Breaking News! 9/11 Mastermind confesses

[gumboot]

Wow, you seem a little bit tense here. The ICRC did say there is torture. Simple as that.

Care to cite the ICRC saying there is torture at Guantanamo Bay?

I'm completely relaxed, I assure you.

The only thing the ICRC has disclosed regarding Guantanamo Bay is that they have had concerns regarding the prisoners, and that some of these are as yet unresolved.

This is, of course, unacceptable, and I hope the US Government will sort things out quickly.

However, the ICRC has not at any point publicly stated that the US Government is employing torture at Guantanamo Bay.

Personally, given that Guantanamo Bay is run by the DoD, which now strictly and explicitly forbids any torture of any description, and given that the ICRC has completely access to the site, and considering there is clear evidence the people held there are currently being processed according to International Law, I am not especially worried about it.

What concerns me more is allegations of covert CIA cites. The CIA is not strictly forbidden from employing torture, the ICRC does not have access to these alleged sites, and we (obviously) know next to nothing about them or who is held there.

Were I an American I would be calling for such sites to immediately be closed and all detainees either released or transported to POW camps such as Guantanamo Bay where the process is more transparent.

-Gumboot

 

[busherie]

Care to cite the ICRC saying there is torture at Guantanamo Bay?

I'm completely relaxed, I assure you.

The only thing the ICRC has disclosed regarding Guantanamo Bay is that they have had concerns regarding the prisoners, and that some of these are as yet unresolved.

This is, of course, unacceptable, and I hope the US Government will sort things out quickly.

However, the ICRC has not at any point publicly stated that the US Government is employing torture at Guantanamo Bay.

Personally, given that Guantanamo Bay is run by the DoD, which now strictly and explicitly forbids any torture of any description, and given that the ICRC has completely access to the site, and considering there is clear evidence the people held there are currently being processed according to International Law, I am not especially worried about it.

What concerns me more is allegations of covert CIA cites. The CIA is not strictly forbidden from employing torture, the ICRC does not have access to these alleged sites, and we (obviously) know next to nothing about them or who is held there.

Were I an American I would be calling for such sites to immediately be closed and all detainees either released or transported to POW camps such as Guantanamo Bay where the process is more transparent.

-Gumboot

I agree with you that Guantanamo is more transparent than the CIA sites abroad.

However, here you have it all:
Last November, media reports quoted a leaked ICRC report, from a visit last summer, as saying practices at the camp were "tantamount to torture".
The ICRC, which normally refuses to comment publicly on its work to help victims of conflict, refused to "publicly confirm or deny" the reports.

They denounced it using leaked reports, but they can't say it publicly otherwise they loose their neutrality and their access to the site.

And in the end, what about the motive? Why keeping these guys away from any real judicial system? They aren't a threat to national security, you know that. That can just lead crazy people like me to believe they are tortured, and forced to confess anything that their "interrogators" want.

What about the other guy, david Hicks? Is he lying for propaganda?

Busherie

 

[uk_dave]

ummmmm what purpose does the ICRC serve if, when they find evidence of torture, they have to remain quiet about it?

 

[busherie]

ummmmm what purpose does the ICRC serve if, when they find evidence of torture, they have to remain quiet about it?

http://www.redcross.org/article/0,1072,0_332_3806,00.html

Because their first concern is to take care of the detainees, not make the news headlines. Their strategy is to discuss confidentialy with the detaining authorities, for public reports can be damaging and their access to the site might be forbidden.

Moreover, I found something interesting for my friend gumboot:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1745843.htm

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) will visit the US prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and see 14 detainees recently switched from secret CIA jails.
The ICRC says it would visit Guantanamo next week, but the US General who oversees the prison says visits would not likely happen until October 1.
The 14 include the suspected mastermind of the September 11 suicide plane attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and two other Al Qaeda leaders, Ramzi Binalshibh and Abu Zubaydah.



So it seems that most of the KSM interrogations were made NOT in gitmo but in CIA jails abroad. Since he got to gitmo around september 2006.


Would you then consider plausible that he was tortured there?



Busherie

 

[gumboot]

I agree with you that Guantanamo is more transparent than the CIA sites abroad.

I think any decent human being would.

However, here you have it all:
Last November, media reports quoted a leaked ICRC report, from a visit last summer, as saying practices at the camp were "tantamount to torture".
The ICRC, which normally refuses to comment publicly on its work to help victims of conflict, refused to "publicly confirm or deny" the reports.

As I said, without verification from the ICRC these reports are meaningless.

They denounced it using leaked reports, but they can't say it publicly otherwise they loose their neutrality and their access to the site.

Now I think you're into fantasy land. I believe if the ICRC genuinely believed what was happening at Guantanamo Bay was bad enough as to constitute torture, we would know about it.

The primary reason the ICRC is given ample support by the US Government is because otherwise the ICRC may be disinclined to provide its services to US personnel held around the world.

And in the end, what about the motive? Why keeping these guys away from any real judicial system?

Before they can be processed for any alleged crimes, it is essential to determine what their status is. POWs must be tried by Courts Martial. Illegal Combatants can be tried by civil court. What they can be tried for is also dependent on their status.

If they are POWs which are not intended to be tried for crimes, it is illegal for the US to put them through any sort of judicial system whatsoever. The US is required to repatriate them, but only at such time as they nolonger possess a threat.

German POWs from WW2 were only repatriated after they had been "de-Nazified". Many of them remained POWs for decades. As such one would expect any POWs in Guantanamo Bay who are not being charged will only be released at such time as they abandon their adherence to Radical Islamic Ideology. I can't see that happening any time soon.

They aren't a threat to national security, you know that.

I disagree. The war in Afghanistan is ongoing. Al Qaeda is still operative. Thus, regardless of whether they are Taliban POWs or Al Qaeda "illegal combatants", they pose a threat to US forces if released. (Al Qaeda fighter will not be released in any regard as they are in violation of international law that prohibits engagement in terrorism or relations with designated terrorist organisations).

That can just lead crazy people like me to believe they are tortured, and forced to confess anything that their "interrogators" want

What random citizens of various countries think about Guantanamo Bay should be of no relevance. All that is relevant is International Law, the opinions of the ICRC, and US Security concerns.

What about the other guy, david Hicks? Is he lying for propaganda?

We shall find out soon enough. His trial is expected to commence in the near future.

I am always cautious when detainees (former or current) claim torture. The Al Qaeda training manual (which I have a copy of) has quite detailed guidelines on the sort of treatment they should claim they are receiving if they are captured.

I have no doubt that unacceptable prisoner abuse has occured, and this is of very serious concern - specifically some members of the US Military Police clearly have very very poor training. I would say that prisoner abuse in the early stages of the Iraq conflict (let's say 2002 and 2003, in Iraq and Afghanistan) was not isolated, but widespread. I would also allow that the situation has been improved since then - the number of convictions and recently passed laws suggest the government is willing to address these issues.

However allegations of systematic torture are an entirely different kettle of fish. This would be a very serious allegation. Given that the claims made closely match the guidelines of Al Qaeda manuals, I would require very compelling evidence before accepting that systematic torture was occuring in US military POW camps.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Moreover, I found something interesting for my friend gumboot:

So it seems that most of the KSM interrogations were made NOT in gitmo but in CIA jails abroad. Since he got to gitmo around september 2006.

Would you then consider plausible that he was tortured there?

Busherie

If you look back through this thread you will see that I have numerous times pointed out these very facts. KSM himself, in his review, claims his mistreatment occured while in CIA custody, not while at Guantanamo Bay.

As I have said, I find it plausible, and even likely that people in CIA custody (including KSM) were tortured. I have also stated, numerous times, that I consider this unacceptable and illegal.

-Gumboot

 

[busherie]

Before they can be processed for any alleged crimes, it is essential to determine what their status is. POWs must be tried by Courts Martial. Illegal Combatants can be tried by civil court. What they can be tried for is also dependent on their status.

I disagree. The war in Afghanistan is ongoing. Al Qaeda is still operative. Thus, regardless of whether they are Taliban POWs or Al Qaeda "illegal combatants", they pose a threat to US forces if released. (Al Qaeda fighter will not be released in any regard as they are in violation of international law that prohibits engagement in terrorism or relations with designated terrorist organisations).

You should not release them, they'd go back to the battlefied right away. i think they are not too happy with their de alqaidasation process...

So the simple thing would: consider they are murderers, given them a real status, give them a lawyer and put them on trial.

5 years to find that out, wow, that's very long.

PS: what about the article i postes saying KSM was under CIA since his arrest in 2003 until september 2006?

B

 

[gumboot]

You should not release them, they'd go back to the battlefied right away. i think they are not too happy with their de alqaidasation process...

So the simple thing would: consider they are murderers, given them a real status, give them a lawyer and put them on trial.

5 years to find that out, wow, that's very long.

It's not that simple.

If they're a POW who committed warcrimes, they have to be tried by military tribunal, not civil court. (Just like post WW2).

The reason it has taken so long is because the US Government (for whatever reason) decided to circumvent the law by throwing about the term "enemy combatant". This is truely odd, considering an "enemy combatant" merely designates anyone who is fighting against your forces. An enemy combatant that is captured can be either a prisoner of war or an illegal combatant. In either even, the process for dealing with both prisoners of war and illegal combatants is clearly laid out in the Laws of International Armed Conflict.

Despite the delay, the main thing is they are now following correct proceedure, and classifying the detainees for further processing. The Supreme Court has, I believe, determined that all Al Qaeda members are illegal combatants (i.e they're simply criminals) and all Taliban fighters are POWs (who may or may not have committed warcrimes).

It's worth pointing out that as many as half of all detainees who have been held at Guantanamo Bay have been released, thus far.

-Gumboot

 

[busherie]

I agree with you. Not that simple, but not that complicated either. And you don't need to create a new non-international law status "enemy combatant".

What about KSM spending 3 years in CIA jails and 6 months at gitmo? (see above!)

B.

 

[gumboot]

If you look back through this thread you will see that I have numerous times pointed out these very facts. KSM himself, in his review, claims his mistreatment occured while in CIA custody, not while at Guantanamo Bay.

As I have said, I find it plausible, and even likely that people in CIA custody (including KSM) were tortured. I have also stated, numerous times, that I consider this unacceptable and illegal.

-Gumboot

What about KSM spending 3 years in CIA jails and 6 months at gitmo? (see above!)

See above...

-Gumboot

 

[sleahead]

A thought occurs to me, Busherie. Suppose an ex-Guantanamo detainee subsequently takes part in a major terrorist attack. His release would constitute big time LIHOP, would it not?

 

[busherie]

See above...

-Gumboot

Fair enough...

 

[busherie]

Just another possibility

Gumboot, what do you think about the fact the US had already used a "testimony" of a Al Qaida jailed member for propaganda purposes:

"Until last week, the most successful from-jail operation was run by captured senior al-Qaeda leader Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, who described non-existent WMD (weapons of mass destruction) cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a claim Washington used to support its case for war with Iraq. Libi later recanted his claims, and he may still be smiling at the effects of his statement."

Also:

September 2002 The CIA completes a highly classified report on “Iraqi Ties to Terrorism,” summarizing claims that Iraq has provided “training in poisons and gases” to members of al-Qaeda. The report warns that evidence for the claim comes from “sources of varying reliability” and has not yet been substanitated. The main source behind this allegation, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who once operated bin Laden’s Khalden training camp in Afghanistan and who is being held in custody by the CIA, will later recant the claim (see February 14, 2004). [New York Times, 7/31/2004; Newsweek, 7/5/2005]

_________________

Yeah, of course. When Libi served the purpose of war, he was telling the truth. Now that the WMD thing was blown up, the new official theory was that he had lied on purpose to engage in a war that was turning into a disaster.

 

[busherie]

Any thoughts on this, gumboot?

B

 

[gumboot]

Any thoughts on this, gumboot?

B

Not much.

Either explanation seems highly plausible. Neither explanation has much evidence behind it.

-Gumboot

 

[busherie]

Not much.

Either explanation seems highly plausible. Neither explanation has much evidence behind it.

-Gumboot

Yeah, I agree. It was meant so show either ways are plausible. The problem is we can only assume things, not demonstrate them. We're left in the dark, with our opinions.

 

[gumboot]

Yeah, I agree. It was meant so show either ways are plausible. The problem is we can only assume things, not demonstrate them. We're left in the dark, with our opinions.

Thus is the nature of representative democracy. We must trust our governments to do right by our nation.

It is neither practical, nor safe for all citizens to know everything about what is happening regarding their country, and I suspect most people prefer not having to process all that information, as it would leave no time to do anything else with our day!

I, for one, am quite happy to extend conditional trust to my government. Thus far they have done nothing to indicate my trust is misplaced (not that I agree with all of their policies, not at all).

-Gumboot

 

[busherie]

Thus is the nature of representative democracy. We must trust our governments to do right by our nation.

It is neither practical, nor safe for all citizens to know everything about what is happening regarding their country, and I suspect most people prefer not having to process all that information, as it would leave no time to do anything else with our day!

I, for one, am quite happy to extend conditional trust to my government. Thus far they have done nothing to indicate my trust is misplaced (not that I agree with all of their policies, not at all).

-Gumboot

Have you seen "the power of nightmares" 3X59 minutes documentary by Adam Curtis for the BBC?

I'd love to discuss it with you.

B

 

[gumboot]

Have you seen "the power of nightmares" 3X59 minutes documentary by Adam Curtis for the BBC?

I'd love to discuss it with you.

B

Bear in mind I'm not an American. I live in a very small peaceful country far removed from the rest of the world.

I haven't seen that documentary, however I get the general gist of it.

I disagree with its premise. I believe Radical Islam is very real, and a serious threat to western civilisation. I believe in the next century there will be a major civilisation-ending conflict between the west and either Islam or China (dependant on whether Radical Islam continues to spread or whether China is westernised before it reaches Super Power status).

History tells us that civilisations are only crushed from without after they have collapsed from within. It can take centuries. They don't fail overnight.

I believe Western Civilisation in in grave danger of such an internal collapse, and I think the danger is far greater than we realise or would like to consider.

Our actions or inactions now will have a significant influence on whether we survive any upcoming clash of civilisations or not.

I also believe it is normal for citizens of a powerful civilisation to think that their civilisation cannot possibly fail, tending to rubbish anyone that might suggest it as either being silly or a fear-mongerer.

I disagree. If history is to be believed (and I can't see how the last few centuries have made us any different than the humans of the 10,000 years previous) all civilisations ultimately face ruin.

Having said that, Radical Islam is certainly useful to people with their own agenda such as the current US Administration. I once tohught maybe they too saw the threat, but their actions in Afghanistan and Iraq made me reassess this. I believe they are exploiting fear of Radical Islam for their own goals, however I don't think they realise the actual threat that Radical Islam potentially poses.

In contrast, everything I have seen of Tony Blair indicates to me he is aware of the threat.

After the 7/7 Bombings he said something that I think is considerably profound. I cannot quote precisely, but the gist was "9/11 woke the world up. The problem is, we all just went back to sleep."

-Gumboot

 

[Gravy]

This is true, but Deep Throat caused some major **** to go down. Keep that in mind.

I do think about that, quite a bit.

First, it was the conspirators being caught in the act that caused some major rule 8 to go down.

Then, it was members of the mainstream media who recognized the story's larger significance.

Then, a patriotic and disgruntled member of the Executive Branch, who had access to information about the crime, aided the investigation.

Then, when the story bogged down, it was the mainstream media that took some big chances and pushed it, perhaps because of their adversarial relationship with the President, who hated the press.

Then, a Senate committee was convened, witnesses were subpoenaed, several testified about incriminating evidence, tapes were subpoenaed, and a clumsy cover-up was attempted by the White House, which included firing prosecutors.

Then, indictments were handed down, lots of people pleaded guilty, and the House recommended impeachment proceedings against the President.

Then, when the President realized he didn't have enough support in Congress to survive impeachment, he resigned.

Then, lots of trials happened, and most of those who pleaded innocent were found guilty and went to jail.

A Democrat won the next election.

Isn't all of that interesting?


ETA: I'm still waiting for you to name any correct, significant 9/11 revelation from your men Hopsicker, Tarpley, Rense, Jones, et al.