CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Via Middle East Eye

Ammar al-Baluchi remembers the cold most of all. Held nearly naked in a cell lit around the clock by fluorescent bulbs, he referred to his detention "as if I was living in a refrigerator".

The nephew of self-declared 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Baluchi was one of six to a dozen men believed to be held and tortured in a secret CIA prison in Bucharest between 2003 and 2005. The treatment of detainees at the facility, formally known as "Detention Site Black", is described in detail in Guantanamo court filings. 

Solitary confinement under lights that never switched off, sleep deprivation that at times meant being forced to stand shackled for days, repeated dousing with icy water, and forced shaving and physical handling that interrogators euphemistically logged as "attention grasps" and "facial holds" were common practice.

A photo released by Baluchi's lawyers to the press in 2024 shows him stripped naked and photographed. It is believed to be the first published image - of tens of thousands - of a "war on terror" detainee in a CIA black site.

"We know they were tortured horrifically," Ben Keith, a British barrister representing Baluchi outside the US, told Middle East Eye. "It's not always possible to say which bit of torture took place because they were tortured for days and weeks, but you don’t detain somebody in a black site with the purpose of just talking to them."

A quarter-century after the 9/11 attacks, which triggered the so-called "war on terror" and devastating US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that directly killed at least 940,000 people, a US military judge has finally set a trial date for Baluchi: 5 June 2028.

Lieutenant Colonel Michael Schrama ruled this month that the case against Mohammed, Baluchi, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi will begin on that date.

Schrama is the fifth military judge to preside over a case that has been trapped for more than a decade in disputes over evidence, national security secrecy and, above all, whether confessions obtained under torture before the men ever reached Guantanamo can be used at trial.

That question runs directly through a basement in Bucharest, where the accused are believed to have been detained and tortured.

In April 2025, a Guantanamo military judge ruled that statements Baluchi gave the FBI in 2007 were involuntary and inadmissible, tainted by what the court called torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on him in CIA custody, including in Romania.

The judge found that Guantanamo's "modestly changed confinement circumstances" had not been enough to remove the “lingering taint” of what happened before he arrived there.

A gesture of courtesy

The Romanian site was part of a network of secret prisons the CIA ran across three continents in the years after 9/11 - in Thailand, Poland, Lithuania and Romania - as part of a rendition, detention and interrogation program that was formally shut down in 2009.

Romania's site opened in the autumn of 2003, according to court documents and NGO reports reviewed by MEE. According to a 2019 report by the Rendition Project, the CIA struck its agreement with Romanian authorities to host a black site in mid-October 2002.

By January 2003, the CIA's Bucharest station was already discussing how to show Romania that "we deeply appreciate the cooperation and support". 

That appreciation had a price: $8m, followed by "millions more", according to the same Rendition Project report. By autumn, the first batch of five prisoners had arrived.

The late Romanian president Ion Iliescu confirmed the outlines of the arrangement in a 2015 interview with Der Spiegel, describing a request that came "around the turn of the year 2002, 2003" from "our US allies" who asked Romania "for a site".

He said he approved it in principle as "a gesture of courtesy ahead of our accession to Nato", and that he deliberately did not ask for details. "We did not interfere with the activities of the USA on this site," he said. "This request seemed like a minor issue to me as the head of state."

The details, Iliescu said, were handled by Ioan Talpes, his national security adviser then. Talpes could not be reached for comment but gave a candid account to Der Spiegel in a 2014 interview, saying he discussed "a more intense cooperation" with the CIA from 2003 and understood that it involved detaining people at "one or two locations in Romania".

He admitted to personally approving the leasing of a government building to the American intelligence agency. Talpes put it more bluntly in Romanian media, saying his country "did not have the interest to know what the Americans were doing" at the site it provided, to prove to Washington that Romania could be trusted.

Crofton Black, a former investigator with the Rendition Project who spent close to a decade tracing the CIA’s rendition network through flight logs and declassified documents, told MEE that he thinks Romania "made the decision [to host the black site] because it was in their interest, and thought the US would cover for them".

'The highest state authorities were aware'

Swiss Senator Dick Marty, whose 2007 report to the Council of Europe was one of the earliest and most detailed independent reconstructions of the CIA's black-site network, concluded that while "very few people" in the countries involved likely knew the centers existed, "the highest state authorities were aware of the CIA’s illegal activities on their territories".

His report named Romania and Poland specifically as having hosted secret CIA detention facilities. The Council of Europe's list of Romanians who knew, according to Marty and later research by the Rendition Project, extends beyond Iliescu and Talpes to a few other officials, including Traian Basescu, who succeeded Iliescu as president in 2004. 

MEE reached out to Basescu for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication. The 2019 report adds a detail Marty did not fully spell out. 

After September 2004, Romanian officials were formally briefed by the US ambassador and the CIA's Bucharest station chief on the program, in a presentation that "clearly described" the use of torture.

"It's definitively the case - the allegations of torture, the money, the people who were held there - it's definitively the case that that’s Romania in the court files," said Black, who co-authored the Rendition Project report.

Unlike the black sites in Lithuania and Poland, which are believed to have been in more remote locations, Romania's site is believed to have been located in central Bucharest.

An AP and ARD Panorama investigation in 2011 narrowed down the location of the site in Bucharest to the government building of the country's National Registry Office for Classified Information, also known as Orniss, on a quiet, leafy street in northern Bucharest close to a set of train tracks.

Orniss "categorically denied" speculation that there had been a CIA prison on the premises, telling MEE that it rejected any association between the institution and "the so-called CIA detention centers".

While the site's location is disputed, concurring testimonies in court records reveal details of the conditions inside it. The site consisted of six prefabricated cells painted white and tiled with impact-resistant glass, while the cells themselves were mounted on springs, engineered to keep detainees slightly off balance and disoriented. 

The site is sometimes referred to as "Bright Light" because of the fluorescent, continuous light inside.

Another detainee held there was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, accused of being the mastermind of the October 12, 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. He is believed to have been held in Romania between April 2004 and November 2005.

His case reached the European Court of Human Rights, which later found in a landmark 2018 ruling that his detention in Romania involved an "extremely harsh" regime, including blindfolding, total isolation, exposure to loud noise and unbroken light, and leg shackles during every movement. The Court and related records also document sleep deprivation, painful stress positions, slapping and, at one point, forced rectal feeding.

A 2014 US Senate Intelligence Committee report found that the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" program in the black sites did not produce unique, life-saving intelligence that could not have been obtained by other means.

A US Senate report on CIA torture revealed that the CIA held at least 119 detainees in its secret detention program, with at least 39 of them subjected to the agency's "enhanced interrogation techniques," often without proper authorization.

The CIA also misled oversight bodies and the public about the program’s brutality, while there was little accountability for the abuses.

Continued denial

For two decades, Romania's official position has been one of denial. The country's foreign intelligence service replied to an MEE inquiry that "the matters had already been thoroughly examined by the competent judicial authorities, both nationally and within international bodies" and that it could not comment further.

Despite that, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2018 that Romania had violated Nashiri's rights, including by allowing his torture, both through what happened to him and through the state’s failure to properly investigate it.

The Court found that a secret detention center had operated in Romania and that Romanian authorities had "cooperated in the preparation and execution" of the CIA's rendition and detention programme, fully aware of its nature and purpose even if they were not privy to everything that happened inside.

It took me many years and a lengthy #FOIA lawsuit against the CIA to uncover exactly what happened at the Salt Pit, one of the CIA's black site prisons in Afghanistan where detainees were tortured. CIA just destroyed part of it, according to NYT

Gruesomehttps://t.co/kGlFei1sfe https://t.co/tmWHrQ3hBE

— Jason Leopold (@JasonLeopold) September 2, 2021

Romania responded by closing the domestic criminal investigation. A case opened in 2012 after a complaint from Nashiri's lawyers, represented by the Open Society Justice Initiative, had by 2014 been formally classified as an inquiry into unlawful deprivation of liberty and torture.

Lawyers who represented Nashiri in Strasbourg and Romania did not agree to interview requests before publication. But according to a Romanian parliamentary question answered by the foreign ministry in 2018, the Open Society complaint originally filed sought far more than charges of torture and unlawful detention. It asked prosecutors to investigate complicity in murder, unlawful arrest, abuse of office, and failure to report a crime, among other allegations.

Prosecutors narrowed that down in 2014 to two counts: unlawful deprivation of liberty and torture. The investigation went nowhere. In any case, by 2016, the statute of limitations on the alleged crimes had already expired because no investigative steps had been taken that would have suspended the clock, and no suspect had ever been formally identified.

Romania's public prosecutor's office told MEE in an official response that the file was closed in March 2021, with the perpetrator classified as "unknown" despite what it described as the use of international cooperation mechanisms to gather evidence.

The same year, the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers expressed "profound regret" that Romania could not show it had used all possible means to establish the facts, three years after the Strasbourg ruling required it to.

Keith, Baluchi's counsel, said senior Romanian officials acted with direct intent in 2003 and 2004 to allow the CIA to detain, torture and later transfer Baluchi to Lithuania. "We know from the ruling in al-Nashiri the Romanians knew about it; they might have not known exactly what was happening, but they facilitated the CIA to create a black site to torture these men," Keith said.

"Our contention is that Romania not only facilitated the CIA black site but knew they were being used to torture individuals."

MEE reached out to Romania's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Justice for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication. Romania's domestic intelligence service, SRI, also declined to comment, telling MEE that it lacked legal standing to address claims "circulating in the public space".

With a trial date now set for June 2028, the confessions extracted under torture at CIA "black sites" – including the facility in Bucharest – have become central to the 9/11 case. So, too, has the role of the governments that allowed the CIA to operate these secret detention and interrogation sites on their territory.

Romania, for its part, is still refusing to talk about what happened in its basement, despite the body of evidence that has emerged. "There's been years of compelling evidence that Romania hosted a black sit,  and the more it has grown, the government continued to deny it was involved," said Black. "It's ridiculous, it's nonsense."

West Virginia’s Governor Patrick Morrisey announced that the state had signed a memorandum of understanding with the DOE, joining Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah as the sixth contender for a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus (NLIC).

West Virginia’s energy future will cover all the bases! ??

“You’ve heard me talk a lot about coal. You’ve heard we talk a lot about gas. And I said, just you wait, nuclear is coming.” —Gov. @MorriseyWV pic.twitter.com/J4LkLT8wmW

— West Virginia Prosperity Group (@wvprosperity) September 9, 2026

The state was not included on July’s initial shortlist, which postured itself as the final roster that the DOE would downselect from. Morrisey’s took to "working the phones" to emphasize their abundance of skilled workers and industrial capabilities, but the state’s willingness to accommodate spent nuclear fuel is likely all it took for the DOE to open the door to further discussions.

Marla Morales, the acting deputy assistant secretary for spent fuel and high-level waste disposition at the DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, recently made it explicitly clear what we had already come to the conclusion on in our previous coverage of the NLIC program: it's all about handling the used nuclear fuel.

At the NECX conference, Morales stated, “One of the things we knew from the beginning of this was that we had to be open and transparent with what we were talking about. We had to make sure that everyone understood: You can want all the fancy reactors you want; you're going to have waste at the end of this. It has to go somewhere. So, by the fact that we started the conversation with waste, it really helped frame our narrative to begin with.”

Clearly, any state that started getting uncomfortable when the DOE started asking about what they intend to do with all the used nuclear fuel that would be produced by their programs, was simply asked to stop pretending and please leave. This brings to a close the suspicions for why states like Texas and New Mexico are not included. 

The DOE’s initial selection followed 28 applications from 26 states. NLICs would combine enrichment, fuel fabrication, recycling and waste disposition, potentially alongside reactors, manufacturing and data centers.

An individual campus could attract up to $50 billion in investment and create nearly 25,000 jobs.

The expanding NLIC list stands alongside an expanding Nuclear Energy Launch Pad (NELP) program. The NELP is one of the many other programs under the DOE intended to speed up nuclear development. The program recently saw a dramatic expansion from an initial four projects to now over 15 projects across over a dozen companies 

Via The Cradle

The US military has reduced the daily window in which it offers air defense to commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the Financial Times (FT) reports on Saturday.

Since May, Washington has sought to break Iran's control of Hormuz by providing air defense for vessels sailing through the strategic strait along a southern route hugging the coast of Oman.

Iran imposed a blockade on the strait shortly after the US and Israel launched an unprovoked war on the Islamic Republic on February 28.

However, the US began limiting the time slots in which vessels can receive protection from US aircraft as of the start of this month, FT reported.

The move comes in response to stepped-up Iranian attacks on ships transiting Hormuz, particularly at night. Ships are reportedly advised but not required to sail during the air defense time slots.

To receive protection, shipowners must apply to a US naval coordination center known as the Naval Cooperation and Guidance for Shipping (NCAGS).

Upon approval, the vessels received coordinates to follow during a broad time window. However, that window was "reduced to two specific time slots daily around the start of September," FT wrote, citing emails NCAGS sent to maritime advisors.

Vessels are now being told to begin their journey at specified times, such as 9:00 am, to receive air defense.

"We are now providing recommended transit times that vary by day. Your vessel is not required to go during these times, but it is encouraged to receive the best support," one NCAGS email said.

"Transiting during a period of darkness has not proven to be the most secure time of day," stated another email, highlighting the increased threat of Iranian attacks at night.

Iranian forces have attacked dozens of vessels attempting to pass through the strait since the beginning of the war, greatly limiting the oil exports of Washington's Gulf allies.

The US responded by imposing a naval blockade on Iranian ports in a bid to block Tehran's own oil exports. Before the war, at least 20 percent of world oil exports passed through Hormuz.

Not only security but also cost considerations may have influenced the US decision to reduce the protected transit window.

Joshua Tallis, a researcher at the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), stated that it costs the US Navy $25,000 to $75,000 an hour to operate its advanced aircraft.

Both Iran and the US stepped up their attacks on commercial vessels in the region earlier this week. Iran targeted two vessels and eight oil tankers in Hormuz in response to US strikes on five Iranian tankers. The US launched the strikes following an attack by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on a US warship days earlier.

"These waters aren't safe," stated Michelle Wiese Bockmann, an analyst at maritime intelligence firm Windward. Bockmann estimated that oil exports from Gulf countries other than Iran in August stood at about two-thirds of prewar levels, largely because of exports rerouted through pipelines to bypass Hormuz.

'Reached final stage' – Iran says agreement with Oman close on 'temporary secure passage in Strait of Hormuz' pic.twitter.com/UHFoKlfW5Q

— Syed Ali Salman Bokhari (@SyedAliSalman70) September 8, 2026

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei announced on Saturday that foreign ministers from several Gulf states will meet in Oman on Monday to exchange views on regional issues, including talks between Iran and Oman on designating safe routes for transiting the strait.

Baghaei added he hoped the meeting would improve understanding among regional countries and contribute to joint regional security.

Bill Maher used the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks to say something that once required no courage at all: terrorists are terrorists. That the observation now counts as provocative says something about how far we've come since 2001.

On Real Time with Bill Maher, in a segment titled "Clash of Civilizations," Maher walked through what has happened in the 25 years since 9/11.

"Since it's the 25th anniversary of 9/11, and since, for 25 years, we've been kept relatively safe from anything close to another 9/11, how about a hand for the Americans who made that happen? Because it didn't just happen; there was a war on terror, and we won," he said. "And yet so much has changed since 9/11; for example, back then we were against the terrorists."

The audience laughed, but he was being serious.

Around the 20th anniversary, for example, four American journalism associations issued guidance insisting that "terrorism should only be used in quotes because it's emotionally and politically loaded." Canadian state broadcasters instructed staff, "Do not refer to the September 11th attacks as terrorist attacks." The BBC told its reporters that using the word "terrorist" can be a "barrier rather than an aid to understanding."

The pattern shows that the media establishment many years ago concluded moral clarity amounted to a kind of bigotry and that to name an ideology responsible for mass murder was the same as harboring hatred towards all those who happen to share that ideology.

Maher made that distinction himself by dividing radical Islamism from Islam in general and also separating both of them from the issue that liberals consistently avoid, which is why so many of them came to sympathize with the side that attacked the West rather than with the side that was attacked.

Maher revisited his own history on this point, playing a clip of himself from shortly after the attacks on his ABC show Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher in which he argued that political correctness "is something we can no longer afford" because "feelings are going to get hurt so that actual people won't."

Maher lamented that the idea of "ditching political correctness and actually being honest" never "even got off the ground."

He then pointed out that after 9/11, there was a big debate over whether it was a "clash of civilizations." According to Maher, "it was, and it still is." But that clash isn't between Muslims and Christians, but rather radical Islamism and Western liberalism.

Maher then referred to a poll that showed that one in five young Americans now holds a positive view of Osama bin Laden (which would have been unthinkable 25 years ago) and compared it to how Luigi Mangione came to be seen as a folk hero; he assassinated Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. In both cases, a killer becomes a symbol of grievance, and the actual victims become a footnote to a woke narrative about systemic injustice.

"You hear it in a lot of places now that the worst thing about 9/11 was innocent Muslims came under suspicion," Maher continued. "Yeah, where that did happen, it's wrong, but the worst thing about 9/11 was 3,000 people got roasted at the office. But the prevailing view of so many young people is that 'Well, come on, we're the worst country ever, so if someone attacks us, they can't be all bad.' That certainly wasn't the attitude 25 years ago. In fact, I know a guy whose show got canceled just for saying that terrorists weren't cowards, and that guy was right; they weren't cowards. But I'll tell you who is: Democratic Party politicians. And I'll tell you why, because nowhere has this moral confusion become more obvious than in a place called Gaza."

Maher argued that activists have recast the conflict as genocide at the hands of Israel to serve broader attacks on capitalism, borders, and Western institutions. "And the fact that so many prominent Democrats go along with it is, to me, the party's worst moment since they undid Reconstruction after the Civil War."

The prevailing view of so much of the young left in America is that we’re the worst country ever, so if someone attacks us, they can’t be all bad. pic.twitter.com/u01HsCRnv3

— Bill Maher (@billmaher) September 12, 2026

Maher's monologue traces a straight line from post-9/11 unity against Islamic terrorism to a political culture on the left that now treats the side committing violence as more sympathetic than the side that was attacked. Younger generations have learned to locate the villain in American power rather than in the perpetrators of an attack. Maher describes the slow erosion of the basic instinct to know who the villain is when violence occurs. That instinct used to be reflexive, requiring no debate and no hedging. Its disappearance from mainstream left-wing politics isn't a matter of nuance or sophistication - it's actually a failure of judgment in the name of tolerance.

After it was widely reported this week that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman urgently sought military assistance from President Donald Trump amid the rapid Houthi takeover of Yemen's Red Sea coast from the forces of the internationally recognized Sanaa government, Trump has said the Houthis are in contact with him and have pledged to let ships through the Bab Al-Mandab Strait. 

Trump is currently in Ireland. He said to reporters Saturday while meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheal Martin, "The Houthis called us, and they don't want to fight with us. They don’t want us to go after them." 

He further explained that "they would much prefer not having us involved:" and so "they are letting most ships go through." The president did acknowledged they do have a ban on Saudi vessels, however.

Trump: "The Houthis called us. They don't want to fight with us. They let us know they don't want to fight with us. They don't want us to go after them. They would much prefer not having us involved, and they are letting most ships go through. There's just one country they're not… pic.twitter.com/munm8N0Gys

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 12, 2026

Indeed this is consistent with Ansar Allah's latest statements declaring the Red Sea passage remains open, but closed to Saudi and Israeli-linked shipping.

This seems to confirm prior reporting that said Trump rejected MbS' request for US military intervention in Yemen. To review:

Axios: Trump declined Saudi requests to strike Ansarallah as they advanced Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman called U.S. President Donald Trump twice on Thursday, urging him to launch strikes against Yemen’s Ansarallah as they advanced along the Red Sea coast toward Bab al-Mandab, two U.S. officials told Axios. Trump declined, with Washington saying it has no plans to intervene directly for now.

It seems Washington also doesn't want to see the Iran conflict explode into a runaway regional war which would certainly greatly exacerbate the global energy crisis.

Aaran Kennedy, a maritime security analyst with the global consultancy, Control Risks, has described to Al Jazeera that while "These advances strengthen the Houthis’ already strong position over the Red Sea. They simply make it even easier for the Houthis to target shipping" - the reality remains “It doesn’t necessarily mean that, right now, they’re going to expand their maritime target set."

Kennedy believes a full Bab al-Mandeb closure is unlikely. "Just because the Houthis have gained this territory near the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, it doesn’t mean that they’re going to close it down. That situation remains highly unlikely. But what it does do is it expands their capabilities because it puts their weaponry closer to the Red Sea shipping lanes."

Analysts are calling the Iran-backed Houthi group’s victories the most significant regional development since the start of the US-Israel war on Iran.

The offensives could be particularly damaging for Saudi Arabia and its oil exports.

Here’s what we know https://t.co/nrVeKbd8EJ pic.twitter.com/qsqxbeJ0dh

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) September 11, 2026

But this does also ultimately given Tehran huge leverage, given it can persuade its Houthi allies anytime to take drastic action over the strait. Houthi threats over regional waters was on full display during the height of the Gaza War, which saw the US Navy get involved in the Red Sea, but warships later departed under the guise of handing security over to regional as well as European allies.