Obama′s Change of Policy on Interrogations

By Ron Aledo

The open press have reported multiple times that President Obama changed President Bush policy regarding interrogations and detentions of suspected terrorists abroad. (https://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/08/under-obama-black-sites-swapped-for-ships.html ). And while the open press reports that the policy might revert we should note what Obama did (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-prisons/trump-administration-could-reinstate-secret-overseas-cia-prisons-washpost-idUSKBN15922L)

The unclassified press reports Obama′s  Policy was intended to perform military style interrogations of terrorism suspects in US Navy ships (https://www.propublica.org/article/the-best-reporting-on-detention-and-rendition-under-obama ).  The open unclass press reports that the purpose was to be able to interrogate the suspects without their Miranda right and for intelligence purposes before being transfer to the Department of Justice for prosecution.  (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/americas-floating-prisons/373577/ )

The open press also made public alleged interrogation in Bagram′s detention facility (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/inside-the-secret-interrogation-facility-at-bagram/56678/ )

In charge of this process was the famous High Vaue Interrogatin Grop (HVIG) (https://www.fbi.gov/about/leadership-and-structure/national-security-branch/high-value-detainee-interrogation-group ). On June 2011, Adm. William H. McRaven Testified in Congress that the US Government has legal authorization to perform the Obama′s policy on detentions. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/adm-mcraven-obama-administration-has-no-plan-for-captured-terrorists/2011/06/28/AGmvbqpH_story.html)

While some of the suspects contested the legality of this process several Federal court rulings demonstrated the legality of the Obama approach (https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/newyork/press-releases/2010/nyfo111710a.htm ) Additionally the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit also ruled against Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani in 2013 (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/nyregion/appeals-panel-upholds-conviction-of-ghailani-ex-detainee.html )

The sentence reads: ¨1. In the circumstances presented here, the District Court did not err (or “abuse its discretion,” as that term is properly understood) in determining that the nearly five-year delay between the defendant’s capture and his arraignment, during which time he was interrogated as an enemy combatant and detained at Guantanamo Bay, did not constitute a violation of the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment. 2. The District Court did not err either in charging the jury with a conscious avoidance instruction or in formulating that instruction. 3. The defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment, based on a conviction for conspiring to destroy United States buildings and property and directly or proximately causing the deaths of 224 people, was neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable.¨

Also the September 2017 ruling from Federal Judge Christopher Cooper also established the legality of the procedures against Abu Khatallah (https://www.lawfareblog.com/summary-judge-coopers-ruling-denying-abu-khatallahs-motion-suppress)

The Congressional Research Service published in 2016 a summary of the legislation that supports interrogation of terrorism suspects detainees (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42143.pdf )