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.
YOU: Now, I know out current president likes to ignore a lot of these really inconvenient things when he wants to execute some people,
ME: Give us examples of those executed where our "current president" ignored really inconvenient things.
Then you respond with "the whole thread is about this." Are you just someone who likes to hear yourself talk so you can impress yourself? You made a charge against the "current president." Let's see examples of those he executed when he "ignored really inconvenient things." It was not rhetorical.
This very argument has come to dozens of courts, both liberal and conservative, over the past 15 months or so and none of them have agreed with you. Any guess as to why? Why are you so brilliant and they some dumb?
I suspect the dumb a$$ is you.
You think WWII was our last real war? (Why do you keep putting it in quotes?) That must come as a shock to our Korean and Vietnam veterans. Especially the survivors of the 120 thousand or so who died in those... well... wars.
Seem different to me, but that's just me--most notably, lack of the word war.
I know. You really are hung up on the words "declare" and "war". Those words are key to you, more important than reality, even. If they are not present that it's not "really" a war. I understand all that, but that's your hang-up, not mine.
You will note, I hope, the words "all necessary and appropriate force". Make no mistake, that's a declaration of war, and Congress knew it (and the Taliban knew it). It wasn't like they passed this thing and Bush started sending soldiers to Afghanistan and then Congressmen started saying "hey that's not what we meant" and Taliban started saying "we didn't know that was coming". It was, for all intents and purposes, a declaration of war, and war was what followed. If you still don't believe me ask the hundreds of dead Talibs and other Afghans whether it was a war.
I guess they'll say no, like you do, because words determine reality. In fact I guess they're not really dead; how can they be if it wasn't even really a war in the first place?
Fascinating.
"FEARS"??? Who is "fearing" this? What a joke this paper is. It isn't good enough to wipe your ass with.
I keep hearing you prattling on about Constitutional rights, but never explaining what you mean by them. He's not an American Citizen; not a taxpayer; not a voter. He's a foreign national who's been implicated in causing hundreds of American deaths.
Would you please indicate the article and section of the US Constitution which guarantees his rights?
If not, please stop being part of the problem and begin finding ways to be part of the solution.
Does anyone other old time FReeper see the similarity?
Upon what authority do you base this bizarre claim?
I, for one, am outraged that this poor al Qaeda lamb might possibly be placed in an awkward position for periods of time. No! Not that! The Geneva Convention and the UN Charter and the Constitution clearly prevent forced awkward positions! For anyone on the planet!
I would, however, make an exception for you, on the other hand.
Upon what authority do you base this bizarre claim?
I, for one, am outraged that this poor al Qaeda lamb might possibly be placed in an awkward position for periods of time. No! Not that! The Geneva Convention and the UN Charter and the Constitution clearly prevent forced awkward positions! For anyone on the planet!
I would, however, make an exception for you, on the other hand.
That pretty much covers it doesn't it? Perfectly Constitutional too.
I'll second that.
Another neat trick is to allow 45-minute 'naps', with 15-minute wakeup periods after about 36 hours.
After about three of those 45/15 minute cycles, the hallucinations are right around the corner.
Don't worry - after a few days he'll be begging to sell his soul for "a widdle bit more sweep"
Non-citizens outside the territory of the United States are not entitled to the protections of the Constitution.
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.