Details of the interrogation were contained in documents released late Friday as part of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Judicial Watch...

NOTE: New York Times blog with link to documents here.

New Law Could Allow Military Commissions to Continue Indefinitely

Human Rights Lawyer Reveals Vast Extent of CIA Torture Program

UprisingRadio.org Published 29 Oct 2009

Listen to this segment | the entire program

Time Magazine is reporting that there "was little surprise among Afghanistan experts" at the recent New York Times report claiming that Afghan President Karzai's brother is on the CIA payroll. It has been referred to in Afghanistan as an "open secret." Now some members of Congress are asserting that the Central Intelligence Agency may have lied to them at least five times since 2001. Among the instances of alleged deception are the CIA's failure to disclose to Intelligence committees, that terrorism suspects were being tortured. Another instance involved its secret assassination program for top Al Qaeda leaders. The findings are the result of an investigation following a briefing by CIA Director Leon Panetta in July. Meanwhile, a human rights lawyer investigating the story of CIA torture, has discovered that the CIA's international detention program was far more extensive than previously thought, reaching all the way from Thailand to Afghanistan, Jordan to Poland and many countries in between. The CIA's program was extremely secretive, had fewer prisoners, and subjected them to much worse torture, compared to a military detention program that was more overt.

GUEST: John Sifton, Director of One World Research, former researcher with Human Rights Watch

NINTH CIRCUIT JUDGES DUCK OUT OF STATE SECRET REVIEW

Jay Bybee: Well, we know why he's recused from the rendition case ...

Dan Levine, Legal Pad 

Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee isn't participating in a critical case about the state secrets privilege.

The appeals court decided today to hear en banc a civil lawsuit brought by one of the victims of extraordinary rendition, the practice of kidnapping terror suspects and flying them to foreign prisons. The defendant is a Boeing subsidiary which operated the flights. An earlier Ninth Circuit panel had allowed the suit to proceed, saying it could not be quashed solely on the federal government's claim that it would jeopardize state secrets.

Bybee, who has come under intense criticism for signing the so-called Torture Memos when he worked in the Ashcroft Justice Department, was recused from the en banc vote. So was Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a liberal leader whose wife works for the ACLU in Los Angeles; the civil liberties group represents the plaintiff. Other judges recused from the case are Margaret McKeown, Ronald Gould, Milan Smith Jr. and Sandra Ikuta. We're guessing professional ties to Boeing, especially for McKeown and Gould, since they have Seattle roots. Any readers want to fill in the blanks?

more here

New Military Commissions Act Still Allows Coerced Testimony and Hearsay 

Two Uighur detainees at Guantanamo hold the prison camp's first self-styled public protest for visiting journalists on June 1, 2009, in this photo cleared for release by the U.S. Department of Defense.

"Congress's definition of torture in those laws - the infliction of severe mental or physical pain - leaves room for interrogation methods that go beyond polite conversation." -  John Yoo

Torture Quote Round-Up

brought to you by the Information Clearing House Newsletter.

Bybee's Final Fate In Conyers' Hands Now

by SmileySam, DAILY KOS 

Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 08:44:15 AM PDT

see also Torture cover-up continues: the latest strategy

Judge Confirms Detainee Tortured to Make False Confessions

Wednesday 14 October 2009

(Photo: sfar / flickr)

    A declassified ruling by a federal court judge reveals that Fouad al-Rabiah, an innocent Kuwaiti prisoner who was ordered released from Guantanamo last week, was brutally tortured into making false confessions by US interrogators and repeatedly threatened until he confessed to terrorist activities he was not involved. 

Stance Follows Presidential Declaration That Torture Is Illegal

Morning prayer for detainees in Camp 4 of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility (Zuma Press)

When he took office, President Obama made clear that torture is illegal and that the United States would not abuse detainees in its custody. He immediately ordered the CIA as well as the rest of the U.S. government to adhere to the rules set out in the Army Field Manual, which forbid the torture, abuse or humiliation of prisoners.

But when it comes to those tortured during the Bush administration, the Obama administration refuses to say that Bush officials violated existing law. In fact, in litigation over the torture and abuse of detainees that in some cases may have resulted in their deaths, the Obama administration has surprisingly endorsed the same legal positions as its predecessor, insisting that there is no constitutional right to humane treatment by U.S. authorities outside the United States, and that victims of torture and abuse and their survivors have no right to compensation or even an acknowledgment of what occurred.

now there's real change (not)

House Bill Allows Coerced Testimony and Hearsay in Military Commissions

By DAPHNE EVIATAR 10/9/09 THE WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT 

The National Defense Authorization Act, passed yesterday by the House of Representatives, includes a largely overlooked provision that modifies the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which allows the government to try certain terror suspects -- now called "unprivileged enemy belligerents" instead of the Bush-era term, "unlawful enemy combatants" -- in military proceedings rather than Article III federal courts. The purpose of using a special court is primarily to deny defendants some of the protections that federal courts provide, such as the right to exclude coerced testimony and hearsay...

Did the NSA Wiretap Gitmo Defense Lawyers?

By DAPHNE EVIATAR 10/9/09 12:49 PM THE WASHINGTON INDEPENDENT

That's one of the questions coming up in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit being argued today by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of 23 lawyers who believe they may have been wiretapped without a warrant by the National Security Agency during the Bush administration. But the government won't answer the question.

The NSA authorized its warrantless wiretapping program shortly after September 11, 2001.

After defense lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees discovered they might have been wiretapped, CCR challenged the practice in a lawsuit in New York in May 2007. But the government refused to say whether it wiretapped the lawyers or not, citing national security concerns. The federal district court sided with the government, ruling that the NSA could refuse to either confirm or deny the existence of any related records because to do so "would reveal information about the NSA's capabilities and activities."

The case is Wilner v. NSA and it's being argued before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals today.

There's a lot of misinformation out there on this topic... Conspiracy to commit torture continues, as a legal matter, as long as its members are still trying to accomplish its objectives - regardless of when they committed their last overt act.* 

OPR Report on Torture Memos Still Incomplete

By Joe Palazzolo | October 6, 2009 MAIN JUSTICE

John Yoo (Berkeley)

The release of a long-awaited ethics report on the conduct of former Justice Department lawyers who authorized the use of harsh interrogation appears to be a ways off.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday the department is waiting for additional comments from "some of the lawyers who were involved." The former Office of Legal Counsel lawyers under scrutiny already missed a May deadline for submitting their responses.

Speaking with reporters at Department of Justice headquarters in Washington, Holder said he expected the report to be cleared for release relatively soon. In June, he said the report, now more than four years in the making, would be ready in a "matter of weeks."

The report explores whether legal advice in the interrogation memos, which have since been rescinded, met professional standards required of Justice Department lawyers. The Office of Professional Responsibility's initial findings are said to be harshly critical of Jay Bybee, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and John Yoo, a former deputy...

*see Prosecuting Torture: Is Time Really Running Out?

Prof. Chomsky speaks at rally

• Monday, October 5, 2009

Supreme Court Preview Part II, John Yoo's Revenge?

(The following is the second in a multi-part series on the upcoming Supreme Court Term)

c/o ThinkProgress

Few names are more associated with the worst abuses of the Bush Administration -- its callous disregard for human rights, its treatment of the Constitution as opinion, its belief that presidents, or at least conservative presidents, are really kings -- than former Bush OLC deputy John Yoo.  Yet while Yoo is most famous for his at-best professionally incompetent claims that it's legal for the United States to torture, Yoo's first love was always limitless Presidential power.  Two cases this Term will reveal just how many of the justices share Yoo's passion.