Thursday鈥檚 hearing in Afghan national Mohammed Jawad鈥檚 case brought stunning testimony on serious abuse he suffered at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan as a teenager, as well as military psychologists鈥� role in crafting abusive interrogation methods for use on Jawad and other prisoners at Guant谩namo Bay.
On Thursday Special Agent Angela Birt, an Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigator who investigated , took the stand. Her investigation resulted in confessions from 18 military police for their role in abusing prisoners and findings of probable cause to charge 27 officers for the homicides. Birt鈥檚 investigation led her to Jawad because he had been imprisoned at Bagram at the time of the two homicides. Her investigation also uncovered a widespread pattern of abuse that corroborates Jawad鈥檚 claims of mistreatment at Bagram prison.
Birt testified that the types of abuse Jawad told her he suffered鈥攂eing forced to stand for long periods of time in stress positions; forced sleep deprivation; being hit, kicked and beaten; being shackled to the door of his cell; and being hooded and shackled with hand irons, leg irons and a waist chain while moved and in one case pushed down the stairs鈥攎irrored other Bagram detainees鈥� claims. She also said that Jawad鈥檚 claim that he heard the cries and screams of other detainees was a 鈥渇airly common鈥� claim of other prisoners locked in isolation who heard other prisoners 鈥渃rying for their parents and begging for the beatings to stop鈥� during interrogations nearby.
Birt testified that the period of time Jawad was at Bagram鈥攖he same period in which these two homicides occurred and the period chronicled in the documentary film Taxi to the Dark Side 鈥斺�渨as the worst period of abuse I鈥檝e ever seen鈥� in the 2,000 cases she's investigated in her 18-year career at CID.
The methods Birt uncovered at Bagram were part of a menu of abusive Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) interrogation techniques also used on prisoners at Guant谩namo Bay. Thursday鈥檚 hearing in Jawad鈥檚 case brought attention to the role of military psychologists belonging to Behavioral Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs), known as 鈥淏iscuit teams,鈥� in developing and refining these abusive techniques for use at Guant谩namo Bay. Since 2002 BSCT psychologists have evaluated prisoners鈥� fears and psychological weaknesses to craft individualized blueprints for torture and other mistreatment, which they passed on to the interrogators. For instance, a Guant谩namo psychiatrist advised interrogators to by deliberately keeping him almost totally in the dark.
Earlier media reports (see , , and , and a article revealed, and recent revelations from a , that military psychologists contributed to the development of these abusive interrogation methods.
Sadly, Thursday鈥檚 hearing did not add much to the public record on the workings of the BSCT program at Guant谩namo Bay. The BSCT psychologist, "Lt. Col. Z," who was scheduled to testify for the defense today, invoked her right to remain silent鈥攑resumably because she feared recounting her role could incriminate herself in criminal activity. Her testimony would have been the first time a member of the BSCT team had testified in a military commissions hearing.
What we already knew was that leaked Guant谩namo Bay interrogation logs鈥攚hich 鈥攕how that a BSCT psychologist was present during the highly abusive interrogation of Guant谩namo prisoner Mohammed al-Qahtani. (Charges against al-Quatani were suddenly dropped in May, because a trial would have turned the spotlight to the torture he endured at Guant谩namo Bay.) And BSCT psychologists鈥� role in aiding torture has been the subject of much controversy among the American Psychological Association (APA), which is holding a among its members to .
What we did learn Thursday was that, according to Jawad鈥檚 defense attorney Maj. Frakt, in September 2003, 鈥渨hen an interrogator observed Mohammad talking to posters on the wall of the interrogation room and was concerned about his mental health,鈥� instead of calling a mental health professional to care for him, they summoned the BSCT team, whose psychologist made a 鈥渃ruel and heartless assessment and recommendations.鈥� Maj. Frakt called the BSCT psychologist鈥檚 report, which was classified secret and therefore not discussed in detail in the open court session, 鈥渢he most chilling document of all.鈥�
And on Wednesday, Dr. Bruce Menely, the chief medical officer at Guant谩namo Bay, testified that when Jawad tried to hang himself only months later, on Christmas Day 2003, BSCT psychologists鈥攏ot regular medical psychologists鈥攚ere notified of Jawad鈥檚 suicide attempt. In Omar Khadr鈥檚 hearing Wednesday, Khadr鈥檚 defense lawyer Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler noted that, much like in Jawad鈥檚 case, military psychologists have met with Khadr to manipulate him and extract more information from him during interrogations.
During his emotional closing argument Thursday, Maj. Frakt asked, 鈥淲hat has this country come to when a licensed psychologist, a senior officer in the U.S. Armed Forces, someone trained in the art of healing broken hearts and mending broken minds, someone with a duty to do no harm, turns her years of training and education to the art of breaking people, to the intentional devastation of a lonely, homesick teenage boy?鈥�
At the end of her examination of Birt, defense attorney Katharine Doxakis asked Birt whether her resignation from the military was because she had become disillusioned with the military after seeing the results of her Bagram abuse investigation. The prosecution鈥檚 immediate objection was sustained, and Birt never got to answer the question.
If, as implied by the defense, Birt鈥檚 resignation from the military was a stand against torture, why didn鈥檛 Guant谩namo鈥檚 military鈥檚 psychologists do the same?
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.