'Alternative' CIA tactics complicate Padilla case
Evidence against the American terror suspect was obtained
through torture, his lawyers say.
By Warren Richey
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
09/15/06 "CSM" -- -- When alleged Al Qaeda sympathizer Jose
Padilla landed in Chicago in May 2002, he was met by federal
agents armed with a warrant authorizing them to take him into
custody.
To obtain their warrant, the agents told a federal judge that
two weeks earlier a confidential source had revealed that Mr.
Padilla was plotting to build and detonate a radiological
"dirty" bomb in the United States.
What the agents did not tell the judge is that their
"confidential source" was not speaking voluntarily. His
information had been obtained in controversial interrogation
sessions at a secret Central Intelligence Agency prison
overseas.
The confidential source was a man named Zayn Abu Zubaydah, the
same individual identified last week by President Bush as the
first Al Qaeda suspect subjected to harsh interrogation tactics
by US officials.
"We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save
innocent lives, but he stopped talking," the president said in a
speech on Sept. 6. "So the CIA used an alternative set of
procedures."
In 2002, the agency's pressing goal was intelligence-gathering
to disrupt possible terror attacks rather than a law-
enforcement operation to gather evidence that might be used
against American citizens in American courts. But now, four
years later, the information from those harsh interrogation
sessions conducted by or at the behest of the CIA is playing an
important role in government efforts to convict Padilla in a
terror conspiracy case in Miami.
The case is emerging as a major test of whether such
intelligence information is admissible in US courts. And it
highlights the difficult debate over military commissions
currently under way in Congress, which is wrestling with how
best to protect national security while also preserving
America's tradition of due process and fair trials.
In a series of pretrial motions, Padilla's lawyers argue that
information from Mr. Abu Zubaydah and another confidential
source used to justify the May 2002 warrant was the product of
torture. They say information obtained through torture cannot be
used in court and that any evidence seized from Padilla during
his Chicago arrest must be excluded from use at his trial.
Padilla fails in bid to exclude evidence
Last week, one day before Mr. Bush publicly acknowledged the
secret CIA prisons and interrogations, a federal magistrate
judge in Miami rejected Padilla's arguments.
US Magistrate Judge Stephen Brown ruled that defense attorneys
had failed to offer enough proof concerning the identity and
treatment of the confidential sources the government used to
justify the warrant.
In addition, Judge Brown ruled that even if the information the
confidential sources provided was the product of torture,
defense lawyers had presented no evidence that the FBI agent who
prepared the warrant application was aware that they had been
tortured. Short of a deliberate effort by that agent to
intentionally mislead the court, the defense motion must be
denied, the magistrate judge ruled.
Padilla's lawyer, Andrew Patel, says the decision is being
appealed to US District Judge Marcia Cooke, the trial judge in
the Padilla case. He declined any further comment on the case.
In an earlier brief, Mr. Patel wrote: "The government's claim of
ignorance appears either to be incredible or the product of
conscious avoidance."
In his speech, Bush justified the harsh tactics as essential to
prevent terror attacks. But he also asked Congress to formulate
special rules so that Abu Zubaydah and 13 other individuals
could be tried by military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba,
despite their harsh treatment while in CIA custody.
The special provisions are necessary, in part, because the US
criminal justice system excludes coerced statements as too
unreliable to present in court. There is also a blanket ban on
information obtained through torture.
Bush insists that torture was not used in the CIA operations.
But he declined to identify the specific interrogation
practices.
Legal experts say that procedures such as simulated drowning,
induced hypothermia, and noise bombardment are highly coercive
and can lead subjects to say whatever they think will help stop
the harsh treatment. Human rights experts say these kinds of
techniques can amount to torture.
Congress debates coercive tactics
The president's public disclosure has prompted a debate in
Congress over whether to endorse the CIA's "alternative"
interrogation tactics. But Bush is also asking lawmakers to
grant retroactive legal immunity to US interrogators who engaged
in or were present during these practices. The request is being
made despite the president's assurance that they are legal and
do not amount to torture.
The government has never acknowledged the identities of the two
sources used for the 2002 warrant. Defense lawyers and other
analysts identified them by cross-referencing the unique
information the sources provided to the government with public
sources and documents that matched the same information. In
addition to Abu Zubaydah, defense lawyers say the second source
used to obtain the Padilla warrant was an Ethiopian named Binyam
Mohammed.
Mr. Mohammed is one of 10 individuals being held at Guantánamo
Bay who had been facing war-crimes conspiracy charges before the
military commission process was struck down by the Supreme
Court. Because of those charges, he has been afforded access to
a lawyer.
According to an affidavit signed by Patel, Mohammed was being
held in Pakistan at the time the Padilla warrant application was
prepared. US agents wanted incriminating information about
Padilla. The affidavit says Mohammed was hung on a wall with a
leather strap around his wrists for a week by his Pakistani
jailers. He was beaten with a leather strap, and was questioned
with a loaded gun pressing into his chest, the affidavit says.
It says he was questioned by four individuals who identified
themselves as agents of the FBI. The affidavit adds that
Mohammed says he is sure that if he sees them again or sees
their photos he will be able to identify them.
Mohammed has told lawyers that US agents were not happy with his
level of cooperation against Padilla and sent him from Pakistan
to Morocco. There, according to an Amnesty International report,
Moroccan interrogators used a razor blade to make 20 to 30 small
cuts on his genitals. This was done once a month for 18 months,
the report says. Eventually, Mohammed was sent to Afghanistan
and then Guantánamo.
The specific issue in the Padilla case is whether federal
prosecutors in Miami can use evidence seized from Padilla at the
Chicago airport and use statements Padilla made during nearly
eight hours of questioning by customs, immigration, and FBI
agents before he was given Miranda warnings and placed under
arrest.
After arresting Padilla, agents found the names and telephone
numbers of individuals the government says were Padilla's Al
Qaeda recruiter and his sponsor. They found the e-mail address
of Ammar al-Baluchi, a key aide to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the
alleged mastermind of the 9/11 terror attacks. And they
discovered a cellphone that had allegedly been provided to
Padilla by Al Qaeda officials.
In addition, they confiscated $10,526 in cash, most of which
they allege had been provided to Padilla by Al Qaeda leaders in
Pakistan a month earlier. During questioning, agents say Padilla
told them that he received the money in an envelope from an
individual in Pakistan, but then said it was money he had
earned.
Such evidence could play a critical role in Padilla's terror
conspiracy trial, set to begin in January. Judge Cooke has
already criticized the government's case as being "very light on
facts." She has dismissed the most serious conspiracy count in
the indictment.
Evidence: 220 tapped conversations
The bulk of the evidence against Padilla's alleged
coconspirators is 220 intercepted conversations. But there are
only 28 instances where Padilla speaks or is allegedly
mentioned, according to court documents. And none of the 28
conversations directly implicates Padilla in any acts of
violence, his lawyers say.
In contrast to the skimpy evidence in the Miami criminal case,
the government has assembled a mountain of intelligence
information about Padilla's alleged actions and cooperation with
Al Qaeda. But virtually all of it was obtained from
interrogations during his 3-1/2 years in military detention as a
presidentially designated enemy combatant, or through the harsh
interrogation of other enemy combatants overseas. As such, it is
generally ineligible for use in the criminal court system.
The 2002 warrant issue is important, legal analysts say, because
it could lead to wider use in American courts of the fruits of
harsh interrogations overseas. And it highlights the difficulty
of blending proactive intelligence operations with
law-enforcement efforts, these analysts say.
Zayn Abu Zubaydah
He's a Palestinian, born in Saudi Arabia, and the first
significant member of Al Qaeda captured - in March 2002 in
Pakistan. Intelligence officials say he:
• Headed the reorganization of Al Qaeda in Pakistan, as well as
planned attacks on US interests.
• Had connections to a plan to blow up the US Embassy in
Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as a
planned attack on the American embassy in Paris.
• Is thought to have briefed Richard Reid, the so-called shoe
bomber, who was arrested on board a flight from Paris to Miami
in December 2001
• Is a master of disguise who used at least 37 aliases
• Is the first Al Qaeda suspect subjected to harsh
interrogation, according to President Bush in a speech Sept. 6.
He was interrogated in Thailand and initially questioned by the
FBI, which gave him some humanitarian aid. A CIA team was later
sent in. It apparently forced him to strip and stand in a cold
room and subjected him to loud music.
Source: Various news reports
Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monit
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.