Guantanamo Detainee Sues for Public Release of Torture Tapes

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 08:40:26 PM EST
Tags: al Qahtani, Guantanamo (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Mohammed al Qahtani, from Saudi Arabia, has been detained at Guantanamo for 10 years. This week the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit on his behalf seeking public release of his videotaped abusive interrogations.

Mr. al Qahtani’s treatment – which included a litany of abusive techniques ranging from severe sleep deprivation, 20-hour interrogations, isolation, threats by military dogs, exposure to extreme temperatures and religious and sexual humiliation - was partially detailed in a military interrogation log leaked to Time Magazine on March 2, 2006. As a result of this treatment, the senior U.S. official in charge of military commissions determined that U.S. personnel tortured Mr. al Qahtani. Mr. al Qahtani’s attorneys have viewed some of the tapes but are not allowed to discuss the contents. The lawsuit argues it is crucial for the public interest that the tapes be publicly released.

[More...]

CCR says is al-Qahtani is a prime example of all that is "abhorrent about Guantanamo.”

As to the lawsuit, brought in the Southern District of New York, the defendants are: the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the CIA. CCR says the basis for the suit is it's having filed a FOIA request for the tapes and the defendant's failure to turn them over.

As to al-Qahtani's current status:

Mr. al Qahtani was seized in December 2001 and transferred to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba shortly thereafter. Almost seven years later, the Convening Authority for Military Commissions dismissed all charges against al Qahtani because it found he had been tortured, but left open the possibility that he would be re-charged at a later time. To this date, Mr. al Qahtani is still in Guantánamo and no charges have been filed against him.

CCR had previously released The Torture of Mohammed al-Qahtani. The abuse included:

Forty-eight days of severe sleep deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory overstimulation, and threats with military dogs. The aggressive techniques, standing alone and in combination, resulted in severe physical and mental pain and suffering.

His interrogation logs are here. His lawyers declarations are here.

< Miss. Court Blocks Some of Barbour's Pardons | Thursday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Guantanamo Detainee Sues for Public Release of Torture Tapes | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Here's what I thought is a nice suggestion... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Edger on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 01:53:05 PM EST

... and one that would even help reduce the US deficit, and thereby maybe help get Obama re-elected? </snark>

Un-Occupy Guantanamo and give the land back to Cuba

The circumstances by which the United States came to occupy Guantánamo are as troubling as its past decade of activity there. In April 1898, American forces intervened in Cuba's three-year-old struggle for independence when it was all but won...
[snip]
The United States wanted dominion over Cuba, along with naval bases from which to exercise it.
Out of this desire for bases and an utter disregard for the self-determination of Cubans came the Platt Amendment. This allowed Washington to step into Cuban affairs whenever it felt like it and to forcibly lease land for naval bases. Cuban leaders naturally despised this. But what could they do?
[snip]
Under duress, they chose to incorporate the hideous amendment into their Constitution.
It was, as Hansen notes, as if the French had stayed around to run things after the American Revolution, which could not have been won without their help. Imagine if Paris had, after years of occupation demanded an amendment be included by the Founders in Philadelphia saying France could intervene whenever it wanted in U.S. affairs and, oh, by the way, we'd like to perpetually lease the Port of Boston.
[snip]
The Platt Amendment was given up under the Good Neighbor Policy in 1934. But the 45 square miles around Guantánamo stayed under U.S. control. The annual lease, which cannot be ended unless both sides agree or the U.S. walks away, now costs about $4,200 annually in rent that is indexed to U.S. inflation. Perhaps Fidel has pondered what he might do if the payment is late, but it never is.
more...

In protest of the U.S. presence, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by KeysDan on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:09:51 PM EST

the Castro government has cashed but one rental check for the perpetual lease in the past half century -the first check the revolutionary government received and cashed in 1959 by mistake in the "confusion". However, the US government claims that by cashing that check it was official validation of the treaty. That 1903 Treaty sure was prescient, enabling provisions of the NDAA-2012.


Interesting (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:24:56 PM EST

I didn't know that. Where did you find that out?


I recalled a story (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by KeysDan on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:48:38 PM EST

about Castro displaying a drawer-full of un-cashed checks and confirmed the details with Wikipedia. Also, I wrote a comment on TL a few years ago advocating our getting out of Guantanamo--not just the prison, but the 45 sq mile base. It does seem odd that we would have this prime property in a country that we do not have diplomatic relations with and does not want us there, with tensions for water and mined land surrounding the base.


: It does seem odd, doesn't it, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Edger on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:49:02 PM EST

for a government that so often tries to hold itself out as an example to the world of "rule of law" to have done everything possible to create a place where it can exempt itself from rule of law...

Mohammed al Qahtani / George Walker Bush (none / 0) (#1)
by Andreas on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 12:25:56 AM EST

It is worth stressing again and again that the victim of the vicious gang torterers led by George Walker Bush is still imprisoned by the two-party dictatorship - and that George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney are still in freedom and protected by the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.

The WSWS also wrote about the lawsuit today:

Lawsuit demands that Obama administration release Guantanamo torture tapes
By Tom Carter, 12 January 2012

And one last thing, from the WSWS article:

According to his attorneys, he confronts a life-threatening medical condition as a result of the torture.

Part (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by lentinel on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:48:51 AM EST

of the reason so many voted for Obama is that they hoped that he would turn his back on the Bush era.

It is his administration that has instead protected the people and policies of that era.

His administration will either comply with the request for the release of this information to the public, or it will resist the request in court, or it will simply see that the tapes are destroyed.

His response will define him.


: Please (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 09:03:48 AM EST

The fact that this man is in prison w/o charges had defined Obama, over and over. Ditto with his campaign schtick about closing Gitmo, well maybe not defined, but certainly speaks volumes.
Almost 90 people have been cleared for release and yet they sit because Obama can't find a place to send them.

: State Secrets (none / 0) (#3)
by smott on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 06:58:03 AM EST

I would assume is the defense that would be invoked by Obama...

And yet, (none / 0) (#5)
by Chuck0 on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 11:07:11 AM EST

the "shining house on the hill" aka the US, still wags its finger at China, North Korea and others and has the gall to scold them on their human rights records. Pitiful.

Well, (none / 0) (#6)
by bocajeff on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 01:27:44 PM EST

would you then say that anyone who votes for those in this administration who is allowing this to continue is in some way complicit with their actions?

A vote for Obama or any in his administration is a vote for this continued policy, no?

Indeed it is... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 01:29:38 PM EST

done in our name, on our dimes...every American taxpayer and/or voter and/or citizen is guilty as a mofo, as all power is drawn from our consent.


what continued policy would that be? (none / 0) (#8)
by CST on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 01:41:53 PM EST

The torture in question happened under the Bush administration.

If you are talking about the 90 people who still have nowhere to go, you can thank your reps in congress for that goody. They banned them from the United States. So since they can't (or won't) go home, and the Bahamas apparently won't take them all, what is there left to do?

Personally I think we should just hand over Guantanamo Bay. It's the least we can do. It'll become like Robben Island where the former inmates can give tours.

The Republican party orchestrated this mess from the get-go, and has continued to tie the hands of anyone trying to fix it. Not that Obama has been particularly effective or agressive on that issue, he's definitely part of the problem now. But make no mistake, this is a problem that the Republicans started. And the torture aspect is certainly their can of worms.


I have an idea.... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 01:50:32 PM EST

have the CIA give all those in Gitmo who can't be charged with a crime clean passports with new identities, 100 grand apiece, and airplane tickets outta Miami wherever they wanna go.


: Maybe Cuba (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by NYShooter on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 01:59:05 PM EST

would take them.....along with Gitmo

what continued policy would that be? (none / 0) (#9)
by CST on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 01:41:53 PM EST

So, (none / 0) (#13)
by bocajeff on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 04:57:56 PM EST

There's no POTUS anymore? Hmmm...


POTUS (none / 0) (#14)
by CST on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:03:25 PM EST

is not the same thing as King.

I'm not gonna let you conveniently gloss over the 8 years that led up to this giant steaming pile of $hit.

But you didn't answer my question. Which policy would you discontinue? Torture? Because that's been done already. Or are you referring to the protection of the torturers? Because I'm 100% on board with discontinuing that policy. But I seriously doubt you are.


State Secrets and indefinite preventative detentio (none / 0) (#16)
by smott on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:24:54 PM EST

Both on this admin


: i would like to hear (none / 0) (#18)
by CST on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 05:40:02 PM EST

Bocajeff's response. Since I have a sneaking suspicion he supports both of those things.
And would have us return power to the party that tortures too.

right (none / 0) (#20)
by bocajeff on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 07:26:59 PM EST

I'm not conveniently glossing over anything, as your assumptions show.

I'm saying that Obama and every person in this administration is responsible for keeping Guantanamo open, not demanding hearings, using the bully pulpit, going after the previous administration, etc...It's been 3 years now. What's the saying about all you need for evil to go on is for good people to do nothing?

I'm not going to say that because Obama is better than Bush lets Obama off the hook just as if Obama's successor (2012 or 2016) can't blame Obama for things he/she will need to fix. He's in charge now. Do something.
