Can Helen Mirren get you to read the Senate torture report?

Since it's clear that not a lot of people actually read the 2014 US Senate report on torture, actress Helen Mirren read selections of it for John Oliver's Last Week Tonight on Sunday.

The trouble is, the publicly released report doesn't include many sections, which still remain classified. Take the case of Majid Khan, a Guantanamo Bay detainee whose stories were not shared until recently:

Reuters/Center for Consitutional Rights/Handout

Reuters columnist David Rohde — himself held captive by the Taliban for seven months — summarized Khan's claims in a recent investigation:

Majid Khan said interrogators poured ice water on his genitals, twice videotaped him naked and repeatedly touched his "private parts" – none of which was described in the Senate report.

Interrogators, some of whom smelled of alcohol, also threatened to beat him with a hammer, baseball bats, sticks and leather belts, Khan said. ...

Years before the report was released, Khan complained to his lawyers that he had been subjected to forced rectal feedings. Senate investigators found internal CIA documents confirming that Khan had received involuntary rectal feeding and rectal hydration. In an incident widely reported in news media after the release of the Senate investigation, CIA cables showed that "Khan's 'lunch tray,' consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raisins, was 'pureed' and rectally infused."

Setting aside the question of how much information is being held from the public, not many have read what is public. Even former CIA director Porter Goss hasn't read the report, according to his own testimony to Congress.

Would we rather listen to a Helen Mirren audiobook of the report?

Last Week Tonight

What about a children's book (say, Peter Rabbit) mixed in with accounts of the torture of Majid Khan?

Last Week Tonight

On Friday, the US Court of Appeals threw out a conviction of Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, Reuters reported, and it was decided that his case should be heard in civilian courts. The ruling may impact Khan's case, according to his lawyers:

Guantanamo did not have the authority to convict Bahlul of a conspiracy charge. Conspiracy is not ones of the crimes recognized under the international law of war... The ruling is likely to limit the ability of the U.S. government to prosecute people via special military tribunals for offenses not internationally recognized as war crimes.

Lawyers for Majid Khan, a Guantanamo detainee turned government cooperating witness, said the ruling would impact his case as well. Wells Dixon, a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said two of the five charges to which Khan has pleaded guilty have now been invalidated by federal appeals courts in other cases.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via