Follow us on social

Camp_delta_guantanamo_bay_cuba

Our father's death on 9/11 was used to justify US torture and other illegal acts

A coalition of families has filed a brief in the Zubaydah case and say the secrecy, impunity and abuse was a stain on their loved ones' names.

Analysis | Global Crises

On October 6, for the first time in over a decade, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving a prisoner held at the U.S. detention center at Guantánamo Bay. United States v. Zubaydah presents the question: do courts have the ability to separate classified from non-classified evidence in order to allow a case to proceed? The information in question — testimony regarding suspected terrorist detainee Abu Zubaydah’s torture in black sites abroad. 

Since 9/11, the U.S. government has invoked the “state secrets” privilege time and again to shield the public from knowledge about its human rights abuses and violations of law. As a result, many Americans do not know the full extent of the U.S. government’s post-9/11 history of torture and abuse — and, until recently, neither did we. 

On September 11, 2001, we were three and five years old. Our father, Brian Joseph Murphy, worked in the North Tower and was killed when the first plane hit. At the time of his death, we were small children, too young to comprehend the enormity of our loss and its implications for both our family and the world. It was only much later that we learned of the events described in this case — the birth of the torture and interrogation program; the opening of the detention center at Guantánamo; the atrocities committed both at home and abroad — and how often the names of the 9/11 victims were used to justify the government’s abuse.  

Our ignorance was not solely due to age. The government has made a concerted effort to hide its transgressions and prevent declassification of these events. The prime example is the detention center at Guantánamo. Many people, including family members of those who died on 9/11, do not know that five men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks remain stuck in pre-trials hearings. Soon after we learned of the hearings, we decided to travel to Guantánamo to witness the proceedings ourselves, hoping to reclaim our voices as victims and see firsthand what has been done in our father’s name. 

Our visit to Guantánamo in 2018 was an education in how arguments about the need to protect national security delay justice and prevent accountability for both 9/11 and its aftermath. Although we spent a full week on site, we were only permitted to watch two days of hearings — the other days were closed to all but attorneys due to discussions of “classified” information, mostly relating to the government’s Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation program.

Moreover, the hearings we were permitted to watch were hardly transparent: we sat in an observer’s room, separated from the lawyers and detainees by a soundproof Plexiglass barrier and a 40-second time delay. This protocol is deemed necessary to prevent the accidental release of information that threatens national security but in practice serves to conceal information related to torture and protect those responsible for perpetrating abuse. 

After our trip to Guantánamo, we joined September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, an organization created by family members of 9/11 victims who advocate for nonviolent solutions and seek justice according to the rule of law. Last month, we joined Peaceful Tomorrows in filing its first amicus brief, on behalf of Mr. Zubaydah. We come from different perspectives, but we all agree that the secrecy, impunity, and abuse in the aftermath of 9/11 is a stain on our family members’ names — and that true justice requires true accountability for these acts. 

One of the founding principles of PT is to bring those responsible for the 9/11 attacks to justice in accordance with the principles of international law. As family members, we feel particularly concerned with the impact of unchecked abuse of government secrecy in the 9/11 commissions — the issue at the heart of U.S. vs. Zubaydah. But this case is important to all Americans, as we have all been denied transparency for the injustices that have occurred over the past 20 years. Ensuring accountability is essential to prevent future atrocities and to uphold the rights that protect us all. 


Photo: DOD
Analysis | Global Crises
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less
The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan
Taipei skyline, Taiwan. (Shutterstock/ YAO23)

The 8-point buzzsaw facing any invasion of Taiwan

Asia-Pacific

For the better part of a decade, China has served as the “pacing threat” around which American military planners craft defense policy and, most importantly, budget decisions.

Within that framework, a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan has become the scenario most often cited as the likeliest flashpoint for a military confrontation between the two superpowers.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.