Whatever happened to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

[bascule]

People cry for Bin Laden's blood. He was behind 9/11, right?

 

Well the real mastermind of 9/11 has been in US custody since March 2003, before the Iraq war.

 

His name is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

 

Hijacking jetliners and flying them into the World Trade Center was his idea. He pitched it to Bin Laden, who provided the financial backing, and recruited some radical Islamicists to do the deed.

 

But where is he?

 

For some reason, this isn't public knowledge.

 

There hasn't been a trial.

 

What's up? Shouldn't this guy be brought to justice? Or is that happening behind closed doors, and if so, why?

[Rebiu]

Good question.

 

Its seems the powers that be do not seem to care about stopping terrorism only holding onto power and promoting their next move.

[Jim]

Good question.

 

Its seems the powers that be do not seem to care about stopping terrorism only holding onto power and promoting their next move.

 

Can you explain this apparent non sequitur?

 

Bush could have had a much easier term of office if he had played it safe. Bush, IMO, is painfully idealistic.

[Rebiu]

Can you explain this apparent non sequitur?

 

Bush could have had a much easier term of office if he had played it safe. Bush' date=' IMO, is painfully idealistic.[/quote']Perhaps he exhausted all the countries resource on his opportunistic wars. Painfully idealistic is a catchy phrase. How about incuriously ideological, or intractable dogmatic, maybe absolutely apoplectic.

[mooeypoo]

Rebiu, can you base your claims?

 

I'd like to read where there are based resources that led you to this quite hard conclusion.. I might reach the same one, if I have the right resources.

 

~moo

[mike90]

I don't know I had always kind of thought the whole Iraq war rather rash. I've always questioned the real reasons behind it. I didn't really beileve them at the time when they said they thought they had WMDs.

 

 

I think they were playing off the fear of 9/11 to justify attacking countries they had wanted to attack previously but didn't have a good excuse too. Calling attention to the fact that they had captured the mastermind of the attack would have calmed the public, which is really the last thing they would want. They certainly hyped up the fact of it being a country that supported terrorists. Honestly there is a mob mindset to a lot of american people. They could probably could have justified attacking a lot of different places in the middle east at the time by just implying they

were linked to terrorists. People who are afraid are easy to control.

[Pangloss]

Well whadya know, President Bush reads SFN!

 

Breaking news today:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2400470

 

ABC News has learned that President Bush will announce that high-value detainees now being held at secret CIA prisons will be transferred to the Department of Defense and granted protections under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It will be the first time the Administration publicly acknowledges the existence of the prisons.

[Pangloss]

Returning to the subject of the thread (hint, hint), I thought it was interesting some of the political wrangling that's going on over this move of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Guantanamo. The Bush administration seems to be turning this into a bit of a political coup. According to Bush, and allegedly confirmed by inside sources in various news stories, the "waterboarding" of Mohammed led directly to the capture of Ramzi Binalshibh, who was one of the 9/11 planners. HIS "waterboarding" lead directly to the capture of Abu Zubaydah, who was yet another key figure in Al Qaeda. The techniques, which were ostensibly applied only after normal interrogation failed, also provided information which lead to the stopping of numerous terrorist plots.

 

Of course, that's the claim, and whether it's true or not is something that has to be established objectively after full revelation of the evidence. But if it's true then it seems to support the use of something that lies between "interrogation" and "torture". Perhaps the book is "back open" on this subject.

 

It will be interesting to see how much comes out during the trial process.

[Rebiu]

Returning to the subject of the thread (hint' date=' hint), I thought it was interesting some of the political wrangling that's going on over this move of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Guantanamo. The Bush administration seems to be turning this into a bit of a political coup. According to Bush, and allegedly confirmed by inside sources in various news stories, the "waterboarding" of Mohammed led directly to the capture of Ramzi Binalshibh, who was one of the 9/11 planners. HIS "waterboarding" lead directly to the capture of Abu Zubaydah, who was yet another key figure in Al Qaeda. The techniques, which were ostensibly applied only after normal interrogation failed, also provided information which lead to the stopping of numerous terrorist plots.

 

Of course, that's the claim, and whether it's true or not is something that has to be established objectively after full revelation of the evidence. But if it's true then it seems to support the use of something that lies between "interrogation" and "torture". Perhaps the book is "back open" on this subject.

 

It will be interesting to see how much comes out during the trial process.

I personaly support due process and am against torture. If waterboarding is shown to be effective will most Americans support its us on "illegal combatants".

[Jim]

I personaly support due process and am against torture. If waterboarding is shown to be effective will most Americans support its us on "illegal combatants".

 

What due process should FDR have given Nazi spies in WWII?

 

As it happenened, he appointed a military commission which had them executed.

 

What do you think of President Lincoln's treatment of confederate spies?

[Pangloss]

You mean the way he commuted nearly every death sentence that passed through his desk? (grin)

 

I'm opposed to torture, but I'm keeping an open mind about interrogative techniques. As for due process against enemy comatants, that is a luxury which we can afford at some times and not others. My main concern there is that we have a reasonable level of check and balance within our governmental structure to prevent abuse as much as possible. That may mean additional restrictions on the executive branch, and if so those restrictions will need to be reasoned out in a non-partisan manner.

[bascule]

Matt Lauer confronted President Bush on this in a recent interview. In the interview Lauer incinuated that Mohammed was being kept in one of the CIA's no-longer-secret prisions, and furthermore was subjected to water boarding, in which he was nearly drowned (or submerged until he was stopped breating and then revived)

 

Bush refused to answer any of the allegations, and insisted that revelaing their methods would let terrorists know what to expect.

 

The exchange:

 

Lauer: "It's been reported that with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he was, what they call 'water-boarded'"

Bush: "I'm not going to talk about techniques we use on people. One reason why is that we don't want the enemy to adjust"

[Rebiu]

What due process should FDR have given Nazi spies in WWII?

Perhaps a speedy trial, no imprisionment without being charged, no open ended detention, inpartial representation, having access to the evidence against them.

 

As it happenened' date=' he appointed a military commission which had them executed.

You are confusing the punishment with due process.

[Sisyphus]

 

The exchange:

 

Lauer: "It's been reported that with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he was, what they call 'water-boarded'"

Bush: "I'm not going to talk about techniques we use on people. One reason why is that we don't want the enemy to adjust"

 

Wikipedia has the exchange as the following:

 

Matt Lauer: “I don’t want to let this 'within the law issue' slip though. I mean, if, in fact, there was water boarding used with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and for the viewers, that’s basically when you strap someone to a board and you make them feel as if they’re going to drown by putting them underwater, if that was legal and within the law, why couldn’t you do it at Guantanamo? Why did you have to go to a secret location around the world?”

 

President Bush: “I’m not going to talk about techniques. And, I’m not going explain to the enemy what we’re doing. All I’m telling you is that you’ve asked me whether or not we’re doing things to protect the American people, and I want the American people to know we are doing so."

 

Oh, well ok then.

[Rebiu]

I mean, if, in fact, there was water boarding used with Khalid Sheikh

That is savage. How can any person condone coercion by drowning?

[doG]

Bush refused to answer any of the allegations, and insisted that revelaing their methods would let terrorists know what to expect.

 

That he refused to answer does not imply they are true, that would require him to answer and confirm which he did not....

[Rebiu]

That he refused to answer does not imply they are true, that would require him to answer and confirm which he did not....

Perhaps a little waterboarding by the press will get him to talk.:

[Pangloss]

I think declaring it to be barbaric dodges the issue, though. These people aren't going to be persuaded by normal means -- bear in mind here that in this case waterboarding actually produced the desired result. We're told that he gave up information that he was not giving up by normal interrogation means, and it lead to the arrest of terrorists and the interrupting of multiple plots.

 

If all of that is true (let's assume it for the moment), then we have to determine what methods are acceptable and what methods are not. That determination should take into consideration more than just the barbarity of the acts themselves. It should also consider the world situation and the problems that we're dealing with as a society.

 

As I've said before, I'm opposed to torture, and waterboarding sounds like torture to me. But it's easy to dismiss something as barbaric when we're sitting here at our computers comfortably isolated from this war. We should consider the full, big picture.

[Rebiu]

I think declaring it to be barbaric dodges the issue, though. These people aren't going to be persuaded by normal means -- bear in mind here that in this case waterboarding actually produced the desired result. We're told that he gave up information that he was not giving up by normal interrogation means, and it lead to the arrest of terrorists and the interrupting of multiple plots.

Claiming that torture works is highly dubious at best. You have no evidence of this other than the word of a man whos political career may well depend the public believing this. Here are some sources saying torture does not work

CVT

The Torture Myth

Why Torture Doesn't Work

 

If all of that is true (let's assume it for the moment), then we have to determine what methods are acceptable and what methods are not. That determination should take into consideration more than just the barbarity of the acts themselves. It should also consider the world situation and the problems that we're dealing with as a society.

 

As I've said before, I'm opposed to torture, and waterboarding sounds like torture to me. But it's easy to dismiss something as barbaric when we're sitting here at our computers comfortably isolated from this war. We should consider the full, big picture.

I agree that context is both difficult to get from the outside and very important to understanding an issue. However there are piles of history and examples of why torture is Always a mistake and no reliable examples of when it is a good idea.

[Pangloss]

It's not my claim, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. My personal opinion is that waterboarding is too far. What I also find objectionable, though, is premature condemnation. The sources you posted are typical in that they are simply more opinions, just like yours and mine. I think John McCain is also a good source along those lines. But the point that waterboarding may have worked in this case should not be ignored.

 

Put another way, if you feel that torture is "always a mistake", and refuse to define what that means, then what's the point of having a discussion at all? If you're going to preach and show no interest in listening, that's not a debate.

 

What's more interesting to me would be to hash out specifics. Determine what interrogative methods are both (a) effective, and (b) acceptable to society. THAT is the debate.

 

Which, by the way, is exactly what the Senate and the White House are doing this week. This is one of those rare times when government is doing something that our open debate is not doing -- actually addressing a real-world solution. The president tried to exert his will over the torture issue, and he failed -- the Judicial branch stopped him, and now his own party stands in his way. Now he's forced to hammer out a compromise.

 

This is exactly how government is SUPPOSED to work, debating the issue and coming up with a compromise that moves us forward. I think it's far more interesting than listening to extremists on either side berate us mercilessly for not adhering to their personal preferences.