Mohammed Jawad was arrested in Kabul in December 2002 by Afghan security forces responding to the scene of a grenade attack on US military personnel. See Jawad v. Gates, No. 14-00811 (D.D.C. July 8, 2015) (D.D.C. Opinion). He was 14 or 15 at the time; Jawad doesn’t know his exact age but believes he was born in 1987. Afghan security forces abused, threatened, and coerced Jawad, “forcing him to sign a confession (written in a language that he could not read) with his thumbprint.” D.D.C. Opinion at 2.
Latest in Interrogation: Abuses
When the Senate Intelligence Committee initially released its Study on the CIA’s Enhanced Interrogation Program in December 2014, the CIA quietly released a Note to the Reader along with its Fact Sheet, statement from Director John Brennan, and June 2013 Response to a draft of the SSCI Study.
I was extremely disappointed to read Professor Amy Zegart’s post regarding the Senate Intelligence Committee’s study of the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program. Not only did it include factually inaccurate statements, it also appeared to blame the Committee for the impediments imposed on the Study by the Executive Branch.
My staff has compiled a detailed description of the inaccurate and misleading statements included in Ms. Zegart’s post, which appears below.
Who won the torture debate -- the CIA or Senate Intelligence Committee Report? Were waterboarding, rectal hydration, stress positions, and other techniques used against detainees effective? Legal? Ethical? In a forthcoming special issue of the journal Intelligence and National Security, a range of academics and one former CIA lawyer weigh in.
A little over a week ago, the law firm Sidley Austin LLP submitted its "Independent Review Relating to APA Ethics Guidelines, National Security Interrogations, and Torture" to the APA Board of Directors. Today, the report was released to the public along with a story in the New York Times summarizing its contents.
During a February congressional hearing on the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, discussion turned—as it invariably does—to the detention facility’s role in jihadist propaganda.
Correspondence finds its way into your inbox, bearing the signature of the newly-installed Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Richard Burr.
His letter (per today's New York Times) last week was sent to the White House, and sets forth an unusual request: In it Senator Burr allegedly asks "the executive branch" to return all copies of the Committee's study of the CIA's detention and in
On December 30, the outgoing Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Dianne Feinstein, sent a letter to the White House.
The document---which was released earlier today---overviews a number of proposed reforms to U.S.
Having started this series of posts by focusing on the aspect of the SSCI's report on which the committee majority is strongest---the program's brutality---I want to turn now to the aspects of the committee's work on which, to my mind at least, its report is less persuasive.
An enormous amount of the committee's energy is devoted to demonstrating that the interrogation techniques used in the program were not effective, and the committee certainly highlights areas in which the CIA stated too confidently that coercive interrogation
I want to begin my review of the SSCI interrogation report and the responses from the CIA and the SSCI minority by addressing the area in which, in my view, the majority report is strongest: the allegation that the treatment of detainees was far more abusive, far less controlled, and far more brutal than the CIA has acknowledged.