Posted on 03/04/2003 7:29:58 PM PST by Pokey78
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al-Qaida leader captured in Pakistan over the weekend, was yesterday believed to be under interrogation at a US base in Afghanistan.
The White House denied he was being tortured, although there is speculation that a variety of techniques known in the intelligence community as "torture lite" would be used to get information from him.
Mohammed, who is said to to be the number three in al-Qaida, was arrested on Saturday in Pakistan, in a joint operation by the CIA and Pakistani police. He was initially interrogated in Pakistan but has now been moved.
The US does not comment on individual prisoners held in the wake of September 11, but Pakistani officials said they understood that he was now being held in Afghanistan, reportedly at the Bagram base.
The arrest follows last month's capture in Pakistan of Muhammed Abdel Rahman, a son of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in 1995 of conspiring to blow up the UN offices in New York.
Information provided by Mr Rahman led to the latest arrest, according to a report in the New York Times.
There was also speculation that Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was arrested in Pakistan last year, had given information about Mohammed under interrogation. The two had been in hiding together in Karachi.
Qari Abdul Wali, a Taliban military commander in hiding near the Afghan town of Spin Boldak, told Reuters that al-Qaida would remain intact despite the arrest.
"The arrest of a few individuals from within al-Qaida's ranks will have no bearing on the organisation's functioning," Mr Wali said. "Representatives of al-Qaida and the Taliban keep their communications going, but that doesn't mean we are likely to snitch on each other."
Interrogators are likely to seek two key pieces of information from Mohammed: plans for attacks on the US or US interests, and the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said in response to questions about the detention of Mohammed: "The standard for any type of interrogation of somebody in American custody is to be humane and to follow all international laws and accords dealing with this type subject. That is precisely what has been happening and exactly what will happen."
But lawyers for those detained after September 11 believe prisoners held abroad are often subjected to torture.
Randy Hamud, who represents a number of Arabs detained in San Diego, said he believed his clients had been taken to countries where they could be tortured. There have also been reports that police in countries such as Pakistan and Jordan are given prisoners by the US in the knowledge that they will be tortured.
A former member of US navy intelligence said that "torture lite" - sleep deprivation, and placing prisoners in awkward or painful positions for hours at a time - would be used.
The Democratic senator John Rockefeller suggested at the weekend that the US might consider turning over Mohammed to a country that does not ban torture. He told CNN: "I wouldn't take anything off the table where he is concerned, because this is the man who has killed hundreds and hundreds of Americans over the last 10 years."
He had since said that he was not condoning torture.
The secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, said Mohammed would have significant information but would be hard to interrogate.
"We know that these individuals are trained and programmed in the craft of evasion. It will be very, very difficult to extricate information from this guy at this time."
There was also speculation that Mohammed would be questioned about the murder last year of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
Wonder just how Reuters' conversed with him? I expect Al Jazeera to protect the whereabouts of these scum, but not an American media company. On second thought, never mind. Why would I expect anything different whatsoever. (I think Reuters is American—correct me if I'm wrong.)
MM
Which doesn't apply in this case. Khalid isn't an American citizen and this isn't a matter of criminal justice. He's entitled to no Constitutional protections, and while our basic humanity rightly precludes the use of "real" torture, I have no problem with methods like sleep deprivation.
We are at war, idiot. Quite a few wars were won to create this America where people like you can continue to miss the point.
If you insist on being a contrarian, at least be an intelligent one. The constitution does not apply to enemy war combatants nor does it apply to non-citizens halfway around the world plotting to kill all my friends and family. Nevertheless, quote the Geneva convention if you want to make intelligent counter-points.
It can be. As a youngster (early 20’s), I participated in sleep deprivation and oxygen deprivation experiments. (That might explain a few things – Ha.)
I viewed video tapes of myself in both situations and they were quite similar. Your brain ceases to function normally when it lacks sleep or oxygen.
I’ve seen footage of myself sitting cross-legged on the floor and unable to play “patty-cake.”
It’s embarrassing, but after 72 hours without sleep your brain does its own thing. My dad claimed to have been ordered out on 72 hour patrols in Korea – that brought it home to me… he wasn’t in a controlled environment like I was.
After a certain amount of time they can tell you anything, or claim you said anything, and you don’t know any different. Your brain is fried at that point.
That’s also the problem, IMO. I’d like to see them die for what they did and what they know but won’t tell, versus what they are “confused” about. But at the end of the day I won’t miss a wink of sleep either way.
Guess you did. It was in the fall of 2001, after September 11th, when Congress voted a war powers resolution relating to Afghanistan/al Qaeda. I believe there was but one dissension (Barbara Lee of Berkeley's district in California). Amazing you didn't know all of that till now.
Oh, but it's LIKE a war, right?
Not just LIKE a war. An actual war. With killing and stuff. Man, you're really out of it, aren't you?
So is the "war on drugs" like a war enough that we can disregard the Constitutional safeguards against wrongful imprisonment?
No. I'm not even sure why you're bringing up this red herring. What's the "war on drugs" got to do with anything here? You mean cuz the word "war" is contained in the phrase?
Do you know what metaphors are?
The Bill of Rights carefully deals with rights during "times of War."
3rd amendment prohibits quartering of soldiers during wartime except "in a manner to be prescribed by law" whatever that means. 5th amendment seems to take away Grand Jury rights during wartime (or even just during times of "public danger" whatever that means) for members of the Militia. That's about all the Bill of Rights has to say on this subject of "War". Neither of these would seem to prohibit "torture lite" (if that's what is being done...) of a foreign enemy to extract potentially life-saving information. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
I don't see a reason they should be disregarded now.
That's not surprising. You "don't see" lots of things. You don't even see, for example, that there's a difference between a war and a criminal investigation and prosecution. It's all the same animal to you.
By no means complete, but here's a few "definitions" for your hash pipe:
- Gulf of Tonkin
- Haiti
- Kosovo
- 450 Haphazard missiles into Iraq and Sudanese Aspirin factories
- Even more haphazardly directed missiles into empty tents in Afghanistan, after Clinton just missed catching Bin Laden on a Sudanese silver platter
And all beyond reproach by your kind, since they're 'Rat wars.
Sure thing. My definition would be, the active planning and endeavor by the Government of the United States to seek out, neutralize and/or destroy all persons conspiring to do harm to the United States or its citizens, whether those persons comprise the government of a foreign state (e.g., The Taliban, Saddam Hussein), a collective of individuals joined in common purpose against the United States (e.g., Al Qu'aeda), or specific individuals on a singular basis. The term "war" would be most applicable in the sense that the diplomatic niceties of, say, international criminal procedings, hold no bearing and pose no obstacle to the furtherance of the aims of the Government of the United States - if Yemen won't go and seize known Al Qu'aeda operatives, we will bomb said operatives with impunity via unmanned Predator drones equipped with Hellfire missiles.
I hope that's helpful to you.
War is an enemy state attacking and killing thousands of our brothers and sisters on our soil on September 11, 2001. The enemy was the rulers of Afghanistan, the Taliban, and their partners in the war crime, Al Queda. Bush has declared war and has proceeded since that date as if we are in a state of war. This is a good thing, cleary differentiating him from idiots like yourself who must light a candle to see the sun.
BTW, at every single turn and point where the American judicial system or legislative bodies have interacted with the Executive branch during this war, countless courts filled with judges and lawyers much brighter than yourself with regard to constitutional law have upheld virtually every decision and action the Executive branch and military have taken in treating and prosecuting these people as enemy war combatants -- even those handful who are US citizens.
Go get a real argument.
Perhaps it would be fair to say that. However, the United States was not at war with him, since Congress never once said anything to this effect. Unless there was a "we hereby grant Bill Clinton war powers to fight against Tim McVeigh" bill which I missed.
Heck, it would have been a lot cheaper than our criminal prosecution, and it seems to meet the standards of "war" that ya'll seem to keep bringing up.
All except for that part where Congress granted war powers to Bush against Afghanistan, but didn't for Clinton against McVeigh. Yup, except for that little detail there's a big parallel there.
But that doesn't matter, either! because in times of "war," we are entitled to ignore the Constitutional protections.
That is exactly correct. Apparently you believe otherwise. In that case, it must REALLY confuse you that we are allowed to KILL enemy soldiers during wars. I mean, how can we apply capital punishment to those guys without proper trials?
No, you are not. If you are serious, then you are not just an idiot but a stupid one at that.
The OK bomber acted in concert with perhaps one or two other whackos. If there had been evidence of an organization and/or state sponsorship of the terrorist act he likely would have been treated as an enemy combatant.
God, you are so full of it.
War -- A conflict carried on by force of arms between parties. A state or period of armed hostility or active military operations.
===========================
Give us examples of those executed where our "current president" ignored really inconvenient things.
A former member of US navy intelligence said that "torture lite" - sleep deprivation, and placing prisoners in awkward or painful positions for hours at a time - would be used.
Awww.... diddum widdle biddy terrowist mass-murderer of thousands get im's widdle feewings hurt? Does im want a widdle bit more sweep??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.