Lawyers for Gitmo detainees believe US eavesdropped on their conversations

Attorneys for five Guantanamo Bay detainees charged in the 9/11 attacks are demanding to know if U.S. government officials have been listening in on their private conversations with the defendants. The lawyers discovered the presence of an audio surveillance system by accident on January 28:

At a hearing Jan. 28, the sound system in the Guantanamo courtroom was suddenly cut, to the surprise of even the judge. The judge later revealed that a government official, from an agency that the military has refused to disclose, was following the proceedings from outside the courtroom and intervened to prevent the potential release of classified information. The judge, Army Col. James Pohl, later said the information was not classified and he ordered the undisclosed government agency to disconnect any equipment that could unilaterally cut the sound. He also released a transcript of the censored remarks.

More at The Miami Heralad.


    1. Yeah, I’m like “whaaaaaaaaaat, in the ‘laws don’t count’ military place for unconstitutional detainment where they torture people?  That is a scandal!”

  1. I would be shocked to find out they weren’t eavesdropping on everything all the time. Why would you even think otherwise? When has this administration (or the previous) ever cared about privacy or constitutional protections even for its own citizens on its own soil?

  2. Many Australians were surprised at the dedication of US marine lawyer Michael Mori for his client David Hicks. He seemed like the real deal, but he is in the military, right? In the end he did a good job for his client.

    Michael Mori has since left the US and now lives in Melbourne, working as a civilian lawyer.

    1. I’d suggest a series of Tommy Flanagan tutorials, but Jon Lovitz has already gone over to the dark side.

  3. Awesome.  So now our brilliant military is offering us a choice between throwing away the Constitutution or letting a bunch of likely terrorists go for mistrial.

    I know who definitely needs to spend the rest of their lives in jail, and know they won’t.

  4. Xeni, I don’t know if this is happening to you, but when I visit the Miami Herald site to follow this link, I’m asked to log in, and when I do, the site just keeps looping back and forth between the login site link and the story link, never actually displaying the story page.

    I noticed this started happening about a month or so ago, which seems to me around the time that the Miami Herald started to enforce this login-wall.

    I’ve tried this using Chrome, Firefox, and IE, and it keeps happening in each.

    I tried creating another login name on that site, but that didn’t fix the problem.

    Of course, I’ve written to the newspaper to ask them why this is happening, but have received no reply whatsoever to my three written inquiries.

    I don’t know if other BBers are having the same problem, but may I suggest not linking to the Miami Herald until this problem is solved?

    1. I tried two different browsers, and with neither one was I asked to log in.  I wouldn’t have read the piece if I had been – though they can no doubt track me (and you) without any kind of registration or login.

  5. The official position for years has been that nobody in there has any legal rights. They generally don’t come out and actually state it, of course, but it’s pretty clear from the way the entire thing has been handled.

  6. How curiously specific: “I can say unequivocally that no entity of the United States government is listening to, monitoring or recording communications between the five accused and their counsel at any location,” Martins said”.

    Right. so the equipment they DID discover everywhere is being operated by one of our foreign allies. And Americans routinely operate the equipment when it’s someone other than the “five accused”. Technically, Martins is telling the truth. He can SAY it. Also the secret definition of “communications” might not include face-to-face conversations. I could go on and on.
    Read more here:

  7. Oh oh oh… or, they’re just having contractors doing the monitoring. None of whom are technically members of the US Gov org that hired them. So Martins is making his “plausible deniability” audit sound like an assurance that nothing was found.

Comments are closed.