ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch Urge DOJ to Appoint Special Prosecutor for CIA Torture
More Than 6 Months After Release of Senate Torture Report, the Groups Delivered Petition With More Than 110,000 Signatures
WASHINGTON — Six months after the release of the summary of the Senate torture report, the secretary general of Amnesty International and the executive directors of the American Civil Liberties Union, and Human Rights Watch have sent a letter and delivered petitions with 111,788 signatures of human rights supporters to the Department of Justice, calling on the U.S. government to ensure accountability for torture.
The human rights and civil liberties organizations are urging DOJ to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct a full investigation of violations of federal criminal laws relating to the rendition, detention, and interrogation of prisoners held or questioned by the Central Intelligence Agency since the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The letter states, “While the Department of Justice has conducted an investigation into some aspects of this matter already, the released summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (“SSCI”) Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program (“Senate torture report”) includes significant new information relating to the commission of serious federal crimes, including torture, homicide, conspiracy, and sexual assault. In light of the disclosure of this information, we ask that you ensure the investigation’s independence, and the appearance of independence, by appointing a special prosecutor; provide the prosecutor with files from the investigation completed by John Durham and his investigators, as well as the full 6,700-page version of the Senate torture report; and ask the prosecutor to conduct a comprehensive criminal investigation of the conduct described in the report, including all acts authorizing or ordering that conduct.”
%3Ciframe%20class%3D%22media-youtube-player%22%20id%3D%22media-youtube-tc6xbtmfjk4%22%20width%3D%22576%22%20height%3D%22324%22%20title%3D%22How%20Many%20People%20Does%20It%20Take%20to%20Prevent%20CIA%20Torture%3F%22%20src%3D%22%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FTc6XbTMFjK4%3Fwmode%3Dopaque%26amp%3Benablejsapi%3D1%26amp%3Bmodestbranding%3D1%26amp%3Bplayerapiid%3Dmedia-youtube-tc6xbtmfjk4%26amp%3Brel%3D0%26amp%3Bshowinfo%3D0%26amp%3Bcolor%3Dwhite%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%3EVideo%20of%20How%20Many%20People%20Does%20It%20Take%20to%20Prevent%20CIA%20Torture%3F%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
The executive summary of the Senate torture report released six months ago — the only portion made available to the public — documented instances of mock executions, forced rectal feeding and hydration, and widespread use of forced sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. Shockingly, the Justice Department told a U.S. court that it has never opened the full Senate report it received from the Senate, let alone reviewed it for evidence of human rights violations and criminal wrongdoing.
“The Justice Department and the Obama administration are effectively burying the Senate torture report,” said Steven W. Hawkins, executive director of Amnesty International USA. “The Senate report contains disturbing and previously unknown details about torture, and yet the Justice Department is keeping it unread and unopened. It is effectively handing out a ‘get out of jail free’ card to all those responsible for torture. The message to every would-be torturer is that they will get away with it because the Justice Department will turn a blind eye.”
“If our laws have meaning, we can’t accept that some of our country’s most senior officials authorized criminal conduct and were never held accountable,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “Torture is a crime. We know it happened. The Senate torture report documented it in excruciating detail. It’s up to Attorney General Lynch to uphold the laws of our land and ensure that a criminal investigation of the U.S. torture program is conducted.”
“The Justice Department has a clear responsibility to carry out a credible and comprehensive criminal investigation into the overwhelming evidence that U.S. officials used torture in violation of U.S. law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “The Obama administration's continued failure to act in the face of this mountain of evidence risks sending the message that torture is a valid policy option rather than the crime that it is.”
Tomorrow at a meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, a coalition of dozens of civil society organizations from around the world will deliver a statement calling for accountability for the CIA torture program and reparations to victims. In September, the council will adopt a report on the United States' human rights record as part of the Universal Periodic Review process. The statement urges the council to demand that the United States appoint a special prosecutor and to establish a special fund to compensate torture victims.
The U.N. statement is at:
/coalition-letter-un-human-rights-council-demanding-accountability-cia-torture-program
A video, “Investigate This American Torture Story,” is at:
The letter to Attorney General Lynch is below and at:
/letter/letter-ag-lynch-requesting-special-prosecutor-torture
Re: Request for Appointment of a Special Prosecutor for Torture
Dear Attorney General Lynch:
We write to urge you to conduct a full investigation of violations of federal criminal laws relating to the rendition, detention, and interrogation (“RDI”) of prisoners held or questioned by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) since the September 11, 2001 attacks. We are attaching petitions initiated by our organizations, which were signed by 111,788 concerned individuals, who are urging the appointment of a special prosecutor.
While the Department of Justice has conducted an investigation into some aspects of this matter already, the released summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (“SSCI”) Study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program (“Senate torture report”) includes significant new information relating to the commission of serious federal crimes, including torture, homicide, conspiracy, and sexual assault. In light of the disclosure of this information, we ask that you ensure the investigation’s independence, and the appearance of independence, by appointing a special prosecutor; provide the prosecutor with files from the investigation completed by John Durham and his investigators, as well as the full 6,700-page version of the Senate torture report; and ask the prosecutor to conduct a comprehensive criminal investigation of the conduct described in the report, including all acts authorizing or ordering that conduct.
In 2009 we welcomed Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to expand the scope of the investigation then being led by Mr. Durham into the CIA’s destruction of the “waterboarding videotapes” to include certain acts of torture and abuse described in a report by the CIA Inspector General. We do not know the precise scope of Mr. Durham’s mandate, though statements by the Justice Department indicate it was likely limited to offenses that exceeded the scope of legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel. [1] The request we make today is based on the assumption that Mr. Durham pursued a broad mandate with the same independence that United States attorneys ordinarily have in criminal matters within their jurisdiction.
Even with this assumption, however, we believe the appointment of a special prosecutor is now warranted. First, the Senate torture report reveals significant new information about the nature of the abuse inflicted on the CIA’s prisoners; the number of prisoners who were subjected to that abuse; and the decisions that led to the infliction of that abuse. Even if Mr. Durham had access to all of the material to which the SSCI had access, as a White House spokesperson recently indicated, the SSCI has now synthesized a huge volume of information into a narrative that clarifies the extent and seriousness of criminal conduct. There is a qualitative difference between having access to more than six million pages of documents and conducting a criminal investigation based on a 6,700-page report that pieces together those documents into a narrative indicating a vast criminal conspiracy, under of color of law, to commit torture and other serious crimes.
Second, even if Mr. Durham’s mandate was broad, we have been unable to find any evidence that Mr. Durham or his investigators interviewed any prisoner who was subjected to the RDI program. Our organizations represent, or have interviewed, several persons who were subjected to torture or rendition through the RDI program, and none of them were interviewed during the earlier criminal investigation. During the review in November of the United States before the United Nations Committee against Torture in Geneva, the committee raised concerns, based on letters and accounts from torture victims or their attorneys, over whether Mr. Durham had interviewed any detainee. The United States stated it had interviewed 96 persons as part of the investigation, but it did not indicate whether any of the prisoners who were subjected to abuse and torture were among those interviewed. Given both the prevalence and granularity of the facts described in the Senate torture report, the absence or paucity of victim interviews, particularly when many of the victims remain in U.S. custody, undercuts the credibility of the decision not to indict anyone for torture-related crimes.
Third, Mr. Durham’s determination that the “admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt” was made at a time when many of the relevant facts were classified. While we do not know why Mr. Durham reached the conclusion he did, it seems possible that he was influenced by the threat of “graymail”—the threat that defendants would disclose state secrets. With so much information about the CIA’s program now in the public domain, presumably the calculation as to what would be admissible without disclosure of state secrets would be different now.
Fourth, insofar as Mr. Durham’s investigation excluded potential crimes committed by those who operated within the guidance of the Office of Legal Counsel, and by those who sought to secure that guidance, a new investigation is warranted to address those crimes. The Senate torture report includes evidence that senior CIA officials did not rely on OLC guidance “in good faith,” but rather they knew that the conduct amounted to illegal torture before they ever sought the guidance and went looking for legal cover. They sought a guarantee from the Justice Department’s Criminal Division that these acts would not be prosecuted, and only when the Criminal Division declined did they seek a ruling by the OLC, which produced the now-repudiated “torture memos.” As a result, the argument of good faith reliance on counsel appears inapplicable to some of the officials who were involved in conceptualizing, ordering, and executing these crimes. We believe that officials who provided legal advice meant to authorize torture should also not benefit from any presumption that they were fulfilling their responsibilities in good faith.
Finally, the necessity of investigating issues of criminal liability is made more urgent by the fact that many of the individuals who authorized the conduct documented in the Senate torture report are publicly defending the necessity, effectiveness, and legality of that conduct. Against this background, we believe the failure to conduct a comprehensive criminal investigation would contribute to the notion that torture remains a permissible policy option for future administrations; undermine the ability of the United States to advocate for human rights abroad; and compromise Americans’ faith in the rule of law at home. The United States has an obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to effectively, independently, and impartially investigate all cases of unlawful killing, torture or other ill-treatment, arbitrary detention or enforced disappearance; and to appropriately prosecute and sanction the perpetrators, including persons in positions of command.
We are sure that you shared our sadness and disgust in reading the summary of the Senate torture report. Even though our organizations have dedicated tens of thousands of staff hours to researching, litigating, and advocating on concerns related to torture and other ill-treatment in the RDI program, the depravity of the tactics and immensity of the enterprise still astound us. There is no need to repeat the details in this letter to you, but we believe it is fair to say that many of these crimes would be horrific even if committed by an individual acting alone; but when done as part of a deliberate, coordinated government program, the crimes are more shocking and far more corrosive to U.S. democracy.
With the Senate torture report now final and in the Justice Department’s possession, we strongly urge you to appoint a career prosecutor as a special prosecutor to review it, along with the files from the Durham investigation, to ensure that there is a comprehensive criminal investigation into the conduct documented by the Senate torture report, as well as the authorization for that conduct. Moreover, we urge that, in appointing a special prosecutor, you ensure independence and the appearance of independence by following the precedent set by then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey, acting as attorney general, who appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame matter. In that case, Mr. Comey invoked sections 509, 510 and 515 of Title 28 to provide Mr. Fitzgerald with the plenary authority of the attorney general to conduct the investigation and make prosecutorial decisions. An appointment with the plenary powers of the attorney general transferred to the prosecutor would help ensure continuity and objectivity.
We thank you again for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss this request.
Sincerely,
Salil Shetty
Secretary General
Amnesty International
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union
Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch
[1] One such statement indicates that the Durham investigation “examined primarily whether any unauthorized interrogation techniques were used by CIA interrogators,” and excluded “anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees.” Statement of Attorney General Eric Holder on Closure of Investigation into the Interrogation of Certain Detainees, Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, August 30, 2012, .
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.