FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Secret Prisons, Top Secret Interrogations

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

It’s a tremendous responsibility that has been thrust on those who are imprisoned by George Bush. They have, albeit it unwittingly, become our allies in the war on terror. They remain incarcerated indefinitely thus protecting the rest of us (who have not yet been incarcerated) from the likes of them (even if they are not terrorists) and while incarcerated, pose no threat to those of us who remain free They have now been told that while incarcerated Mr. Bush was willing to entrust to them information that has been designated TOP SECRET. We would not have learned this important piece of information but for Majid Khan.

Mr. Khan is a Pakistani who recently moved from what was a non-existent secret prison run by the C.I.A. in a far-off country to the Guantánamo Detention camp in Cuba. Mr. Khan now has a lawyer. The government doesn’t want Mr. Khan to tell his lawyer, what kinds of interrogation methods were being used on him (and therefore, shared with him) while he was in the secret prison. That is because conditions at Guantánamo are only adequate for handling information classified as secret. Kathleen Blomquist, a Justice Department Spokeswoman explains:

“information regarding the former C.I.A. detainees [like Mr. Khan] was classified as top secret. She said the information he shares with his counsel should “be appropriately tailored to accommodate a higher security level.”

Why that should be is something of a mystery. Readers will recall that in the statement accompanying legislation George Bush sent Congress that authorized military tribunals for terror suspects and set rules to protect U.S. military personnel from facing prosecution for war crimes, he said, although not in these words, that the United States uses “alternative” interrogation methods that help the people being questioned remember things they might otherwise forget. Those procedures “were tough, and they were safe and lawful and necessary.”

Ms. Blomquist’s comments tell us that although the prisoners thought they were being tortured (Mr. Bush’s assurances to the contrary notwithstanding) they were at the same time being given TOP SECRET INFORMATION. (Anyone wanting to get an idea of the kind of top-secret information Mr. Khan has can Google Mamdouh Habib and find the torture affidavit that was released by the Federal District Court in Washington on January 5, 2005. It describes the top-secret information (such as standing on tiptoes in water up to his chin for hours) that was entrusted to Mr. Habib while in prison. Mr. Khan’s experience may well have been no different from that. An uninformed reader of the affidavit might consider the techniques torture but for the fact that Mr. Bush doesn’t do torture.)

In November the Central Intelligence Agency told a federal district court in Washington D.C. that al Qaeda suspects should not be permitted to describe publicly the “alternative interrogation methods” the CIA used on them while holding them in the secret prisons. The D.I.A. told the court that if Mr. Khan told just any person what the procedures were, it would cause “extremely grave damage to the national security.” Marilyn A. Dorn, an official at the National Clandestine Service that is part of the C.I.A. told the court that “If specific alternative techniques were disclosed, it would permit terrorist organizations to adapt their training to counter the tactics that C.I.A. can employ in interrogations.”

It seems safe to say that if the prisoners knew when being interrogated that they were being entrusted with “top secret” information they would feel quite differently about the process. They would take pride in having been permitted to participate in this very important process. They would not be any the less proud knowing that the only reason the C.I.A. shares this top secret information with them is that it hopes that in the process of sharing the information those being questioned will feel compelled to furnish additional information to their interrogators.

So long as Mr. Khan remains in prison the government can count on him to keep the secret he and the C.I.A. enjoy sharing. The obvious question is if Mr. Khan gets out of prison can the government count on him to keep his secret? Thanks to Mr. Bush’s foresight in having Congress give him broad new powers, if it looks like Mr. Khan might get out of prison either before or after a trial, Mr. Bush can designate him an enemy combatant and keep him in prison forever. That may seem harsh, but if it is the only way the secret can be kept, then it is in everyone’s best interest that Mr. Khan remain in jail the rest of his life. That way the secret will be preserved and we will all be safer-even Mr. Khan. He, however, will have to enjoy his safety in a jail cell.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a lawyer in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at: Brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. Visit his website: http://hraos.com/

 

 

February 08, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Privatization: the Atlanticist Tactic to Attack Russia
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Water War Against the Poor: Flint and the Crimes of Capital
John V. Walsh
Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses
Eliza A. Webb
Hillary Clinton’s Populist Charade
Uri Avnery
Optimism of the Will
Roy Eidelson Trudy Bond, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, and Bryant Welch
Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, the UN and Meanings of Arbitrary Detention
Shamus Cooke
The Labor Movement’s Pearl Harbor Moment
W. T. Whitney
Cuba, War and Ana Belen Montes
Vincent Emanuele
The Curse and Failure of Identity Politics
Jim Goodman
Congress Must Kill the Trans Pacific Partnership
Peter White
Meeting John Ross
Colin Todhunter
Organic Agriculture, Capitalism and the Parallel World of the Pro-GMO Evangelist
Ralph Nader
They’re Just Not Answering!
Cesar Chelala
Beware of the Harm on Eyes Digital Devices Can Cause
Weekend Edition
February 5-7, 2016
Jeffrey St. Clair
When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine
Leonard Peltier
My 40 Years in Prison
John Pilger
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter
Garry Leech
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
Andrew Levine
Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
William Blum
Is Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”?
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
We Can’t Afford These Billionaires
Enrique C. Ochoa
Super Bowl 50: American Inequality on Display
Jonathan Cook
The Liberal Hounding of Julian Assange: From Alex Gibney to The Guardian
George Wuerthner
How the Bundy Gang Won
Mike Whitney
Peace Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo 
Ted Rall
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Gary Leupp
Is a “Socialist” Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign
Vijay Prashad
The Fault Line of Race in America
Eoin Higgins
Please Clap: the Jeb Bush Campaign Pre-Mortem
Joseph Mangano – Janette D. Sherman
The Invisible Epidemic: Radiation and Rising Rates of Thyroid Cancer
Andre Vltchek
Europe is Built on Corpses and Plunder
Jack Smith
Obama Readies to Fight in Libya, Again
Robert Fantina
As Goes Iowa, So Goes the Nation?
Dean Baker
Market Turmoil, the Fed and the Presidential Election
John Grant
Israel Moves to Check Its Artists
John Wight
Who Was Cecil Rhodes?
David Macaray
Will There Ever Be Anyone Better Than Bernie Sanders?
Christopher Brauchli
Suffer Little Children: From Brazil to Flint
JP Sottile
Did Fox News Help the GOP Establishment Get Its Groove Back?
Binoy Kampmark
Legalizing Cruelties: the Australian High Court and Indefinite Offshore Detention
John Feffer
Wrestling With Iran
Rob Prince – Ibrahim Kazerooni
Syria Again
Louisa Willcox
Park Service Finally Stands Up for Grizzlies and Us
Farzana Versey
Of Beyoncé, Trudeau and Culture Predators
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail