« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
TPM's Timeline of the CIA's Torture Tapes
For years, the CIA denied recording any interrogations of al-Qaeda detainees. For years, the Bush administration denied issuing any legal authorization for torture. And for years, members of Congress claimed ignorance of what the CIA and the Bush administration had in store for detained members of al-Qaeda. All of these denials have proven false.
There's a tremendous amount that remains unknown about CIA interrogations of al-Qaeda, the recording of those interrogations, and the destruction of those recordings. Determining just what is known is confusing, as is sorting out when crucial developments occurred. To provide a measure of clarity, TPMmuckraker has compiled a timeline of relevant events over the past five years. Since the core of the current controversy isn't about the destruction of the tapes but the interrogation methods those tapes captured -- which is of course unknown -- we included milestones on the administration's road to developing interrogation policy.
Invaluable research assistance was provided by Adrianne Jeffries, Peter Sheehy, and Andrew Berger. Mistakes in compiling this information are entirely our own, and we hope you'll alert us in comments to any errors we've made.
February 7, 2002: President Bush signs an executive order that says Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions does not apply to al-Qaeda detainees.
2002: Al-Qaeda members Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri are captured and interrogated in secret CIA prisons. At least some of the interrogations are videotaped. 
The precise date of the interrogations that were taped is not known. However, there are some clues. As early as the spring of 2002, the CIA began using "harsh interrogation methods" on Zubaydah, including waterboarding. As for Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, he was not captured until the fall, as late as November. He told a military tribunal in March of this year that "from the time I was arrested... they have been torturing me," and that he'd made up stories in order to get interrogators to stop.
August 1, 2002: Jay Bybee, the chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, issues a memo that restricts the definition of torture to physical pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." A still-classified memo from roughly the same time period, known as the Second Bybee Memo, reportedly gets specific about the legality of certain prospective CIA interrogation techniques.
September, 2002: The leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees receive a CIA briefing on interrogation techniques considered for al-Qaeda detainees. The content of that briefing is highly disputed. Both Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and ex-Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) say they were not briefed on actual interrogation techniques in use by the CIA. Ex-Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) says otherwise. The briefing or briefings do not mention any interrogations being recorded. There is no known protest from any member of Congress present.
February - December 2002: The Senate and House intelligence committees conduct a joint review into the intelligence preceding the 9/11 attacks. Jointly chaired by Sens. Graham and Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Reps. Goss and Pelosi, it is not told by the CIA of any recorded interrogations.
November 27, 2002: President Bush signs into law a bill creating the 9/11 Commission.
February, 2003: CIA General Counsel Scott Muller briefs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about interrogation techniques now in use by CIA. According to then-ranking member Jane Harman (D-CA), the briefing raised "serious concerns." Muller also gave some indication that there were videotapes of some al-Qaeda detainees and reason to believe that the tapes might be in danger of destruction. Harman writes a classified letter to the CIA general counsel's office, warning "against destruction of any videotapes." Reportedly, Porter Goss (R-FL), the committee chairman and future CIA director, warns against destroying the tapes as well.
May 7, 2003: Judge Leonie Brinkema, presiding over the trial of admitted al-Qaeda member Zacharias Moussaoui, requests that the government turn over any recordings of al-Qaeda captives potentially relevant to the case.
May 9, 2003: The Justice Department and CIA reply to Brinkema by asserting that no such recordings exist.
2003-2004: CIA General Counsel Muller solicits opinions about potential destruction of videotaped interrogations from White House and Justice Department lawyers. Harriet Miers is the only lawyer whom the press has so far identified as discussing the potential destruction with Muller. It is not known who from the Justice Department participated. Reportedly, all advise against destruction, though it is unclear how strongly they express those views, or what opinions they commit to paper. Senior CIA leadership concurs.
July 22, 2004: The 9/11 Commission issues its final report. Despite "formally request[ing] material of this kind from all relevant agencies," in the words of staff director Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission does not learn of the existence of the tapes. The commission did not specifically request taped interviews, however.
September 22, 2004: Porter Goss becomes Director of Central Intelligence. It is believed that Goss again objected to the destruction of the tapes. Goss begins a purge of the CIA, which the Bush administration suspects of undermining its agenda. In the fall, Jose Rodriguez Jr. becomes head of the Directorate of Operations, subsequently renamed the National Clandestine Service. Rodriguez is no fan of Goss's, but reportedly takes the position to preempt the appointment of a Goss loyalist.
December 30, 2004: The Office of Legal Counsel formally repudiates the August 1, 2002 torture memo. However, the new memo's eighth footnote reassures the CIA that interrogators would not face prosecution, saying that "we have reviewed this Office's prior opinions addressing issues involving treatment of detainees and do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum."
February 2005: The New York Times reports "growing unease" within the CIA that interrogators may someday face prosecution for carrying out interrogations in accordance with guidelines approved by the Bush administration.
Spring 2005: Steve Bradbury, the new head of the OLC, reportedly issues secret legal opinions amounting to "an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency," including "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures." The document remains classified.
2005: Though the exact date is unknown -- ABC News places it in November -- Jose Rodriguez orders videotapes of the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and al-Nashiri destroyed. He reportedly has the backing of an attorney from the agency's Directorate of Operations, though he does not inform CIA General Counsel John Rizzo of the decision. His motivations, according to former colleagues, are to protect his interrogators from potential prosecution. Goss is reportedly not advised before the destruction either. It is unclear whether all videotapes of CIA interrogations are destroyed, or even all of the videos of Abu Zubaydah's and al-Nashiri's interrogations.
May 2005: Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), ranking Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, apparently writes to CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, asking for "over a hundred documents" about CIA detentions and interrogations. Among them is a CIA General Counsel assessment of whether the interrogations shown on the tapes were "were in compliance with the August 2002 Department of Justice legal opinion concerning interrogation." He gets no reply.
September, 2005: Rockefeller, having received no reply from Helgerson, redirects his request to Goss. He again receives no reply.
November 3, 2005: For the sentencing phase of Moussaoui's trial, Judge Brinkema again requests the government to disclose whether it had recorded any interrogations of al-Qaeda detainees relevant to Moussaoui's trial.
November 14, 2005: The government again tells Brinkema it has no such recordings.
May 5, 2006: Moussaoui is sentenced to life in prison.
May 30, 2006: General Michael Hayden becomes CIA Director, replacing Goss.
March 14, 2007: In response to a question at a briefing to the House intelligence committee, Hayden makes what lawmakers later describe as an "offhand comment" about destruction of videotaped interrogations.
April 19, 2007: Hayden again "briefly mentions" the destruction of the tapes in a letter to a member of the House intelligence committee.
October 25, 2007: U.S. Attorneys Chuck Rosenberg, David Novak and David Raskin file court papers informing Brinkema and Fourth Circuit Court Judge Karen Williams that they have discovered and personally viewed two videotapes and one audiotape of interrogations of al-Qaeda detainees. It is unclear which detainees the tapes show, when they were made, and how they survived Rodriguez's destruction order. The lawyers state that the tapes do not change the outcome of the Moussaoui trial. Explanations for why the government told the court that no such recordings existed are redacted from the public filing.
December 6, 2007: Preempting a New York Times story, Hayden tells CIA employees that the CIA recorded interrogations of two detainees in 2002 and destroyed those tapes in 2005. Hayden says that the CIA's general counsel reviewed the tapes and found the interrogations shown to have been legal and that the tapes were destroyed in order to protect interrogators shown on the tapes from al-Qaeda reprisal should the tapes ever be released. Both intelligence committees, he says, have been told that the tapes were destroyed. He adds that "videotaping stopped in 2002."
December 7, 2007: Chairman Rockefeller says that the Senate intelligence committee will look into the destruction of the tapes as part of "its thorough examination of the CIA’s detention, interrogation and rendition program." He adds that his committee was not told that the tapes had been destroyed.
House intelligence committee leaders Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) complain that Hayden's earlier mentions of the tapes' destruction were not "sufficient notification." And they say that Hayden's claim that they were told about the tapes' destruction "simply is not true."
December 8, 2007: The Justice Department and CIA Inspector General announce a joint inquiry into the destruction of the tapes.
December 10, 2007: Reyes and Hoekstra announce /a> an inquiry into the destruction of the tapes.
Comments (39)
Jim H. wrote on December 11, 2007 4:30 PM:A primer on how to lose a country.
It's all just on paper.
But Americans sadly never seemed to realize it -
untill now -
Susan wrote on December 11, 2007 4:32 PM:alas it's too late
There are more then one set of tapes.
They still exist.
That is really what is going on here.
Everyone is trying to cover there ass
sailmaker wrote on December 11, 2007 4:47 PM:before they come to light
Some of the USAs viewed them as late as September or October of THIS year.
http://www.atlargely.com/2007/12/i-ask-again-whe.html
And more here scroll down alittle: http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/
SocraticGadfly wrote on December 11, 2007 4:47 PM:Given that Reyes has already identified himself as "best buddies" with Jose Rodriguez, and that Hoekstra is a hack job, the House Intell investigation will be a steaming pile of crap and nothing more.
P J Evans wrote on December 11, 2007 4:48 PM:I'd bet Cheney has copies of those tapes. It's exactly the sort of thing he'd want for his government-control operations.
And what kind of fools destroy stuff that they know is (a) wanted as evidence in a trial and (b) already is subject to a do-not-destroy order?
Nin wrote on December 11, 2007 4:51 PM:When they do come to light, Abu Girahb will look like a fairy tale.
This is really really really bad.
And Yet... wrote on December 11, 2007 4:54 PM:More than one copy of more than one interrogation session is out there waiting to be leaked at an opportune time. Your timeline is excellent. Will lengthen considerably, and soon...
BobT wrote on December 11, 2007 4:57 PM:I agree with Susan. Septemebr 19, 2007 deserves its own date on the timeline. It's the date the missing tapes were viewed by the USA according to the letter to Judge Brinkema.
Nate wrote on December 11, 2007 5:02 PM:Cheney likes to view them before bedtime
Egypt Steve wrote on December 11, 2007 5:15 PM:when he is feeling friskey -
just to kind of get in the mood -
he is so damn loveable
You guys are doing great work. But: when you write that torture is "what the CIA and the Bush administration had in store for detained members of al-Qaeda," you're buying into their talking points. They had it in store for anyone they *alleged* was a member of al-Qaeda, and anyone that they *alleged* was in any way connected to any sort of "terrorist" group or activity. No proof needed. The torture was supposed to get the proof.
TheraP wrote on December 11, 2007 5:18 PM:You also wonder if they save them to force others to talk. Maybe you only have to waterboard a few. Then show the tapes to the others...
I'm probably wrong... but with these folks, you never know.
Vulture Breath wrote on December 11, 2007 5:19 PM:Lynne Cheney can only be aroused by lesbian Little House on the Prairie stories; Dick, by the nude Abu Zubaydah chained in stress positions. Lynne's next children's book will be a sci-fi time travel story combining the two.
Lin Lofley wrote on December 11, 2007 5:23 PM:I remember the good old days, when the USA was an honorable country. Our friends abroad are going to have to get to the bottom of this because I suspect we're in for a mighty whitewash.
The next time any of the people who are mentioned in this timeline sets foot overseas, I hope they'll be arrested and held for questioning.
I want to hear them say they were only following orders.
Eric Ferguson wrote on December 11, 2007 5:31 PM:On that entry on atlargely.com sailmaker referred to, there is a link to this image on the New York Times of the memo to the Moussaoui judges: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20071207_intel_letter.pdf
It does indicate something was viewed this year, but exactly what is redacted.
Something strikes me as good news: torturers are still worried justice might catch up to them. That's much better than having them think they can act with impunity.
TheraP wrote on December 11, 2007 5:39 PM:Eric F: But very low level moral reasoning to only be afraid of punishment after the fact... it's like a kindergarten level. We would hope adults would think ahead of time and not just for excuses to torture, but of morality and the long term consequences.
But then.... these guys are sociopaths. No conscience. No empathy. No real concern for the good of society.
Uncle_Meat wrote on December 11, 2007 6:20 PM:I've been kicking this around for a couple of days.. If I have seriously lost my way, someone help me back before I fall into a void.
Could this be the White House yanking the leash on the CIA because of last week's NIE that yanked the rug out from under the administration's war plans with Iran?
The timing is just weird.
From Abu Ghraib, to Gitmo, to waterboarding; the orders came from the top. No, this in no way exonerates anyone involved from their behavior, but I think the White House is pinning it on the CIA to discredit them.
Bama Mom wrote on December 11, 2007 6:22 PM:I remember reading an article a few years back about some CIA folks buying insurance. I always thought that was strange and something must be really wrong for them to justify the extra expense for their own protection. Seems like that could fit in your time line somewhere. The insurance buy would be explained if they were scared what they were doing was illegal AND they were afraid they would be thrown under the bus once it was discovered.
Alguien wrote on December 11, 2007 6:26 PM:One last addition to the timeline:
Food For Thought wrote on December 11, 2007 7:28 PM:December 14, 2007
Congress went on recess and the matter died there...
"Food for thought" has some questions related to the CIA agent's assertions on the "usefulness" of the information glaned from the waterboarding.
FWIW. May or may not be useful. Intended for discussion purposes.
Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 7:35 PM:Couple points:
1. The timeline appears to have some disconnects: In terms of what the US government was doing in response to known-disclosed events.
2. CIA/NSC/Intelligence COmmunity "should" have had know there were issues with this. Backwards to destroy the tapes in 2005 despite the flurry of activity in 2001 from the JAGs. This smells of Addington.
3. The mess with the US Atty firings seems relevant: As far as how WH communicates with OLC on things; and whether Rove-Addington were or were not meeting standards.
A. POW Working Gruop Memoranda
Recall the POW Working Group meetings in 2001: There were JAG memoranda reminding DoD and DoJ that ICC could prosecute civilians. How does this factor into what the CIA and WH were discussing? Seems like the CIA-DoJ "should" have had some inkling there were concerns/meetings in 2001 on prisoner treatement. They would have known this was an ICC-issue when first recording. It looks as though they destroyed the tape not because there was a problem with teh taope, but they reqalized the tape could not be concealed behind executive privilege/state secrets.
B. Addington, OVP
Also, recall Addington said words to the effect, "If we move the prisoners out of Eastern Europe, it will be an admission their treatment wasn't up to standard."
C. Bybee Memo
Was the destruction of the CIA tape before or after the Bybee Memo was disclosed/discussed?
D. DoJ OLC-Rove
Where are the DoJ OLC notes on this; and how does this "black hole" compare with the non-sense we've seen with the US Atty firings (DoJ claiming to be being "clueless", but then finding evidence Rove knew about the DoJ information behind the firings).
Nell wrote on December 11, 2007 7:36 PM:Suggestions:
1. Place the '2005' entry on the destruction of the tapes not before all other 2005 items, but closer to where it belongs, just before the Nov. 3 Brinkema entry. If the destruction turns out to have occurred between then and the Nov. 14 'there are no tapes' entry, that's obstruction of justice, on its face. In its current sequence, the timeline obscures this rather important point.
2. Include a link to the NY Times story that caused Hayden to make his preemptive announcement of the tapes' destruction.
3. Update the post with a pointer to Marcy Wheeler's torture tapes timeline, which predates TPMM's by five days. Even if the Muckraker crew never looked at it or used anything from it, she was first with the goods:
sailmaker wrote on December 11, 2007 7:39 PM:http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/06/torture-and-taping-timeline/
reply to Bama Mom:
Jack Goldsmith in 'State of Terror' said that there was rampant displeasure within the CIA that they had to purchase insurance against the day when the government would sue them or jail them for the individual agent's illegal acts, even if the illegal acts were as unintentional as shooting down a plane load of what turned out to be Peruvian missionaries (they actually did that).
With the Bush admin redefinition of torture (which LC Johnson says agents were not trained to do), the extreme renditions (which are against the Geneva Conventions), and the incarcerations (which the CIA supposedly did not do, prior to Bush), and the outing of their agent, there are a lot of reasons to suppose that litigation insurance was a good career move. It is also a good set of circumstances to believe that people have kept copies of documents and media (tape, dvd, audio whatever) of torture and all authorizations for CYA purposes.
Akonitum wrote on December 11, 2007 7:49 PM:It seems to me the torture narratives also were fed by evidence of similar abuse at Abu Ghraib and other places. Pictures, reactions, etc.. I think I'd like to see those elements included in the timeline.
p_lukasiak wrote on December 11, 2007 8:14 PM:one small recommendation...
The entry for October 25 should mention that the filing said that the May 9th, 2003 declaration by the DoJ asserting that there were no tapes was inaccurate (in other words, the tapes that these three attorneys viewed predated 5/9/03). It should probably also mention that the tapes were viewed in September, 2007 (sept. 19, IIRC).
dogjudge wrote on December 11, 2007 8:20 PM:SCREW THE TAPES!!
Did the CIA waterboard detainees?
If yes, who authorized it? When?
Is waterboarding torture?
If it is, then prosecute those who authorized this to the full extent of the law.
Why can't Congress ever seem to see the forest for the trees?
Dwight wrote on December 11, 2007 9:29 PM:Your timeline should begin with 9/11, and should mention that a lot of the 9/11 Commission's report is based on these supposed interviews of Zubaydah.
lambert strether wrote on December 11, 2007 9:32 PM:The story says the Democrats were:
[September, 2002] ... not briefed on actual interrogation techniques ...
However, Pelosi says the subject matter of the meeting included “interrogation techniques the Administration was considering using,” which agrees with what the WaPo story says: “harsh techniques interrogators had devised."
So "actual" is a little off, since it implies there was no detail on technique at all, where Pelosi and WaPo agree that there was.
So maybe the negative needs to come out, and something like this could go in:
"briefed on the interrogation techniques being considered"....
Thanks for the great work!
Joshua the Teacher wrote on December 11, 2007 10:02 PM:I agree with dogjudge:
Appoint a Special Prosecutor, have him/her look at the tapes, incarcerate any bushie that fails to cooperate, recommend impeachment (and other forms of castigation to Pelosi, JRock and those legislators who were silent), and let Justice prevail!
And for the love of all things holy, DO NOT put those tapes on youtube or leak them to the press. Airing those tapes will make the Abu Ghraib fallout look like High School Musical.
We need the Judiciary to work for us now more than ever.
ps- Is this what the Germans felt after WWII?
TheraP wrote on December 11, 2007 11:10 PM:Joshua the Teacher: Yes, I have been thinking that very thing. That's exactly where we are now. We have been placed into that very position.
Pamela L Belcher wrote on December 11, 2007 11:53 PM:Hey Uncle Meat-That dweeb ex-CIA agent that's plastered all over tv the last 2 days is lying his ass off. They should have picked a tool with better acting skills. I don't buy his bullshit line for one minute. You are not batshit looney at all. Right on target I'd say.
johnnydoughey wrote on December 12, 2007 4:56 AM:"ps- Is this what the Germans felt after WWII?"
Yes... but unlike WWll, our folks will not be prosecuted, since "WE the People" are no longer involved with our self employed lewadership...
Isn't this the upteenth time these murderes, torturors, liars and theives have been caught? And just how many of them have paid any consequences more than changing positions for a more prestigious, better paying job?
How many millions of lines of angry, frustrated blogs, letters, comentaries, etc.. have "We the People" sent to various representatives attempting to get at least some of them to put their jobs on the line for our democracy?
And what has it gotten us? So far, our representatives have increased domestic spying, have allowed Gitmo to continue, have ensured that nobody will be impeached, have voted to continue funding thew war enough to keep it going, have made sure our embassy will hold an army big enough and secure enough (after they vote for a few more $billions) to remain in Iraq for the next century, have made sure that our defense budget remains at an obscene level, have allowed our lleaders to torture (although there have been treaties and precendents against such action for over half a century) and... and... and...
And folks... those people we voted in as Democrats have been just as liable in these actions as the Republicans.
Remember... they couldn't bother with reading the EIRs before voting for war, they couldn't give up a couple of days of vacation to protect us from being spied upon...they apparently weren't even interested in viewing waterboarding tapes and enhanced interrogation tapes to be able to give an informed opinion about their legality or to see if they constituted torture... or even WORKED.
This is how much those crooks are actually representing anyone outside the District of Columbia...
Such a travesty...
The Oracle wrote on December 12, 2007 5:00 AM:(Per former CIA agent and Valerie Plame Wilson co-worker Larry Johnson at No Quarter):
---Why destroy the tapes? It appears that the June 2005 decision of the Italian judge to issue arrest warrants for C.I.A. officers and contractors involved in the kidnapping of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr in 2003 may have been the precipitating incident convincing Jose Rodriguez that Agency must destroy video tapes of terrorist interrogations. That operation was conducted with the full knowledge and approval of the Italians. If the Italians could flip on us that meant anyone could.---
Al Anon wrote on December 12, 2007 8:06 AM:Who disclosed the fact that the CIA briefed members of Congress in September 2002? The WaPo article just mentions two "official present," one of whom was a briefer. That indicates the CIA staff knowingly leaked detailed information regarding a classified briefing of Congressional leaders.
It's time to launch an investigation of the leak. The CIA is always compalining about leaks from Congress, now it's time to turn the spotlight on the Agency selective disclosure of classified information (i.e., the fact that there were briefings for members of Congress) for political purposes.
JimBob wrote on December 12, 2007 10:55 AM:Does anyone honestly think these tapes would've been destroyed if they showed the torturee giving up information that lead to the frustration of terrorist plots? In that case, the tapes would've been on the nightly news, along with proof of the use to which they were put, alongside sad-faced politicians telling us that "regrettably, these are things we must do to protect ourselves." But such is not the case, simply because these shocking, ugly tapes would have proven that waterboarding produces little or no useful information.
skippyjones wrote on December 12, 2007 6:53 PM:I think Pamela is on to something -- I am quite cautious about 'former CIA agents' who happened to have 'been in charge of the interrogations' going public when a big scandal hits. What the American public doesn't understand is that the CIA is as much a 'disinformation' organization as they are spooks and cloaks and daggers. They spread disinformation to journalists, are planted as journalists and spend vast sums of money 'shaping' stories to gain support or contempt for policies, governments, cartels, leaders, on and on and on. I think this guy is fishy as fishy gets. If he has a story to hear, i'm ready to hear in under oath. 'Waterboarding' is a cover story for the destruction of evidence upon which the 9/11 narrative was constructed - the supposed transcript of those tapes is the basis - the entire basis - of the 9/11 report. Let that sink in.
Dee Illuminati wrote on December 12, 2007 9:48 PM:skippyjones
'Waterboarding' is a cover story for the destruction of evidence upon which the 9/11 narrative was constructed - the supposed transcript of those tapes is the basis - the entire basis - of the 9/11 report.
Are you implying that but twisting the scrotum of a detainee that he will create any narrative that you want?
Scandalized wrote on December 12, 2007 10:01 PM:Does anyone suspect that the interrogation tapes might clearly show that the interogators were pointedly wringing out a confirmation of Iraq and/or Saddam as an Al Qaeda-partner? Various operations people in the CIA post-911 seemed to be aligned with the Cheney-Bush plans (Cofer Black:"The gloves are coming off...", CIA direction of early operations in Afghanistan, etc.) as opposed to the analysis community's unwillingness to validate claims about Iraq.
Buzz Windrip wrote on December 18, 2007 11:05 AM:Naomi Klein has done extensive research on mind erasure techniques and torture, and the resulting "clean slate" so effective in facilitating radical wholesale social, political, and economic change.
My guess is that the destroyed interrogation tapes illustrate the nexus between the two.
Read her book "Shock Doctrine".
It will open your eyes.
paul copeland wrote on December 25, 2007 12:24 PM:The information extracted by torture from Abu Zubaydah was used in 2004 as evidence in what is known in Canada as a security certificate case. My client Mohamed Harkat is alleged to be an al Qaeda sleeper. The Canadian government since Dec 10, 2002 has been trying to deport my client to Algeria, where our experts say it is more likely than not that he will be tortured or killed.
The Harkat case has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada where it was held that the security certificate process was not in accordance with fundamental justice under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Amendments to the legislation are before the Canadian Parliament. If the amendments pass and become law there will be a new hearing on the security certificate. The torture of Abu Zubaydah and the obtaining of his evidence by torture may mean that the case against my client falls apart.
I am trying to make arrangements through the Canadian government and the U.S. Defence Department to have someone interview Abu Zubaydah in Guantanamo.
Paul Copeland