Shamsi, Hina - Interview master file / Witness to Guantanamo / Duke Digital Repository

Interviewer

We're ready, so.

0:04

-

Okay.

0:06

Interviewer

Okay, Johnny.

Johnny

Okay.

0:07

Interviewer

Okay, good morning.

0:09

-

Good morning.

0:10

Interviewer

We are very grateful to you,

0:11

for participating in the Witness to Guantanamo Project.

0:13

We invite you to speak about your experiences,

0:17

and involvement with detainees,

0:20

and others in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

0:22

We are hoping to provide you with an opportunity

0:25

to tell your story in your own words.

0:28

We're creating an archive of stories,

0:31

so that people in America, and around the world,

0:34

will have a better opportunity to understand,

0:37

what Guantanamo Bay is about.

0:39

And hopefully your story will help contribute

0:42

to history of the prison.

0:46

Few generations must know by what happened in Guantanamo,

0:50

and we increased your willingness to come

0:54

and speak to us today about your experiences.

0:56

If you want to take a break at any time, please let us know.

1:00

And if you say something

1:03

that you feel you shouldn't have said

1:04

we're happy to remove it,

1:06

and let us know at the end of the interview.

1:07

And we'd like to begin,

1:10

if you would tell us your name,

1:11

and a little bit about your background,

1:13

where you're from and age,

1:16

and date of birth and, and education.

1:18

-

Okay, my name is Hina Shamsi.

1:20

I direct the ACLUs National Security Project.

1:23

I'm 45 years old,

1:28

I went to college at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts.

1:31

Law school at Northwestern University in Chicago.

1:36

And I've been working on Guantanamo related issues,

1:40

in various capacities.

1:43

First with Human Rights First,

1:47

working and observing

1:51

the military commissions at Guantanamo,

1:54

looking at the issues of torture, detention authority,

1:56

and then also representing men who have been held there.

2:01

Interviewer

Well, let's go to the beginning.

2:07

When you left law school,

2:08

did you go directly to Human Rights First,

2:10

or did you use some other work after that?

2:11

-

No, I went to work at a law firm.

2:15

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton.

2:18

And I was there for about six years before I left.

2:22

Took a leave of absence,

2:27

tried to see if I could transition into human rights work,

2:28

worked in legal services for about a year.

2:34

And then was able to start working at Human Rights First,

2:37

as senior counsel on national security issues.

2:41

Interviewer

And did anything strike

2:45

you as particularly surprising

2:47

when you started working there?

2:49

-

Well, I had been, obviously increasingly concerned

2:51

about the direction the United States was taking.

2:58

Post 9/11, post the tragedy of 9/11,

3:01

and its response to that.

3:04

In the early years, there were media reports

3:07

and accounts of what seemed like policy,

3:13

state policy of engaging in torture.

3:18

First in Afghanistan, in Bagram,

3:22

and then as we came to find out, more and more in Iraq,

3:25

and then Guantanamo, I felt compelled to try and work

3:30

on these issues.

3:35

I hadn't grown up in the United States,

3:37

and certainly knew that the United States history

3:42

with respect to human rights,

3:46

was far, far from perfect, to say the least.

3:48

But still as I'd been growing up,

3:53

and interested in or volunteering on issues

3:55

to do with refugee rights, women's rights,

3:58

engaged in Anti-Apartheid Protests and Movements.

4:03

It had been very important to at least seek

4:10

to hold the United States,

4:14

to a certain sense of fundamental laws and values.

4:16

Because it was important especially abroad,

4:21

to be able to ask for, or use us pressure,

4:27

on other countries that were engaging in rights violations.

4:31

Again, not a perfect history by any means,

4:35

by the United States.

4:38

But still something radically changed.

4:39

I think post 9/11, when it seemed

4:43

that US policy, was to engage in torture.

4:47

State sanctioned policy coming from the very top levels.

4:55

Now at the early years, there was sort of an odd discourse.

4:59

On the one hand people in the Bush administration,

5:04

from the very top down were saying, "We don't torture."

5:07

On the other hand, they were saying,

5:10

"Whatever we do it's necessary to do."

5:13

And so in the early years, it was very much

5:16

about trying to understand what was going on, fact-finding,

5:20

and trying to prevent the erosions

5:25

of international legal frameworks,

5:29

and constitutional rule of law requirements

5:32

that were so fundamental

5:36

to protecting the rights of human beings,

5:38

no matter who they are.

5:40

Interviewer

Two questions come up from that,

5:44

where did you grow up?

5:46

And how did that affect your view of America?

5:48

And then I had the other question

5:53

but I think that would be interesting to listen.

5:54

-

I'll give a little bit on that,

5:58

because I really want to discuss more

5:59

of the sort of policies.

6:01

But I was born in Pakistan,

6:02

and I grew up mostly in Hong Kong, and Zambia and Botswana.

6:05

And how it affected my view of the United States.

6:10

Well, it depended on which issue.

6:15

Interviewer

Which are human rights issues.

6:19

-

Which human rights issues.

6:20

But also just, people living outside the United States

6:24

often immerse themselves in US history, in ways that,

6:28

I sometimes come to realize over and over again,

6:33

that many Americans don't understand.

6:35

So, among the things that I was deeply inspired by,

6:37

was the civil rights movement.

6:41

And the role of popular protests,

6:44

and their intersection with legal challenges.

6:48

And how you achieve change over long periods of time,

6:52

on very difficult issues.

6:55

Interviewer

So, it seems like listening to you,

7:00

you observed the Bush administration,

7:02

going through those denials,

7:06

and then you seem to take some action on your own,

7:08

and leave the civil litigation firm

7:11

and move into human rights, what year was that?

7:14

-

I left in 2004, then try transition into civil rights

7:17

and human rights work.

7:25

I started out as I said working on legal services

7:28

to help pay the bills.

7:32

But in the meantime I was doing everything I can to research

7:34

and write and figure out what was going on.

7:38

So I was able to work

7:41

with the City Bar Association of New York,

7:44

on a report on extraordinary rendition.

7:47

Talking about the laws, domestic and international,

7:51

but mostly international, the laws of war,

7:55

and human rights law, that protect against torture,

7:58

and transfer to torture.

8:02

-

And that caused you to move then on to Human Rights First,

8:05

you saw that.

8:09

-

Yes, it was a period of research and writing,

8:10

contributing to reports that others were doing.

8:14

Looking through the ACLU at that time,

8:17

and started filing their freedom of information,

8:21

at requests with respect

8:23

to torture and the torture program.

8:26

So going through and looking at those documents,

8:28

which were in many ways

8:31

the first sort of verification,

8:33

of media accounts and what was happening and trying

8:35

to make a sense of the chronology and the changes.

8:37

This was a period,

8:41

during which there was a tremendous uncertainty about,

8:43

and a concerted effort to find out,

8:48

how legal interpretations and legal frameworks were shifting

8:52

under the Bush administration.

8:55

Even as there was an effort to find out also what the facts

8:57

on the ground were in Afghanistan,

9:01

and then soon Iraq, and then Guantanamo.

9:05

Interviewer

Well, as your eyes are opening to this,

9:10

were you somewhat surprised,

9:12

as to US actually engaging in torture?

9:15

Did that surprise you?

9:19

-

Yeah, looking back now, we're in 2017,

9:21

and it is so virtually, I mean, universally accepted,

9:26

that the US did engage in torture that,

9:33

I think one of our shameful aspects now,

9:40

is that there seems to be public support for torture.

9:43

But at that time there was a great deal of,

9:48

"Surely the US couldn't be doing this."

9:52

And surely, part of what was coming from a particular aspect

9:55

of public discourse is maybe people are making this up.

10:00

These are bad people making up what's happening to them.

10:02

And I think we forget that aspect.

10:05

And there was also just a tremendous amount of fear.

10:09

And I don't think you can underestimate the role,

10:13

that fear played and continues to play.

10:16

Genuine fear, I think in the early period

10:19

obviously after 9/11,

10:22

but also fear-mongering, by politicians and policymakers

10:24

that I think has directly contributed to support for torture

10:28

and other human rights violations in the years since then.

10:33

Interviewer

So were you equally surprised

10:40

at what was going on?

10:43

Did you believe that torture did exist,

10:45

if you one of those people who didn't wanna believe it?

10:46

-

I think in the very early period, it seemed,

10:49

I'm not sure surprise, shocking.

10:52

It's not that there hadn't been abuses, police abuses.

10:54

Torture conducted domestically here in the United States.

10:59

But usually the sort of way occurred,

11:02

was not as official policy.

11:06

And it was more sort of hidden.

11:09

And there're aspects of what happened with torture,

11:12

that are similar to what happened before, right?

11:16

The dual, "We don't do it.

11:19

If we do it, we have to do it.

11:23

And by the way, it has to be kept secret."

11:25

And so, yes, I was shocked, I guess, perhaps surprised,

11:29

but then also very compelled to,

11:35

if this is something that the US is doing,

11:41

torture just living in other countries,

11:48

and seeing how it had happened in other periods of time.

11:50

Let's not sanitize this.

11:57

It's a state policy where governments seek,

11:59

to break the minds and bodies of our fellow human beings.

12:04

There's a reason that it is absolutely banned

12:09

without exception, but it also happens.

12:11

And so the fact that this was happening here,

12:15

I think I went very quickly from the shock and surprise,

12:18

to what's going on,

12:22

and how can I help do something about it?

12:24

Interviewer

Well, tell us how you did help

12:29

with Human Rights First.

12:31

-

So Human Rights First,

12:33

we did a number of different things.

12:35

Soon after I was hired,

12:40

I was working as a co-council with the ACLU in a lawsuit,

12:45

brought on behalf of Iraqi and Afghan torture survivors.

12:53

Filing against Donald Rumsfeld and other top officials.

12:59

And part of what we were able to do, with that lawsuit,

13:04

is to show the ways in which torture migrated,

13:09

from Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Iraq, and back.

13:14

So really sort of showing the facts.

13:20

Among the other things that we were doing,

13:24

was also to show how corrosive it was within the military.

13:27

And, torture story has had various aspects, right?

13:34

The perpetrators have included military personnel,

13:39

and intelligence agencies, CIA.

13:42

And so another aspect that felt very important,

13:48

and that has informed my work throughout,

13:54

is the ways in which the US was not just diluting,

13:57

but also violating, and misrepresenting,

14:05

and misinterpreting, the legal frameworks,

14:09

that apply to protect human beings,

14:12

both in war time and outside of war.

14:15

And that I think is also part of the story,

14:19

of how torture was justified,

14:21

how indefinite detention was justified,

14:23

how violations of fair trial rights have been justified.

14:25

And so in the early years,

14:29

that was also a part of the work.

14:31

Over the years, we at Human Rights First,

14:35

and I take no credit for what Human Rights First has done,

14:36

sort of after.

14:42

But I think among the many important things that HRF did,

14:43

was to work with former military leaders,

14:47

top level former military leaders, to denounce torture.

14:51

To denounce violations of the laws of war,

14:55

to talk about what the United States was doing

14:58

was bad for security,

15:01

and wouldn't end up harming the United States itself.

15:03

And then for HRF, I was also monitoring

15:07

the military commissions at Guantanamo.

15:09

And the ways in which the fair trial rights, as I said

15:13

were being violated, the military commissions were unfair,

15:19

and how torture permeated.

15:22

And probably led to the installation of an entire system,

15:25

that sought to keep out information,

15:29

that was unlawfully obtained,

15:32

and tell basically the government's version of the story,

15:34

in trial processes.

15:37

Interviewer

Can you give us some specific examples,

15:40

on what you observed with torture,

15:43

so that people who see this 50 years now understand exactly?

15:45

-

Where to start?

15:53

(chuckles)

So, virtually all,

15:56

in fact all the military commission cases,

16:01

that I observed from David Hicks the Australian,

16:05

to Mohammad Jawad an Afghan teenager,

16:12

who later I represented in his habeas proceedings,

16:17

with his military council and other lawyers at the ACLU.

16:20

To Salim Hamdan

16:24

whose case famously went to the Supreme Court.

16:28

To the 9/11 prosecutions, the defendants,

16:33

in that case to the USS Cole proceedings.

16:39

All of them involved some level of abuse of the people,

16:45

who were being tried.

16:51

In all of them, at least initially the rules were aimed

16:53

at keeping out information, obtained through torture.

16:58

At hiding the information or evidence,

17:03

that might have called

17:11

the government's accounts into question.

17:12

So, take the case of Mohammad Jawad

17:15

or Omar Khadr.

17:22

Many people may not know,

17:25

that the United States held children, at Guantanamo.

17:27

And Omar Khadr and Mohammad Jawad were two of the children

17:31

that were held there.

17:36

Both were prosecuted within the military commissions.

17:38

So the United States was heading towards becoming,

17:42

I think, the first country to prosecute people,

17:46

who were in essence child soldiers, if they were that.

17:49

And their whole set of obligations with respect to children,

17:53

recognizing that they don't have the same level of maturity,

17:56

or agency and convenience influenced by people,

18:00

that they should be rehabilitated,

18:03

that they should be provided care.

18:05

All of these things were not provided.

18:07

Mohammad Jawad, among the things that happened to him,

18:10

was that he was subjected to what was called

18:16

the frequent-flyer program,

18:18

where he was deprived of sleep.

18:19

I believe it was for over a hundred days repeatedly.

18:22

He was treated so badly, that he tried to commit suicide.

18:27

He was accused of firing a grenade,

18:33

but when you got down to actually examining the evidence,

18:37

it looked like either he hadn't done it,

18:41

or that he'd been forced to be drugged,

18:45

while he was engaged in that.

18:48

Jawad is a case that I also think shows something else.

18:51

Which it's not people should know that,

18:55

within the US government also,

19:00

there were people who honorably stood up to,

19:03

and refused to go along with abuses

19:06

in the torture narrative.

19:09

So for all of the military commission cases,

19:11

there were men and women in the military,

19:16

who are defense lawyers.

19:19

And who courageously and ethically and honorably,

19:21

engaged in the best traditions

19:28

of representing their clients.

19:32

But they're also prosecutors, who refuse to go along,

19:34

with abuses that they saw.

19:38

And one of those prosecutors,

19:41

was a man named Darrell Vanderbilt,

19:43

in Mohammad Jawad's case.

19:47

And he provided a declaration.

19:49

This is one of my first introductions

19:55

to Mohammad Jawad's case,

19:57

and I was there observing the proceedings,

19:58

and it was dramatic.

20:00

That he provided a declaration

20:02

to David Frakt military defense counsel, for Mohammad Jawad.

20:06

And in it, Lieutenant Colonel Vanderbilt said that,

20:10

he had found this credible evidence of torture,

20:14

evidence of information

20:19

that would show that Mohammad Jawad had perhaps not done,

20:22

what the government who was accused of doing,

20:28

that hadn't been provided to his defense counsel.

20:30

And that Darrell Vanderbilt felt

20:34

that he could no longer ethically, morally,

20:39

keep going ahead in his position of prosecution,

20:44

of this young person.

20:49

So, an instance of torture, immorality, courage,

20:53

on the part of people with them in the system,

21:02

calling this entire system into question.

21:05

And then fast forward a few years,

21:07

where we joining with the ACLU at the time.

21:09

Joining with David Frakt filed a habeas corpus petition,

21:14

on behalf of Mohammad Jawad.

21:18

So when the cases, especially during that period,

21:20

start getting into the federal courts,

21:23

subject to judges who at least at that time were subjecting,

21:25

the government's evidence and information to scrutiny.

21:32

Judge Ellen Huvelle, threw out information

21:36

in Mohammad's case that had been obtained from torture.

21:40

And she ultimately granted his habeas corpus petition,

21:44

and ordered him released.

21:49

And so Mohammad Jawad was returned to Afghanistan.

21:50

When something similar happens with Omar Khadr story,

21:54

which is I think perhaps better known, often it turns out

21:57

that the stories of the Guantanamo detainees,

22:02

who came from Western countries, are often better known.

22:07

And Omar Khadr,

22:12

subjected to terrible, terrible abuses.

22:17

I'm haunted by videotapes of him,

22:26

where he's being questioned,

22:30

including by Canadian authorities.

22:31

And he's asking for his mother, he doesn't understand,

22:34

he thinks government officials are coming to try

22:36

and help him, and over and over again, he is betrayed.

22:38

But, evidence against him is called into question.

22:44

He ends up after several years of long battles,

22:51

returning to Canada.

22:58

And there's a story also, all of his lawyers,

23:00

military and civilian, really fighting so hard,

23:05

to get the true story out, and to help this young man.

23:10

Now torture permeated,

23:16

I think every single military commission hearing.

23:19

It manifested itself in unfair rules,

23:24

it manifested itself in secrecy.

23:28

It has turned,

23:32

processes and procedures into nothing

23:39

that the US can be proud of.

23:43

And, we would be here for longer than a couple of hours.

23:46

I think we have to talk

23:51

about all of the various different ways it came up.

23:53

Perhaps we can take a bit of a break,

24:01

so I can sip some water,

24:02

but I'd perhaps like to touch upon another way,

24:03

in which it came up in the military commissions.

24:07

Interviewer

I like to hear that for sure, okay.

24:09

We'll take a break.

24:11

-

Okay.

24:12

Johnny

Okay, we're rolling.

24:13

Interviewer

Okay, you had mentioned,

24:14

about the migration of torture,

24:16

I wonder if you could explain,

24:17

what exactly you meant by that?

24:19

-

Sure, so, we now know, that from the earliest period,

24:22

right after the war in Afghanistan started,

24:31

and people started being detained there.

24:36

People started being abused in US facilities in Afghanistan.

24:39

Right from the very beginning of Guantanamo,

24:48

in January of 2002,

24:51

people started being abused in programs at Guantanamo

24:57

that increasingly became formalized.

25:01

As torture programs.

25:06

And there were personnel military CIA personnel,

25:07

who were migrating or going back and forth,

25:15

amongst Afghanistan, Guantanamo and later Iraq.

25:18

And taking their experiences,

25:22

in various different torture techniques with them.

25:24

At the same time, as we now know,

25:27

there were memos being written,

25:32

at the top level of the Bush administration,

25:35

the torture memos.

25:37

That sought to provide a legal overview, or justification,

25:38

for torture that ended up being used and invoked,

25:46

in Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan,

25:54

CIA black sites in Thailand, Poland, Romania, and elsewhere.

25:59

So when I talk about migration,

26:05

sort of a sanitized word isn't it?

26:11

It's sort of probably more like cancer.

26:12

And that torture cancer traveled.

26:18

It was applied in different countries,

26:24

it was applied to people in multiple parts of the world,

26:26

held in US custody, and it corrupted.

26:32

It corrupted institutions that we care about.

26:37

It corrupted I think the military, it corrupted the CIA,

26:40

it corrupted the department of justice,

26:44

in terms of the legal reasoning,

26:46

that was issued by the office of local counsel.

26:47

It corrupted the fairness of proceedings,

26:50

that were held including in federal court,

26:54

and the military commissions.

26:56

And it corrupted,

26:58

in complicated ways,

27:05

the people who were carrying it out,

27:09

who were asked by their senior leadership,

27:13

in the US government or told to to inflict harm and pain

27:17

on their fellow human beings.

27:26

And of course it broke the people

27:28

to whom it happened.

27:36

Interviewer

Why don't you tell us about your first...

27:40

The case you want to tell us about what you argued?

27:43

-

Yeah, so this.....

27:48

I think this falls into multiple categories

27:49

that we've been talking about,

27:52

they're also interrelated.

27:53

But in terms of a form of corruption of institutions,

27:55

and systems that we care about.

28:01

This was the challenge that we at the ACLU filed

28:04

against the censorship of torture,

28:12

in the military commissions in the 9/11 proceedings.

28:14

And so did some press organizations,

28:19

14 press organizations file a challenge as well.

28:23

And the entire notion behind this,

28:27

is one that is very important and basic,

28:29

to any US judicial proceeding.

28:32

Which is, the presumption of openness, to public scrutiny.

28:36

So that the American public, can public more generally.

28:40

Can have access to judicial proceedings,

28:47

and not only see fairness being done.

28:52

But how fairness being done

28:57

in order to judge for themselves.

28:59

So under our constitution,

29:02

there is a presumptive First Amendment right of access,

29:05

to judicial proceedings.

29:08

There is a common law right of access

29:10

to judicial proceedings.

29:12

And when efforts are made to restrict that right of access,

29:14

it is subjected by courts to the highest level of scrutiny,

29:21

because the presumption always is openness.

29:25

Now in the military commissions,

29:30

one of the ways in which the corruption of torture

29:35

sort of manifested itself,

29:39

was an effort to prevent, ongoing effort I think,

29:41

to prevent the American public from access

29:45

to full information about the torture,

29:49

that was committed in the public's name.

29:52

And so the government had proposed,

29:55

what is called a protective order.

29:59

And that protective order, essentially sought to suppress,

30:02

the thoughts, memories, and experiences,

30:10

of people who had been subjected to torture,

30:13

as government classified sources and methods,

30:16

that could be withheld,

30:20

from the public during open proceedings.

30:22

And we objected to that.

30:26

And among the things that was obviously legally problematic

30:28

for all of the reasons that I've talked about.

30:34

But there's something also corrosive, about the notion,

30:36

that a government will come in and say

30:42

that human beings, memories, and experiences,

30:45

are government property.

30:53

Which is essentially what the government was saying.

30:55

And so my colleague David Schultz,

31:01

who's a wonderful First Amendment lawyer,

31:06

was representing the press organizations in this.

31:10

And we're in the very unusual position,

31:14

of being civilian lawyers,

31:18

who were arguing before the military commissions,

31:21

in the 9/11 cases, against the censorship of torture.

31:26

And I remember,

31:34

I'd always been behind in the press observer,

31:37

or NGO observers seating areas in the military commissions.

31:41

First in the early years

31:47

when they were held

31:52

in these sort of jury rigged courtrooms.

31:54

And then in the later years,

31:56

when they were held at least the 9/11 cases

32:00

in the USS Cole case.

32:04

In a specially built courtroom,

32:07

I believe it cost $12 million to build.

32:10

Where the observers were behind a sound proof,

32:15

sort of glass.

32:21

While the lawyers and the defendants,

32:26

were in the room itself.

32:29

And there was something...

32:35

To go from behind the glass,

32:38

and then into the room, the courtroom.

32:41

When so much separation had been created,

32:44

some of the reasons given were security based reasons.

32:49

I've seen security reasons change over time,

32:53

in the military commissions in ways that were often absurd,

32:58

just as a side note.

33:04

At the early years, one time where we were prevented

33:05

from bringing in the military commission rules of evidence,

33:10

and rules of procedure into the courtroom.

33:13

Because of security concerns,

33:16

about the paper and the ways that they were being held.

33:17

I mean, just absurdity.

33:20

But, going back to this challenge,

33:22

and walking into the courtroom.

33:26

David presented his argument great

33:36

sort of very forceful argument

33:40

about the importance of the first amendment,

33:41

and what was at stake, and the right of press,

33:43

to be able to access and report.

33:45

And then, it was my turn to get up,

33:49

and talk about the public's right of access,

33:51

on behalf of the ACLU.

33:54

And I felt it was very important to start by,

33:57

saying that, there is no other courtroom in America,

34:04

that has been constructed as a censorship chamber.

34:10

That the purpose of this very room and proceeding,

34:15

was to prevent the public from hearing

34:20

about the abuses that the government had committed.

34:23

And that was manifesting itself,

34:29

in something, again truly corrosive.

34:31

Which is the government's claim,

34:34

that it could suppress the thoughts, memories

34:36

and experiences of people.

34:39

And it felt....

34:42

I often think about this in the context of the lawyers

34:49

who are representing unpopular clients

34:53

accused of doing very, very serious things.

34:56

And I was reminded, before going into the courtroom that day

35:01

of one of the lessons I learned,

35:06

working at the death penalty clinic in law school,

35:09

as a student.

35:12

Which is that, we should judge our society,

35:14

and our judicial system, by the fairness

35:19

with which it treats, the most unpopular people.

35:23

Because that tells us something about the standards,

35:28

we are willing to uphold and abide by.

35:32

And that felt very live and very important walking

35:34

into the courtroom that day.

35:38

The judge ruled against us.

35:42

Ultimately some of the worst aspects

35:46

of those provisions were negotiated away,

35:49

but still the government claims the authority

35:52

to be able to suppress people's memories and experiences,

35:55

of what happened and where it happened.

35:58

Interviewer

Were you surprised

36:01

that they ruling against you?

36:02

-

(exhales) Disappointed more than surprised.

36:05

One of the themes that has run through,

36:12

all of the Guantanamo military commissions proceedings

36:15

and national security cases generally,

36:18

is the deference that courts pay,

36:22

to the government's invocation of classification.

36:25

So, part of what I was arguing to the judge,

36:28

and Dave was also arguing to the judge, Dave Schultz,

36:33

was that when the government says classified,

36:36

that is not the end of the matter.

36:41

What the First Amendment says,

36:43

and what the common law right of access says,

36:44

is that judges have an independent obligation,

36:47

to determine not government says yes,

36:51

and so therefore it must be okay.

36:56

But to subject that claim to the strictest of scrutiny,

36:58

and determine whether it can under the First Amendment,

37:02

common law rights of access,

37:05

justify the suppression of information.

37:07

And there has been unfortunately too much deference,

37:11

given to government's claims of secrecy.

37:17

There are also instances when those claims of secrecy,

37:21

have been rejected,

37:24

and in a number of cases, a variety of cases,

37:25

including in some important Guantanamo cases.

37:27

But I think that the danger,

37:31

and I think one manifestation of the judge's ruling,

37:34

in our challenge, was deference given to claims of secrecy,

37:36

especially claims of secrecy,

37:42

about unlawful embarrassing conduct.

37:44

Interviewer

What does it say about America?

37:49

When this is what you're observing?

37:52

-

I say that what it says,

38:00

sort of always resist generalizations I'm afraid.

38:04

But I think one thing it says is that institutions

38:07

that we care about, are overly deferential,

38:12

or corroded by secrecy, violations as well.

38:16

But it also says that there will always be objections,

38:25

efforts to overturn that, efforts to challenge that secrecy,

38:30

both from within and from outside.

38:34

It's been 15 16 years,

38:41

that we've been collectively I think,

38:47

working on or challenging these things.

38:50

It should probably not have taken so long,

38:53

but we're still now in a place

38:56

where many of those important fights are as alive today,

38:58

as they were back then.

39:04

Not all, but most of them.

39:05

Interviewer

When you talk about torture,

39:09

I don't know if you mean this,

39:10

but most people who are watching this,

39:12

and most people in America think of torture,

39:14

as physical torture.

39:16

And one of the things that many detainees told us,

39:17

in interviews were that,

39:20

Guantanamo is more of a psychological torture,

39:21

that physical and know that people in Afghanistan

39:24

and then were physically tortured and such

39:28

but, do you have a different comment

39:30

about the psychological aspects of torture,

39:34

where you've just put that in with the physical?

39:37

-

Yeah, I think it can often be under appreciated,

39:41

just how devastating the psychological impact can be.

39:49

I'm representing two people right now,

39:55

in a challenge against the CIA torture program,

39:59

and the two contractor psychologists

40:04

who designed and implemented it.

40:09

And yes, they certainly suffered physical harm, absolutely.

40:12

The psychological harm though cannot be underestimated.

40:18

PTSD post-traumatic stress disorder.

40:24

The ways in which they...

40:27

And clients at Guantanamo also, virtually anyone.

40:29

Have flashbacks, difficulties with relationships,

40:34

fear of medical personnel.

40:42

Because medical personnel were involved in overseeing,

40:46

or, in various different aspects of torture

40:51

that manifested itself over time.

40:55

Torture does devastating harm to people's minds and bodies.

41:01

And it really harms people's minds.

41:06

Again, in the early years,

41:11

and perhaps you've seen this in your interviews.

41:13

One of the things that I was hearing from people

41:16

who were released from Guantanamo, or Iraqi,

41:20

or Afghan torture survivors was,

41:23

how the world changed for them.

41:32

Not with the first slap or beating,

41:38

but by the fact that Americans were doing it.

41:45

So, I had clients say that this might be something I expect

41:48

from Saddam Hussein's government,

41:55

or from Afghan intelligence.

41:58

This is not what I expected from Americans.

42:01

And then for virtually everyone,

42:10

that sense of,

42:14

"There's nothing I can do,

42:19

to stop this from happening.

42:22

I don't know when it's going to stop happening."

42:23

The conditions, Bagram, Guantanamo elsewhere,

42:26

especially in the periods, up to 2007, 2008, probably.

42:32

But certainly starting out during the initial periods.

42:40

Noise, extreme temperatures,

42:45

stress position is a euphemism for con tortious, painful,

42:48

forced shackling and pulling that did harm.

42:54

But the degradation, the demeaning aspects of it,

43:00

the, "How do I ever make it end?

43:05

How do I ever make indefinite detention

43:11

without charge or trial?

43:13

And I have no control.

43:15

They're saying things about me that are not true."

43:18

Or as one of my clients, Mohamedou Ould Slahi,

43:21

explained about his experience at Guantanamo.

43:28

It was the physical abuses.

43:36

It was the threats against his family.

43:37

It was the things that broke him,

43:41

so that he said things that weren't true.

43:43

But what he thought that his interrogators wanted to hear,

43:47

in order to make the pain go away.

43:51

And so when we're talking about the physical

43:54

and mental aspects,

43:57

I think I would sum it up in this way, which is,

43:58

the only thing that torture guarantees, is pain,

44:11

and false information.

44:15

And that pain for many people,

44:18

can last for an extremely long time.

44:25

Mentally, as well as physically.

44:31

Interviewer

We've heard some stories

44:34

but you have one to add about how they affect the families.

44:35

Could you add one?

44:41

-

So,

44:50

just generally speaking,

44:57

I think it can affect human relationships.

44:58

Obviously, in terms of people who've been tortured,

45:03

the normal bonds of society, human being to human being,

45:09

are broken in a very fundamental way.

45:16

(coughs)

45:21

Without going into specifics

45:36

of people's personal information,

45:37

that they've shared I think,

45:42

if you are the mother, father, sister, brother, wife,

45:50

child of a torture survivor, you suffer pain,

45:55

knowing what they went through, and trying to help them,

46:00

and sometimes feeling helpless to help them.

46:04

Interviewer

Some people who've told us about torture,

46:10

had their own PTSDs.

46:12

Did that happen to you whereas some people,

46:18

just quit the job,

46:21

they couldn't continue, other people had other concerns.

46:22

Did you find that happening yourself as well,

46:25

as you told these stories and dealing with all these people,

46:29

who've gone through it?

46:32

-

Well, I will answer that in a way,

46:35

that may seem a little bit circuitous,

46:41

but I think that it gets to where you are, which is,

46:43

again sort of in the early years,

46:48

when we were preparing to work with our clients,

46:50

or interview people who'd been subjected to torture,

46:54

both in Human Rights First and then later,

46:58

with ACLU and at the ACLU.

47:00

Part of what we tried to do, was to get training,

47:05

in how to avoid triggering trauma again in the people,

47:08

who had been so badly traumatized.

47:17

And what to do, if and when that happened.

47:19

I'm a sort of,

47:23

I don't know the right word.

47:29

I proselytizer for this kind of training.

47:30

I think sometimes people don't have the resources,

47:36

sometimes there's not enough time.

47:39

But I cannot overemphasize the importance of working

47:41

with professionals before going into the field,

47:46

as a lawyer or investigator in doing this work.

47:49

Do no harm or mitigate harm is very, very important.

47:55

And so during the course of that training,

48:00

again in the early years,

48:04

and I'm so grateful to the many different

48:08

sort of professionals who've provided it,

48:10

including people at Bellevue's Program,

48:12

For Survivors of Torture.

48:15

And other psychologists and psychiatrists

48:16

who've helped us try and understand

48:19

how best to help our clients.

48:21

But among the things that they talked about,

48:24

were secondary trauma, of what it can be like to...

48:26

The consequences of both wanting to empathize with,

48:40

and fully represent your clients.

48:44

And so, yes, I've tried to take that into account.

48:49

I've certainly tried to take that into account,

48:51

with my colleagues.

48:53

And,

48:54

as my colleagues with whom,

48:59

I've been doing this work over the years.

49:02

But also younger colleagues who are, coming into this work,

49:04

and sort of just as it is for any torture survivor,

49:10

who obviously has far greater pain.

49:15

But I think it can be, individual for each person,

49:19

how they deal with it, how they process it.

49:22

And so, yes, I've tried to do that very much.

49:27

Interviewer

Was that institutionalized at ACLU,

49:29

or Human Rights First?

49:32

Or did you initiate it,

49:34

or from the beginning, you had good training?

49:37

-

I think a number of us felt,

49:40

who were doing that work felt it was very important to do.

49:42

And so, yes, as a regular matter, certainly at the ACLU,

49:47

when we are meeting with our clients,

49:54

we're getting ready to meet with our clients.

49:57

We try and do refreshers on how best to avoid

50:00

again, secondary trauma.

50:08

How to put ourselves again and again, in our client's shoes,

50:10

to the extent possible.

50:17

Avoid recreating circumstances

50:22

that appear like interrogations.

50:28

Again, it sort of lessons you learned from the early years,

50:35

that none of us are perfect,

50:38

but we can all keep working to do better.

50:43

And among the things that is very powerful in this,

50:48

is when our clients guide us.

50:54

Interviewer

When your clients guide you?

50:57

-

Yeah, in terms of how to help them,

50:58

obviously we're in the legal research and writing,

51:02

and all of that.

51:08

But just in terms of,

51:09

when you're talking to me,

51:14

or working with me, here's, what's helpful.

51:16

Or just the kinds of things

51:19

that human beings should do for each other anyway.

51:23

Interviewer

Let me go back a bit.

51:29

You mentioned the CIA contractors,

51:31

and that was so recent case,

51:33

and something just happened today too.

51:36

Can you share some of that with all these it's so current

51:39

and you're working on it,

51:42

a little bit about background for people?

51:44

-

Sure, so, we represent two clients,

51:47

both torture survivors, of the CIAs program,

51:53

and the family of men named Gul Rahman,

51:57

who was killed in our CIA black site.

52:00

in a lawsuit they've brought against to CIA contractor,

52:05

psychologists, doctors, Mitchell and Jessen,

52:12

who designed and implemented the CIA's torture program.

52:15

We filed that case sort of, a few months ago,

52:21

It's been able to go further,

52:33

than virtually any other case spot by torture survivors.

52:35

And certainly any case related to the CIA in large part,

52:40

because of how much has already made been made public,

52:44

about the CIA's program,

52:48

and the role that doctors Mitchell and Jessen played in it.

52:50

And as a result of this case,

52:58

we've been able to make even more information public,

52:59

because the case has gone into what's called discovery,

53:03

our American system where information is provided.

53:08

The government is at partying interest,

53:11

and has been actually making public information,

53:13

that we and the defendants have requested.

53:15

There have been depositions of the defendants,

53:23

today's Friday, just this past week.

53:29

We deposed Jose Rodriguez,

53:32

who was the former head of the CIA Counterterrorism Center,

53:36

that has never happened before.

53:40

And just recently, a couple of days ago,

53:43

the government sought to invoke,

53:47

what's called the state secrets privilege.

53:50

With respect to specific testimony,

53:52

and information in the case.

53:55

This is I think the Trump administration's,

54:00

first invocation of state secrets.

54:02

The government has not unlike in previous cases,

54:05

under the Bush and Obama administrations,

54:08

sought to dismiss the case in its entirety.

54:11

And I don't think that they could,

54:14

because whatever the merits of their arguments before

54:16

and I deeply thought those arguments were wrong.

54:19

So much has become information now (coughs)

54:22

that they would not be able to prevail.

54:25

And we're pretty confident that this case can be litigated

54:28

on the prep public record,

54:31

regardless of whether the court upholds,

54:33

the invocation or not, excuse me. (coughs)

54:35

Interviewer

You wanna take a break?

54:38

Interviewer

you wanna take a break Johnny?

54:39

Johnny

Yes.

54:41

Interviewer

Okay, so we're back

54:42

with Mitchell and Jensen.

54:43

-

Jensen yeah.

54:45

Interviewer

Can you just give a little background,

54:49

just so that people know exactly why you're suing them?

54:50

-

Sure, so,

54:56

doctors, Mitchell and Jessen were asked

55:04

in the early years by the CIA,

55:08

to come in as contractor psychologists.

55:11

To provide their expertise at a time when the CIA

55:15

didn't have expertise on interrogation.

55:22

And these were men in with a background,

55:25

in military sort of sear schools,

55:29

resistance training schools.

55:32

And they essentially proposed theories,

55:34

of how experiences of US military service members,

55:40

who volunteered to go through training,

55:46

to respond to brutal techniques used by US enemies,

55:51

might then be turned around

55:55

and used against US prisoners and detainees.

55:57

And their program was then used by the CIA,

56:03

so-called enhanced interrogation techniques,

56:09

are ones that doctors Mitchell and Jessen used, proposed.

56:12

They became part of a formalized program.

56:18

And numerous people were subjected to it,

56:22

the names of at least 119 people,

56:28

who were subjected to the program,

56:33

were subsequently made public,

56:35

in this landmark investigation

56:37

that the Senate Intelligence Committee did,

56:39

when he part of...

56:42

Which has really been made public so far, but still.

56:43

And so, we sued on behalf of our clients,

56:47

for the program that they had been subjected to.

56:53

Doctors Mitchell and Jessen and companies

57:00

that they formed, were retained by the CIA for many years,

57:01

to train, say interrogators.

57:10

And doctors, Mitchell and Jessen and their companies,

57:13

made approximately $81 million from CIA and US taxpayers,

57:16

for this work.

57:22

Interviewer

And just to make the connection,

57:24

why are they being sued and not the CIA or (indistinct)

57:26

-

So what we have sued them for,

57:31

is essentially aiding and abetting.

57:33

Working with the CIA to propose a program,

57:36

advance it, advocate for it, seek it, stand by it,

57:42

evaluate it, and then also implement it.

57:47

-

Did you take depositions of both men?

57:55

-

Yes.

57:58

Interviewer

And we got Rodriguez are those public?

57:58

-

They will become public, yeah.

58:01

Interviewer

Absolutely, there's no way,

58:05

the government could claim that for you.

58:07

-

No.

58:10

Interviewer

Well then maybe just real quickly,

58:14

and then we'd go to something else,

58:16

so that people understand,

58:17

why is it that this case has gone farther,

58:19

than all the cases brought by detainees,

58:22

and people subjected to the torture system?

58:24

-

I think in part because so much information

58:27

has become public.

58:30

So cases that we and colleague organizations have brought

58:31

on behalf of torture survivors.

58:37

Of military and CIA torture,

58:42

have virtually all been dismissed on threshold grounds.

58:45

Secrecy grounds that courts upheld,

58:51

as well as immunity claims raised

58:55

by the government saying that top officials were immune,

58:58

from liability for their conduct.

59:03

To put it sort of very simply perhaps overly simply.

59:08

But that in essence, it was foreseeable,

59:10

that us officials would carry out torture.

59:13

And so, over the years, all of these have been dismissed.

59:17

It is a shameful record.

59:22

That to date, not a single torture survivor,

59:25

of US torture, has had his day in court.

59:29

We, with our case here, hopeful that record changes

59:34

for our clients.

59:40

There's another case that our colleagues

59:42

at the Center for Constitutional Rights,

59:44

are brought with respect to military contractors.

59:46

So hopefully there is more headway to be made.

59:49

We expect there will be more headway to be made,

59:53

but there should be no doubt,

59:57

the record with respect to US accountability

1:00:00

for US torture is abysmal.

1:00:04

Interviewer

When we go back to something

1:00:09

that we asked many people.

1:00:11

When you first arrived in Guantanamo,

1:00:13

were you prepare for it?

1:00:15

And was it different than what you expected?

1:00:16

-

(sighs) It's hard to be prepared for something

1:00:21

that I know very little idea of what to expect.

1:00:27

So, I done all the reading on the background,

1:00:33

sort of the law of war issues, the human rights law issues,

1:00:38

constitutional issues, just as much work on the legal issues

1:00:43

as I could do.

1:00:48

Just the history of the place and everything

1:00:53

that you can from books and research.

1:00:56

Yeah, that didn't quite prepare me for the place

1:01:02

and it's incredible contradictions.

1:01:08

The Island is beautiful.

1:01:16

Your Caribbean sparkling waters, green hills,

1:01:20

and it houses a travesty.

1:01:29

And you're constantly holding both of those things

1:01:31

in your mind at the same time.

1:01:34

There were days that it would be a jolt to realize

1:01:39

that my eyes were resting on water,

1:01:44

when what I'd been thinking about was torture and abuse.

1:01:45

And always, always, always,

1:01:54

there was a thought that I could leave.

1:01:58

And the people that we were there,

1:02:05

writing about and talking about could not.

1:02:08

Right from the beginning,

1:02:14

there was this sort of very kabuki theater aspect to it.

1:02:14

The early flights in military planes, you know, C-130s,

1:02:21

with the netting.

1:02:26

And we were going to the Caribbean,

1:02:26

and bringing along sweaters and fleece

1:02:29

because the flights were cold.

1:02:34

And then you would land, but everyone was on.

1:02:36

It was the defense lawyers and the prosecutors,

1:02:42

and the judge, and the court personnel,

1:02:46

and the NGO observers, and the press.

1:02:50

All flying in being there for the proceedings,

1:02:55

and then all flying out, being able to leave.

1:02:59

And I just thought about it.

1:03:09

It's a beautiful place and it's an obscene place.

1:03:16

The courtrooms, including sort of in the early years.

1:03:24

I remember especially during some of the proceedings,

1:03:34

where the torture issues were coming up.

1:03:37

And during that period of time, in terms of advocacy,

1:03:40

on torture and indefinite detention,

1:03:45

among the only sort of things

1:03:51

that appeared to be resonating broadly and with the public,

1:03:52

was Senator John McCain's statement.

1:03:57

And obviously he's a torture survivor,

1:04:05

and his statement that it was not about them, but about us.

1:04:07

This notion of "It's about some us,

1:04:13

that needs to adhere to values."

1:04:20

Which is true, even if deeply problematic.

1:04:24

And it's less about them, whoever they are,

1:04:30

in a way that is dehumanizing.

1:04:35

And so, I remember during that period of time,

1:04:40

knowing and using what he was saying as,

1:04:45

means of trying to persuade people,

1:04:50

who were fearful.

1:04:53

And just also feeling nauseous about it.

1:04:57

Especially sitting in the military commissions courtrooms.

1:05:02

And Looking at someone like Omar Khadr,

1:05:07

or anyone else and saying, "Who's them and who's us,

1:05:20

and how do we define this?"

1:05:23

Even dressed up with all of the trappings of formality,

1:05:38

or judicial process, or proceeding.

1:05:46

On an otherwise beautiful Island,

1:05:51

there is a corrosive brutality, to things

1:05:58

that I think all of us should care about.

1:06:02

And I use that very, very broadly.

1:06:06

Again, just coming back to the sort of fundamental thing

1:06:10

that is why rights exist.

1:06:13

Because they are applicable to everyone, indivisible.

1:06:18

And for me, Guantanamo tour at that conviction

1:06:25

that I had had growing up, and still have.

1:06:34

And was one of the things that really showed what happens

1:06:39

when things go very, very wrong.

1:06:50

And yet I could leave it.

1:06:54

Continued to advocate on it from the outside,

1:06:55

and do everything that we were all trying to do,

1:06:57

and still try and do, but I could leave it.

1:07:00

Interviewer

Lou do you have a question?

1:07:05

Lou

I would be curious to know,

1:07:09

since we are now in the Trump administration,

1:07:13

and this talk about reopening one time over,

1:07:16

do you see this as realistic?

1:07:20

Or is this talk, or how's the ACLU looking at this?

1:07:22

And you personally?

1:07:28

-

Well, we at the ACLU and I are looking at it

1:07:35

with huge concern.

1:07:38

At this particular moment in time,

1:07:44

I'm hearing an attorney general talk

1:07:46

about Guantanamo being a fine place.

1:07:49

Apparently not recognizing quite what has happened there,

1:07:54

in his latest statements, at least as of today.

1:08:00

Revealing quite appalling ignorance,

1:08:04

about the rights people do have in,

1:08:07

even the flawed military commissions,

1:08:11

and what exists and why the place has been a legal, moral,

1:08:13

national security, ethical justice-based failure.

1:08:18

It seems like the lessons that were learned,

1:08:25

by previous republican and democratic administrations,

1:08:31

need to be relearned again.

1:08:37

And I am deeply concerned

1:08:40

about the virtually inevitable rule of law,

1:08:41

human rights violations,

1:08:49

that are going to occur,

1:08:50

if we bring people to Guantanamo,

1:08:52

if the Trump administration brings people to Guantanamo,

1:08:56

and does what their campaign promises seemed to indicate.

1:08:59

Lou

I have a second question.

1:09:08

There are approximately 40 people still in Guantanamo.

1:09:10

And the current administration, and not just them.

1:09:14

Talk about those who have gone back and fought on

1:09:18

against us again,

1:09:23

do you have thoughts about

1:09:25

what we can do about those 40 people?

1:09:29

Would you just put them in a regular courtroom?

1:09:32

How would you address those 40 people who are left?

1:09:35

-

Right.

1:09:40

Interviewer

You should look at me when you answer it.

1:09:41

-

Sure, sure, so,

1:09:42

to my mind, Guantanamo has never been an insoluble problem.

1:09:50

It is an insoluble political problem,

1:09:55

for people who have sought to politicize it.

1:09:58

And I very much hold Congress to count.

1:10:01

And I think that the institutional failures

1:10:07

are also ones of the executive branch,

1:10:09

as well as the courts themselves.

1:10:11

If there is a will, there is still a way,

1:10:16

of being able to deal with the problem,

1:10:20

and the issues presented by the fact

1:10:27

that we still have 41 people held at Guantanamo.

1:10:31

There are still principled ways of doing that.

1:10:37

Still principled ways of providing fair trials,

1:10:41

for those against whom there is evidence,

1:10:45

of wrongdoing without using it based on torture.

1:10:47

Transfer, rehabilitation, if necessary,

1:10:54

of people who have been subjected to the PRBS.

1:10:56

And possibly even judicial avenues

1:11:06

that I think lawyers are exploring.

1:11:08

People have talked about pleading guilty,

1:11:12

in order to be able to have certainty, and a date certain,

1:11:15

and be able to leave and go potentially serve elsewhere,

1:11:18

serve time elsewhere, or get released that way.

1:11:22

There's an answer.

1:11:26

There are ways to put an end to this.

1:11:28

But throughout I think the failures

1:11:32

have been of political will, and fear-mongering.

1:11:34

Lou

I also would wonder what kind of relationship,

1:11:41

does the ACLU have with standing senators,

1:11:44

Congress folks who are on these judicial committees,

1:11:48

that are making some of these decisions,

1:11:52

the Dianne Feinstein's of the Congress.

1:11:54

Do they consult with you?

1:11:58

Do you consult with them to try to influence them?

1:12:01

-

So, we have worked on or advocated on issues

1:12:05

against torture, military commissions,

1:12:11

indefinite detention in multiple ways.

1:12:13

I've taught about lawsuits that we've filed,

1:12:16

serving as human rights observers, documenting these issues,

1:12:19

advocating in Congress through our Washington office,

1:12:25

which is part of a coalition of organizations

1:12:30

that has been working with respect

1:12:33

to all of these issues for now.

1:12:35

Well, over a decade,

1:12:38

including the specific members of Congress,

1:12:39

who are decision makers in this area.

1:12:42

And advocated in international human rights bodies abroad.

1:12:46

And at the Human Rights Council, the United Nations,

1:12:50

multiple ways and multiple avenues,

1:12:55

we're going to continue obviously doing that work.

1:12:58

I think that,

1:13:03

the Obama administration left undone,

1:13:10

this very particular area.

1:13:13

That it in fact, claimed authorities.

1:13:16

I started out talking about legal frameworks,

1:13:20

and one of the things that really motivated me,

1:13:23

in this particular area,

1:13:27

in addition to the human rights abuses,

1:13:29

was how legal frameworks we care about,

1:13:31

are being violated, misinterpreted, mutated.

1:13:34

And so, that has happened now

1:13:38

across the Bush and Obama administrations,

1:13:41

with respect to claims of indefinite detention authority,

1:13:43

based on misinterpretations or expensive,

1:13:48

overly expensive interpretations of the laws of war,

1:13:53

in areas where it does not and should not apply.

1:13:56

That has done tremendous damage.

1:14:02

And I think another aspect of this

1:14:06

that we are going to turn around, and rue or lament,

1:14:09

is a lesson that I think we have,

1:14:14

or should have learned from this country's own history.

1:14:17

Is that in times of real

1:14:20

and perceived national security crisis,

1:14:23

there're violations the executive branch overreaches,

1:14:26

courts often go along with it.

1:14:30

Congress acts in ways that are not responsible.

1:14:31

The system of checks and balances breaks down.

1:14:35

The trajectory ends up becoming one in which,

1:14:39

the executive branch claims more and more authority.

1:14:44

Not less, but more.

1:14:48

And that's exactly what has happened here,

1:14:50

with respect to detention, a number of other contexts.

1:14:52

And there has been sort of,

1:14:56

picking from all of the legal frameworks,

1:15:04

that restrict deprivations of liberty,

1:15:06

ensure fair trials and fair processes,

1:15:10

the aspects that are seen as most permissive,

1:15:13

and most helpful to the government.

1:15:16

Rejecting or arguing away, the aspects

1:15:18

that would constrain government authority against abuses.

1:15:21

And that's where we were essentially left,

1:15:24

at the end of the Obama administration, multiple areas.

1:15:26

This claim of global war authority.

1:15:29

And I think that that did deep damage,

1:15:32

still does deep damage, to the legal frameworks,

1:15:34

but also to strategy and outcome.

1:15:36

Because if you are constantly claiming

1:15:40

the most expensive interpretations or outcomes,

1:15:42

sometimes you're actually limiting yourself.

1:15:49

You're not able to walk backwards.

1:15:51

And history teaches that walking backwards,

1:15:54

from rights abuses, is what we have to end up doing.

1:15:57

Because keeping going forward in a particular way,

1:16:00

is not just bad for the rule of law.

1:16:04

It's bad for the people that we do it too,

1:16:06

it's bad for our national security.

1:16:08

And it threatens the system of peace and security

1:16:10

that we have once upon a time helped set up.

1:16:13

And are now acting in violation of.

1:16:17

Interviewer

It's wonderful, who has the human ability

1:16:20

to walk backwards?

1:16:22

-

Well, that's where we all come in, right?

1:16:24

That's where the pressure to actually...

1:16:26

and walking backwards sounds pejorative.

1:16:29

But what we're actually talking about,

1:16:31

is a re-embrace, of the kinds of rules,

1:16:34

and laws and prohibitions,

1:16:40

that actually ensure against rights abuses.

1:16:43

Interviewer

I Made some wonderful way to stop,

1:16:50

but I can't stop without asking you,

1:16:51

if there's something I didn't ask you

1:16:54

that you wanted to cover your thinking of that,

1:16:56

before you came, and you least to share with us.

1:16:58

-

Think we've covered a fair amount, yeah.

1:17:02

Interviewer

Okay, well then we need 20 seconds

1:17:05

of room tone, where Johnny....

1:17:06

You don't say anything for 20 seconds

1:17:08

and Johnny just runs it and then it ends.

1:17:10

-

Okay.

1:17:12

Johnny

We got room tone.

1:17:13

(indistinct)

1:17:18

Shamsi, Hina - Interview master file

Transcript

Item Info

Human Rights Archive

More Info & Options