Connect with us

News

Torture and Secret C.I.A. Prisons Haunt 9/11 Case in Judge’s Ruling

Published

on

Torture and Secret C.I.A. Prisons Haunt 9/11 Case in Judge’s Ruling

When a military judge threw out a defendant’s confession in the Sept. 11 case this month, he gave two main reasons.

The prisoner’s statements, the judge ruled, were obtained through the C.I.A.’s use of torture, including beatings and sleep deprivation.

But equally troubling to the judge was what happened to the prisoner in the years after his physical torture ended, when the agency held him in isolation and kept questioning him from 2003 to 2006.

The defendant, Ammar al-Baluchi, is accused of sending money and providing other support to some of the hijackers who carried out the terrorist attack, which killed 3,000 people. In court, Mr. Baluchi is charged as Ali Abdul Aziz Ali.

He is the nephew of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man accused of masterminding the plot.

Advertisement

The judge, Col. Matthew N. McCall, wrote that it was easy to focus on the torture because it was “so absurdly far outside the norms of what is expected of U.S. custody preceding law enforcement questioning.”

“However,” he added, “the three and a half years of uncharged, incommunicado detention and essentially solitary confinement — all while being continually questioned and conditioned — is just as egregious” as the physical torture.

Prosecutors are preparing to appeal.

But the 111-page ruling was the latest blow to the government’s two-decade-old effort to hold death penalty trials at Guantánamo Bay by sweeping aside a legacy of state-sponsored torture.

Military judges in the two capital cases at Guantánamo have rejected the use of confessions taken from prisoners after they were in C.I.A. detention, illustrating the enduring stain of a Bush administration decision after Sept. 11, 2001, to interrogate and hide suspected members of Al Qaeda in black sites rather than use the court-monitored law enforcement system.

Advertisement

From his capture in Pakistan in early 2003 to his transfer to Guantánamo in 2006, Mr. Baluchi was kept out of the reach of lawyers, a court and the International Red Cross, according to evidence presented at years of pretrial hearings.

In his first days in custody, Mr. Baluchi was deprived of sleep for 82 straight hours. He was shackled at the ankles and the wrists in a way that forced him to stand, naked, with a hood on his head. He was made to fear he would be drowned in a mock waterboarding technique while he was in a dungeonlike setting in Afghanistan.

In time, he was shuttled between five overseas prisons, including in Eastern Europe. Food and clothing were used as rewards for his cooperation with C.I.A. debriefers in a program described in court by two psychologists who carried out some of the interrogations for the agency.

The judge referred to classified C.I.A. accounts showing that Mr. Baluchi was questioned about Al Qaeda and his role in the Sept. 11 attacks more than 1,000 times before he was transferred to Guantánamo. Then, in January 2007, the Bush administration adopted a concept called clean teams.

The idea was to have agents who had not been involved in previous interrogations question a suspect anew to try to obtain admissible evidence for a court case. In the case of Mr. Baluchi, three F.B.I. agents questioned him over four days at Guantánamo in January 2007, four months after he was transferred there from a black site.

Advertisement

The F.B.I. agents wrote a memo containing his confessions, which Judge McCall rejected on April 11 as illegally derived from torture.

Prosecutors had argued that Mr. Baluchi’s brutal interrogations lasted only a few days. For the next three years, they said, he gradually became less afraid of his captors and in time voluntarily answered questions from the C.I.A. debriefers and, later, from the F.B.I. questioners at Guantánamo.

The judge disagreed. “The goal of the program was to condition him through torture and other inhumane and coercive methods to become compliant during any government questioning,” he wrote. “The program worked.”

Uncertainty over whether the statements would be admissible was one reason the prosecutors sought to settle the case with guilty pleas in exchange for life sentences rather than through a death-penalty trial.

Mr. Baluchi and his lawyers never reached a plea agreement. But Mr. Mohammed and two other defendants did in a settlement that the Justice Department is now trying to overturn. If the courts uphold the deal and the plea goes forward, Mr. Mohammed has agreed to let prosecutors use portions of his 2007 interrogations at Guantánamo at a sentencing hearing.

Advertisement

Government lawyers have to meet a high bar in appealing to reinstate Mr. Baluchi’s 2007 statements. In January, the military commissions appeals court upheld a judge’s decision to throw out the same type of evidence in the U.S.S. Cole case, the longest-running capital case at Guantánamo Bay.

In it, the appellate panel endorsed the analysis of the judge in that case that the C.I.A. had “conditioned” its captives “to answer questions from United States government officials — be they debriefers, interrogators or interviewers.”

In his third month at Guantánamo, Mr. Baluchi reported to a medical staff member that guards had withheld water from him “for 48 hours because he wrote his name in his shower with steam,” the judge noted.

Court testimony showed that each former C.I.A. prisoner’s cell was equipped with an intercom and individual shower that required little contact with guards. So Mr. Baluchi was punished for writing his name in a place where only he, the guards and the prison’s surveillance system could see it.

Moves between black sites started with a cavity search, the judge said in a section that explained the process in detail. Mr. Baluchi was blindfolded, and his ears and mouth were covered to prevent him from hearing or communicating with others.

Advertisement

“He was diapered and then strapped into a seat or strapped to the floor like cargo for however long the flight lasted,” the judge recounted. The prisoner “did not know where he was going or how long he would have to remain in a soiled diaper.”

News

Satellite images show Iran school strike hit more buildings than earlier reported

Published

on

Satellite images show Iran school strike hit more buildings than earlier reported

The bombing of an Iranian elementary school that killed some 165 people, many of them schoolgirls, included more targets near the school than has been initially reported, a review of commercial satellite imagery by NPR has found.

The images suggest that the school was hit on Saturday as part of a precision airstrike on a neighboring Iranian military complex — and that it may have been struck as a result of outdated targeting information.

The new images come from the company Planet and are of the city of Minab, located in southeastern Iran. They show that a health clinic and other buildings near the school were also struck. Three independent experts confirmed NPR’s analysis of the additional strike points.

Advertisement

The strike points “look like pretty clean detonation centroids,” said Corey Scher, a postdoctoral researcher at the Conflict Ecology laboratory at Oregon State University.

“These certainly appear like detonation sites,” agreed Scher’s colleague, Oregon State associate professor Jamon Van Den Hoek.

Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at Middlebury College who specializes in satellite imagery, said the imagery was consistent with a precision airstrike.

The images show “very precise targeting,” Lewis told NPR. “Almost all the buildings [in the compound] are hit.”

A satellite image of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard compound taken on March 4.

A satellite image of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard compound taken on March 4, several days after an airstrike destroyed a school on the edge of the compound. The image reveals that half a dozen other buildings in addition to the school were struck.

Planet Labs PBC

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Planet Labs PBC

Advertisement

Iranian state media said 165 people died in the bombing, which struck a girls’ school. The school was located within less than 100 yards of the perimeter of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval base, according to satellite images and publicly available information. The clinic was also located within the base perimeter, although both facilities had been walled off from the base.

Israel has denied involvement. “We are not aware at the moment of any IDF operation in that area,” Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Nadav Shoshani told NPR on Monday. “I don’t know who’s responsible for the bombing.”

At a press conference Wednesday morning, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the U.S. is looking into what happened at the school. “All I know, all I can say, is that we’re investigating that,” Hegseth said. “We, of course, never target civilian targets.”

Given Minab’s location in the southeastern part of Iran, Lewis believes it’s more likely the U.S. would have conducted the strike than Israel. As one gets farther south and east in Iran, “a strike is much more likely to be a U.S. strike than an Israeli strike because of the type of munitions and the geographic location,” he said.

Esmail Baghaei, the spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, called the strike “deliberate” and said that the U.S. and Israel bombed the school in part to tie up Iranian forces in the region with rescue efforts. “To call the attack on the girls school merely a ‘war crime’ does not capture the sheer evil and depravity of such a crime,” he said.

Advertisement

But Lewis said it’s more likely that the strike was the result of an error. Satellite images show that the school and clinic buildings were both once part of the base. The school was separated from the base by a wall between 2013 and 2016. The clinic was walled off between 2022 and 2024.

Lewis believes it’s possible American military planners had not updated their target sets.

“There are thousands of targets across Iran, and so there will be teams in the United States and Israel that are responsible for tracking those targets and updating them,” he said. “It’s possible that the target didn’t get updated.”

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to NPR’s request for additional information about the strike.

NPR’s Arezou Rezvani and NPR’s RAD team contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Mojtaba Khamenei, son of former supreme leader, tipped to become Iran’s next head of state

Published

on

Mojtaba Khamenei, son of former supreme leader, tipped to become Iran’s next head of state

Mojtaba Khamenei, the second son of the assassinated Ali Khamenei, is being heavily tipped to succeed his father as supreme leader of Iran, which would pitch a hardliner into the task of steering the Islamic republic through the most turbulent period in its 48-year history and offer a powerful signal that, for now, it has no intention of changing course.

No official confirmation has been given and the announcement may be delayed until after the funeral of Ali Khamenei, which was on Wednesday postponed.

His son is believed to have been the choice of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the Israeli defence minister, Gideon Saar, has warned he will be assassinated.

Ayatollah Seyed Khatani, a member of the Assembly of Experts, the body that chooses the new supreme leader, said the assembly was close to selecting a leader.

Rigid in his anti-western views, Mojtaba Khamenei is not the candidate Donald Trump would have wanted. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said on Tuesday that Iran was run by “religious fanatic lunatics” – and Khamenei’s appointment is hardly likely to dispel that opinion.

Advertisement
‘They were going to attack first’: Trump gives update on Iran – video

The choice of supreme leader is made by the 88-strong Assembly of Experts, who in this case are picking from a field of six possible candidates. His election would be a powerful if unsurprising symbol that the government is not looking to find an accommodation with America.

Trump has said the worst-case scenario would be if Khamenei’s successor was “as bad as the previous person”.

There has been speculation for more than a decade that he would be his father’s successor, which grew when Ebrahim Raisi, the elected president and favourite of Khamenei, was killed in a helicopter crash.

Mojtaba Khamenei was born in 1969 and studied theology after graduating from high school. At the age of 17, he went to serve in the Iran-Iraq war, but it was not until the late 1990s that he came to be recognised as a public figure in his own right.

Advertisement

After the landslide defeat of Khamenei’s preferred candidate, Ali Akbar Nategh Nuri, in the 1997 presidential election, where he won only 25% of the final vote, various conservative Iranian groups realised the need to make changes to their structures and Mojtaba Khamenei was central to that project.

He was also seen as instrumental by reformists in suppressing the protests in 2009 that came after allegations the presidential election had been rigged, with his name chanted in the streets as one of those responsible. Mostafa Tajzadeh, a senior member of Iran’s reformist parties who was imprisoned after the vote, alleged that his and his wife, Fakhr al-Sadat Mohtashamipour’s, legal case was under the direct supervision of Mojtaba Khamenei.

In 2022 he was given the title of ayatollah – essential to his promotion. By then he was a regular figure by his father’s side at political meetings, as well as playing an influential role in the Islamic Republic’s Broadcasting Corporation, the government’s official media outlet often criticised for churning out dull political propaganda that many Iranians reject in favour of overseas satellite channels. He has also played a central role in the administration of his father’s substantial financial empire.

His closest political allies are Ahmad Vahidi, the newly appointed IRGC commander; Hossein Taeb, a former head of the IRGC’s intelligence organisation; and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the current speaker of the parliament.

His rumoured appointment and its hereditary nature has long been resisted by reformists. The former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, referring to the long history of rumours about Mojtaba Khamenei succeeding his father as leader, wrote in 2022: “News of this conspiracy have been heard for 13 years. If they are not truly pursuing it, why don’t they deny such an intention once and for all?”

Advertisement

The Assembly of Experts, in response, denounced “meaninglessness of doubts” and said the assembly would select only “the most qualified and the most suitable”.

Israel on Tuesday struck the building in the Iranian city of Qom, one of Shia Islam’s main seats of power, where the assembly was scheduled, but the building was empty, according to IRGC-affiliated media.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

Published

on

Video: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

new video loaded: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

transcript

transcript

Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem repeatedly refused to apologize for suggesting that Alex Pretti and Renee Good, two U.S. citizens shot and killed by agents, were domestic terrorists.

What we’ve seen is a disaster under your leadership, Ms. Noem. A disaster. What we’ve seen is innocent people getting detained that turn out are American citizens. I could talk about the culture that’s been created here. After the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, when I spoke to Alex’s parents, they told me that you calling him a domestic terrorist — this was directly from them — the day after he was killed, a nurse in our V.A., Alex — one of the most hurtful things they could ever imagine was said by you about their son. Do you have anything you want to say to Alex Pretti’s parents? Ma’am, I did not call him a domestic terrorist. I said It appeared to be an incident of — I think the parents saw it for what it was. In a hearing — recent hearing before the HSGAC committee, C.B.P. and ICE officials testified under oath that their agencies did not inform you that Pretti was a domestic terrorist — during that hearing, stated during that hearing, I was getting reports from the ground, from agents at the scene, and I would say that it was a chaotic scene. How did you think that calling them domestic terrorists at that scene was somehow going to calm the situation? The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake, which looks like under investigation, it’s going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.

Advertisement
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem repeatedly refused to apologize for suggesting that Alex Pretti and Renee Good, two U.S. citizens shot and killed by agents, were domestic terrorists.

By Christina Kelso and Jackeline Luna

March 3, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending