BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
TOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Terror
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
Paper: Bush Admin Blocks Torture Testimony
November 08, 2007 10:52 AM
The Bush administration has blocked a former military prosecutor from testifying that "severe" interrogation techniques ruined his case against a suspected al Qaeda terrorist, the Wall Street Journal reports this morning.
The paper said the official responsible for deep-sixing the testimony of Lt. Col. V. Stuart Crouch was Bush-appointed Pentagon counsel William J. Haynes II. Haynes may have a reason to be concerned about congressional attention to U.S. torture policies, the paper suggests: he helped oversee the Pentagon's policies, which would have been the subject of Crouch's testimony.
This is the second time Haynes has been involved in a behind-the-scenes scuffle over military testimony about torture that spilled into public view. Last September, he reportedly pressured several top military lawyers to sign a letter stating they did "not object" to controversial White House-backed legislation easing rules about so-called severe interrogation techniques, just days after several had expressed opposition to the bill.
Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.
A Pentagon spokesman at the time denied the story, recounted days later in several major newspapers.
Yesterday, Haynes blocked testimony Crouch was slated to give today before the House Judiciary Committee with an e-mail to the prosecutor, in which Haynes stated he "has determined that...it is improper for you to testify about matters still pending in the military court system," the Journal reports.
It's not clear if the case in question is in fact pending, however, or simply dead. In March, the Wall Street Journal reported that since Crouch refused in 2004 to prosecute a Guantanamo prisoner, Mohamedou Ould Slahi, the case has been "on ice." Today, the paper says the prosecution has been "shelved."
Crouch reportedly found evidence Slahi had been beaten, his life had been threatened and he was warned his mother would be raped in custody if he did not cooperate, the paper reported. Because the case against Slahi was based on incriminating statements Slahi appeared to give as a result of that treatment, Crouch believed they were not permissible.
Slahi, who is alleged to have helped recruit several of the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers, remains in Guantanamo, not yet charged with a crime. He reports the beatings and other severe treatment have stopped.
Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team?
November 8, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (6)
Good job Bush. No need to alarm the American people... keep telling us everything is A-OK! I salute you for worrying about our anxiety levels!
Posted by: Paranoid American | Nov 8, 2007 4:28:51 PM
Is there no accountability or transparency in Government any more?
Posted by: Jubcha | Nov 8, 2007 6:27:30 PM
Why have the Democrats not had the guts to impeach Bush and Cheney? Why have the Republicans failed to have the moral integrity to confront the Bush administration on their dishonest and frankly unAmerican conduct. Does anybody in government stand for anything?
Posted by: Outraged | Nov 8, 2007 11:33:40 PM
To answer Outraged,
Both the Republicans and Democrats in Washington are make big dollars from this war.
They talk about putting a end to the war, but have no intention of doing so...that's politics.
Posted by: J.D. Miller | Nov 9, 2007 9:58:03 AM
Let's see. The Bush administration doesn't want us to find out that their illegal torturing of people is harming the war on terror. I wonder why.
Posted by: Samantha Stickers | Nov 9, 2007 4:40:45 PM
Why have the Democrats not had the guts to impeach Bush and Cheney? Why have the Republicans failed to have the moral integrity to confront the Bush administration on their dishonest and frankly unAmerican conduct. Does anybody in government stand for anything?
Posted by: Outraged
To be A republican you can't have any morals. And far as being an American they believe they are when they wave a flag or wear a lapel pin.
Thats as American as they are going to get.
Posted by: langs | Nov 13, 2007 4:00:55 AM
Post a comment

Stray Guns in Baghdad
For McCain, Another Problem Fundraiser