A Surprising Proposal at the Supreme Court in Torture Case

Washington – Twenty years after the 9/11 attacks, the Supreme Court on Wednesday found it was having a hard time tackling two issues stemming from that period: torture and government secrets. Prior to that day’s trial, the proceedings were going in a surprising direction.

The most important question for the court is whether the government can ask national security to thwart the testimony of two CIA associates involved in the brutal cross-examination of convicts known as the Absveda. Guantanamo Bay.

Absbayda attempted to call a contractor in connection with the Polish criminal investigation. The investigation was facilitated by the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in 2002 and 2003 that he had been tortured in secret CIA locations, including Poland.

The US government has stated that it is a state secret to prohibit artists from testifying to prevent official recognition from public knowledge that Poland is home to one of the so-called black sites. The principle mentioned.

Three judges proposed a new decision. Would you like to testify yourself in connection with the Polish investigation before Absbaida? By allowing the judge to explain what he suffered, the court avoided the question of whether the government should summon CIA operatives.

“Why don’t you testify?” Judge Stephen G. Brier asked Absveda’s attorney. “He was there. Why didn’t he say it happened?”

Lawyer David F. Klein said it was impossible. “He’s at the Guantanamo Bay camp,” Klein told his client.

In the final minutes of the trial, Judge Neil Gorsuh urged government lawyers to testify with Absbide.

“Why don’t you give a witness?” Judge Gorsuh asked Brian H. Fletcher, the acting Secretary of State. “What is the government’s attitude towards witnesses who testify to their own stance?”

Judge Sonia Sotomayor continued. “Are you going to make him testify to what happened?” He asked.

Mr. Fletcher did not give a direct answer. “I’m not ready to represent the United States, especially in matters of national security,” he said.

But he promised the court a more thoughtful answer, perhaps in a letter, after consulting other government officials.

Judge Gorsukh seemed angry at the government’s position.

“This case has been going on for years and even reached the US Supreme Court,” he said. This? ”

Judge Brett M. Cavanaugh, who participated in a remote discussion last week after testing positive for the coronavirus, asked a final, even more basic, question. It was a 2001 law that allowed war with those responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks, permission to use military force, or those responsible for the AUMF.

“Is the United States still hostile to the AUMF for al-Qaeda and its allies?” ..

That’s what Mr. Fletcher said. “That is the position of the government. “Despite the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, we remain hostile to al-Qaeda and therefore detention remains appropriate under international military law,” he said. On the phone.

Much of Wednesday’s debate centered on whether the government could rely on the doctrine of state secrecy to prevent CIA associates James E. Mitchell and Bruce Jessen from witnessing Abswada’s torture. Yes. Muhammad Hussein.

He was the first detainee to be captured by the CIA after so-called stepped-up interrogations on September 11, based on a list of suggestions made by psychologist Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Jessen to use with him. before. There is no denying that Absbeida was tortured on one or more black objects, and judges often used the word “torture” to describe what she suffered.