Meet Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch — or in this case, don’t

November 8, 2007

There’s been ample discussion about the moral depravity of torture. And the illegalities of torture. And the impractical nature of acquiring information by way of torture.

But what about the effect of torture on prosecuting suspected terrorists? This doesn’t usually get quite as much attention, but it appears prosecutors who want to put terrorists away find that it’s harder to make a case when the defendant has been abused by U.S. officials.

A House Judiciary subcommittee wanted to explore this in detail today, and was set to hear testimony from a former Guantanamo Bay prosecutor with first-hand experience with the issue. Then the Bush gang intervened.

The Bush administration blocked a Marine Corps lawyer from testifying before Congress today that severe techniques employed by U.S. interrogators derailed his prosecution of a suspected al Qaeda terrorist.

…Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch, a former Guantanamo Bay prosecutor, was set to testify regarding another concern that has long troubled uniformed lawyers: Regardless of their accuracy, statements obtained under torture or certain other forms of duress are inadmissible in legal proceedings. Because most evidence against Guantanamo prisoners comes from detainee statements, convictions hinge on whether they can be used in court.

Asked last week to appear before the panel, Col. Couch says he informed his superiors and that none had any objection.

That was before the Bush gang caught wind of Couch’s intention to inform lawmakers (who have oversight authority) about the problem. William J. Haynes, the Bush-appointed Pentagon general counsel, yesterday told Couch via email that “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.”

How predictable.

I’m curious: if the United States “does not torture,” then what could Couch say that would be damaging?

On a related note, what, exactly, was Couch going to say? He actually has quite an important story to tell.

…Couch refused to bring charges against Mohamedou Ould Slahi after determining the detainee’s incriminating statements had been obtained through what Col. Couch considered to be torture. Mr. Slahi, who is alleged to have helped recruit several of the Sept. 11 hijackers, is one of two high-value Guantanamo prisoners who were authorized to undergo “special” interrogation methods. In addition to allegedly suffering physical beatings and death threats, Mr. Slahi was led to believe that the U.S. had taken his mother hostage and might ship her to Guantanamo Bay, where she would be the sole female amid hundreds of male prisoners.

Col. Couch, now a military judge, said he reluctantly concluded it would be impossible to prosecute Mr. Slahi without relying on tainted evidence. The decision was particularly difficult, Col. Couch said, because a Marine buddy, Mike Horrocks, had been the co-pilot on the hijacked United 175, which struck the World Trade Center — and because Col. Couch believed Mr. Slahi indeed had taken part in the Sept. 11 conspiracy.

Couch wanted to prosecute this guy in the worst way, but the Bush administration’s tolerance for torture made that impossible.

Of course, the painful reality is that the Bush gang’s response to all this would probably be more torture and fewer trials.

this is starting to get bat-shit crazy! the bush administration won’t let anyone talk to congress about anything! can they get off their asses and do something? damn!

  • What do I think?

    The day George W. Bush leaves the White House and his responsibilities as President of the United States behind, will be one of the greatest days in the history of the United States.

    No single individual in the history of the United States has done more damage to her than George W. Bush.

  • Why did the Judiciary Committee announce the names of those they intend to interview? It isn’t a trial where the White House is the opposing attorney for the defense and legally has a right to know about the individuals ahead of time. Somebody on that committee is keeping the WH informed of anything that might damage the administration.

  • Sept. 11 conspiracy? I thought you had to be a “nut” to talk about such things.

    The Bush Laden Cabal continues to cover-up, cajole, and conceal the rightful business of the People.

    Ask yourselves, what else might these international criminals have conspired to cover-up?

    “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.” -John F. Kennedy

  • Going back to yesterday, when doubtful and I both noted we were moving from the “no impeachment” to the “impeachment” camp, a fight like this one would be a good catalyst to ramp up to impeachment. (1) It is powerful on the facts – this is a huge downside to BushCo’s behavior. (2) It is stark on the policy: the United States was founded on and relies on the checks and balances provided by separation of powers. This administration absolutely will not allow Congress to do its Constitutional duty in the usual way, so the administration leaves Congress no choice but to play the only remaining card it has to check the administration’s power: impeachment.

  • Further proof if proof was needed of how fragile a constitutional democracy is. All you have to have is one party to the argument decide not to admit that the rules have any force or importance and the system is stymied.

  • This administration is traitorous and the Congress is compliant to their treachery. I find myself, once again, in agreement with Tom Cleaver. Our democracy is in deep jeapordy and may not survive. Nancy Pelosi what in the hell happened to you?

  • Time for that tough Pat Leahy to write another sternly worded letter (I know, I know, he isn’t in the House, but this applies to the House Dems as well). That’ll show the White House. Its been a full year of letters already by Leahy on the torture issues. I am sure we have gotten something out of all those sternly worded letters.

  • And if Couch ignores the White House they will … what, exactly?

    Seriously. What the hell can they do to the guy? What, precisely, keeps him from speaking to Congress anyway?

    Military rules state that any military personnel can ignore an order (even from the C-in-C) they deem unlawful or wrong, so I don’t see why he couldn’t just tell the Bush gang to shove it.

    Am I missing something?

  • And if Couch ignores the White House they will … what, exactly?

    Hey, Couch of all people knows exactly what happens to folks Cheney puts in Gitmo. If they tell him not to talk, I don’t think he’ll talk.

  • Mark D –
    You are missing the same thing we all are:
    A majority (at least in the House) party with a spine.

    And Jack S –
    I agree with you about the damage wrought by Bush and his complicit Republicans. Who would have thought that Benedict Arnold would have contributed more to our country, and done less damage to it than au unpunished president did.

    Sad for our country.

  • Zeitgeist: “This administration absolutely will not allow Congress to do its Constitutional duty in the usual way, so the administration leaves Congress no choice but to play the only remaining card it has to check the administration’s power: impeachment.”

    Maybe I’ve got the tinfoil hat on, but I worry what else these guys might do if they are cornered like that. I wonder if those in a position to to write the articles of impeachment aren’t similarly concerned. They have already demonstrated that they have little regard for the rule of law.

  • It’s obvious that they’ve violated the geneva convention, and therefore US law.

    And it just goes to show that all you need to keep the US in the ditch is one person in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    I’m looking at you, Nancy Pelosi.

    You SUCK.

  • What would happen to Couch if he testified to Congress? His career would be in the toilet. He’d have to leave the military, and he would be harrassed, intimidated, and hounded from any jobs he found unless someone took him under their wing. The Rethugs always land on their feet in some nice sinecure at Heritage, AEI, or one of the myriad tanks funded by the right. Of course, Congress could supeona him, and be ignored.

    If serious articles of impeachment were voted against Cheney or Bush my guess is they would claim exemption because we are at war, and thumb their noses at the House. The Senate trial would be run by Roberts, a Bush appointee, and there wouldn’t be 67 votes for conviction because the Rethugs would vote lock-step as they always do. Some of the Dim-Dems would vote with them so the effect of it all would be to justify Bush/Cheney’s behavior, and achieve absolutely nothing.

    Consider this: In the unlikely event that impeachment were successful with both Bush and Cheney, Pelosi would become president. Now that’s really encouraging.

    Dream on. Ain’t gonna happen.

  • The country will have collapsed, financially, morally, and energy wise by the time Bush leaves office (if he leaves) if the dems do not impeach. There will be nothing left to build on. The collapsing dollar is proof of that. Bush is causing a suspicious world to slowly line up against us to protect their oil needs. What this administration has done to “collect” terrorist information has not helped us in anyway. These tactics have brought shame and fear to our nation and as we learn about the horrors of this administration we are blocked by secrecy and executive privilege. Bush should have been thrown out of office years ago as he was never duly “elected” and his corrupt and criminal regime should not be allowed another day of power. Why are the democratic leaders working so hard to prevent what the country is demanding? It’s time for accountablility, not secrecy. This administration uses tactics that would make anyone tell them anything they wanted to hear…and it’s shameful.

    Plus we are now $9 trillion dollars in debt with the dollar crashing. Stop this administration from doing anymore damage or the dems will pay for it with a 2009 administration that will become crippled before it ever begins.

    Are we in denial and just too proud to admit that we have leaders that are madmen and are completely insulated from reality? How much more shame do we need to bear?

  • Rich, #14, I agree that as a practical reality, impeachment isn’t going to happen. And that is precisely why I have disagreed with the idea until now. We were getting information out, holding oversight hearings, etc and that was going to have to suffice until the 2008 elections. But now the White House has a novel approach to the oversight that clearly was getting under its skin (see any of the recent complaints from Bush’s speeches about all the hearings): simply refuse to participate.

    In that scenario, impeachment is a bad option practically and, I think, politically. But so is rolling over and playing dead. Among bad options, Congress can either shut down and not do its job at all (political disaster for the Dems, much bigger disaster for the country in terms of the precedent it sets) or Congress can use literally the only tool left in the box – impeachment. If both options are bad, lets at least take the one that involves action rather than inaction.

  • How come Couch could talk to the Wall Street Journal, but not to Congress?

    From Think Progress: http://www.thinkprogress.org

    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. Where was the Pentagon’s “concern” then? Why shouldn’t he be able to testify to Congress on anything that has already appeared, in print, in a national publication? I really have just had enough of this crap.

  • “If both options are bad, lets at least take the one that involves action rather than inaction.”

    Glad to see you on board!

  • Housekeeping note – in my # 17, above, the Think Progress excerpt ends at …”if the Pentagon maintained its stand.” and my comment on it starts with “Where was the Pentagon’s concern?”

    Sorry for the confusion!

  • blah blah blah blah , blah blah blah , blah blah blah blah
    None of those rich motherfuckers give a fuck about us

  • The ONLY problem with impeaching Bush is that Cheney will then be Acting President.

    Impeach both the BASTARDS

  • Doesn’t anybody think that Mr. Couch seems to really like doing the publicity circuit….I personally like having a secure USA and I don’t care what they do to terrorists as long as they keep the USA safe.

    • Comments are closed.