Political Crossfire Forums

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Bush administration: Ex-CIA prisoner shouldn't speak to attorney
Quote: November 4, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques.

Human rights groups have questioned the CIA's methods for questioning suspects, especially following the passage of a bill last month that authorized the use of harsh -- but undefined -- interrogation tactics.

In recently filed court documents, the Justice Department said those methods, along with the locations of the CIA's network of prisons, are among the nation's most sensitive secrets. Prisoners who spent time in those prisons should not be allowed to disclose that information, even to a lawyer, the government said.

"Improper disclosure of other operational details, such as interrogation methods, could also enable terrorist organizations and operatives to adapt their training to counter such methods, thereby obstructing the CIA's ability to obtain vital intelligence that could disrupt future planned terrorist attacks," the Justice Department wrote.

The documents, which were first reported by The Washington Post, were filed in opposition to a request that terror suspect Majid Khan should be given access to an attorney. Khan, 26, immigrated from Pakistan and graduated high school in Maryland.

According to documents filed on his behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Khan was arrested in Pakistan in 2003. During more than three years in CIA custody, Khan was subjected to interrogation techniques that defense attorneys suggest amounted to torture.

President Bush acknowledged the existence of the CIA system in September and transferred Khan and 13 other prisoners designated as "terrorist leaders" to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Under a law passed last month, they are to be tried before special military commissions and may not have access to civilian courts.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is among several advocacy groups challenging that law. They say the Constitution guarantees prisoners a right to challenge their detention.

The Justice Department argues that civilian courts no longer have jurisdiction to intervene in the case. They say keeping details about the CIA program secret is essential because national security is at stake.

"Information obtained through the program has provided the United States with one of the most useful tools in combating terrorist threats to the national security," the government argued in court documents.

"It has shed light on probable targets and likely methods for attacks on the United States, has led to the disruption of terrorist plots against the United States and its allies, and has gathered information that has played a role in the capture and questioning of senior al Qaeda operatives," it said.

Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, responded in court documents Friday that there is no evidence Khan has classified information. Gutierrez accused the administration of using national secrecy concerns to "conceal illegal or embarrassing executive conduct."

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton has not indicated when he will rule.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

I'm placing this story in this forum due to the Constitutionality issues that arrise.

In my opinion, regardless of what offenses these men are charged with
they still should be afforded a competent Lawyer for their defense.
Does the portions of Our Constitution listed below have any bearing?
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
Article III - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial Powers
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials


Now there does exist this new legislation passed by the Republican rubber-stamp Congress yet,
I'm not so sure it will be held legal by the courts.
Especially since the language states the Courts of these United States do not have any say in the matter.

So, what is your take on this situation?
Are there violations of Our Constitution in play?

[British boy]

It sounds like there definitely are some issues that aren't constitutional. However couldn't you argue that the constitution only protects American citizens? this would make your arguement pointless.
Although I do agree that everyone deserves due process of law regardless of crime.

[The Stars and Stripes]

I always consider it suspicious when someone is not allowed an attorney or trial.

[bigstick61]

His rights are definitely being violated. By being detained for such a long period without trial, his rights of due process were being denied, and are being denied once again. By being natural, a right is held by all. This is reflected in the Bill of Rights applying to all Persons rather than just U.S. citizens; that such rights are only held by U.S. citizens is a common misconception.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

I would pay to see someone try and justify this.

[LostSoul3412]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: I would pay to see someone try and justify this.

Only terrorists need justification to violate due process.

Why do you hate America?