Glenn Greenwald documents howABC and CNN, rather than asking questions about the legality of the CIA allegedly maintaining a “black site” in Mogadishu, reacted to Jeremy Scahill‘s reporting by simply defending the facility’s existence.
Just consider what happened here. Scahill uncovered this secret prison because he went to Mogadishu — dangerously unembedded, as very few journalists are willing to do — and spent 9 days there aggressively digging around. By contrast, Starr published her report by being handed a CIA script which she blindly read from without any other work, and ABC’s Martinez then did the same. But it’s CNN and ABC that are considered — by themselves and establishment D.C. mavens — to be the Serious Journalists, while Scahill’s report is heard only on Democracy Now and Al Jazeera. That’s because “Serious Journalism” in Washington means writing down what government officials tell you to say, and granting them anonymity to ensure they have no accountability.
What’s extraordinary about this is that it would have been a simple matter to quote the CIA defending the existence of the prison, or minimizing the U.S. role in facilitating it, and then speak to human rights groups about the legal lines here and whether or not the CIA is crossing any. Instead, the three networks simply published the CIA’s reassurances that the policy was wise and legal, without the slightest bit of skepticism.
As Greenwald notes, the matter of proxy detention has already emerged as one of the most significant legal issues in the Obama administration’s national security policy. Using the “no-fly” list, there are numerous instances of American citizens being detained by foreign countries and in some cases abused–while the administration itself avoids legal responsibility by declaring in effect, that it is not responsible because the individuals in question are technically not in their custody.
The legal issues involved aren’t entirely settled here, but back in 2004 Judge John Bates ruled that “the United States may not avoid the habeas jurisdiction of the federal courts by enlisting a foreign ally as an intermediary to detain the citizen.” Now the individual mentioned in Scahill’s story, one of the individuals allegedly held there, an alleged al Qaeda operative Ahmed Abdullahi Hassan, isn’t an American citizen. So this is somewhat uncharted territory from a legal point of view. The government couldn’t block a habeas case using the state secrets privilege, but it’s unclear whether the the building in Mogadishu would be seen by the courts as being like Gitmo (territory under the effective control of the U.S. so habeas applies) or like Bagram (an active warzone where habeas doesn’t apply). But what’s shocking about the reaction of CNN and ABC is that it’s not like proxy detention can’t happen to Americans who don’t turn out to be “bad guys,” it already has.
Morality is another question. If indeed, Hassan is so certainly dangerous, there’s no reason not to bring him to the U.S. and prosecute him. That would incapacitate him for the long term, and he would be in U.S. custody where he would be available for interrogation whenever the U.S. needs him. It’s hard to see a bright moral line between Bush rendering people to secret prisons and denying them due process, and the Obama administration helping other countries render people to secret prisons where due process can by denied by technicality.
