What should be done with Qahtani?

What should be done with Qahtani?

  • Turn him over to Arab country who promises to imprison him.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Release him and let him go to Saudi Arabia if he wants

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
  • Poll closed .

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
Apparently tried to enter the US to be the 20th hijacker. Now has been held 6 years. Was tortured in the first months.
Trial is now derailed because of the torture problem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html?nav=hcmodule

Detainee Tortured, Says U.S. Official
Trial Overseer Cites 'Abusive' Methods Against 9/11 Suspect

By Bob WoodwardWashington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 14, 2009; Page A01

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.
Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

Military prosecutors said in November that they would seek to refile charges against Qahtani, 30, based on subsequent interrogations that did not employ harsh techniques. But Crawford, who dismissed war crimes charges against him in May 2008, said in the interview that she would not allow the prosecution to go forward.

Qahtani was denied entry into the United States a month before the Sept. 11 attacks and was allegedly planning to be the plot's 20th hijacker. He was later captured in Afghanistan and transported to Guantanamo in January 2002. His interrogation took place over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003, though he was held in isolation until April 2003.

"For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani's interrogation records and other military documents. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister."

At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores." With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room "and forced to perform a series of dog tricks," the report shows.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.

The Qahtani case underscores the challenges facing the incoming Obama administration as it seeks to close the controversial detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including the dilemmas posed by individuals considered too dangerous to release but whose legal status is uncertain. FBI "clean teams," which gather evidence without using information gained during controversial interrogations, have established that Qahtani intended to join the 2001 hijackers. Mohamed Atta, the plot's leader, who died steering American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center, went to the Orlando airport to meet Qahtani on Aug. 4, 2001, but the young Saudi was denied entry by a suspicious immigration inspector.

"There's no doubt in my mind he would've been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in August 2001," Crawford said of Qahtani, who remains detained at Guantanamo. "He's a muscle hijacker. . . . He's a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don't charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, 'Let him go.' "
 
Last edited:
Presumably the only law he broke was conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism. Try him on that charge using evidence not obtained through torture. If there's insufficient evidence to link him to the plot, then you've got to let him go. The Law is the fucking Law.
 
I agree with Zoot. Try him for what you can prove without the information garnered from "torture" and then lock his ass up if he is found guilty.

I DO think that the judges definition of torture is pretty fucked up though. Panties on the head and insulting his mother is NOT torture. A lot of the other stuff could be/is, but I'm not sure that I buy off on the aggregate concept.

I have to admit that I don't have much sympathy for the "This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for." part. Crashing a plane loaded with innocent people into the twin towers wasn't exactly good for their health OR "called for".
 
Give him a real trial, in front of a real court, with all of the protections available under real American law. Let the court sort out the question of which evidence is admissible.

Oddly, this is the same thing we should have done all along. What a shock.
 
I agree with Zoot. Try him for what you can prove without the information garnered from "torture" and then lock his ass up if he is found guilty.

I DO think that the judges definition of torture is pretty fucked up though. Panties on the head and insulting his mother is NOT torture. A lot of the other stuff could be/is, but I'm not sure that I buy off on the aggregate concept.

I have to admit that I don't have much sympathy for the "This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for." part. Crashing a plane loaded with innocent people into the twin towers wasn't exactly good for their health OR "called for".

I understand where you're coming from, SB, but I think it's easy for us to dismiss what happened to these captives based on the brief capsules that we get in news reports. It's one thing to read that a prisoner was deprived of some sleep, and a whole other thing when you read that he was subjected to more than 6 months of daily interrogations lasting between 18 and 20 hours per day. And that for most of those nights his sleep was interrupted frequently. Sleep deprivation leaves no physical marks but the consequences become terrifying from within.

It doesn't seem like much to us to hear that a prisoner's mother and sisters were insulted, but for these men the cultural impact of those insults was much greater than we can imagine.

It seems to me that the question of torture comes down to this: do we accept that our prisoners are human beings and thus endowed with certain inalienable rights, or not? Their acts, however horrendous, do not change their humanity. Those acts should be judged according to the law and ought to have no bearing on how we treat them in captivity.
 
I understand where you're coming from, SB, but I think it's easy for us to dismiss what happened to these captives based on the brief capsules that we get in news reports. It's one thing to read that a prisoner was deprived of some sleep, and a whole other thing when you read that he was subjected to more than 6 months of daily interrogations lasting between 18 and 20 hours per day. And that for most of those nights his sleep was interrupted frequently. Sleep deprivation leaves no physical marks but the consequences become terrifying from within.

It doesn't seem like much to us to hear that a prisoner's mother and sisters were insulted, but for these men the cultural impact of those insults was much greater than we can imagine.

It seems to me that the question of torture comes down to this: do we accept that our prisoners are human beings and thus endowed with certain inalienable rights, or not? Their acts, however horrendous, do not change their humanity. Those acts should be judged according to the law and ought to have no bearing on how we treat them in captivity.


Don't misunderstand me. I SPECIFICALLY said "A lot of the other stuff could be" (the dog stuff) / "is" (the sleep deprivation, etc) torture. I believe that he WAS tortured, I simply question "how much" not "if". In fact, I think that if possible the people who performed the "real" torture should be procecuted.

I am also admittedly biased. I have a hard time crediting him with "humanity" when he was SO willing to take away the "humanity" of thousands of people in the name of his fucking religion.
 

Option #7

Lock him in a cell with Jonathan Pollard. Throw away the key.

Two birds, one stone.

 
Don't misunderstand me. I SPECIFICALLY said "A lot of the other stuff could be" (the dog stuff) / "is" (the sleep deprivation, etc) torture. I believe that he WAS tortured, I simply question "how much" not "if". In fact, I think that if possible the people who performed the "real" torture should be procecuted.

I am also admittedly biased. I have a hard time crediting him with "humanity" when he was SO willing to take away the "humanity" of thousands of people in the name of his fucking religion.
See? This, to me, is what makes him human.

No animal could do what he considered doing or what his fellow travelers actually did.
 
See? This, to me, is what makes him human.

No animal could do what he considered doing or what his fellow travelers actually did.

Yeah, you're right. I just hate what he and his ilk stand for so much that it's easier to think of him as a different species...
 
Don't misunderstand me. I SPECIFICALLY said "A lot of the other stuff could be" (the dog stuff) / "is" (the sleep deprivation, etc) torture. I believe that he WAS tortured, I simply question "how much" not "if". In fact, I think that if possible the people who performed the "real" torture should be procecuted.

I am also admittedly biased. I have a hard time crediting him with "humanity" when he was SO willing to take away the "humanity" of thousands of people in the name of his fucking religion.

Yeah, you're right. I just hate what he and his ilk stand for so much that it's easier to think of him as a different species...

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with your sentiment and I know how easy it is to declare such people non-humans. The problem is that doing so removes our own humanity just as well. For if I cannot see myself in my brother, what do I see in myself?

And let's not forget that we've had ample assistance in leading us to this response. Our elected officials, their mouthpieces in the media, and many, many of our fellow citizens have proclaimed all enemies of the United States (including several elected members of Congress, to believe Michelle Bachmann) to be not human.
 
I'll pull this favored little aphorism out yet again.

Beware when you battle monsters,
lest you become a monster.
And as you gaze into the abyss,
the abyss gazes also,
into you.

Probably the only wise thing Fredrich Nietzsche every had to say.
 
note to marshalien, safebet, mabeuse

there are a couple probs with the 'new trial based on non-torture evidence.'

1) if you torture a guy for a few weeks and get some evidence, and then stop torturing him and get *more* evidence, isn't the latter kinda tainted? after all, even if you don't plan to resume, he might reasonably expect it.

in US law, isn't the applicable concept, 'fruit of the poisoned tree', e.g. after an illegal search you don't get to use the drugs you found. is so, doesn't this apply here?

2) dangerousness and duration. if he's a criminal then, unless proven 'dangerous' [which is rare], he's going to get out. what does he then do, after doing 10 years for 'conspiracy' as mab suggests.

alternatively, there is a good case that he's a POW. well, then there's the slight problem. German POWs were held for the duration [of WWII], they did not have set terms like criminals. WHAT is the duration of the 'war on terror' or the 'jihad' against the US. Forever? Till radical sunni AND shia clerics say, "we surrender"? Till Osama surrenders?

i see no way out between the arguments for 'short term' vs. 'indefinite', so i'm going to compromise on a hearing, no new trial because of tainted evidence., and a kind of sentence of 20 years based on what's [determined as] very likely true about him and his activities.

==
FOOTNOTE to 1)
One reason for excluding all related, or subsequent, evidence is that otherwise you send the wrong message to the authorities/police [namely, you can misbehave, get a wrist slap, and still succeed in a prosecution]:

In Canada the judge may exclude 'that which would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.' because "message" is key factor [in preventing recurrance of bad practice], then a judge delivers it to the authorities: he says, "you blew it; you tortured him, so you can't proceed with prosecution. case dismissed."

US law provides for even LESS judicial discretion, i.e. is *tighter* regarding use of tainted evidence, confessions from torture, etc.
 
Last edited:
note to rg

I'll pull this favored little aphorism out yet again.

[N:]//Beware when you battle monsters,
lest you become a monster.
And as you gaze into the abyss,
the abyss gazes also,
into you.//

Probably the only wise thing Fredrich Nietzsche every had to say.

----

I suggest you do some actual reading, perhaps starting with Dawn, proceeding to Human, All too Human, Gay Science, and at some point tackling the Genealogy of Morals.Have you read them?

There are lots of fine sayings of Nietzsche, for example.

//One pays dearly for immortality; one has to die several times while still alive.//
 
there are a couple probs with the 'new trial based on non-torture evidence.'

1) if you torture a guy for a few weeks and get some evidence, and then stop torturing him and get *more* evidence, isn't the latter kinda tainted? after all, even if you don't plan to resume, he might reasonably expect it.

in US law, isn't the applicable concept, 'fruit of the poisoned tree', e.g. after an illegal search you don't get to use the drugs you found. is so, doesn't this apply here?

2) dangerousness and duration. if he's a criminal then, unless proven 'dangerous' [which is rare], he's going to get out. what does he then do, after doing 10 years for 'conspiracy' as mab suggests.

alternatively, there is a good case that he's a POW. well, then there's the slight problem. German POWs were held for the duration [of WWII], they did not have set terms like criminals. WHAT is the duration of the 'war on terror' or the 'jihad' against the US. Forever? Till radical sunni AND shia clerics say, "we surrender"? Till Osama surrenders?

i see no way out between the arguments for 'short term' vs. 'indefinite', so i'm going to compromise on a hearing, no new trial because of tainted evidence., and a kind of sentence of 20 years based on what's [determined as] very likely true about him and his activities.

==
FOOTNOTE to 1)
One reason for excluding all related, or subsequent, evidence is that otherwise you send the wrong message to the authorities/police:
In Canada the judge may exclude 'that which would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.' if "message" is key, then a judge says to the authorities, "you blew it; you tortured him, so you can't prosecute. case dismissed."

1. yes. courts are very good at deciding that sort of thing, based on the facts about the "confession."

2. if he's a criminal, it should be only after he's been proved a criminal. There is no basis in American law to put somebody in jail based on what he's "likely" to do in the future. The "war on terror" is a misnomer. In American history, we have declared war on other countries. When that country is conquered, we let the POWs go. If he's a POW, let him go. The war is over; it's the occupation that we've been fucking up for the last five or six years.
 
I agree with what seems to be the consensus. Try him on the conspiracy charge and if he is acquitted, let him go. However, make sure everybody knows exactly where and when he is to be released. Then basically turn your back on him, and leave him and everybody who gets involved with him to their own devices. :eek:

If he is convicted, give him the maximum sentence. :mad:

As for the POW status, since the war is still going on, POW's should be held until it is over. Unless there were prisoner exchanges, that is what has always happened before. Once a truce is signed, release POW's, but not until then. :cool:

As for the "torture," the same kind of thing used to happen to me when I was arrested in Oakland. It wasn't torture then, and it isn't torture now. :confused:
 
Last edited:
I agree with what seems to be the consensus. Try him on the conspiracy charge and if he is acquitted, let him go. However, make sure everybody knows exactly where and when he is to be released. Then basically turn your back on him, and leave him and everybody who gets involved with him to their own devices. :eek:

If he is convicted, give him the maximum sentence. :mad:

As for the POW status, since the war is still going on, POW's should be held until it is over. Unless there were prisoner exchanges, that is what has always happened before. Once a truce is signed, release POW's, but not until then. :cool:

Here's the thing: what war? The man was brought to Gitmo in a round-up insupport of the so-called War on Terror, which isn't really a war at all. It's a marketing ploy for the neocons. It's an absolute fallacy to connect him to the invasion and occupation of Iraq or the military action in Afghanistan. There is no war to which you can connect this man.
 
Here's the thing: what war? The man was brought to Gitmo in a round-up insupport of the so-called War on Terror, which isn't really a war at all. It's a marketing ploy for the neocons. It's an absolute fallacy to connect him to the invasion and occupation of Iraq or the military action in Afghanistan. There is no war to which you can connect this man.

Why do you even mention Iraq? :confused: The article says he was captured in Afghanistan. US forces and their allies fought with the Taliban forces, and the fighting is still going on. The war has not ended.

I am fully aware there was never a formal declaration of war, but there most certainly was and is a war. There were never declarations of war in the US Civil War, Vietnam, Korea and some other actions, but the fighting happened and was ended by formal truce or the surrender of one side.

If and when the Taliban ceases operations, and renounces any kind of claim, then POW's can be released.
 
Why do you even mention Iraq? :confused: The article says he was captured in Afghanistan. US forces and their allies fought with the Taliban forces, and the fighting is still going on. The war has not ended.

I am fully aware there was never a formal declaration of war, but there most certainly was and is a war. There were never declarations of war in the US Civil War, Vietnam, Korea and some other actions, but the fighting happened and was ended by formal truce or the surrender of one side.

If and when the Taliban ceases operations, and renounces any kind of claim, then POW's can be released.

I mentioned Iraq because so many people conflate the so-called war on terror with the occupation of Iraq.

Khatani is a prisoner not of the conflict in Afghanistan but of the "war on terror" and so there is no war with which to connect him. What nation are we fighting in that "war?"
 
I mentioned Iraq because so many people conflate the so-called war on terror with the occupation of Iraq.

Khatani is a prisoner not of the conflict in Afghanistan but of the "war on terror" and so there is no war with which to connect him. What nation are we fighting in that "war?"

Iraq has little to do with Afghanistan. The Taliban were the rulers of A. and ruled using a distorted version of Islam. They are and were mostly non Afghans. Following 9-11, the US and allies invaded A. and overthrew the Taliban, but some remnants are still active, and have regrouped. I don't know exactly what Khatani was doing, but I am assuming he was fighting on the side of the Taliban. This alone should have made him a criminal, but never mind that now. Assuming he was captured on the field of battle, he is a POW and should remain a captive until the war in Afghanistan ends.

Once that happens, assuming he is still alive and not incarcerated, he should probably be returned to Afghanistan so the government there can deal with him.
 
Iraq has little to do with Afghanistan. The Taliban were the rulers of A. and ruled using a distorted version of Islam. They are and were mostly non Afghans. Following 9-11, the US and allies invaded A. and overthrew the Taliban, but some remnants are still active, and have regrouped. I don't know exactly what Khatani was doing, but I am assuming he was fighting on the side of the Taliban. This alone should have made him a criminal, but never mind that now. Assuming he was captured on the field of battle, he is a POW and should remain a captive until the war in Afghanistan ends.

Once that happens, assuming he is still alive and not incarcerated, he should probably be returned to Afghanistan so the government there can deal with him.

However, you don't know this...you're only making certain assumptions and they may well be wrong.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Iraq has little to do with Afghanistan. The Taliban were the rulers of A. and ruled using a distorted version of Islam. They are and were mostly non Afghans. Following 9-11, the US and allies invaded A. and overthrew the Taliban, but some remnants are still active, and have regrouped. I don't know exactly what Khatani was doing, but I am assuming he was fighting on the side of the Taliban. This alone should have made him a criminal, but never mind that now. Assuming he was captured on the field of battle, he is a POW and should remain a captive until the war in Afghanistan ends.

Once that happens, assuming he is still alive and not incarcerated, he should probably be returned to Afghanistan so the government there can deal with him.

However, you don't know this...you're only making certain assumptions and they may well be wrong.

Okay, I am assuming that the article is correct. That being the case, what else would he have been doing in Afghanistan, since he is a Saudi national? If the article is wrong, the whole thread is moot. :confused:
 
If he was tried in the USA and found either Guilty or not Guilty, at the end of the trial if not guilty, or the end of his sentence if guilty, the usual procedure would be to repatriate him to his country of origin. That country is Saudi Arabia.

Less chatter and more due legal process is required.

I am indifferent as to his guilt or not. In any event he will probably end up in Saudi which will probably be an effective end to any terrorist ambitions.
 
If he was tried in the USA and found either Guilty or not Guilty, at the end of the trial if not guilty, or the end of his sentence if guilty, the usual procedure would be to repatriate him to his country of origin. That country is Saudi Arabia.

Less chatter and more due legal process is required.

I am indifferent as to his guilt or not. In any event he will probably end up in Saudi which will probably be an effective end to any terrorist ambitions.

That would depend. If he is wanted in Afghanistan, he would probably be sent there. :confused:
 
Okay. Then deport him to Saudi Arabia and leek that in the interagation he made threats agains Saudi Interests.

Deliver him to King Kalid AFB and deliver him to the Saudi Royal Police. Then see if he ever leaves the base?

I'll bet not in an upright position.

Lets be practical and leave him to his own kind to deal with him like he would deal with others.

'course if he tripped on the stairs and broke his fucken' neck when he got to Saudi Arabia it would be just too bad, right?
 
Back
Top