It was an extraordinary argument in several respects. The narrow question is whether we can secure the testimony of James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen for use by the Polish prosecutors in their investigation into whether crimes were committed in Poland at the black site there. But the more important turn that the oral argument took is several things. One, virtually every justice on the court described Abu Zubaydah’s treatment as “torture.” They used that word. There were no euphemisms. There was no equivocation. Everyone understood that what happened to him was torture.
Second was the observation that you made, which is the questions by Justice Breyer, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Sotomayor, asking, “Why is it that you can’t just let Abu Zubaydah testify?” That obviously would obviate the need for Mitchell and Jessen’s testimony. And what was as interesting as their request that Abu Zubaydah be allowed to testify was the government’s equivocation and inability to answer that. They were asked — that is, the solicitor general was asked to provide a follow-up statement, so they’ll be filing something else, explaining whether they’re going to allow Abu Zubaydah to testify. And if they do, that will be a sea change at Guantánamo. That will be a radical change. Guantánamo was built to be an isolation chamber, and they have never allowed any detainee to have uncensored access to the outside. The whole purpose of it was to prevent that
— source democracynow.org | Oct 07, 2021
