home

Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Binalshibh

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall. The Red Cross this week met with the 14 new detainees at Guantanamo, those who reportedly were interrogated under abusive conditions in overseas prisons, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, Abu Zubaydah and Ramzi Binalshibh.

It was the first time anyone but their captors have seen the men since their capture. From my post of October 12, 2004, exactly two years ago:

On May 13, 2004, we reported on a New York Times article detailing the alleged torture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In September, 2003, we reported that Mohammed was "spilling his guts" from his overseas place of detention.

In March, 2003, we reported on the CIA's admission that it had seized Mohammed's 9 and 11 year old sons for interrogation, hoping they would provide information against their father. They also told Mohammed, in his overseas place of detention, that he better talk if he wanted his sons returned safely to Pakistan.
bq.. As one CIA official puts it, Mohammed's children are a valuable tool in the war on terror:

"'His sons are important to him. The promise of their release and their return to Pakistan may be the psychological lever we need to break him.'"

A few weeks before, we reported on Ramzi Bin al Shibh being broken at his overseas place of detention and ratting out Mohammed. (His name is also spelled Binalshibh.) Binalshibh has been of interest since his capture and departure to an overseas place of detention in September, 2002. We mentioned reports that computer disks seized with Mohammed proved that Mohammed had met with Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in February, 2003. (emphasis supplied.)The documents were shipped to Washington for further study.

"There is now no doubt that he is alive and well," a senior Pakistani government official said of bin Laden in an interview. "We have documents that show he is alive and in this region.".... a second Pakistani official said Mohammed had told his captors during the raid of meeting with bin Laden a month ago at a site that Mohammed refused to specify.

We reported here on how the U.S. flew Mohammed overseas instead of to Guantanamo for interrogation. Besides Binalshibh and Mohammed, there is captured Malaysian chemist Yazid Sufaat.

These hidden detainees, and the torture they reportedly have undergone, is not news. But it is appalling that the U.S. has gotten away with this treatment without an independent review.

So far, the agency has refused to grant any independent observer or human rights group access to the high-level detainees, who have been held in strict secrecy. Their whereabouts are such closely guarded secrets that one official said he had been told that Mr. Bush had informed the C.I.A. that he did not want to know where they were. (emphasis supplied.)

Another of the hidden detainees is Abu Zubaydah, captured in March of 2002. Here is some of his story:

Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in March 2002, told his questioners last year that the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed among Qaeda leaders, but that Osama bin Laden had rejected such proposals, according to an official who has read the Central Intelligence Agency's classified report on the interrogation. In his debriefing, Mr. Zubaydah said Mr. bin Laden had vetoed the idea because he did not want to be beholden to Mr. Hussein, the official said.

The refusal of bin Laden to work with Saddam was also backed up by Mohammed:

Separately, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Qaeda chief of operations until his capture on March 1 in Pakistan, has also told interrogators that the group did not work with Mr. Hussein, officials said.

Mohammed sang a different tune about Osama before he was captured. As we reported here, Binalshibh and Mohammad were captured on video discussing September 11 on al Jazeera tv in June, 2002. In that interview, Mohammed said bin Laden was dead.

In an article in the Sept. 9 London Times, "Slip of tongue in interview betrays secret that bin Laden is dead" by Dominic Kennedy (no longer available for free online but available at Lexis, and reprinted in large part below, Mr. Kennedy recounts a recently televised interview from June that bin al-Shibh gave to al-Jazeera television network journalist Yosri Fouda about the events of Sept. 11. With al-Shibh was another self-professed Al Qaeda member, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who reportedly is the cousin of Ramsy Yousef, now in jail in the U.S. for the 1993 WTC attacks.

"A slip of the tongue by one of Osama bin Laden's top henchmen seems to have betrayed al-Qaeda's most potent secret: its charismatic leader is dead."

"The blunder was made by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has confessed to being the operational mastermind behind the September 11 attacks. He made his mistake while disclosing many of the secrets behind the atrocities, which were plotted in Kandahar, the religious extremist Taleban movement's Afghan spiritual home."

Here are some of the connected dots, but where do they lead?

1. Before being arrested and interrogated, Mohammed says Osama is dead.

2. Binalshibh gets arrested and goes to his OPD (overseas place of detention) and gives up Mohammed. Mohammed gets arrested and taken to his OPD. The CIA grabs Mohammed's sons to use as leverage to get Mohammed to talk. It works. Mohammed now says Osama was alive and well in Pakistan in Feburary, 2003.

3. Binalshibh and Mohammed have evidence that would be favorable to Zacarias Moussaui in his trial and the Government fights tooth and nail to keep them overseas and not subject to interviews by Moussaoui's lawyers. When they lose in the trial court, they appeal. What did they do to Binalshibh and Mohammed that they don't want the world, or even Moussaoui's lawyers to see or hear about?

By the way, if you haven't read Binalshibh's detailed account of the planning and execution of 9/11 and the roles each were supposed to play, you should, it's fascinating. It may be a fairy tale. Then again, some of it may be true.

Human Rights Watch says that these are the countries that could be serving as OPDs and administering torture, based upon information obtained from the State Department:

  • Egypt: Suspension from a ceiling or doorframe; beatings with fists, whips, metal rods, and other objects; administration of electric shocks; being doused with cold water; sexual assault or threat with sexual assault
  • Jordan: Beatings on the soles of the feet; prolonged suspension in contorted positions; beatings
  • Morocco: Severe beatings
  • Pakistan: Beatings; burning with cigarettes; sexual assault; administration of electric shocks; being hung upside down; forced spreading of the legs with bar fetters
  • Saudi Arabia: Beatings; whippings; suspension from bards by handcuffs; drugging
  • Syria: Administration of electric shocks; pulling out fingernails; forcing objects into the rectum; beatings; bending detainees into the frame of a wheel and whipping exposed body parts.

Here's who is being held at OPD's, according to Human Rights Watch.

The CIA's "disappeared" prisoners also include Abu Zubayda, a close aide of Osama bin Laden, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who but for his failure to get a U.S. visa might have been one of the 9/11 hijackers, Hambali, a key al-Qaeda ally in southeast Asia, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, allegedly the mastermind of the U.S.S. Cole bombing.

The Human Rights Report on the then 11 hidden detainees is here.

< Comic Relief | Job Well Done >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:14:36 AM EST
    "'His sons are important to him. The promise of their release and their return to Pakistan may be the psychological lever we need to break him.'"
    Aren't all sons important? I wonder how many mothers watched sons and daughters jump from the upper floor of the WTC rather than burn to death?

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 11:19:38 AM EST
    sorry... the following was meant to be in the previous.... If this monster of a man was truly concerned over his children he would have chosen a more nornal life. He didn't. And while I hope his children are safe he gets absolutely no sympathy what so ever from me.

    unfortunately for that sane prescription, we drove him into becoming a monster. it's our fault, don't you know. like with NK, all of these countries and all of these psychopaths would spend their days picking daisies and flying kites in peace and harmony if not for us. only we, and not our brown and yellow brothers, can be evil.

    There are two seperate questions. One is how we treat those accused of crimes. The other is how we treat people we absolutely know are innocent and are children to boot. It is inhuman to kidnap and interrogate children--this isn't something to be viewed through the prism of 'well he deserves it,' it's something that needs to be seen through the fundamental human rights every person has, and most especially the rights of children. Kidnapping relatives? In what parallel universe is this even remotely allowable? And I'd remind you that revenge is not justice. It's the purposeful infliction of suffering upon another human and serves no purpose even as a deterrent. It serves only to make us monsters.

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#5)
    by legion on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    Did you actually read that? We _kidnapped his children_, held them hostage, threatened their safety, and _interrogated them_. This is some of the most appaling, filthy behavior I have ever heard of, and I am ashamed to be an American. The people that did thi, approved this, condoned this, are literally no different at all from KSM or bin Laden. They should all be destroyed and buried in unmarked graves.

    you know, i've got to partially agree with jim on this one. the guy has admitted that he was behind some of the planning of 911. they knew that going in. so beating the ever living $^it out of him is what he deserves and i dont care if they did pull his fingernails out. he had it coming. if using his sons for leverage got us some information that saved some american lives, then so be it, as long as they didnt mistreat his sons.

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#7)
    by dead dancer on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    Aren't all sons important? Mohammed is also a son, and I don't think he is looking for your sympathy Jim. Regarding torture, I still believe it is wrong.

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:30:04 PM EST
    Busted writes:
    And I'd remind you that revenge is not justice.
    All justice has some element of revenge in it. One of the advantages of establishing nation states was to take revenge away from the individuals and have it administered by a third party, thus stopping the blood feuds that tribes are prone to have. BTW - I remind you that it was Mohommad who put his children in danger by his own actions. dead dancer - And why do you defend this man??

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jen M on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:45:09 PM EST
    Torture is wrong. Kidnapping children is wrong. Nothing makes it right. Nothing. The people behind the attacks on 9/11 are nasty immoral scumbags. We (supposedly) are not. The proof of that would be in how we treat them if and when they came to be in our custody.

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mary on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 05:45:09 PM EST
    Some very strange perspectives. How can a 9 and 11 year old be kidnapped and interrogated by strangers and used for threat purposes and be "ok"? Why is it acceptable to do that - abuse children because their father is a bad guy? The "hope the kids are ok but let's keep torturing dad cuz it makes us feel better for the bad things he did" response is just odd and no one who expresses it seems to want to actually have any look into the status of the kids or do any kind of oversight whatsoever. Of course, the bigger issue is that we have also abused hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians, all handled in similar manners (including having their families threatened) and this is all supposed to also be ok because KSM is a bad guy? We just have unchecked beat and cheat procedures because who knows, we may radomly end up beating to death someone who did deserve it? Go back and examine the Salem witch trials and see what happened. *sigh* For that matter, why abuse a bad guy, but for the thrill of abuse? We sure seem to have had plenty to bring KSM to trial, which trial would have included the death penalty it seems very likely. I'd shoot a rabid dog. Only an even sicker pup would want to keep it around for torture and abuse before killing it. There were no smoking gun exigencies - certainly not for the years at issue. Just an embrace of a very very sick philosphy and approach to dealing with a criminal - whether war or civil law. And an even more shameful approach to dealing with innocents populating multiple countries - one that none of the "I'll lose no sleep over him" will acknowledge. Becoming sadists who value power and torture over evidence and problem elimination just means that you create at least as many people who "hate back" at Americans who can so hate Bin Laden that they don't catch him for years, and so hate al-Qaeda that they kidnap, torture, imprison and kill people who have nothing to do with al-Qaeda and who have never done anything to the US. When did stupid get so popular?

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#12)
    by Nowonmai on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 06:33:05 PM EST
    dead dancer - And why do you defend this man??
    Because defending against torture is something decent minded people do. I daresay we would 'defend' even you against being tortured.

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 12, 2006 at 09:02:19 PM EST
    Jim, I'm sure you're a decent fellow in private, but on this topic you are full of sh*t. You know kidnapping and interrogating and abusing children is wrong. Terribly wrong. Your fear and lack of a moral compass are winning. Your humanity and rational mind are losing. I never took you for a glib rationalizer of child abuse. Man I thought you were better than that. For all our disagreements and diametrically opposed opinions, this is not one I thought we'd be at odds over. Astounding.

    One of the essential weapons in any war, but most especially a bulls*** rhetorical "war on terror" is moral authority, especially since we are fighting it on the cheap (tax cuts, you know) with a minimum of actual men and women and boots on the ground... we need the cooperation of the locals, as well as hearts and minds of locals and allies. None of our uniformed soldiers in Iraq, for example, were killed after capture prior to the release of hte Abu Ghraib photos; since those photos... lots of beheadings and other brutality. Moral authority MATTERS. Once it is widely perceived that we (1) abuse (more likely torture) those in our custody, even "the very bad", (2) abuse (more likely torture) NON-COMBATANTS (including a f*** of a lot of women and children), and (3) flout our own laws and international law in the process... well, we lose our moral authority. And it's only a matter of time that we begin to lose the war, entirely. Which is among the reasons why we are losing both in Afghanistan and Iraq: no one believes our horses*** about "bringing them freedom" when we engage in monstrous conduct like kidnapping and interrogating 9 and 11 year old children, by virtue of their relationship. Bad enough innumeragble children have been "collateral damage" in bombing raids and firefights... but this is just over the top. And that's the ultimate shame of it: it's all based on bulls***. Rumsfeld commissioned a study telling him what we all knew already: torture is immpral, illegal, puts our own soldiers at risk AND IS AN INEFFECTIVE AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE MEANS OF GETTING INTELLIGENCE, based on the best research of our own government. So, on top of everything else, we have lowered ourselves in to the abyss FOR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EVEN WORK, AND WE KNOW DOESN'T WORK. Nice. Just nice.

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 07:32:49 AM EST
    Dadler - First you have no idea of what I am in private, and your assumption mirrors your mistaken view of the world that we can negotiate with terrorists. We can't, and your view leads to empowerment of the terrorists who believe that a negotiation is merely an interlude between battles. And you have no information that says the children were abused. Kidnapped and questioned, yes. There is a vast difference, and it is dishonest for you to claim abuse. As for your moral position, I quote you.
    you're stating the obvious, that protest worked. Sorry it helped "the enemy", but no Vietnamese communist fighting Western colonialism ever did a thing to me.
    Do you feel the same about the terrorists?? How does it feel to place your self above it all? Nice and comfy? No hard questions. Just a belief that all will be well. Especially if someone else will do the fighting. And you again claim that I act out of "fear." Dadler, in case you missed it, fear is good. Fear makes us take steps to prevent our homes from catching fire. For giving our children vaccinations against diseases and feeding them properly. It also makes us analyze risks and to understand that you can't pet a rattlesnake and that you can't let a nest of them live in your backyard. So yes, I fear the freaks of the world. But I don't cower. I think and support efforts to keep them away from me and my friends, family and country. Mary - See above. Et al - In the world we live in the minor children of arrested parents are typically placed into protective custody. Read "kidnapped" if you like. They are questioned and their answers may be used in any on going investigations. The children may be held by human services, or they may be placed in the custody of other family members or friends. I would think that the fate of these children of more routine suspects is also of great interest to the suspects but I see little support for them. If these terrorists have interest in the safety of their children they should take action to see that they are safe. Instead they take actions that they know will place them in jeopardy. They do so because they are religious fanatics who desire to either convert infidels or to kill them and if they themselves are killed they will immdediately go to paradise. I am sorry that is their belief system. I would much prefer if they would just send people to knock on my door and offer to pray for my soul. But they don't, they won't and they will continue to attack until we have killed enough of them to make them quit. That is just the sad, bad facts. Get used to them.

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 07:38:03 AM EST
    talking dog writes:
    None of our uniformed soldiers in Iraq, for example, were killed after capture prior to the release of hte Abu Ghraib photos; since those photos... lots of beheadings and other brutality.
    The first set of captures you refer to were by the Iraqi army. The second set was by the terrorists. Big difference. Now. Since you claim that the release of the photographs have caused these actions... can't it be said that those who released them share some blame??

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 08:06:32 AM EST
    If this monster of a man was truly concerned over his children he would have chosen a more nornal life.
    ppj not only endorses torture, he endorses kdnapping of children. Which btw, is against the GenCons. It is no sicker to behead an enemy than it is to kidnap his children.

    wouldn't it be child abuse to leave those children to the tender mercies of the jihadists and KSM's psychopathic brethren? maybe they will stand a chance now. witness the grooming to murder being done by the palestinians-who wouldn't want to take children out of that.

    Fear makes us take steps to prevent our homes from catching fire. For giving our children vaccinations against diseases and feeding them properly. It also makes us analyze risks and to understand that you can't pet a rattlesnake and that you can't let a nest of them live in your backyard.
    Wrong, Jim. Fear does not imply analysis of anything - that's wisdom. To continue your metaphor, wisdom tells us that running out into the backyard with a stick will only get us killed. And that pouring gas all over the yard & setting it on fire might kill the snakes, but it'll also take out our own house, and possibly the whole neighborhood. Now, you're not cowering, but you're also not being very smart.
    And you have no information that says the children were abused. Kidnapped and questioned, yes. There is a vast difference, and it is dishonest for you to claim abuse.
    Bull. Did you hear anything Bush said during the entire last 2 months? Now, for the US, interrogation is abuse. It's our policy.
    The first set of captures you refer to were by the Iraqi army. The second set was by the terrorists. Big difference.
    Wrong again. Remember Paul Bremer? Where do you think the Iraqi Army went after he disbanded them? Not to mention, Abu Ghraib happened well after the disbanding...

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 05:27:59 PM EST
    And you have no information that says the children were abused. Kidnapped and questioned, yes.
    Uhh, ppj is endorsing kidnapping children. king george endorses kidnapping children. What the hell has happened to America!? Does anyone else remember when we were supposed to be the good guys?

    Re: Red Cross Meets Khalid Sheikh Mohommad and Bin (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 09:23:58 PM EST
    Jim, Kidnapping a child is not abuse?? Go ask a child who has been, or an adult who was kidnapped as a child. Much less by the military. The cruelty behind the rationalization is truly disturbing. You couldn't watch ten seconds of these children weeping for help without breaking down and weeping FOR them and wanting them released immediately. Any human being with a conscience would.