Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Sunday, April 21, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Assertion of state secrets in CIA torture case has justices looking for alternate intel

The highest court in the country unequivocally acknowledged the torture of one of Guantanamo Bay's so-called "forever prisoners," a man held for two decades now without a charge amid conflicting information about his purported links to Osama bin Laden.

WASHINGTON (CN) — Grappling with a discovery order that the U.S. government says would threaten national security, the chief justice of Supreme Court and several of his colleagues sparred in oral arguments Wednesday over the possibility that a Guantanamo Bay detainee has other sources to call upon, including his own memory.

“I don't think the court realizes the extent to which Guantanamo prisoners are muzzled,” Joe Margulies, a Cornell University law professor representing the detainee, said in a call to Courthouse News after the hearing.

It was the Ninth Circuit that advanced the subpoena in 2019, saying a federal judge must disentangle nonprivileged information from what is privileged after the U.S. government intervened in a suit by Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, more commonly known as Abu Zubaydah, against James Elmer Mitchell and John Jessen, onetime CIA contractors who helped set up the agency’s torture program used to question suspects after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Zubaydah was captured in Pakistan pursuant to the CIA's rendition, detention and interrogation program that resulted in his delivery to a CIA black site in Poland. The government has never charged Zubaydah, though he remains to this day at Guantanamo Bay on suspicion of involvement in the training of two of the 9/11 hijackers. Over the years, the allegations against him have shifted.

While early detention papers called Zubaydah a high-level leader of al-Qaida, the government claimed later that Zubaydah had advanced knowledge of the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Last year, the government asserted in its petition for certiorari that Zubaydah "was an associate and longtime terrorist ally of Osama bin Laden" — a title that Zubaydah's attorneys call "categorically false" in their opposition brief.

Zubaydah holds the distinction of being the first man waterboarded after 9/11 — acts of torture that occurred some 83 times, according to the public summary by Senate investigators of a 6,700-page report that remains classified. The so-called "forever prisoner" is pictured in his Guantanamo Bay profile wearing an eye patch — a prominent consequence, his lawyers say, of his torture by the CIA.

The Pentagon acknowledged over a decade ago that Zubaydah never joined al-Qaida, as previously alleged. What the U.S. still has not acknowledged, however, is the existence of the black site in Poland where Zubaydah was tortured. Confirmation has come instead from several other sources, including the president of Poland, a fact that Chief Justice John Roberts touched on Wednesday at oral arguments.

"What if the foreign partners have no objection or, in fact, have confirmed the relationship themselves?" the George W. Bush appointee asked.

Justice Stephen Breyer underscored this as well, even going so far as to ask why Zubaydah remains a prisoner of the United States — noting that Mitchell and Jessen would not have to be subpoenaed, implicating privileged material, if Zubaydah could instead testify himself at the criminal proceedings underway in Poland about his black-site experience.

“Look, I don't understand why he's still there after 14 years,” the Clinton appointee said, referring to Guantanamo, where Zubaydah has been detained since 2006.

Zubaydah's attorney Margulies said questions about sending Zubaydah to Poland highlighted how little the court knows about the conditions of Guantanamo prisoners. 

“I think that there was some education going on in the court," Margulies said. "They seem to think that a Guantanamo prisoner like any other prisoner in federal court could be allowed to testify, it's just a matter of getting a court reporter down there. They just might not have been aware. They're aware now.”

The justices pressured the Department of Justice to answer whether it would allow Zubaydah to testify. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“I'm asking much more directly, and I'd just really appreciate a straight answer to this, will the government make petitioner available to testify as to his treatment during these dates,” Justice Neil Gorsuch pushed. 

Acting Solicitor General Brian Fletcher said in reply that he could not offer a definite answer as Zubaydah is subject to restrictions that apply to all Guantanamo detainees.

“His communications are subject to security screening for classified information and other security risks,” Fletcher said. 

Before the court, Zubaydah was represented by David Klein, an attorney with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. Klein noted in a phone call with Courthouse News that Zubaydah is allowed to speak only to his attorney, and his attorney is not allowed to speak about what he says.

If Zubaydah were allowed to testify, attorney Margulies added, it would be a “radical change” for Guantanamo detainees. 

“Ultimately, what this case is about is whether torture can be kept secret,” Margulies said over the phone. “That's really what's at stake, and I think the court gets that torture ought not to be secret.” 

Justice Clarence Thomas noted that the two CIA contractors whom Zubaydah has subpoenaed have already testified in other cases. It is the government's position, however, that the information at issue here is classified whereas the men's previous testimony spoke to matters that had been declassified.

Acting Solicitor General Fletcher said compelling testimony of these contractors would endanger national security. 

The argument struck several members of the court as off kilter.

“At a certain point, it becomes a little bit farcical, this idea of the assertion of privilege, doesn't it?" asked Justice Elena Kagan. "I mean, if everybody knows what you're asserting privilege on, like, what exactly does this privilege — I mean, maybe we should rename it or something. It's not a state secrets privilege anymore.”

The government was not the only target of this line of questioning, with each of the justices questioning the representative for Zubaydah on if he was just seeking the government’s confirmation of what is already known.

Klein said he was not asking if Zubaydah was held in Poland but instead what happened while he was there. 

“I'm not planning to ask did it happen in Poland,” Klein said. “The Polish prosecutor already has information about that and doesn't need U.S. discovery on the topic. What he does need to know is what happened inside Abu Zubaydah's cell between December 2002 and September 2003.” 

The justices repeatedly questioned Klein on what exactly Zubaydah was seeking. 

“What I can't get past is ... you say that it's not a secret that there was a black site in Poland, so you say it can't be a state secret. If it's not a secret because that's well established, and then it's not a secret that he was tortured either,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said. “So it seems to me that if that's all you wanted to prove by your own characterization of those facts, you don't really need them.” 

Chief Justice Roberts asked the assistant solicitor general to explain why it does not want the trial court to go through Mitchell and Jessen's testimony to redact for any compromising location information. Kagan questioned whether the government's position would shift if the Polish government itself filed an amicus brief calling for the release of information.

After arguments, both Margulies and Klein said they were encouraged by the justices’ questions about allowing Zubaydah to testify, but neither said they thought that outcome was probable. 

Baher Azmy, legal director for the Center on Constitutional Rights — one of 18 organizations that has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Zubaydah — said in a phone call that he agreed with the assessment that the United States would not allow Zubaydah to testify. 

“This is not a bonafide legal process," Azmy said. "The government tortured Abu Zubaydah, violated every constitutional international law principle; they’ve been holding him 20 years without charge and trial, and does not want to let him out or let anything about what they did to him known publicly because they brutalized him.

"This is all that's at stake, so they will not let this information out," Azmy continued.

There was no consensus on how the attorneys thought the justices might rule in this case. Azmy said he thought they might wait to make their ruling until hearing another case related to state secrets, FBI v. Fazaga, in November. 

Follow @KelseyReichmann
Categories / Uncategorized

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...