Abdul Rahim al-Nashiri

My analysis of the recent, and almost entirely overlooked announcement by the Pentagon that it was turning down a plea deal negotiated in December 2024 with torture victim and Guantánamo prisoner Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, the alleged architect of the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. The decision prioritizes vengeance, and an unwinnable trial, over the reality that successful prosecutions involving the death penalty at Guantánamo are bound to fail, because of the torture to which the defendants were subjected over many years when they were held in CIA “black sites.” In 2023, this was recognized by prosecutors in the 9/11 trial, who then negotiated plea deals taking the death penalty off the table in exchange for full confessions and life imprisonment. These were agreed in August 2024, but were then immediately challenged by then-defense secretary Lloyd Austin, who succeeded in having them overturned by the D.C. Circuit Court last June, after he had already left office. Al-Nashiri’s plea deal was publicly announced in March 2025, also taking the death penalty off the table in exchange for a full confession and life imprisonment, but it was finally turned down, just two weeks ago, not by Pete Hegseth, but by the billionaire deputy defense secretary, Steve Feinberg, bringing the Biden and Trump administrations into a rare accord, in which both, shamefully, oppose the only viable outcomes for the 9/11 trial and the trial of Al-Nashiri that can bring “closure” and some measure of justice over a quarter of a century after the USS Cole bombing took place.

Linking to, and discussing my recent interview with Scott Horton about a recent damning ruling against the government by the trial judge, Col. Lanny Acosta, in the military commission case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, accused of being the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. The ruling specifically prohibits the use of self-incriminating statements made by al-Nashiri to a so-called “clean team” of interrogators at Guantánamo after he had been held and tortured for nearly four years in CIA “black sites,” and Col. Acosta’s devastating conclusion was that al-Nashiri’s torture and “conditioning” in the “black sites” was so severe that he was incapable of delivering any kind of self-incriminating statement on a voluntary basis.

Linking to, and discussing my recent interview about Guantánamo with Kevin Gosztola and Rania Khalek for their “Unauthorized Disclosure” podcast, including a discussion about the recent damning ruling against the government by Col. Lanny Acosta, the military judge in the case of “black site” torture victim Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

A long read featuring substantial excerpts from, and my detailed analysis of an absolutely devastating ruling against the US authorities in the military commission pre-trial hearings for Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. A Saudi national held and tortured in CIA “black sites” for nearly four years before his transfer to Guantánamo in September 2006, al-Nashiri’s trial judge, Col. Lanny Acosta, Jr., has just refused to allow prosecutors to use self-incriminating statements al-Nashiri made to a “clean team” of interrogators four months after his arrival at Guantánamo, because, he has concluded, there is no way that he was acting freely, given the extent of the torture to which was subjected in the “black sites,” and the “conditioning” that accompanied it, requiring him to tell his interrogators what they wanted to hear, to prevent further torture.

Linking to, and discussing, The New Arab’s podcast, “Searching for Justice at Guantánamo: Tainted evidence and the fight for accountability,” in which Nadine Talaat tells the story of the prison, and, in particular, the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, through interviews with myself, Katie Carmon, one of his military commission lawyers, and former prisoner Mansoor Adayfi.

My report about a devastating opinion issued by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, regarding Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, held and tortured in CIA “black sites” for nearly four years, between 2002 and 2006, and at Guantánamo since September 2006. Although he has been charged in the military commissions, the Working Group concludes that his treatment has been so lawless and brutal that it constitutes arbitrary detention, and calls for his immediate release. The opinion follows a similarly devastating opinion relating to Abu Zubaydah, which I wrote about at the end of April.

Publicizing a powerful new report, ‘Deprivation and Despair: The Crisis of Medical Care at Guantánamo,’ by the Center for Victims of Torture (CVT) and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), thoroughly refuting claims by the US authorities that Guantánamo prisoners receive care equivalent to that of US service members.

Promoting — and providing some background to — a new action by the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT), urging Americans to write to their elected representatives urging them to vote to drop the ban on the transfer of Guantánamo prisoners to the US mainland for any reason — including for trials and for medical treatment — that has been part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) since 2011.

Please support my work as a reader-funded journalist! I’m currently trying to raise $2500 (£2000) to support my writing and campaigning on Guantánamo and related issues over the next three months of the Trump administration.   I was on vacation recently when a terrible anniversary passed unnoticed by the mainstream media — the 16th anniversary […]

Please support my work as a reader-funded journalist! I’m currently trying to raise $2500 (£2000) to support my writing and campaigning on Guantánamo and related issues over the next three months of the Trump administration.   In two devastating rulings on May 31, the European Court of Human Rights found that the actions of the […]