Military Judge Throws Out CIA Torture-Tainted Confessions in USS Cole Bombing Case
In a significant development, the military judge overseeing the USS Cole bombing case has ruled that the confessions made by the Saudi defendant to federal agents at Guantánamo Bay should be thrown out. The judge, Col. Lanny J. Acosta Jr., declared the statements to be the product of torture, thereby depriving prosecutors of a crucial piece of evidence against Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, the accused mastermind behind the al-Qaida suicide bombing of the warship in 2000.
The decision highlights the question of whether confessions obtained through torture are admissible, and it poses a test for the joint effort by the Justice and Defense Departments to prosecute individuals linked to al-Qaida attacks at the special Guantánamo court. It also raises concerns about the use of violent CIA interrogations and seeks to strike a balance between pursuing justice through death-penalty trials and addressing the impact of previous abusive practices.
Similar challenges are being made in the case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other prisoners accused of conspiring in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Both Nashiri and Mohammed were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, in 2002 by CIA interrogators.
While Nashiri’s confessions to federal and Navy agents were considered key evidence against him, his later statements during an administrative hearing, where he denied being a member of al-Qaida but admitted to knowing Osama bin Laden, shed doubt on the reliability of the initial confessions. Testimony during the pretrial hearings revealed the extent of physical and emotional torture endured by Nashiri during his years of secret imprisonment in various CIA prisons. Experts argue that by the time he was questioned by federal agents, Nashiri was trained to respond to interrogators’ questions, casting further doubt on the voluntariness of his subsequent statements.
The exclusion of the confessions as evidence poses a challenge for prosecutors, who must now rely on other evidence to build their case against Nashiri. While the ruling may have societal costs, permitting evidence obtained from torture by the same government seeking prosecution and execution could have even greater costs, according to Judge Acosta.
The chief prosecutor for military commissions, Rear Adm. Aaron C. Rugh, has not yet indicated whether his team will appeal the decision. With a new judge expected in the case later this year, prosecutors may pursue reconsideration at the Guantánamo court or raise the issue with the Court of Military Commissions Review.
This landmark ruling brings into focus the accountability of the government for its past use of torture, highlighting the need for legal and ethical guidelines in the treatment of prisoners. Defense lawyers have hailed the decision as a step forward, while emphasizing that the government responsible for the torture has yet to face consequences for its actions.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the USS Cole case and serves as a reminder of the challenges surrounding the use of confessions obtained through torture in the pursuit of justice. With further legal proceedings expected in related cases, the outcome will be closely watched by human rights and international law experts.
