CIA chief admits waterboarding
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
D
decantemix
Guest
Pathetic whiners, on the whoose gow. It's symptomatic of someone who wants to feel BIG!!!...
Who is doing unnecessary whining, the ones for torture, or the ones against it?
More...We are thisclose to filing charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
The New York Times broke the story ahead of time (Gee, what a surprise. Not...) so now it's public knowledge. Charges will be filed against as many as six detainees held at Club Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay.)
Mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a former senior aid to Usama bin Laden, is expected to be among the six. Remember him?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330176,00.html
Since they were waterboarded, its all tainted evidence.
I would like to know if any of the ones who have been waterboarded were charged BEFORE being tortured.
I don't know if their coerced confessions will be admitted as evidence, especially if the Fifth Amendment is ignored. Then again, it might not apply anyway, as this involves the military and the possibility of public danger. The following is in reference to the link that sandy posted about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and criminal charges.
War-crimes charges against the men would almost certainly place the prosecutors in a battle over the treatment of inmates because at least two detainees tied to the 2001 terror attacks were subject to aggressive interrogation techniques that critics say amounted to torture. [1]
---
1. Glaberson, William. The New York Times. 6 Guantanamo Detainees Are Said to Face Trial Over 9/11
War-crimes charges against the men would almost certainly place the prosecutors in a battle over the treatment of inmates because at least two detainees tied to the 2001 terror attacks were subject to aggressive interrogation techniques that critics say amounted to torture. [1]
---
1. Glaberson, William. The New York Times. 6 Guantanamo Detainees Are Said to Face Trial Over 9/11
Last edited:
The first detainees were charged more than three years ago, but repeated legal challenges have kept any from going to trial.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330181,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330181,00.html
I don't know if the following amounts to official criminal charges.
On March 1, 2003, counterterrorism forces in Pakistan captured Khalid Shaykh Mohammed, an al-Qa’ida operational commander and the man believed to have been the mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attack. Shaykh Mohammed is also believed to have played a role in a number of other attacks and planned attacks, including the 2002 bombings in Bali, Indonesia, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, and a 1995 plot to blow up multiple U.S. commercial airliners.
The 9/11 Commission has a profile on the history of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm
No mention of official criminal charges in that report, but other sources say that the U.S. Government indicted him for the failed 1995 Manila Air bombing operation.
---
1. U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2005. Terrorism: 2002/2005
On March 1, 2003, counterterrorism forces in Pakistan captured Khalid Shaykh Mohammed, an al-Qa’ida operational commander and the man believed to have been the mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attack. Shaykh Mohammed is also believed to have played a role in a number of other attacks and planned attacks, including the 2002 bombings in Bali, Indonesia, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, and a 1995 plot to blow up multiple U.S. commercial airliners.
The 9/11 Commission has a profile on the history of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch5.htm
No mention of official criminal charges in that report, but other sources say that the U.S. Government indicted him for the failed 1995 Manila Air bombing operation.
---
1. U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2005. Terrorism: 2002/2005
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
They can proceed without looking like failures if they try and/or convict the accused using evidence not obtained through torture. Witnesses, data, and other correlating incriminating facts. But yeah, the way you said it S.A.M., if it's one of those two, it's ultimately a failure. Personally I think there are war crimes on both sides, but only one side is being prosecuted.
Look at the only man (as far as i know) who was "convicted" under these stupid tribunals, David Hicks
Now he was in solatary confinment for 6YEARS (ignoring whatever else was done to him) and they came to him and said "if you plead guilty then you will be transfered to a jail in Australia (yatla prision, a REGULAR if high security prision), if you dont you will spend the rest of your life in solutary confinment here" So he pleaded guily. MOST of Australia dont think he should be subjected to the profiting from a crime legilation because we dont recognise that he was ever convicted under a FAIR system of justice. I hope he writes that book on gitmo and makes MILLIONS and shows the apaling abuses there. I would love nothing more than to see everyone involved right up to Bush HIMSELF changed and convited in front of the ICC
Now he was in solatary confinment for 6YEARS (ignoring whatever else was done to him) and they came to him and said "if you plead guilty then you will be transfered to a jail in Australia (yatla prision, a REGULAR if high security prision), if you dont you will spend the rest of your life in solutary confinment here" So he pleaded guily. MOST of Australia dont think he should be subjected to the profiting from a crime legilation because we dont recognise that he was ever convicted under a FAIR system of justice. I hope he writes that book on gitmo and makes MILLIONS
and shows the apaling abuses there. I would love nothing more than to see everyone involved right up to Bush HIMSELF changed and convited in front of the ICCNo.SAM said:
And they have all been tortured, waterboarded or not. The confession rates are running almost as high as the confession rates of Israeli prisoners from the Palestinian conflict - somewhere around 97%.
KSM confessed to crimes that were physically impossible for him, and Zubaydah provided confirming evidence as well as his own confession(s).
It was only recently that anyone reached agreement about what kind of court they were to be tried in, let alone under what system of legal jurisdiction they were to be "charged". You can't file charges until the court has been chosen - or created, in this case.
There is little or no evidence against any of them that would be admissable in a regular US court.
If you look at cases like Padilla, probably there will be a last minute adjustiment of the charges to try to find something for which apparently solid, admissable evidence can be manufactured somehow.
One problem seems to be that the US officials involved believed their own propaganda BS - they treated this as a war, instead of a police matter, and now that it has come around to a legal trial their police work is being shown up for what it was.
Look at the only man (as far as i know) who was "convicted" under these stupid tribunals, David Hicks
Now he was in solatary confinment for 6YEARS (ignoring whatever else was done to him) and they came to him and said "if you plead guilty then you will be transfered to a jail in Australia (yatla prision, a REGULAR if high security prision), if you dont you will spend the rest of your life in solutary confinment here" So he pleaded guily. MOST of Australia dont think he should be subjected to the profiting from a crime legilation because we dont recognise that he was ever convicted under a FAIR system of justice. I hope he writes that book on gitmo and makes MILLIONS
Think Asguard...THINK.
Wikipedia:
So all of that adds up to what, exactly ?john99 said:
I have my money in an "AQ linked" bank right now, I think. Dawood there seems to have avoided taking up arms against the US or performed any acts of terrorism, been captured by non-US forces in unknown circumstances involving a rival tribe, bought for 1000 dollars paid to someone living in an economy for which that represents a year's income or more, and systematically tortured and abused for years before finally confessing to something.
The guys he joined were, a lot of them, the guys that had fought the Russians. The US had given them weapons, help, etc. Pakistan, a US ally, supported them. Is merely having joined the Taliban - before 9/11, btw - a crime ?
And if he did join the Taliban as described, the same folks the US attacked with an army and made war against because they had set up as the government of Afghanistan, doesn't that make him a POW ?
Why wasn't he simply handed over to Australia in the first place ?
countezero
Registered Senior Member
As with a lot of things you profess to believe, numerous sources have to be ignored or discounted, or your theory falls apart. In this case, all the CIA officers who have gone public about this have to be lying. And the reports written by Bryan Ross and Seymour Hersh are all wrong.
The CIA, to my knowledge, was not involved at Abu Ghraib becuase the level of detainees there did not warrant it.
In fact, my understanding of the problems there, based on Hersh's book, which I would need to go back and check to be certain, stemmed from flawed military procedures, a glut of untrained military intelligence officers, private contractors and prison guards. Rumsfield's gung-ho memos probably drove part of the behavior there, too.
Gitmo I know less about. I wasn't aware of very many claims of torture there, and the ones I was aware of all seemed spurious, as if they were made to drum up news or provide the foundation for a law suit. On its face, it wouldn't make sense to "torture" high profile captives there. We have a rendition program for that, designed to keep them out of the West and away from American facilities, where the press and the Red Cross visits, etc...
I don't know, and neither do you. Most of this is classified and presented only to the oversight committees. In the absence of real data, you're doing what you always do: Speculating and making wild accusations...
To my knowledge, the government has not set up a "cladestine torture agency"...
You mean the crap the administration pressures them to release? The CIA wouldn't release a fucking memo, if the president didn't want to try to score cheap political points. You think the officers in the CTC don't know that half the garbage KSM said was just that? Garbage? They know that. But Bush et al want PR coups, so unfiltered after-ops reports get released as neat and tidy press releases...
Again, you're showing your ignorance. The Taliban, by and large, were not the guys that "had fought the Russians". They were Talibs from Madrassas in Pakistan, Arabs and other extremists. Most of the militias the US armed in the Afghan-Russian war, the ones run by Dotsum, Massod and others, fought the Taliban from day one. [/QUOTE]
Only three countries, I think, officially recognized the Taliban: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and UAE.
I know that such an accounting has not been admitted, and there is no sign that any such analysis has ever been made, or that the people doing this shit have the wisdom to make it.count said:
Which was my point: we have no information of any benefit at all from torturing prisoners. You, for example, have no information on which to base your ignorant and poorly considered personal speculative opinion that torture has had any net benefit whatsoever - and you are deliberately ignoring plenty of circumstantial evidence that it has had large costs.
Which would be normal, historically, for torture-based information gathering. Info is not what the pros have traditionally used torture for. It doesn't work very well, for that.
You found the eyewitness FBI accounts unpersuasive, the various connections with Abu Ghraib and Bagram dismissable, the belated discoveries of ghost detainees hidden from observers (such as the Red Cross)unsymptomatic, the interrogation manuals (prior to recent rewriting) uninformative, Yoo's and Gonzalez's legal manueverings unindicative, the various testimonies of lawyers involved untrustworthy, the rate of confession and silence agreements in released captives unworthy of note, the newspaper photos of new arrivals held in painful stress positions blindfolded under the Cuban sun not at all revealing, Hersh's articles undependable, and so forth.count said:
OK
But what would "make sense" for "high profile captives" is irrelevant. No one has ever accused these filthy clowns of restricting their little tricks and techniques to the important, the high profile, or even the informative. They've got people at Gitmo because of typos in their names. That isn't the point, with Gitmo type operations - it could be you, is the point.
Maybe. Do they know which half ? Apparently, they can't take five minutes to edit the obvious foolishness out of a major, headline, President-requested press release. OK. How did it get into the press release ?count said:
The important observation is that there weren't serious "problems" there during the months of abuse. The interrogators were not surprised or displeased with what they were seeing in their sessions, the guy in charge of Gitmo was advising them on techniques from his greater experience, the doctors were doing their jobs, the guards were clearly satisfactory, the whole operation was apparently working as designed for months.count said:
Then some of the photos a couple of guards had been encouraged - Ms England said "ordered" - to take, got loose. Suddenly there were problems.
No photos ever got loose from the rooms the FBI agent observed at Gitmo. So no problems.