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.
Not at all. That is how Congress chose to declare war in that case. It's up to Congress, after all, how they choose to declare war.
If you bothered to read any of FR before flaming, you might find that, except for a small coterie of jackboot lickers that can't seem to find the right fetish sites, Freepers don't like the War on Drugs or any other pseudo-militarization of U.S. law enforcement.
Do you understand there is a reason the CIA is banned from running ops inside the U.S.? One side of our border is different form the other side. Otherwise, why bother with borders?
Sure. Those same rights apply to every US citizen. Which US citizen are you concerned about?
Apart from the ethical issues, the main problem with severe torture is that eventually the subject will say anything that they think will end the suffering.
C'mon, who among us wouldn't quack like a duck if we thought it would satisfy the demands of somebody who's been beating us bloody for hours on end?
I'd say the "torture lite" is perhaps the best avenue, though I must admit I'm squeamish about any sort of torture, even in the name of saving lives.
-Jay
No, of course not, you're right, the Constitution applies to foreign enemies during wartime. My mistake. That's why during all wars, all of our soldiers, in all battles, before firing upon (=applying capital punishment to) an enemy soldier, put them on trial before a jury of that enemy's peers.... yup < /sarcasm >
Wouldn't it follow that since the Bill of Rights specifies which rights can be abridged during times of war, that the ones that are not mentioned can't be altered?
You're right. I'm so stupid. You've convinced me. Damn, so that means our soldiers aren't even allowed to kill enemies w/o trials. I guess this means we lose all wars by default. Our Constitution requires it! ;-)
And also, I'm unclear how the value of the information pertains at all to the discussion.
I see. Thanks for sharing that. Meanwhile, some of us do think it's important, indeed, to try to save the lives of our fellow countrymen from murderous attacks. What can I say, that's just the way we are. To each his own, though....
Please explain how I am ignoring the Constitution. Congress has the power to declare war. They did so in fall 01. Which part confuses you?
I guess you think they are required to use the word "declare" when they declare war? Where is that, in the Constitution?
West Point taught me the definition of war and since you seemed to be asleep on 9-11 ... I'll let you in on a little secret .... the other side is NOT fighting by the recognized international rules of combat and therefore they are they NOT entitled to many provisions protecting them. Having said that .... my brother another West Pointer .... just came back from Bagram and it is clear to me that those terrorists deserve that sleep deprivation (it is amazing what happens after 4 days without sleep). If he is guilty (or does not cut a deal ASAP) I am sure he will be tried and then killed.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Do you think that's a mistake or sloppy composition? I think it was deliberate, myself. Citizens have certain rights that non-citizens don't--but due process is guaranteed to everyone.
You did. Congress authorized the President to do everything he is now doing, militarily and otherwise, on our country's behalf. Congress has the power to do that. They have exercised that power, without formal declaration of war, since the 1790s. And the USSC has upheld this arrangement many times.
Yes, you have been sleeping. The Bill of Rights does not apply to foreign belligerants on foreign soil. Nor do international conventions, such as Geneva, apply to terrorists and other war criminals who are not signatory to those agreements and who do not abide by them.
Educate yourself. I am embarassed for you.
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.