SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
On March 22, Judge James Robertson, reviewing the habeas corpus petition of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, concluded that the United States had failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify his detention. The Justice Department apparently relied heavily on statements made by Slahi during his detention by the CIA and subsequently in the military prison at Guantánamo. He was the thirty-fourth prisoner to prevail against the United States in the habeas process. Writing in the Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg notes that Judge Robertson’s opinion is still undergoing declassification and therefore is unavailable. However, she offers some well-grounded speculation about the basis of the case:
[Slahi’s] name was already well known because of investigations into detainee abuse. Those probes found Slahi had been subjected to sleep deprivation, exposed to extremes of heat and cold, moved around the base blindfolded, and at one point taken into the bay on a boat and threatened with death. Investigators also found interrogators had told him they would arrest his mother and have her jailed as the only female detainee at Guantánamo if he did not cooperate. The interrogations were so abusive a highly regarded Pentagon lawyer, Marine Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, quit the case five years ago rather than prosecute him at the Bush administration’s first effort to stage military commissions.
The Slahi case is a good demonstration of the problems that the regime of state-sanctioned torture produces when prosecutors wade into legal proceedings attempting to make use of evidence extracted when torture has been used. This very failure will likely be used by the administration to justify a regime of preventive detention. For the moment, however, the Obama Justice Department is satisfying itself with an appeal.
In Sherry Jones’s documentary “Torturing Democracy,” the Slahi case is very effectively recapped. The outcome of the habeas process was obvious even when this first aired more than a year ago:
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”