against Mr. Hamdan was based on his own descriptions of his role as a driver collected by federal agents in more than 40 interrogations, including some that lasted many days.

A June decision by the Supreme Court said detainees have a constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court, a defeat for the Bush administration, which had long claimed that the Constitution had no application here.

Some lawyers said the June ruling suggested that the Constitution would have broader application here. But the military judge in Mr. Hamdan’s case, Capt. Keith J. Allred of the Navy, ruled that many of Mr. Hamdan’s statements to interrogators could be used against him even though he had not had a lawyer and had not been given warnings required in the United States that any statements could be used against him.

Prosecutors at the two-week trial called 14 witnesses, including 10 federal agents who interrogated Mr. Hamdan. Using what they said were his own words, the agents described Mr. Hamdan as an important link in Al Qaeda’s security operations.

They said he had protected and ferried around Mr. bin Laden to elude detection after several terror attacks, including the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

Defense lawyers argued that there was no evidence that Mr. Hamdan, a Yemeni with a fourth-grade education, was involved in planning any Qaeda operations or had advance knowledge of the specifics of any planned attacks. They claimed that his role as a driver was just a job for a father of two who “had to earn a living,” as one of his lawyers, Harry H. Schneider Jr., said.

To bolster their case, defense lawyers introduced written responses to questions they had submitted to the best-known detainee here, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described architect of the 2001 attacks. Mr. Mohammed described Mr. Hamdan as a “primitive” Bedouin who was fit only for such tasks as changing tires and washing cars.

“He was not fit to plan or execute,” Mr. Mohammed’s statement said.

But the prosecutors portrayed Mr. Hamdan as a man who expressed, in the words of one federal agent, “uncontrolled passion or zeal” for Mr. bin Laden. That agent, Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, said that Mr. Hamdan, in an interrogation here in 2003, had sworn allegiance to Mr. bin Laden and had said that he was committed to killing Americans and Jews and expelling them from the Arabian peninsula.

Prosecutors at times appeared defensive that their first case after nearly seven years of trying to hold trials here was not against a senior Qaeda operative, but instead against a driver. But they argued that Mr. Hamdan’s culpability was clear.

“Whether he knew the specifics or not,” said a prosecutor, Clayton Trivett, “he knew Americans were going to be killed.”

The prosecution’s theme was that, however small his role may have been, people like Mr. Hamdan make al Qaeda possible.

“Without people like Mr. Hamdan,” George M. Crouch Jr., an F.B.I. agent testified, “bin Laden would enjoy no support, enjoy no protection, and would probably have been unable to elude capture up until this point.”

   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Slate&apos;s Supreme Court Dispatches</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/03/slates_supreme_court_dispatche.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1217</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-26T19:38:54Z</published>
   <updated>2008-03-26T19:43:43Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Interesting article on Slate about the Supreme Court&apos;s deliberation of the right to Habeas Corpus regarding a dual U.S.-Iraqi citizen and U.S.-Jordanian citizen held in US prisons in Iraq. http://www.slate.com/id/2187385...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>alex</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="Resources" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[Interesting article on <em>Slate</em> about the Supreme Court's deliberation of the right to Habeas Corpus regarding a dual U.S.-Iraqi citizen and U.S.-Jordanian citizen held in US prisons in Iraq. 

<strong>http://www.slate.com/id/2187385</strong>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Waterboarding: Q&amp;A on BBC News</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/03/waterboarding_qa_on_bbc_news.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1213</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-20T18:38:36Z</published>
   <updated>2008-03-26T19:03:15Z</updated>
   
   <summary> The BBC has published a brief Q&amp;A about waterboarding on their news website. It is a concise overview of the Bush administration&apos;s policies and procedures. In response to the question of whether or not waterboarding is effective, BBC references...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>alex</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[      The BBC has published a brief Q&A about waterboarding on their news website. It is a concise overview of the Bush administration's policies and procedures. In response to the question of whether or not waterboarding is effective, BBC references the case of Al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubayda. 
     <blockquote> According to ex-CIA officer John Kiriakou, al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah "broke" within half a minute. Abu Zubaydah said later that he had made things up to satisfy his interrogators.</blockquote>
      Check out the complete exchange at:
<strong>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7151828.stm</strong>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Yemeni man describes secret CIA jails</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/03/yemeni_man_describes_secret_ci.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1209</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-16T05:12:03Z</published>
   <updated>2008-03-26T19:04:48Z</updated>
   
   <summary>A Yemeni man, Khaled al-Maqtari was reportedly held in CIA prisons known as &apos;black sites&apos; for more than 2 years. He was arrested in 2004 in Falluja, Iraq on the suspicion of being an insurgent. Although Bush banned &quot;cruel, inhuman...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>alex</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[A Yemeni man, Khaled al-Maqtari was reportedly held in CIA prisons known as 'black sites' for more than 2 years. He was arrested in 2004 in Falluja, Iraq on the suspicion of being an insurgent.

Although Bush banned "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of terrorist suspects in 2007, he has also admitted previously to the existence of black sites (in Eastern Europe) and the CIA has not remarked on the issue. 

Amnesty International has apparently been in contact with al-Maqtari and the organization has noted the existence of flight records which may correspond with the dates he would have been transferred. Amnesty also reports his claims of torture while in the jail.

<strong>read about the torture on BBC news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7292974.stm</strong>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>House Fails to Overturn Bush&apos;s Veto</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/03/house_fails_to_overturn_bushs.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1215</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-13T18:50:32Z</published>
   <updated>2008-03-26T19:02:52Z</updated>
   
   <summary>New news about legislation: The House of Representatives failed to overturn Bush&apos;s veto of the bill which would ban the CIA from using &quot;specialized interrogation procedures&quot;. These include waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other harsh measures. A 225-188 vote wasn&apos;t the...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>alex</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[New news about legislation:
The House  of Representatives failed to overturn Bush's veto of the bill which would ban the CIA from using "specialized interrogation procedures". These include waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other harsh measures. A 225-188 vote wasn't the 2/3 needed to overturn the veto. White House press secretary Perino spun the decision nicely, appealing to the public fear of terrorism. According to Ms. Perino, an overturn
<blockquote>would have diminished the intelligence community's ability to protect our nation</blockquote>

The CIA has claimed to use waterboarding on only 3 people. If these procedures do in fact protect our nation, we must be using plenty of other equally inhumane methods.]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Bush Vetoes Anti-Waterboarding Law</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/03/bush_vetoes_antiwaterboarding.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1205</id>
   
   <published>2008-03-10T21:38:12Z</published>
   <updated>2008-03-10T23:05:43Z</updated>
   
   <summary>In a move that many expected but hoped would not happen, Bush has resolutely used his executive power in his few remaining months to veto a recently Congressionally-approved bill that would have prohibited waterboarding and other harsh CIA interrogation techniques....</summary>
   <author>
      <name>anita</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[In a move that many expected but hoped would not happen, Bush has resolutely used his executive power in his few remaining months to veto a recently Congressionally-approved bill  that would have prohibited waterboarding and other harsh CIA interrogation techniques.  

Amnesty International has an action letter already drafted, if you wish to write to your local newspaper or senator protesting Bush's measure (but be sure to commend the Senate on theirs!): <a href="http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/site/c.jhKPIXPCIoE/b.3943995/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=3943995&en=clLNJ3PLLbKWJdMOKaJTLaNZLnLXLjN4IrLWKeP6KzF">Click here to write an action letter.</a>

You can also read the full New York Times article/review of the decision and its implications here: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/washington/09policy.html?ref=washington">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/washington/09policy.html?ref=washington</a>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>LIES!</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/02/lies.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1189</id>
   
   <published>2008-02-22T17:41:28Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-22T17:43:16Z</updated>
   
   <summary>US Rejects Race Link to Rendition Associated Press GENEVA (AP) -- The United States on Friday rejected any link between racial discrimination and the U.S. practice of sending terrorism suspects to countries where they may be tortured. &apos;&apos;Anything that would...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>anita</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[<strong>US Rejects Race Link to Rendition</strong>
Associated Press

GENEVA (AP) -- The United States on Friday rejected any link between racial discrimination and the U.S. practice of sending terrorism suspects to countries where they may be tortured.

''Anything that would be done in this area would not be done on the basis of racial discrimination,'' Robert Harris, assistant legal adviser with the Department of State, told a U.N. panel on racism.

The independent experts on the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racism told Harris and other members of the U.S. delegation that they had received claims that American authorities were being racist in the way they are conducting the so-called war on terror.

Countries ''should ensure that non-citizens detained or arrested in the fight against terrorism are properly protected by domestic law that complies with international human rights,'' said Morten Kjaerum, a Danish member of the panel.

''It seems there is a problem in relation to those who are being involved in the rendition program,'' said Kjaerum. He referred to ''extraordinary rendition'' the expression used by the U.S. for such transport of terror suspects.

''The moment the U.S. authorities take into custody a person wherever in the world, you have the responsibility for this person,'' he added.

]]>
      The U.N. panel on the elimination of racial discrimination told the U.S. delegation that it was concerned over the CIA&apos;s rendition flights.

The United States was taking its turn before the 18 independent and unpaid experts, who periodically review the performance of countries that have signed the 1965 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The Bush administration acknowledged on Thursday that it used British territory to transport suspected terrorists on secret rendition flights despite repeated earlier assurances that that had not happened.

Under the rendition program, which became known in 2005 with the revelation that the CIA had operated secret prisons to interrogate prisoners, suspects are transported from one country to another, usually in secrecy, without the benefit of open legal proceedings.

Harris said the flights fall outside the scope of the treaty. He told the panel that the United States had discussed the problem exhaustively when it appeared before the U.N. committee against torture and another U.N. panel in 2006.

&apos;&apos;It does seem that those issues are more squarely within other ... areas of concern, including the law of war,&apos;&apos; Harris said.

U.S. officials have acknowledged flying up to 150 of the most serious suspected terrorists from one country to another, but said they receive &apos;&apos;diplomatic assurances&apos;&apos; from authorities of the other countries that they would not use torture on the detainees they received.

The American Civil Liberties Union, a New York-based rights group, said the U.S. response Friday was misleading.

ACLU representative Jamil Dakwar told reporters that everyone held by the U.S. at the Guantanamo Bay detention center who had been flown to other countries where they were tortured were non-citizen Muslims.

&apos;&apos;Clearly this is an issue for the committee,&apos;&apos; Dakwar said.

The U.N. panel discussed a broad range of other questions with the U.S. delegation, including police brutality against Arabs and Muslims in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001, and the detention of illegal immigrants.

The experts based many of their questions on reports submitted by 120 representatives of U.S. human rights organizations who came to Geneva for the hearings.

Warren W. Tichenor, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., said the discussions had been &apos;&apos;collegial and extremely stimulating,&apos;&apos; and he was pleased to see a high number of U.S. rights groups attending the meeting.
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Senate Votes to Ban Waterboarding!</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/02/senate_votes_to_ban_waterboard.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1181</id>
   
   <published>2008-02-14T02:36:40Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-14T02:45:42Z</updated>
   
   <summary>A day after the Senate voted to expand the executive branch&apos;s spy powers EVEN MORE and irritated me to no end, they are in my good graces again after their decision today to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>anita</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[A day after the Senate <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13fisa.html?scp=1&sq=senate+spy+powers&st=nyt">voted to expand the executive branch's spy powers</a> EVEN MORE and irritated me to no end, they are in my good graces again after their decision today to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques used by the CIA...albeit with a very slim majority.  Of course, the entire world is fairly sure Bush will just veto the bill, but I think we can take any small victory at this point.

Find the full <em>New York Times</em> article here: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washington/13cnd-cong.html?hp">Senate Passes Interrogation Ban</a>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>6 Guantánamo Detainees Will Face Trial Over 9/11</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/02/6_guantanamo_detainees_are_sai.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1175</id>
   
   <published>2008-02-09T05:49:43Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-11T06:45:36Z</updated>
   
   <summary>UPDATE: U.S. Said to Seek Death Penalty for the 6 Detainees Read: the Bush administration&apos;s rush to enact their ultimate reforms officially sets in... From William Glaberson, the New York Times main columnist on issues in Guantanamo: Military prosecutors are...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>anita</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[<strong>UPDATE: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/us/11gitmo.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin">U.S. Said to Seek Death Penalty for the 6 Detainees</a>
</strong>
Read: the Bush administration's rush to enact their ultimate reforms officially sets in...

From William Glaberson, the <em>New York Times </em> main columnist on issues in Guantanamo:  

<blockquote>Military prosecutors are in the final phases of preparing the first sweeping case against suspected conspirators in the plot that led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001, and drew the United States into war, people who have been briefed on the case said.

The charges, to be filed in the military commission system at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, would involve as many as six detainees held at the detention camp, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former senior aide to Osama bin Laden, who has said he was the principal planner of the plot.

The case could begin to fulfill a longtime goal of the Bush administration: establishing culpability for the terrorist attacks of 2001. It could also help the administration make its case that some detainees at Guantánamo, where 275 men remain, would pose a threat if they are not held at Guantánamo or elsewhere. Officials have long said that a half-dozen men held at Guantánamo played essential roles in the plot directed by Mr. Mohammed, from would-be hijackers to financiers. </blockquote>]]>
      But the case would also bring new scrutiny to the military commission system, which has a troubled history and has been criticized as a system designed to win convictions but that does not provide the legal protections of American civilian courts.

War-crimes charges against the men would almost certainly place the prosecutors in a battle over the treatment of inmates because at least two detainees tied to the 2001 terror attacks were subject to aggressive interrogation techniques that critics say amounted to torture.

One official who has been briefed on the case said the military prosecutors were considering seeking the death penalty for Mr. Mohammed, although no final decision appears to have been made. The official added that the military prosecutors had decided to focus on the Sept. 11 attacks in part as an effort to try to establish credibility for the military commission system before a new administration takes the White House next January.

“The thinking was 9/11 is the heart and soul of the whole thing. The thinking was: go for that,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because no one in the government was authorized to speak about the case. Even if the charges are released soon, it would be many months before a trial could be held, lawyers said.

A Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, declined to comment specifically. But he added that the government was preparing a case against “individuals who have been involved in some of the most grievous acts of violence and terror against the United States and our allies.”

“The prosecution team is close to moving forward on referring charges on a number of individuals,” Mr. Whitman said.

Ever since President Bush announced in 2006 that he had transferred 14 “high value” detainees to Guantánamo from a secret C.I.A. detention program, it has been expected that the Pentagon would eventually lodge charges involving several of the numerous terror plots to which officials say several of those men were tied.

Officials have said detainees now held at Guantánamo are responsible for attacks that killed thousands of people, including the United States Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998, the attack on the destroyer Cole in 2000, and the Bali nightclub bombing in 2002.

But it has always been clear that a case involving the Sept. 11 plot would be the centerpiece of the military commissions system and its most stringent test. After the Supreme Court struck down the Bush administration’s first system for military commission trials in 2006, Congress enacted a new law.

Among other things, the Military Commissions Act provides that detainees charged with war crimes are entitled to military lawyers to defend them, a presumption of innocence and a right of appeal. But detainees’ lawyers and other critics have said that many flaws remain, including the fact that the system is under Pentagon control and even the judges are military officers.

Told of the possible charges, Carie Lemack, whose mother was killed on American Airlines Flight 11, said such a trial would be a grueling process for the families. But, Ms. Lemack said, “It is important that justice be brought to those who killed my mother and nearly 3,000 others.”

It was not clear Friday whether final decisions had been made about precise charges and which detainees are to be included.

But it is known that the prosecutors have considered charges of murder, conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism because of the Sept. 11 deaths. It is also known that a joint team of military and Department of Justice lawyers working on the case have considered charging six of the best-known Guantánamo detainees.

Lawyers have said that two of those are men whose treatment in American hands would inevitably be a focus of defense lawyers in their cases.

One of them, Mr. Mohammed, known as KSM, was subject to the simulated-drowning technique known as waterboarding while in secret C.I.A. custody, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, confirmed this week.

The American-educated Mr. Mohammed was described by the Sept. 11 commission as the “self-cast star, the superterrorist,” with plans for destruction on a vast scale. At a Pentagon hearing last year, he claimed responsibility for more than 30 terrorist attacks and plots.

He was explicit about his role in the 2001 attacks. “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z,” he said.

The other detainee whose treatment could become a focus of any trial is Mohammed al-Qahtani, who has been held at Guantánamo since 2002. Pentagon officials have said he may have been the so-called “20th hijacker.” A month before the attacks, he flew from Dubai to Orlando, Fla., but was denied entry into the United States by an immigration official.

Pentagon investigators concluded in 2005 that he had been subject to abusive treatment at Guantánamo, including sleep deprivation, being forced to wear a bra and being led around on a leash.

Gitanjali Gutierrez, one of Mr. al-Qahtani’s lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said she had no information about whether he would be charged. “But if he is,” Ms. Gutierrez said, “I can assure you that his well-documented torture and the controversy over secret trials will be the focus.”

Zacarias Moussaoui, who at one point was identified by prosecutors as a potential “20th hijacker” pleaded guilty to conspiracy in 2005, and is serving a life term. He is the only person who has been tried in a United States court for involvement in the Sept. 11 plot.

Defense lawyers are also expected to use any commission cases to challenge the prosecutors over the C.I.A.’s destruction of tapes of interrogations of two detainees, which has been acknowledged by the agency.

Among the other four potential defendants are Guantánamo detainees who intelligence officials have said played critical support roles for the hijackers.

Officials say Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who had been a roommate of the lead hijacker Mohamed Atta in Hamburg, Germany, was the main intermediary between the hijackers and Al Qaeda leaders in the months before Sept. 11.

The Pentagon has described another detainee, Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew of Mr. Mohammed, as “a key lieutenant for KSM during the operation on 11 September” who wired $114,500 to the hijackers.

Mr. al-Baluchi’s assistant was Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, according to various accounts. The September 11 commission said that Mr. al-Hawsawi had been assigned by Mr. Mohammed to help coordinate hijackers’ travel and was so centrally involved that he was their contact for unused money to be returned in the days before the attacks.

Finally, the detainee known as Khallad, who is missing part of his right leg as a result of what officials say is a long jihadist history, is believed to have had long ties to Mr. bin Laden. Officials have said Khallad helped select and train some of the hijackers and was originally slated to have been one of them himself. 
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Finally - some quasi-progress on a completely non-Gitmo-related note!</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/02/finally_some_quasiprogress_on.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1173</id>
   
   <published>2008-02-09T04:12:35Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-09T04:30:57Z</updated>
   
   <summary>In other news outside of our country&apos;s Guantanamo debacle, the state of Nebraska has finally forbidden the use of the electric chair. At this point, Nebraska was the only state to rely on electrocution as the sole method of execution...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>anita</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[In other news outside of our country's Guantanamo debacle, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/09penalty.html?hp">the state of Nebraska has finally forbidden the use of the electric chair.</a>  At this point, Nebraska was the only state to rely on electrocution as the sole method of execution for the death penalty, so this essentially suspends any potential executions in the state in the near future -- mostly because of an ongoing debate in the Supreme Court over the three-chemical combination in a typical lethal injection, which is known to cause extreme pain.  

Nebraska's Supreme Court did thankfully rule that electrocution was cruel and unusual punishment, saying that it causes “unnecessary pain, suffering and torture.”  But they are also, of course, looking for "new methods" of execution, so, as a person who is avidly against the death penalty, I'm not quite sure what to make of their "progress" just yet.  It is interesting to note that last year, Nebraska's unicameral legislature was one vote away from abolishing the death penalty entirely in their state...]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>The waterboarding debate rages on</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/02/the_waterboarding_debate_rages.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1171</id>
   
   <published>2008-02-09T03:45:15Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-22T17:46:20Z</updated>
   
   <summary>...and Cheney gives his two cents worth. CIA director Michael Hayden also jumps in and relates the idea that &quot;waterboarding is necessary though probably not legal...&quot; (?) My goodness. The CIA recently officially admitted to having used waterboarding as an...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>anita</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[...and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/washington/07cnd-intel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin">Cheney gives his two cents worth.</a>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/mukasey.waterboarding/index.html">CIA director Michael Hayden also jumps in</a> and relates the idea that <strong>"waterboarding is necessary though probably not legal..."</strong> (?)  My goodness.  The CIA recently officially admitted to having used waterboarding as an interrogation technique for three terrorism suspects, but claims that the technique has not been used since 2003.  Attorney General Mukasey, as a result, has flatly stated that he does NOT plan to launch a criminal investigation into the CIA's use of waterboarding.....]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Mukasey Offers (New?) View on Waterboarding</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/01/mukasey_offers_new_view_on_wat.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1155</id>
   
   <published>2008-01-30T07:50:33Z</published>
   <updated>2008-01-30T08:00:51Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Many of you are probably familiar with the debate that raged on in the Senate last year concerning now Attorney General Michael Mukasey&apos;s remarks on waterboarding practices and whether or not they qualified as torture....it appears that he is still...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>anita</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[Many of you are probably familiar with the debate that raged on in the Senate last year concerning now Attorney General Michael Mukasey's remarks on waterboarding practices and whether or not they qualified as torture....it appears that he is still hedging on this point.  Some of the remarks he makes frankly disgust me, but, well, we'll see what happens.  For more information on waterboarding, please see our Amnesty group's research on the issue, and the statement below from Human Rights Watch gives a more literal picture:

<blockquote>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.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch. </blockquote>

Article from the <em>New York Times:</em>

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said Tuesday that the harsh C.I.A. interrogation technique known as waterboarding was not clearly illegal, and suggested that it could be used against terrorism suspects once again if requested by the White House.

Mr. Mukasey’s statement came in a letter delivered Tuesday night to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has scheduled for Wednesday its first oversight hearing for the new attorney general. The conclusions of the letter are likely to be a focus of severe questioning by Senate Democrats who have described waterboarding, which creates the sensation of drowning, as torture.]]>
      “If this were an easy question, I would not be reluctant to offer my views,” Mr. Mukasey wrote to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the committee.

“But with respect, I believe it is not an easy question,” he said. “There are some circumstances where current law would appear clearly to prohibit the use of waterboarding. Other circumstances would present a far closer question.”

The letter did not define any of the circumstances.

Mr. Leahy said in a statement late Tuesday night that the letter “echoes what other administration officials have said about the use of waterboarding” but that it did not “answer the critical questions we have been asking about its legality.” He said that Mr. Mukasey “knows that this will not end the matter” and that he can expect “to be asked serious questions at the hearing tomorrow.”

The Bush administration has confirmed that the Central Intelligence Agency used waterboarding against a small number of Qaeda figures captured after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The administration has said waterboarding was stopped several years ago in the wake of protests over the practice, in which suspects are placed on a flat surface, cloth or cellophane is put over their faces, and water is then poured over them.

The question of whether waterboarding amounts to torture nearly derailed Mr. Mukasey’s nomination for attorney general. At his Senate confirmation hearings in October, he refused to say whether he considered the technique to be torture or to be otherwise illegal. He said he needed to withhold judgment until he had received classified briefings on the subject if confirmed.

Several Democratic senators said then that his refusal to define waterboarding as torture had led them to oppose confirmation. He was confirmed on a vote of 53 to 40, and the 13-vote margin was the narrowest for a nominee to the post in more than 50 years.

Mr. Leahy and the nine other Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee wrote to Mr. Mukasey last week to insist again that he answer the question of whether waterboarding was torture. The attorney general suggested in comments to reporters at a news conference last Friday that he might never feel compelled to answer the question, no matter how often it was asked by lawmakers and the press.

In his letter Tuesday to Mr. Leahy, Mr. Mukasey said that since arriving at the Justice Department in early November, he had “conducted a thorough and careful review of the department’s legal analysis concerning the techniques that are currently authorized for use in the Central Intelligence Agency’s program for interrogating high-level Al Qaeda terrorists.”

He said that only “a limited set of methods is currently authorized for use in that program,” and added: “I have been authorized to disclose publicly that waterboarding is not among those methods. Accordingly, waterboarding is not, and may not, be used in the current program.”

“I understand that you and some other members of the committee may feel that I should go further in my review and answer questions concerning the legality of waterboarding under current law,” he said. “But I do not think it would be responsible for me, as attorney general, to provide an answer.” He added, “I do not believe that it is advisable to address difficult legal questions, about which reasonable minds can and do differ, in the absence of concrete facts and circumstances.”

He suggested that waterboarding might be reintroduced under the “defined process by which any new method is proposed for authorization” in the C.I.A.’s interrogation program.

“That process would begin with the C.I.A. director’s determination that the addition of the technique was required for the program,” he continued. “Then the attorney general would have to determine that the use of the technique is lawful under the particular conditions and circumstances proposed. Finally the president would have to approve of the use of the technique.”

Mr. Mukasey’s letter appeared to be an effort to deflect some of the harsher questions he may be asked on Wednesday, in his first public testimony on Capitol Hill since his confirmation battle last fall.

“I will answer those questions to the best of my ability, within the limits that I have described,” he said. “I recognize that those limits may make my task today more difficult for me personally. My job as attorney general is to do what I believe the law requires and what is best for the country, not what makes my life easier.”
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Update on Jose Padilla: Sentenced to 17 Years in Prison </title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2008/01/update_on_jose_padilla_sentenc.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2008://3.1167</id>
   
   <published>2008-01-24T23:41:22Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-07T23:57:03Z</updated>
   
   <summary>The verdict on the Jose Padilla case has arrived - 17 years and 4 months in prison for his conspiracy case. Because he was not handed a life sentence, the verdict has been called a &quot;setback&quot; for the Bush administration....although...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>anita</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[The verdict on the Jose Padilla case has arrived - 17 years and 4 months in prison for his conspiracy case.  Because he was not handed a life sentence, the verdict has been called a "setback" for the Bush administration....although in any respect, it is a grave and debatably unfounded legal result for a case in which even presiding Judge Marcia G. Cooke admitted that there was <strong>no evidence linking Mr. Padilla and two co-defendants to specific terrorism acts anywhere...</strong>
<blockquote>
“There is no evidence that these defendants personally maimed, kidnapped or killed anyone in the United States or elsewhere,” Judge Cooke said. “There was never a plot to overthrow the United States government.”</blockquote>

Read the full <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/us/23padilla.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin"><em>New York Times</em> article</a> for a review of the decision, including a history of Padilla's "enemy combatant" case and the alleged torture he endured during interrogation.]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>An interesting read...</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2007/12/an_interesting_read.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2007://3.1169</id>
   
   <published>2007-12-15T00:26:46Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-08T00:32:51Z</updated>
   
   <summary>From the New York Times..William Glaberson&apos;s &quot;From a Critic of Tribunals to Top Judge&quot; This should be enough of a hook: Back in 2002, a master’s degree candidate at the Naval War College wrote a paper on the Bush administration’s...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>anita</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[From the <em>New York Times..</em>William Glaberson's "From a Critic of Tribunals to Top Judge"

This should be enough of a hook:
<blockquote>
Back in 2002, a master’s degree candidate at the Naval War College wrote a paper on the Bush administration’s plan to use military commissions to try Guantánamo suspects, concluding that “even a good military tribunal is a bad idea.”

It drew little notice at the time, but the paper has gained a second life because of its author’s big promotion: Col. Ralph H. Kohlmann of the Marines is now the chief judge of the military commissions at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.</blockquote>

]]>
      The system, Judge Kohlmann wrote in 2002, would face criticism for the “apparent lack of independence” of military judges and would have “credibility problems,” the very argument made by Guantánamo’s critics.

He said it would be better to try terrorism suspects in federal courts in the United States. “Unnecessary use of military tribunals in the face of reasonable international criticism,” he wrote, “is an ill-advised move.”

The paper is becoming a reference work of sorts in the curious history of Guantánamo, which includes a number of former officials who have become outspoken critics, including several former intelligence officers and a former chief military prosecutor.

Judge Kohlmann may be the only one who has switched the order, first delivering a fervent attack on Guantánamo and later becoming one of its officials.

The existence of his paper, written as an independent study project, has been noted occasionally in court in Guantánamo and elsewhere, though detainees’ advocates say it has become more noteworthy since his appointment as chief judge in March. But the details of his arguments escaped wide public notice until a few weeks ago, when David Glazier, an associate professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, came across the paper in a mass of newly released documents from a case Judge Kohlmann handled in March.

The documents showed that defense lawyers had asked Judge Kohlmann about the paper in written questions. “I chose the topic because it was in the news at the time,” he explained.

This week, Mr. Glazier said he had been fascinated. “My reaction was, this is pretty amazing, that even the chief judge of the commissions has recognized the horrendous problems of the commission process,” he said.

A few weeks ago, Professor Glazier sent an e-mail message to a group of human rights advocates. He included a link to the Pentagon Web site where the paper could be found in the newly released records of the war crimes prosecution of a former detainee, David Hicks.

Soon there were new readers for Judge Kohlmann’s five-year-old paper. “It seemed ironic in the extreme,” said David H. Remes, a detainees’ lawyer, who said he learned of the paper from Mr. Glazier’s message.

Jameel Jaffer, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who has been an observer at Guantánamo commission proceedings, read the paper at the request of a reporter and said it was “perplexing” that someone who seemed to agree with much that the critics have said about the Guantánamo legal system was now helping to run it. As to the judge’s arguments, Mr. Jaffer said, “He was absolutely right.”

Pentagon officials declined to discuss Judge Kohlmann’s paper this week, but in the past they have said the commissions give detainees many important protections, including the right to be represented by a lawyer.

Pentagon spokesmen said Judge Kohlmann declined to comment, and they said the telephone number for his chambers could not be revealed for security reasons.

Judge Kohlmann, a 49-year-old New Jersey native, is a decorated career officer with a down-to-business demeanor. He was a military judge in the first military commission system before it was struck down by the Supreme Court last year. He was appointed the chief judge in March by the Pentagon, after Congress created a new military commission system to replace the old.

Questioned about his paper by defense lawyers in March, he said he could not recall whether he had received a grade.

Mr. Jaffer said he would have given the judge an A. The paper was prickly at times, referring to Bush administration “spinmeisters” and dismissing the argument that the new challenges of fighting terrorism meant that civilian judges and juries would be endangered by federal trials.

Prior terrorism and organized crime cases, he wrote, showed that “the existing United States criminal justice system does not have to be put aside simply because the potential defendants have scary friends.”

Judge Kohlmann has not disavowed the paper. But the documents show that in March, perhaps illustrating the pressures of responsibility, he told defense lawyers for Mr. Hicks that he wanted to correct a misstatement in his paper.

He had been incorrect, he said, when he wrote that President Bush’s original order establishing military commissions “essentially states” that fundamental fairness would not be a part of commission trials.

“That I now believe to be incorrect,” he said.

One of Mr. Hicks’s lawyers, Joshua L. Dratel, said this week that Judge Kohlmann had seemingly reconciled his past as a critic of the system with his new role as one of its managers.

“He seemed to me,” Mr. Dratel said, “like a guy who was given a mandate to make the system work, and he was not going to let anyone interfere with it.” 
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Lawmakers Launch Investigation into CIA&apos;s Use of Waterboarding</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://torture.stanford.edu/2007/12/lawmakers_launch_investigation.html" />
   <id>tag:torture.stanford.edu,2007://3.1117</id>
   
   <published>2007-12-12T07:03:15Z</published>
   <updated>2007-12-12T07:06:31Z</updated>
   
   <summary>From Reuters: (for full text from website, click here). U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday began investigating why the CIA destroyed videotapes that recorded al Qaeda suspects undergoing waterboarding, while a former interrogator said the controversial technique yielded important information but amounted...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>anita</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://torture.stanford.edu/">
      <![CDATA[From Reuters: (for full text from website, click <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1150278120071212?sp=true">here</a>).

U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday began investigating why the CIA destroyed videotapes that recorded al Qaeda suspects undergoing waterboarding, while a former interrogator said the controversial technique yielded important information but amounted to torture.

CIA Director Michael Hayden testified behind closed doors to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has launched one of several investigations to determine if the agency broke any laws when it destroyed the tapes in 2005.

"There are other people in the agency who know about this far better than I, and I have committed them to come on down and answer all the questions the committee might have," Hayden said after the hearing.

Many countries, U.S. lawmakers and human rights groups have denounced the simulated drowning technique as torture. Reports of its use, as well as harsh treatment of terrorist suspects, have damaged the U.S. image around the world.

The full House of Representatives could vote as early as Wednesday to outlaw waterboarding. Drafted by negotiators for the House and Senate Intelligence committees, the measure would require U.S. interrogators to comply with the Army Field Manual, which bans interrogation methods seen as torture.]]>
      A former CIA interrogator said waterboarding has saved lives in the war against al Qaeda.

John Kiriakou, who now works in the private sector, told several U.S. news outlets that suspected al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Zubaida started cooperating after being waterboarded for less than a minute by CIA officials in 2002.

Kiriakou said he now believes waterboarding is torture.

Critics have charged that the CIA destroyed the tape of Abu Zubaida, along with that of another al Qaeda suspect, to hide illegal torture. The agency has said it destroyed the tapes in 2005 to protect the interrogators from possible retaliation.

It is believed that the CIA has not used waterboarding since 2003.

The Washington Post reported that a judge had ordered the tapes to be preserved as possible evidence in a lawsuit filed by prisoners at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba, where the United States holds captured terrorism suspects.

SEVERAL INVESTIGATIONS

Hayden is scheduled to testify to the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. The Justice Department and the CIA have started a joint preliminary investigation. Leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee have also urged the Justice Department to explain what it knew of the tapes.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey did not rule out investigating the White House and the Justice Department.

&quot;We&apos;ll find out what the facts are and if there&apos;s law to be applied it&apos;ll be applied,&quot; Mukasey said at a news conference.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff declined to say whether he knew about the tapes when he headed the Justice Department&apos;s criminal division between 2001 and 2003.

At a separate Senate hearing, a U.S. legal adviser at the Guantanamo Bay prison did not rule out using evidence collected from waterboarding in military trials of detainees there, irritating some lawmakers.

&quot;Torture is prohibited under U.S. law,&quot; Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartman told a Senate Judiciary subcommittee. But when California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked whether that meant that evidence from waterboarding was not used, he replied: &quot;No ma&apos;am, I didn&apos;t say that.&quot;

Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate, called on the White House to preserve all records relating to the destroyed tapes.

President George W. Bush said he didn&apos;t know about them.

&quot;My first recollection of whether the tapes existed or whether they were destroyed was when Michael Hayden briefed me,&quot; Bush told ABC News. &quot;It will be interesting to know what the true facts are.&quot;

(By Andy Sullivan; Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Thomas Ferraro and Tabassum Zakaria; editing by David Alexander and David Storey)

   </content>
</entry>

</feed>
