Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Pentagon Bars Anti-Torture Marine From Testifying

Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress at 1:00 PM on November 8, 2007.


Faiz Shakir: The testimony of Lt. Col. Stuart Couch posed such a threat to the administration that they've prevented him from speaking to Congress
p1ah546couch20070330184809
Couch

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Faiz Shakir, originally appeared on Think Progress

Today, a House Judiciary subcommittee is holding an oversight hearing on the "effectiveness and consequences of 'enhanced' interrogation." The Committee had invited Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, a former Guantanamo Bay prosecutor, to testify about his experiences. The Wall Street Journal reports, "Asked last week to appear before the panel, Col. Couch says he informed his superiors and that none had any objection." But Counch's appearance was blocked by Cheney-backed Pentagon counsel William Haynes:

Yesterday, however, [Couch] was advised by email that the Pentagon general counsel, William J. Haynes II, "has determined that as a sitting judge and former prosecutor, it is improper for you to testify about matters still pending in the military court system, and you are not to appear before the Committee to testify tomorrow."

Haynes has been a forceful advocate and key architect for the administration's harsh interrogation techniques. Couch's potential testimony posed a serious danger to Haynes' work.

As a Gitmo prosecutor, Couch had been assigned to prosecute accused al Qaeda operative Mohamedou Ould Slahi, one of . "Of the cases I had seen, he was the one with the most blood on his hands," Couch said of Slahi. Yet Couch determined he could not prosecute Slahi because his incriminating statements "had been taken through torture, rendering them inadmissible under U.S. and international law."

In a lengthy Wall Street Journal profile published in March, Couch revealed evidence of torture he witnessed at Guantanamo Bay -- images that captured his conscience and forced him to become a critic of the administration's interrogation system. Couch reported that Slahi "had been beaten and exposed to psychological torture, including death threats and intimations that his mother would be raped in custody unless he cooperated." Here's what happened when Couch announced his decision not to prosecute:

In May 2004, at a meeting with the then-chief prosecutor, Army Col. Bob Swann, Col. Couch dropped his bombshell. He told Col. Swann that in addition to legal reasons, he was "morally opposed" to the interrogation techniques "and for that reason alone refused to participate in [the Slahi] prosecution in any manner."

Col. Swann was indignant, Col. Couch says, replying: "What makes you think you're so much better than the rest of us around here?"

Col. Couch says he slammed his hand on Col. Swann's desk and replied: "That's not the issue at all, that's not the point!"

An impassioned debate followed, the prosecutor recalls. Col. Swann said the Torture Convention didn't apply to military commissions. Col. Couch asked his superior to cite legal precedent that would allow the president to disregard a treaty.

On his first day in Guantanamo, Couch said he saw treatment of a prisoner that "resembled the abuse he had been trained to resist if captured." Couch's willingness to tell the truth posed such a threat to the administration that they have prevented him from speaking to Congress. The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), said he would consider seeking a subpoena for Couch if the Pentagon maintained its stand.

Digg!

Tagged as: torture, cheney, bush administration, couch, penatagon

Faiz Shakir is the Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor of ThinkProgress.org and The Progress Report.


Hitler, Darwin and the Sasquatch
They're all inter-related, you know.
Post by General JC Christian. July 9, 2009.
After Casting Sole No Vote on Slavery Memorial, Rep. King Keeps Digging Deeper
This is one contorted excuse.
Post by Steve Benen. July 9, 2009.
Airing of Grievances: Right-Winger Incensed over 'Commie's' Jab at 'Saturday Night Fever'
Oh, and Pinochet was a good guy, damnit!
Post by Roy Edroso. July 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
YES!
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Nov 8, 2007 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), said he would consider seeking a subpoena for Couch if the Pentagon maintained its stand."

Consider it very strongly.

This brave man has put his career on the line - he deserves the chance to speak.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

col. couch
Posted by: cwilsondrum on Nov 8, 2007 8:21 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what the fuck is everybody waiting for? impeach cheney and bush. their whole presidency is a conspiracy to cover their criminal acts, and nothing more. meanwhile america burns

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: col. couch Posted by: Angel1961
I'm just asking a question here......
Posted by: mindportal1 on Nov 9, 2007 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
does this guy Couch have more credibilty then Jesse Macbeth?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not so different as Lt. Watada
Posted by: common intelligence on Nov 9, 2007 12:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yup, LT. Couch too, will be hidden from public testimony to protect the guilty.

It is so bloody obvious that the Bush/Cheney machine is shoveling as much dirt as they can to cover up all their crimes. Especially now that Cheney's Impeachment is in the hands of the Judiciary Comittee.

There is an on going cover up far denser that Iran Contra going on. Like Reagan, Bush and Cheney will get the full pardon from congress because the people won't demand the truth.

Blame the American people. Congress is all guilty that's why nothing is getting done. THEY ARE ALL HIDING TO COVER THEIR OWN GUILT.

SO MUCH FOR BLIND JUSTICE.
HOW ABOUT NO JUSTICE?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Reason to Impeach these Criminals
Posted by: glassyeyed4 on Nov 10, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Again, the Bush/Cheney Thugs continues to trample the Constitution and Congress allows them. Here a man that has personal knowledge of torture being authorize by this Administration and the Pentagon is refusing to let him speak. Come on People, Take Our Country Back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HOORAY FOR FASCISM !
Posted by: SALLY EVANS on Nov 11, 2007 3:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BUSH'S GRANDFATHERS DABBLED IN FASCISM DURING WWII AND MADE THE BUSH FORTUNE. BUSH LIKED THEIR IDEA SO HE'S PUSHING FASCISM ONTO U.S.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HE DID PUT HIS CAREER ON THE LINE
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Nov 11, 2007 8:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and when we somehow manage to get these stupid M_____ F______ out of office we must somehow remember to try to get the new government to protect and help him. Help me figure out how to do that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]