As we approach the confirmation hearing on Wednesday for Gina Haspel, Donald Trump鈥檚 pick to head the CIA, the agency continues to hide from the American public virtually all information about her role in torture and the destruction of evidence documenting it.
According to The Washington Post, Haspel even her nomination out of concern about questions that she and the CIA have long avoided. has suggested that 贬补蝉辫别濒鈥檚 withdrawal was motivated by concern that the White House wouldn鈥檛 fully back her in light of documents showing her unquestioning complicity in torture. As public scrutiny mounts, that the Trump administration is already getting a Plan B nominee, Susan Gordon, the deputy director of national intelligence, ready if the Haspel nomination fails.
Although Haspel decided to move forward with the confirmation process after persuasion by White House officials, there is no indication that she has any intention of coming clean about her history helping lead the CIA鈥檚 Bush-era torture program. Instead, the CIA is doubling down on a propaganda campaign on 贬补蝉辫别濒鈥檚 behalf, pushing what several a 鈥渟uperficial narrative鈥� that 鈥渄oes a great disservice to the American people鈥� by denying them basic information about a person poised to assume one of the most powerful roles in the country. According to the , 鈥渄ocuments that haven鈥檛 been made public, show that Haspel was an enthusiastic supporter of what the CIA was doing.鈥� Those are documents that the American people need to see.
We fully expect that Haspel will try to deflect attempts to get to the bottom of her record by relying on tired defenses that have no basis in law or history. Here is the truth behind some of the defenses we can expect to hear this week from torture defenders.
No one could have believed in good faith that the CIA鈥檚 torture program was legal.
Since the founding of the United States, our laws have the use of torture and cruelty to extract information or inflict punishment. The U.S. has also signed the and the , both of which categorically prohibit the use of cruel treatment and torture, and has long had criminal statutes that prohibit conduct like assault and homicide. As courts have , 鈥渋t is beyond the power of even the President to declare such conduct lawful.鈥�
Nonetheless, a common talking point among CIA torture apologists is that a secret Justice Department 鈥溾�� that opined that the CIA program was lawful was somehow a license to torture. It was not. All criminal laws still applied to CIA personnel operating in CIA-run facilities overseas.
Anyone who personally witnessed the CIA torture program in action, , would know that it entailed the brutal abuse of helpless prisoners. Haspel knew that prisoners she was responsible for were kept for days chained to the ceiling, naked or in diapers, then slammed face-first into walls, subjected to near-drowning and relentless physical assault, deprived of food and sleep, forced into excruciating stress positions, and stuffed into coffin-like boxes.
Contemporaneous CIA cables describe how the human beings subjected to the CIA program visibly trembled and shook, suffered 鈥渋nvoluntary stomach and leg spasms,鈥� became 鈥渄istressed to the level that he was unable to effectively communicate,鈥� 鈥渃ried, begged, and pleaded; finally becoming hysterical.鈥� After receiving an interrogation plan for a prisoner who had been tortured under 贬补蝉辫别濒鈥檚 supervision, the CIA chief of interrogations sent an email to colleagues in which he wrote, "This is a train wreck [sic] waiting to happen," he wrote, "and I intend to get the hell off the train before it happens." No ordinary person could believe this was lawful.
Those involved with the torture program were desperate to cover up what they were doing.
The CIA鈥檚 efforts to hide 贬补蝉辫别濒鈥檚 involvement in torture are only the most recent example of the agency鈥檚 obsessive attempts to cover up the clearly unlawful program. In fact, the entire torture program was based on the CIA鈥檚 belief that it could keep torture secret forever.
Several of the most chilling documents the 老澳门开奖结果 has acquired in various lawsuits over the years show the extraordinary lengths the CIA was willing to travel to hide what it was doing. In a series of cables sent back and forth between CIA torturers at a 鈥渂lack site鈥� in Thailand and agency leadership in Langley, Virginia, to cremate the body of a prisoner, should he die from torture. That would eliminate the evidence. But the torturers were worried that, if the prisoner survived, he might one day reveal what the CIA had done to him. So they 鈥渞easonable assurances鈥� that the prisoner 鈥渨ill remain in isolation and incommunicado for the remainder of his life.鈥� CIA headquarters readily that the prisoner 鈥渨ill never be placed in a situation where he has any significant contact with others.鈥�
Haspel went on to oversee the interrogations at that black site. The detainee, Abu Zubaydah, remains at Guant谩namo, .鈥�
Many in the CIA were similarly worried when they discovered that there was videotaped evidence of the very torture that the CIA wanted to hide. Among those most concerned about the tapes were Haspel and her boss, Jose Rodriguez. Both were with getting rid of this evidence, and they actively lobbied CIA lawyers to sign off on destroying the tapes.
Eventually, the tapes were destroyed without securing permission.
Destroying evidence is illegal, no matter how many CIA officials sign off on it.
贬补蝉辫别濒鈥檚 for her key role in destroying dozens of videotapes of CIA torture sessions is her claimed belief that her boss, Jose Rodriguez, would get permission from then-CIA Director Porter Goss. As it turned out, Rodriguez didn鈥檛 even attempt to secure this permission. But even if the CIA director had signed off on destroying evidence, that wouldn鈥檛 make 贬补蝉辫别濒鈥檚 actions legal.
At the time that Haspel instructing that the videotapes be destroyed in an industrial shredder, court orders required the CIA to preserve and turn over tapes of prisoner abuse. Congressional oversight committees were engaged in a formal inquiry and had informed the CIA that destroying the tapes 鈥�.鈥� Nonetheless, the oversight committees that the CIA intended to destroy evidence of the program.
Perhaps most importantly, destruction of evidence is a . And no one, not even the director of the CIA, can authorize subordinates to commit felonies 鈥� no matter who ultimately signs the permission slip.
The other person responsible for destroying the torture tapes, Jose Rodriguez, has admitted under oath that he wanted the tapes destroyed because they 鈥渨ould make the CIA look bad鈥� and 鈥渁lmost destroy the clandestine service.鈥�
%3Ciframe%20allow%3D%22autoplay%3B%20encrypted-media%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22315%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FWl7HCCoSAWY%3Fautoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20thumb%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.aclu.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fweb18-joserodriguesthumb-560x315.png%22%20width%3D%22560%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
History doesn鈥檛 look kindly on those who claim to have been 鈥�,鈥� as Haspel may claim and her defenders . As over 100 former generals and admirals have , 鈥渨e did not accept the 'just following orders' justification after World War II, and we should not accept it now.鈥�
With that principle in mind, it鈥檚 worth remembering that not everyone in the CIA or the government went along with torture. As President Trump a nominee who stood for torture, it鈥檚 worth thinking of those individuals within government who had the courage to stand up against it. Theirs are the moral standards that a CIA director nominee should embody.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON 鈥� The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, 老澳门开奖结果 and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project: 鈥淲hile this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We鈥檙e profoundly frustrated that the administration didn鈥檛 take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.鈥� -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. 鈥� Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. 鈥� Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government鈥檚 case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man鈥檚 Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man鈥檚 Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. 鈥� This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 case, his claims challenging the government鈥檚 detention of him would fail. 鈥淩eviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we鈥檙e heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,鈥� said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Center for Democracy. 鈥淭he government鈥檚 arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.鈥� In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court鈥檚 ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. 鈥淢r. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,鈥� said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants鈥� Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. 鈥淗e cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.鈥� Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the 老澳门开奖结果, the University of Chicago Law School鈥檚 Immigrants鈥� Rights Clinic, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.