Innocent GITMO Detainees (Political)

R. Richard

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 24, 2003
Posts
10,382
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was held in secret CIA prisons and is now in Guantanamo Bay. He has now confessed [bragged?] to several plots against US interests. Of course, some of the confessions may have been tortured out of him. Right, US military personnel want to convict one guy of lots of crimes so that the real criminals go free! [How do I know? The Easter bunny told me.] I can guarantee you that everything that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said was cross checked against know facts. If things did not check out, he would not have been believed, so that the pursuit of the real criminals could continue. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been held for four years. It would appear that the US has gotten a lot of information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed over those four years. IMNTHO if one American life was saved by the detention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then what was done was right and proper. Comment?

9/11 mastermind admits killing reporter

WASHINGTON - Suspected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl and was central to 30 other attacks and plots in the U.S. and worldwide that killed thousands of victims, said a revised transcript released Thursday by the U.S. military.

"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan," Mohammed is quoted as saying in a transcript of a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, released by the Pentagon.

"For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head," he added.

Mohammed's claimed involvement in the 2002 slaying of the Wall Street Journal reporter was among 31 attacks and plots — some of which never occurred — he took responsibility for in a hearing Saturday at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Pentagon said.

It released the bulk of the transcript late Wednesday, but held back the section about Pearl's killing to allow time for his family to be notified, said Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that it had learned that the transcripts released Wednesday evening had blacked out the reference to Mohammed's confession about the Pearl slaying. Pearl was abducted in January 2002 in Pakistan while researching a story on Islamic militancy. Mohammed has long been a suspect in the slaying, which was captured on video.

Sealing a legacy of historical notoriety, Mohammed portrayed himself as al-Qaida's most ambitious operational planner in a confession to a U.S. military tribunal that said he planned and supported a series of terrorist attacks, topped by 9/11. The gruesome attacks range from the suicide hijackings of Sept. 11, 2001 — which killed nearly 3,000 — to a 2002 shooting on an island off Kuwait that killed a U.S. Marine, according to an account released by the Pentagon.

Many plots, including a previously undisclosed plan to kill several former U.S. presidents, were never carried out or were foiled by international counterterror authorities.

"I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z," Mohammed said in a statement read Saturday during a Combatant Status Review Tribunal at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mohammed's confession was read by a member of the U.S. military who is serving as his personal representative.

The Pentagon had released a 26-page transcript of the closed-door proceedings on Wednesday night. Some material was omitted, and it wasn't possible to immediately verify details. The document refers to locations for which the United States and other nations have issued terrorism warnings based on what they deemed credible threats from 1993 to the present.

Mohammed, known as KSM among government officials, was last seen haggard after his capture in March 2003, when he was photographed in a dingy white T-shirt with an over-stretched neck. He disappeared for more than three years into a secret detention system run by the CIA.

In his first public statements since his capture, his radical ideology and self-confidence came through. He expressed regret for taking the lives of children and said Islam doesn't give a "green light" to killing.

Yet he finds room for exceptions. "The language of the war is victims," he said.

He also said some people "consider George Washington as hero. Muslims many of them are considering Osama bin Laden. He is doing same thing. He is just fighting. He needs his independence."

In laying out his role in 31 attacks, his words drew al-Qaida closer to plots of the early 1990s than the group has previously been linked, including the 1993 World Trade Center truck bombing in which six people died.

Six people with links to global terror networks were convicted in federal court and sentenced to life in prison for that attack.

Mohammed made clear that al-Qaida wanted to down a second trans-Atlantic aircraft during would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid's operation.

President Bush announced that Mohammed and 13 other alleged terror operatives had been moved from secret CIA prisons to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay last year. They are considered the 14 most significant captures since 9/11.

The military began the hearings last Friday to determine whether the 14 should be declared "enemy combatants" who can be held indefinitely and prosecuted by military tribunals.

If the 14 are declared enemy combatants, as expected, the military would then draft and file charges against them. The detainees would be tried under the new military commissions law signed by Bush in October.

The military barred reporters or other independent observers from the sessions for the 14 operatives and is limiting the information it provides about them, arguing that it wants to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.

Legal experts have criticized the U.S. decision, and The Associated Press filed a letter of protest, arguing that it would be "an unconstitutional mistake to close the proceedings in their entirety."

The transcripts refer to a claim by Mohammed that he was tortured by the CIA, although he said he was not under duress at Guantanamo when he confessed to his role in the attacks. The CIA has said its interrogation practices are legal, and it does not use torture.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, questioned the legality of the closed-door sessions and whether the confession was actually the result of torture.

"We won't know that unless there is an independent hearing," he said. "We need to know if this purported confession would be enough to convict him at a fair trial or would it have to be suppressed as the fruit of torture?"

In listing the 28 attacks he planned and another three he supported, Mohammed said he tried to kill international leaders including Pope John Paul II, President Clinton and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

He said he planned the 2002 bombing of a Kenya beach resort frequented by Israelis and the failed missile attack on an Israeli passenger jet after it took off from Mombasa, Kenya.

He also said he was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia. In 2002, 202 were killed when two nightclubs there were bombed.

Other plots he said he was responsible for included planned attacks against the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building and New York Stock Exchange in New York City, the Panama Canal, and Big Ben and Heathrow Airport in London — none of which happened.

The Pentagon also released transcripts of the hearings of Abu Faraj al-Libi and Ramzi Binalshibh. Both refused to attended the hearings, although al-Libi submitted a statement claiming that the hearings are unfair and that he will not attend unless it is corrected.

"The detainee is in a lose-lose situation," he said.

Al-Libi, whose name means he is a Libyan, reportedly masterminded two bombings 11 days apart in Pakistan in December 2003 that targeted Musharraf for his support of the U.S.-led war on terror.

Binalshibh, a Yemeni, is suspected of helping Mohammed with the 9/11 attack plan on New York City and Washington and is also linked to a foiled plot to crash aircraft into London's Heathrow Airport. His hearing was conducted in his absence.
 
R. Richard said:
IMNTHO if one American life was saved by the detention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then what was done was right and proper. Comment?
Your argument is what is called a "false delemma." It presumes that KSM, there, could NOT have been detained, questioned, etc., and the information NOT gotten from him WITHOUT also detaining, torturing and abusing dozens of other prisoners, many of whom were detained, imprisoned and tortured without good cause.

That's a false delemma. It also works on a false premis: that if ONE man is imprisoned and tortured with good cause, ALL prisoners in the same place were detained and tortured with good cause. Sorry. Don't buy it.

Just one question--please re-read what he confessed to. Nice lot of confessions. Which one of them refers to future plots which can now be stopped thanks to our getting him to confess to all of these? Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything in that report where he indicates where Osama currently is, how we can stop terrorism or end the insurgency in Iraq, or prevent future terrorism.

Which kinda undermines your other arguement: detaining him saved lives yes, as HE can't plot any more distruction. But his confessions don't seem to be of much use in saving lives in the here and now...granted, of course, that not everything he said was likely reported, but if YOU are going to argue that, where's the evidence of it?

You seem to be saying that it's justified to imprison and torture however many potentially innocent people we can get our hands on so that we can...what? Get a confession out of a guy who was alway a self-confessed terrorist? So that we can make said terrorist tell us about plots that are really no surprise and have nothing to do with future plots? Is anything he said of that much use?

I'm mystified by your logic.
 
IMNTHO if one American life was saved by the [torture and]detention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then what was done was right and proper. Comment?

i'm not sure any lives were saved [over and above those that would have been saved if KSH was put in federal prison with limited communication and visitors, as with Sheik Abdul O. Rahman, of the first World Trade Centre bombing]. do you have any evidence?

but, FTSOA, suppose yes.

what the question ignores is the other people. SUPPOSING things worked out well, with KSH, but dozens of others, more or less innocent were tortured or imprisoned unjustly *TO NO AVAIL*.

one would then have to question the torture/detention policy, wouldn't one? (since innocents were tortured, among other things).

your question is a bit like saying. "On March 1, 1920, a lynch mob in Charleston SC cornered a GUILTY, Black serial rapist and in castrating and hanging him prevented harm to dozens of women.
So who's to criticize lynch mobs? Who's to say that what they did wasn't right and proper?"
 
Last edited:
3113 said:
Your argument is what is called a "false delemma." It presumes that KSM, there, could NOT have been detained, questioned, etc., and the information NOT gotten from him WITHOUT also detaining, torturing and abusing dozens of other prisoners, many of whom were detained, imprisoned and tortured without good cause.

That's a false delemma. It also works on a false premis: that if ONE man is imprisoned and tortured with good cause, ALL prisoners in the same place were detained and tortured with good cause. Sorry. Don't buy it.
Of course! All the US needs to do is to identify terrorists who have sensitive information and only detain those terrorists. And, of course many of the non-terrorists were tortured and/or abused.

Now, if you would just give me the algorithm for determining exactly who is a terrorist and where we might find just the terrorist, I will forward this priceless information to the relevant authorities.

3113 said:
Just one question--please re-read what he confessed to. Nice lot of confessions. Which one of them refers to future plots which can now be stopped thanks to our getting him to confess to all of these? Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything in that report where he indicates where Osama currently is, how we can stop terrorism or end the insurgency in Iraq, or prevent future terrorism.
He confessed to several plots that were foiled. Now, I don't know for sure that his confessions actually enabled the US authorities to stop a specific terrorist plot, but that is not how it works. You mine the terrorist for information and hope to catcvh other terrorists who can also be mined for information.

3113 said:
Which kinda undermines your other arguement: detaining him saved lives yes, as HE can't plot any more distruction. But his confessions don't seem to be of much use in saving lives in the here and now...granted, of course, that not everything he said was likely reported, but if YOU are going to argue that, where's the evidence of it?
As you point out, he can't cost any more US lives while he is in custody. As I pointed out, he can be mined for information on other terrorists. No, I don't have a list of the other terrorists and, if I did, I wouldn't give it to you.

3113 said:
You seem to be saying that it's justified to imprison and torture however many potentially innocent people we can get our hands on so that we can...what? Get a confession out of a guy who was alway a self-confessed terrorist? So that we can make said terrorist tell us about plots that are really no surprise and have nothing to do with future plots? Is anything he said of that much use?
When you use a net to fish, you sometimes get fish you really didn't intend to catch. However, you do get fish who were in the area where you expected to find the fish you wanted. Why were the innocent little lambs in the area where the US was looking for terrorists? [When they raid a whorehouse, they take all of the girkls away, including the several who were only seamstresses. There are always a lot of seamstresses who work in a whore house.] I am unaware of any torture of any GITNO detainees by people at GITMO. There are certainly a lot of charges of torture, but most of the charges are of being forced to be in a room with a woman or being subjected to rock 'n' roll music. If that is torture, I need to do a bunch of research before I answer. Kindly get me some hot-lookin, aggressive babes and some music by the King, the Dell Vikings, The Coasters and let me get it on!
 
This just in!

[Washington] (AP) Terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to the double murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. In addition to that confession, which clears O.J. Simpson of suspicion and absolves the jury that found him 'not guilty' of the homicides, Mohammed has claimed that he planned and executed the slayings of Jon Benet Ramsey, Natalie Holloway, and Gary Condit's ex-Congressional Aide, whatever her name was.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales commented on the case; "The solving of all of these high-profile crimes should give all Americans confidence that the President's policies of enhanced interrogation methods are an essential tool for law-enforcement in the post-9/11 world."
 
Very funny Huckleman.

We are fighting a very real war against terrorists. They don't obey any of the laws of war and routinely target civilians. They wil use any means to kill what they regard as enemies, even if said killing means that the terrorist dies as well.

When the US confines a terrorist, they can and do get a lot of information out of said terrorist. Of course, the terrorist claims he/she/it was tortured. Of course, the terrorists don't use torture, well only agaist unbelievers.

When the US captures a terrorist, we lock it up in a prison. When the terrorists capture a person, either a soldier or a civilian they usually kill the person, frequently torture the person and then show videos of the process.

Still, you believe that we mistreat terrorists.

I don't get it.
 
R. Richard said:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was held in secret CIA prisons and is now in Guantanamo Bay. He has now confessed [bragged?] to several plots against US interests. Of course, some of the confessions may have been tortured out of him. Right, US military personnel want to convict one guy of lots of crimes so that the real criminals go free! [How do I know? The Easter bunny told me.] I can guarantee you that everything that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said was cross checked against know facts. If things did not check out, he would not have been believed, so that the pursuit of the real criminals could continue. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been held for four years. It would appear that the US has gotten a lot of information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed over those four years. IMNTHO if one American life was saved by the detention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then what was done was right and proper. Comment?

First - How can you guarantee anything? You can't, so strike that statement.

Secondly - We are governed by rules of law. The law grants you rights when you are arrested, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You are guaranteed due process. You are gauranteed legal representation. You are allowed to know what the evidence is against you. You are promised the right of a speedy trial.

Most of this has be denied the occupants of Guantanamo...most of them have been there for five years and have not even been charged with a crime.

There is a chance that someone in your neighborhood may commit or may have committed a crime. What if we arrest everyone in your neighborhood, you included, and keep you detained indefinitely. We will prevent one crime from being committed. Is it worth it?
 
Jubal_Harshaw said:
He did say he was sorry for killing kids, that makes him alright. Doesn't it?

Yeah, if you believe him I guess. However, I don't believe him.

He also didn't address the kidnapping of civilians, often aid workers, and the killing of them.
 
hey, rr, you're ignoring my reply above!

in any case, why not just consider the fellow to be like Paulus, or any other German general in charge of taking Stalingrad; like whichever General was directing the V II bombings of London, or heavy bombings at Coventry. KSH worked for his cause, and did what had to be done; sorry about the "collateral damage."

i think the US *gained* after WWII, in putting Nazi leaders on trial *without torturing them.* Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rummy/Gonzales are aping the French methods used in Algeria, with predictable results
(failure and embarrassment, despite nailing a few leaders).
 
Last edited:
3113 said:
Just one question--please re-read what he confessed to. Nice lot of confessions. Which one of them refers to future plots which can now be stopped thanks to our getting him to confess to all of these? Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything in that report where he indicates where Osama currently is, how we can stop terrorism or end the insurgency in Iraq, or prevent future terrorism.

Which kinda undermines your other arguement: detaining him saved lives yes, as HE can't plot any more distruction. But his confessions don't seem to be of much use in saving lives in the here and now...granted, of course, that not everything he said was likely reported, but if YOU are going to argue that, where's the evidence of it?

You seem to be saying that it's justified to imprison and torture however many potentially innocent people we can get our hands on so that we can...what? Get a confession out of a guy who was alway a self-confessed terrorist? So that we can make said terrorist tell us about plots that are really no surprise and have nothing to do with future plots? Is anything he said of that much use?

I'm mystified by your logic.

This guy was captured a long time ago, and has been "out of the loop" so to speak, for that time. He would have no idea where Bin Laden is. He might know where he was years ago, but not now. He wouldn't know anything about current plots either, but he might be able to name somebody who does. Not all the info that he gave up would be released, because some of it might be used to apprehend some terrorists who are not in custody.

Some persons might say KSM's constitutional rights are being violated. HE HAS NO SUCH RIGHTS. Only people in the US and others, such as members of the US military have them. Tha laws of a nation, generally speaking, are only valid inside the borders of that nation. If I were to deny the Holocaust (Which I don't) I would not be subject to arrest by the German authoritiesd, even though such a denial is illegal there. We in the US violate the Sharia laws all the time. If I were writing dirty stories in some countries, I would be doing life without parole. If members of the CIA go to some foreign country and torture somebody, it is up to the authorities of that country to take action, not the US.

Please don't mention the Geneva Convention. Terrorists are not even close to be covered by it. Even if, by some twisted logic, they might have been covered by the GC, that coverage would have long ago been abrogated by their own actions.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
This guy was captured a long time ago, and has been "out of the loop" so to speak, for that time. He would have no idea where Bin Laden is. He might know where he was years ago, but not now. He wouldn't know anything about current plots either, but he might be able to name somebody who does. Not all the info that he gave up would be released, because some of it might be used to apprehend some terrorists who are not in custody.

First, I make no mention of this guy's rights. That's not my argument. Second, that he's been out of the loop for a long time is important in this. The guy was bad. He was caught. He would have killed again. So...what we're sayiing is, a serial killer has been captured and we're safe from him. I'll happy pat the Military on the head for getting this guy long ago and learning how many ways that they made society safe by doing so...but HOW does it alter the fact that there are people not charged, and likely not terrorists who are wasting away in that jail?

R.R. offers this guy as an excuse and a justification for all the sins being committed in that jail and by our government, and I'm sorry, but it's not enough. This is similar, as pointed out, to knowing that there's a criminal in the neighborhood and arresting everyone in the neighborhood...and then you find the guy, he tells you everything...but you STILL keep the whole neighborhood behind bars.

WHY? And WHY couldn't you just pick up this guy? Why did the whole neighborhood have to be arrested? Just to be on the safe side? Okay, fine...but once again...you got him and knew you got him years ago...why didn't the neighborhood get released back when?

If you're going to excuse the way we're treating these prisioners, you're going to have to do better than that.

As for Geneva Convention and terrorists...fine, we won't cover terrorists. When we send you to war, and you get captured by the enemy...can they say "You're not a soldier, you're a terrorist!" and thus, torture you to their hearts' content without worrying about your country being able to object? If labeling someone a terrorist is all it takes to toss such rules out the window, then I'm sure everyone and their mother is going to be doing it--labeling folk terrorists in order to excuse their use of torture.

You don't even need solid evidence that they're a terrorist to give them that label and have at it...so says the U.S.A.

It's all well and good for us to say we get to torture this self-confessed terrorist...but there are a lot of people imprisoned who are being accused of nothing. If they're not proven terrorists, if they're not even being labeled terrorists...then why aren't they allowed to have any rights at all, even those under the Geneva Convention?
 
Last edited:
This 'announcement' is just more BushCo bullshit trying to rally the 23%ers around the torture twins, Cheney and Gonzales.

Anyone who believes anything that comes out of this administration at this point is willfully ignorant. ESPECIALLY regarding the so-called War On Terror. This grasping at straws would be pathetic if it weren't still so damaging to our troops, our law enforcement professionals, our intelligence community, our diplomatic corps, and our national security.

Anyone who still supports BushCo either gets all their news from Pox and Rush Limbaugh, or they're making a buck somehow off this administration's policies. Or maybe they're just fools.
 
3113 said:
First, I make no mention of this guy's rights. That's not my argument. Second, that he's been out of the loop for a long time is important in this. The guy was bad. He was caught. He would have killed again. So...what we're sayiing is, a serial killer has been captured and we're safe from him. I'll happy pat the Military on the head for getting this guy long ago and learning how many ways that they made society safe by doing so...but HOW does it alter the fact that there are people not charged, and likely not terrorists who are wasting away in that jail?

R.R. offers this guy as an excuse and a justification for all the sins being committed in that jail and by our government, and I'm sorry, but it's not enough. This is similar, as pointed out, to knowing that there's a criminal in the neighborhood and arresting everyone in the neighborhood...and then you find the guy, he tells you everything...but you STILL keep the whole neighborhood behind bars.

WHY? And WHY couldn't you just pick up this guy? Why did the whole neighborhood have to be arrested? Just to be on the safe side? Okay, fine...but once again...you got him and knew you got him years ago...why didn't the neighborhood get released back when?

If you're going to excuse the way we're treating these prisioners, you're going to have to do better than that.

As for Geneva Convention and terrorists...fine, we won't cover terrorists. When we send you to war, and you get captured by the enemy...can they say "You're not a soldier, you're a terrorist!" and thus, torture you to their hearts' content without worrying about your country being able to object? If labeling someone a terrorist is all it takes to toss such rules out the window, then I'm sure everyone and their mother is going to be doing it--labeling folk terrorists in order to excuse their use of torture.

You don't even need solid evidence that they're a terrorist to give them that label and have at it...so says the U.S.A.

It's all well and good for us to say we get to torture this self-confessed terrorist...but there are a lot of people imprisoned who are being accused of nothing. If they're not proven terrorists, if they're not even being labeled terrorists...then why aren't they allowed to have any rights at all, even those under the Geneva Convention?

You may not have mentioned this guy's rights, but others on this thread and similar ones have and will. This is an extremely bad guy, and he would have killed and tortured again and again, so catching him was a good thing.

This is nothing at all like arresting everybody in the neighborhood. First, the people being arrested or detained are from all over the world, although mainly the Muslim world, not from one small area. The captives are not taken without evidence of their guilt, and once it is shown, to the satisfaction of the CIA or whoever is running the show, that a captive is not a terrorist, that person is quietly released. This is done without fanfare, so we don't hear much about it.

As for what terrorists do with the people they capture, American and otherwise, they torture and kill them. They have done this all along, and it has nothing to do with the prisoners at Gitmo. It's just what they consider to be "The will of Allah". They will do this whether the home country of the victim objects or not, as we have seen many times.

The Geneva Convention is not involved here at all. The GC is an agreement among nations on the conduct of warfare and the treatment of POW's. Only those nations who are signatories are covered by it. KSM and his ilk are no more than criminals, and not even close to being covered by the GC.

The US does not label anybody a terrorist; they label themselves by their actions. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, but he was a US citizen, and covered by the Constitution. However, he was not covered by the GC, any more than any other American criminal would have been.
 
R. Richard said:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was held in secret CIA prisons and is now in Guantanamo Bay. He has now confessed [bragged?] to several plots against US interests. Of course, some of the confessions may have been tortured out of him. Right, US military personnel want to convict one guy of lots of crimes so that the real criminals go free! [How do I know? The Easter bunny told me.] I can guarantee you that everything that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said was cross checked against know facts. If things did not check out, he would not have been believed, so that the pursuit of the real criminals could continue. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been held for four years. It would appear that the US has gotten a lot of information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed over those four years. IMNTHO if one American life was saved by the detention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then what was done was right and proper. Comment?

9/11 mastermind admits killing reporter

WASHINGTON - Suspected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to the beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl and was central to 30 other attacks and plots in the U.S. and worldwide that killed thousands of victims, said a revised transcript released Thursday by the U.S. military.

"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan," Mohammed is quoted as saying in a transcript of a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, released by the Pentagon.

"For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head," he added.

Mohammed's claimed involvement in the 2002 slaying of the Wall Street Journal reporter was among 31 attacks and plots — some of which never occurred — he took responsibility for in a hearing Saturday at the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Pentagon said.

It released the bulk of the transcript late Wednesday, but held back the section about Pearl's killing to allow time for his family to be notified, said Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that it had learned that the transcripts released Wednesday evening had blacked out the reference to Mohammed's confession about the Pearl slaying. Pearl was abducted in January 2002 in Pakistan while researching a story on Islamic militancy. Mohammed has long been a suspect in the slaying, which was captured on video.

Sealing a legacy of historical notoriety, Mohammed portrayed himself as al-Qaida's most ambitious operational planner in a confession to a U.S. military tribunal that said he planned and supported a series of terrorist attacks, topped by 9/11. The gruesome attacks range from the suicide hijackings of Sept. 11, 2001 — which killed nearly 3,000 — to a 2002 shooting on an island off Kuwait that killed a U.S. Marine, according to an account released by the Pentagon.

Many plots, including a previously undisclosed plan to kill several former U.S. presidents, were never carried out or were foiled by international counterterror authorities.

"I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z," Mohammed said in a statement read Saturday during a Combatant Status Review Tribunal at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mohammed's confession was read by a member of the U.S. military who is serving as his personal representative.

The Pentagon had released a 26-page transcript of the closed-door proceedings on Wednesday night. Some material was omitted, and it wasn't possible to immediately verify details. The document refers to locations for which the United States and other nations have issued terrorism warnings based on what they deemed credible threats from 1993 to the present.

Mohammed, known as KSM among government officials, was last seen haggard after his capture in March 2003, when he was photographed in a dingy white T-shirt with an over-stretched neck. He disappeared for more than three years into a secret detention system run by the CIA.

In his first public statements since his capture, his radical ideology and self-confidence came through. He expressed regret for taking the lives of children and said Islam doesn't give a "green light" to killing.

Yet he finds room for exceptions. "The language of the war is victims," he said.

He also said some people "consider George Washington as hero. Muslims many of them are considering Osama bin Laden. He is doing same thing. He is just fighting. He needs his independence."

In laying out his role in 31 attacks, his words drew al-Qaida closer to plots of the early 1990s than the group has previously been linked, including the 1993 World Trade Center truck bombing in which six people died.

Six people with links to global terror networks were convicted in federal court and sentenced to life in prison for that attack.

Mohammed made clear that al-Qaida wanted to down a second trans-Atlantic aircraft during would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid's operation.

President Bush announced that Mohammed and 13 other alleged terror operatives had been moved from secret CIA prisons to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay last year. They are considered the 14 most significant captures since 9/11.

The military began the hearings last Friday to determine whether the 14 should be declared "enemy combatants" who can be held indefinitely and prosecuted by military tribunals.

If the 14 are declared enemy combatants, as expected, the military would then draft and file charges against them. The detainees would be tried under the new military commissions law signed by Bush in October.

The military barred reporters or other independent observers from the sessions for the 14 operatives and is limiting the information it provides about them, arguing that it wants to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.

Legal experts have criticized the U.S. decision, and The Associated Press filed a letter of protest, arguing that it would be "an unconstitutional mistake to close the proceedings in their entirety."

The transcripts refer to a claim by Mohammed that he was tortured by the CIA, although he said he was not under duress at Guantanamo when he confessed to his role in the attacks. The CIA has said its interrogation practices are legal, and it does not use torture.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, questioned the legality of the closed-door sessions and whether the confession was actually the result of torture.

"We won't know that unless there is an independent hearing," he said. "We need to know if this purported confession would be enough to convict him at a fair trial or would it have to be suppressed as the fruit of torture?"

In listing the 28 attacks he planned and another three he supported, Mohammed said he tried to kill international leaders including Pope John Paul II, President Clinton and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

He said he planned the 2002 bombing of a Kenya beach resort frequented by Israelis and the failed missile attack on an Israeli passenger jet after it took off from Mombasa, Kenya.

He also said he was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia. In 2002, 202 were killed when two nightclubs there were bombed.

Other plots he said he was responsible for included planned attacks against the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building and New York Stock Exchange in New York City, the Panama Canal, and Big Ben and Heathrow Airport in London — none of which happened.

The Pentagon also released transcripts of the hearings of Abu Faraj al-Libi and Ramzi Binalshibh. Both refused to attended the hearings, although al-Libi submitted a statement claiming that the hearings are unfair and that he will not attend unless it is corrected.

"The detainee is in a lose-lose situation," he said.

Al-Libi, whose name means he is a Libyan, reportedly masterminded two bombings 11 days apart in Pakistan in December 2003 that targeted Musharraf for his support of the U.S.-led war on terror.

Binalshibh, a Yemeni, is suspected of helping Mohammed with the 9/11 attack plan on New York City and Washington and is also linked to a foiled plot to crash aircraft into London's Heathrow Airport. His hearing was conducted in his absence.

Would you still think illegal detention and torture were okay if you or one of your loved ones had been one of the ones held and tortured for years?
 
3113 said:
First, I make no mention of this guy's rights. That's not my argument. Second, that he's been out of the loop for a long time is important in this. The guy was bad. He was caught. He would have killed again. So...what we're sayiing is, a serial killer has been captured and we're safe from him. I'll happy pat the Military on the head for getting this guy long ago and learning how many ways that they made society safe by doing so...but HOW does it alter the fact that there are people not charged, and likely not terrorists who are wasting away in that jail?
How did you determine that those being held who are not terrorists? Those 'poor innocent people' were found in circumstances that indicated that they were terrorists. Of course, being found in possession of a dozen or so RPGs doesn't indicate that the possessor is a terrorist. but it is a damn good clue!

3113 said:
R.R. offers this guy as an excuse and a justification for all the sins being committed in that jail and by our government, and I'm sorry, but it's not enough. This is similar, as pointed out, to knowing that there's a criminal in the neighborhood and arresting everyone in the neighborhood...and then you find the guy, he tells you everything...but you STILL keep the whole neighborhood behind bars.
I was not aware that there were sins being committed by the guards at the jail [I am assuming GITMO here.] There was an inmate who attempted to flush his Q'ran down a toilet and then blame a guard, but that is not a sin of the guard. They have released several 'innocent' detainees. Said inniocent detainees are now back conducting jihad.

3113 said:
WHY? And WHY couldn't you just pick up this guy? Why did the whole neighborhood have to be arrested? Just to be on the safe side? Okay, fine...but once again...you got him and knew you got him years ago...why didn't the neighborhood get released back when?

If you're going to excuse the way we're treating these prisioners, you're going to have to do better than that.
You are assuming that the US just made a sweep through a neighborhood and jailed everyone they found. That is not how it worked. The detainees are from any number of countries. The detainees were caught doing and/or possessing things that proved that they were engaged in terrorist activities. If you insist that a guy who was found with a dozen RPGs in his house was just a collector, you have a right to your opinion as lomg as you don't try to express it in fron of a guy whose buddy bought it via a terrorist RPG.

3113 said:
As for Geneva Convention and terrorists...fine, we won't cover terrorists. When we send you to war, and you get captured by the enemy...can they say "You're not a soldier, you're a terrorist!" and thus, torture you to their hearts' content without worrying about your country being able to object? If labeling someone a terrorist is all it takes to toss such rules out the window, then I'm sure everyone and their mother is going to be doing it--labeling folk terrorists in order to excuse their use of torture.
The GITMO detainees were found in a war area with arms and/or explosives and no uniform and/or identifying insignia. Under the rules of war, such people have no rights. The US soldiers are in uniform and have identifying insignia and, as such, have rights under the laws of war. However, the jihadists are still torturing and executing them. [Where is the UN?] It is practically impossible to stop soldiers from beating those in civilian clothes caught shooting or bombing their soldier comrades. I am sure that there are US soldiers who have violated the laws of war. However, most US soldiers obey the laws of war and are under orders to obey the laws of war. If I may remind you, there are currently three Israeli soldiers behing held captive by jihadists. Said Israeli soldiers have no visits by International Red Cross or any of the other rights supposedly guaranteed by the laws of war. No one seems to bother about that. However, let some jihadist CLAIM to have been abused and people instantly claim torture.

3113 said:
You don't even need solid evidence that they're a terrorist to give them that label and have at it...so says the U.S.A.

It's all well and good for us to say we get to torture this self-confessed terrorist...but there are a lot of people imprisoned who are being accused of nothing. If they're not proven terrorists, if they're not even being labeled terrorists...then why aren't they allowed to have any rights at all, even those under the Geneva Convention?
Tell me of someone who is under detention at GITMO without evidence. As to rights under the Geneva Convention, there is a simple status, established ober literally centuries of warefare. If you are caught armed in a war zone and are not wearing a uniform and/or clealy visible identifying insignia, you are a bandit. The normal punishment for such a bandit is execution without trial.
 
Edward Teach said:
Would you still think illegal detention and torture were okay if you or one of your loved ones had been one of the ones held and tortured for years?
I am not aware of illegal detention. I am aware of mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq. The people mistreating said prisoners have been/are being tried and punished.

If someo one I knew was caught in a war zone without uniform and/or identifying insignia and/or in possession of things like multiple automatic weapons with enough ammo to fight a war and/or things like RPGs or sufficient explosive materials to fight a war I would be a bit saddened that such a person was stupid enough to get caught. I myself have been in possession of naughties like the ones I have listed in areas where being found would have resulted in my execution [or worse.] I did not get caught, mainly because I am a professional and I conducted my affairs very carefully.
 
rrIf some one I knew was caught in a war zone without uniform and/or identifying insignia

P: where is this 'war zone' exactly (leaving aside areas of armed hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan)? that Canadian fellow (Arar) the Americans grabbed and spirited off to Syria was visiting a US city, unarmed, no bombs on him--what zone was he in? what 'zone' was Padilla in?
 
Pure said:
rrIf some one I knew was caught in a war zone without uniform and/or identifying insignia

P: where is this 'war zone' exactly (leaving aside areas of armed hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan)? that Canadian fellow (Arar) the Americans grabbed and spirited off to Syria was visiting a US city, unarmed, no bombs on him--what zone was he in? what 'zone' was Padilla in?

Well, let's start with southern Lebanon. Hizb'allah is constructing military fortifications in the area and the UN 'peacekeeping' forces go only where they are told by Hizb'allah. Then there is the Gaza Strip. [I was planning to go there for a vacation, figuring that if they call the place the 'Gaza Strip,' the ladies must REALLY know how to take it off.] The brave jihadists in the Gaza Strip continue to fire rockets at Israeli civilians. Then there is the West Bank, which is not as active as the Gaza Strip but still harbors homicide bombers. Then there is Waziristan, which harbors the Taliban and provides a safe have of Osama bin Laden. Then there is Darfur, where UN personnel have been forcing girls as young as 12 into prostitution to support their starving refugee families. [The last is not torture, the UN does not do torture as everybody knows.]

If Americans spirited someone off to Syria, they must have been insane. Syria does not like Ameicans. Syria also supplies the Lebanese Hizb'allah with illegal arms.

As to Padilla, his own lawyers have made no attempt whatsoever to prove him innocent, except by reason of insanity.
 
//As to Padilla, his own lawyers have made no attempt whatsoever to prove him innocent, except by reason of insanity.//

Padilla is an American citizen 'captured' in the US.

Since when do his lawyers have to "prove him innocent"?

Secondly, he was denied access to lawyers for months, initially; nor was he charged.

Only by claiming all the US is 'war zone' and GWB is the 'commander' of it--i.e., dictator of all americans-- can you justify this.
 
Pure said:
//As to Padilla, his own lawyers have made no attempt whatsoever to prove him innocent, except by reason of insanity.//

Padilla is an American citizen 'captured' in the US.

Since when do his lawyers have to "prove him innocent"?

Secondly, he was denied access to lawyers for months, initially; nor was he charged.

Only by claiming all the US is 'war zone' and GWB is the 'commander' of it--i.e., dictator of all americans-- can you justify this.

Not quite Pure! It turns out that the detainees that everyone is so upset about had a major role in Padilla's capture and jailing. Read it and peep.

Al-Qaida detainee helped nab Padilla
Prosecutors say he identified 'dirty bomb' suspect via photo

MIAMI - A senior al-Qaida member, held for years at an undisclosed overseas CIA prison, was a key source of information that led investigators to alleged terror operative Jose Padilla, federal prosecutors disclosed.

The informant was Abu Zubaydah, who was transferred in September from the secret foreign prison to the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Court papers filed Thursday say Zubaydah’s role in the Padilla investigation was recently declassified along with that of a second Guantanamo Bay detainee identified as Binyam Muhammad.

The pair provided information for a material witness warrant used to arrest Padilla in 2002 when he arrived at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.
 
Pure said:
//As to Padilla, his own lawyers have made no attempt whatsoever to prove him innocent, except by reason of insanity.//

Padilla is an American citizen 'captured' in the US.

Since when do his lawyers have to "prove him innocent"?

Secondly, he was denied access to lawyers for months, initially; nor was he charged.

Only by claiming all the US is 'war zone' and GWB is the 'commander' of it--i.e., dictator of all americans-- can you justify this.

It is true that the burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecution, but if the defendant is pleading insanity, that is something the defense has to prove.

Although Padilla was apprehended in Chicago, he is accused of actions taken while he was in Afghanistan. I don't know why he wasn't charged with treason, since that seems to be the most reasonable charge. :confused:

Out of curiosity, do you believe the US should have made no response to 9-11 and allowed the Taliban to continue their atrocities against the Afghan people, women in particular? :confused:
 
Boxlicker101 said:
Out of curiosity, do you believe the US should have made no response to 9-11 and allowed the Taliban to continue their atrocities against the Afghan people, women in particular? :confused:
Huh?

Just out of curiosity, box: Do you like to stangle puppies?

A just as relevant question. And just as ridiculously ad hominem.

Just sayin'.

Ok, back on track:

You mention that Padilla should have been charged with treason. That's what this is about. And the answer why he wasn't is easy: Because that would give him rights as a person. To a fair trial, to due jucidiary process, to specific charges. Stuff that the gitmo detainees and rendering victims have been denied.
 
you make no sense

rr Not quite Pure! It turns out that the detainees that everyone is so upset about had a major role in Padilla's capture and jailing. Read it and peep.

Al-Qaida detainee helped nab Padilla
Prosecutors say he identified 'dirty bomb' suspect via photo


So if an al qaeda person points to your photo [maybe because you're such an effective agent against evil], you have no problem with being detained for a year, outside the federal court system, without a lawyer or without charges?

(a few months back, since the SC was getting involved, Padilla was transferred into the court system) so why do none of the charges now--after 3 years, iirc-- involve a 'dirty bomb'?
 
Boxlicker101 said:
Out of curiosity, do you believe the US should have made no response to 9-11 and allowed the Taliban to continue their atrocities against the Afghan people, women in particular?
:eek: EXCUSE ME?

Prior to 9-11 the U.S. HAPPILY allowed the Taliban to do whatever they fuck they wanted to women and to works of art (destroying ancient statues of Buddha). Women's organizations and others cried out in outrage and begged the U.S. to do SOMETHING anything...and the U.S. said, "oh, no, they're our buddies there, it's their govenrment, can't interfere, nope, nope."

DON'T you DARE try to rewrite history here. The U.S. government didn't give a shit about those women and NEVER WOULD HAVE GIVEN A SHIT if the Taliban hadn't harbored Osama after 9-11 and made themselves an enemy to the U.S.

Don't go pretending that we're there to "save the wimmen folk!" As with Saddam, our government was on perfectly good terms with these terrible people, perfectly happy to let them commit any kind of atrocities they liked...so long as they remained friendly to us. It's only then they become our enemies that our government finally stepped in and start bragging about how we were so "shocked! shocked! shocked!" about these atrocities that we had to stop them :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top