Background on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh

Back in 2002 and 2003, largely due to their relevance to the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui and their captivity in overseas secret prisons where they likely were tortured, I wrote many, many posts about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh.

All of the posts are accessible here:

In addition to the alleged torture of Khalid, the CIA also kidnapped his young sons and flew them to America to talk. My criticism of that is here. The U.S. gave a denial, but it didn't fit. The Associated Press reported on Khalid's statements to interrogators back in 2003. Here is the summary of Khalid's debriefing introduced at the Moussaoui trial. (Analysis here.)Time Magazine profiled Khalid in 2003. ABC reported on the torture techniques as described by CIA officers. The New York Times reported on the techniques used on Khalid (described here.) In 2004, the Washington Post reported on the conflicts between what Khalid and Binalshibh were telling them.

< What Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Binalshibh Told al-Jazeera | Hillary and Dems on Iraq >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Speaking of torture, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 06:41:09 AM EST
    has confessed to personally beheading Daniel Peral.

    Plus 9/11 and about 30 more acts of terrorists.

    Gun? Rope? Needle?

    I vote for the rope.

    George W. Bush's (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 07:41:43 AM EST
    Iraq & Mid-East Debacle has caused the deaths of nearly one million Iraqis and the crippling, blinding, burning, poisoning and maiming of tens of thousands of US Soldiers, for which neither he - nor any of his supporters - have taken any responsibility for to date, much less confessed. And for which there is overwhelming evidence that would convict in any court of law - not just in a kangaroo tribunal.

    You vote for the rope?

    Edger (1.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 08:14:54 AM EST
    Your continual excusing of everyone attacking us by attacking the country, and Bush, is not new, and not even surprising anymore.

    I could point out any number of things to you, and about you, but I will limit myself:

    1. You have said you will not fight. Do you think it is proper for you to depend on others to defend you from people such as this monster.

    2. And if you do, please explain why. I am sure the widows, children and families of our dead would appreciate understand your position.

    Have a nice day.

    Avoiding the hard question, I see. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 08:20:42 AM EST
    Just exposing you. (1.00 / 2) (#5)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 08:25:34 AM EST
    Danny Pearl (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:01:51 AM EST
    was murdered by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, while tracking a money transfer from Pakistan.

    I'm sure you do (none / 0) (#10)
    by Al on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:41:01 PM EST
    it's called "lynching", and it's right up your street.

    This policy of yours of mindless violence is not even practical, never mind ethical.


    Al (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:55:38 PM EST
    What a crock, Al.

    Please show me where I have said we should lynch anyone.

    You, of course, cannot, because I have not. You have no civility, no respect for others, no ability to debate, so you just make a truly nasty ad hominem.

    Have a nice day. You are truly the poster child of many on the Left.


    True (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 04:30:20 PM EST
    I think you  have used the less loaded term: hang them.  Both have  the same connotation comming from you.

    Squeaky (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:07:51 PM EST
    Nonsense. You are the one who condemns people. Need I remind you what you said about Rove's Grandparents?

    And even about Rove??

    Let us face facts. It is difficult to impossible for you to hold a debate because you lose regualrly, and then you resort to smear tactics.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    And to further illustrate your method of debating, we have this.

    ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST

    (I had asked)So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?

    (You replied.) I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

    Nice huh?

    Have a good day.


    OFF TOPIC (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sailor on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:51:49 AM EST
    and yet another personal attack.

    "I choose the rope" (none / 0) (#23)
    by Al on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 06:20:11 PM EST
    That, with no semblance of a trial, is lynching. And while you're using the dictionary, look up "ad hominem".

    Al (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:10:11 PM EST
    Really? I merely say that I choose the rope, and that means lynching?

    Why are you incapable of understanding that it means that I see that they are guilty, and after a fair and honest trial, I choose the rope.

    Would you like to debate his innocence?


    I think you must suffer (none / 0) (#30)
    by Al on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 10:10:39 PM EST
    from some kind of visual deafness. What "fair and honest trial" are you blathering about? And I didn't see you mention that little caveat before.

    He didn't get a fair and honest trial. He's not getting one now, and he's not going to get one ever. So your desire to hang him is tantamount to lynching. You don't like to get called on that, you keep your sadistic urges to yourself. Fat lot of good they've done you so far.


    Al (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 10:21:35 PM EST
    Since you can't channel, you have no idea of what I meant.

    All you know is that you want to attck whatever the US is doing in the WOT.

    BTW - I agree, he won't get a trial. He'll be tried by a tribunal. Fair and balanced.... ;-)

    As for me worrying about what you say, pleaseeeeee
    say whatever outrageous things you want to and I'll just point out your lack of knowledge and motives.

    As Dirty Harry said:

    Make my day.

    Oh Gosh! Now I've done it!!!!

    Guess you'll have to keep on worrying about the health and welfare of the monsters.


    Monsters (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:42:44 AM EST
    Whomever planned 9/11 could be described as a monster. Or, they might be described as a calculating strategist attempting to achieve a political result. I guess it depends on your perspective. But, I like you, Jim, prefer Monster for the orchestrator of such events.

    I will also have to agree with Edger. Whomever decides to drop missiles on a compound to achieve a political result, knowing innocents might be killed could be described as a criminal and a monster. Children asking mommy what is happening and why people are sreaming in either event is something that no one can explain. It is the worst aspect of humanity - deliberate killing, maiming and destroying of property with weapons that can only be described as monstrous or barbaric.

    I prefer that we treat monsters as human beings as a means to separate the worse aspects of humanity from the better aspects. We shouldn't torture "monsters" and "criminals," not because they don't deserve it for the acts they have committed, but because we are striving to separate ourselves from these criminals and their monstroust acts. We give them fair trials and public hearings, to demonstrate to the world we are not going lower ourselves to their barbaric and monstous levels. It is one means of striving to make the world a better and more peaceful place for our children and grandchildren.

    Violences and barbarity begets more violence and barbarity. I believe that to be true. The only way to break the cycle is to react to violence with nonviolence. This means treating enemies (or monsters) with dignity and as fellow human beings. However, this does not mean that they won't be punished, it just means that we won't treat them as below human and as monsters-despite their monstrous acts.


    The question, ppj - the question.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 08:30:31 AM EST

    Edger (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:49:10 PM EST
    Do you ever think about the freedoms you enjoy, and those who sacrficed to give it to you?

    You have never answered my questions about what part of our freedoms you would negotiate away to the radical Moslems.

    Freedom of religion?

    The rights of gays and lesbians to live? (That's a very important right, don't you think?)

    Really edger, you have become so predictable, understandable and well known. After all, you defined the way you act, the way you respect others' rights in this most telling statement:

    by Edger on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:17:12 PM EST ......

    Anyone who wants me or others to be constrained from saying things that insult so that they will NOT feel constrained from doing things that kill, is trying to draw equivalence where there is none, and deserves absolutely no respect, civility, or any kind of tolerence whatever.

    OFF TOPIC (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 05:07:48 PM EST
    and yet another personal attack.

    What ppj conveniently forgets to mention is that bush has assaulted all of those freedoms in the guise of preserving them.

    If folks like ppj didn't vote for defiliers of the Constitution like bush we wouldn't be torturing prisoners, hiding them in illegal prisons, and kidnapping children.

    Thank the American voters (80%) who caught on and disagree with his radical beliefs, which include calling for the deaths of American political leaders.


    LOL (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:48:41 PM EST
    Let us see. I am attacked by Al, squeaky and edger, and you only consider my response. a personal attack.

    How transparent of you.


    I think the really hard question now is (none / 0) (#7)
    by peacrevol on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:06:49 AM EST
    What do we do with this guy now? I mean, I dont want to pay to house this dewd in one of our prisons, but I couldnt hit the lever for the trap door to hang him either. So what do we do with him? Granted it would be easier for me to hit the switch on this cat than most other people, but he's still a human being...(sort of...j/k)

    The really hard questions are (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 10:12:57 AM EST
    In the transcript of the "combatant status review" on March 10/07 a statement of the President of the tribunal says "This tribunal will determine whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed meets the criteria to be designated as an enemy combatant...... [blah, blah, blah] (page 2).

    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not a nice guy, by any means. But... he was taken prisoner in Pakistan in March 2003, and has been held prisoner since. The tribunal was ostensibly to determine if he should be held, since only "enemy combatants" (terrists) are held there of course....

    But since he had not been designated an "enemy combatant" before March 07.... under what authority and reasoning was he held prisoner for the past 4 years? Who should  be held accountable for illegally imprisoning someone who is not an "enemy combatant" for 4 years? And what should the penalty for doing so be?

    Oh, yeah - I forgot - Bush said he was a terrist. So he was. So Bush is accountable? Of course not. How silly of me.

    Bush does not make any mistakes, except when appointing Attorneys General, Political Advisors, and Vice Presidents. And when exposing the identities of covert CIA operatives.

    Does he?
    Is that a hard question?

    edger (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    I find it remarkable that you, even you. Yes,even you, would be complaining about us having this monster in captivity.

    And did Bush call him a terrorist? I don't know. But if he did, he was 100000000% right.

    edger, for once, just once. Stand up for your country.


    Including the Constitution? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:06:11 PM EST
    And especially that part of it called, euphemistically of course these days, the Bill of Rights?

    I know it's rather quaint, but that is what you had in mind to stand up for and defend, yes?



    How confused can you be? (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:56:17 PM EST
    Very, it appears.

    The monster in question is not a US citizen, has never been on US soil and was known to be what he is. A stone cold killer engaged in illegal war attacks on the US.

    That we have held him and are now trying him with a tribunal is a tribute to our country and to western civilization and culture. Something he does not understand, and will never understand.

    So tell me. Why do you think our Bill of Rights apply to him?

    Oh, I know, because he is a human being?

    How drool. Your logic is like your charges. Wrong and misguided.

    Have a nice day. And find a better excuse for your
    efforts. Your current ones are seen for what they are.


    And (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 03:26:29 PM EST
    He was even going to blow up Kissinger's oil company, and kill Carter too.  There could not be another human being alive that is as evil a brilliant mastermind as he.

    Glad that the WOT is finally over.

    We won.

    Now send the troops home.

    I am glad to get my mind off all the dirty dealings of Gonzales. Nice to have something more important to focus on.


    The Bill of Rights (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    does not apply to him. Nor does it apply to you. Or to me. Or to anyone else. In fact it does not apply to people, at all.

    It is a list of things the federal government may not legally do. Period.

    To anyone.

    It has no "expediency" clauses in it. It's too bad you are willing to toss it out or disregard it when it is inconvenient. Just a god*amn piece of paper?


    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 04:07:55 PM EST
    is probably not a nice guy. He ::may:: even be a killer. But we'll never know, because he will never be charged or tried fairly and impartially under the system of justice represented by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed might or might have killed about three thousand people, but he could never harm the ::heart:: of America - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... on his own. For that he needs complicity.

    George W. Bush is responsible for the deaths of nearly a million people, many more than three thousand, and he and his appointees and his supporters would stab the ::heart:: of America by tossing out the Bill of Rights for expediency and out of fear... and by doing so do exactly what they accuse Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of... and grin and giggle while she slowly bleeds to death - all the while accusing those who don't help them kill her of attacking her.

    Looking glass land.


    edger - You are not even good at parsing. (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:40:38 PM EST
    Since he is not a citizen, was not captured on US soil and has illegally attacked the US and beheaded a US citzien.... the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to him.

    Sorry edger, you just don't grasp the fact that we don't live in a world where everyone is equal.

    And wishing doesn't make it true.

    BTW - Libertarin stuff works fine as long as others are doing the heavy lifting that allows you to be protected and enjoy all the things covered in the Preamble.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    You see edger, this defines why and what the rest of it is all about.  

    It doesn't say, it works for me, but I don't wanna fight. It doesn't say,but I don't wanna pay my taxes..... etc.

    Your problem Edger is that you don't want to pay your far share. Your moniker is instructive, you want to live on yhe edge.



    Heart and Soul (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 04:52:21 PM EST
    You dont know me but I'm your brother
    I was raised here in this living hell
    You don't know my kind in your world
    Fairly soon the time will tell
    You, telling me the things youre gonna do for me
    I aint blind and I dont like what I think I see
    Takin' It To The Streets

    The things I missed.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Noor on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    I did not know about kidnapping of the two children.  That's the sort of tactic I would expect from one of the early Plantagenet kings -- John comes to mind.  And if they were my kids, I would tell anyone anything they wanted to hear in order to ensure my children's safe return to the family.  I can imagine that, and I don't even HAVE children.  

    (In my own defense, I admit to being highly distracted in 2003 -- graduate school, learning a new language, travel overseas to pursue said language, and serious back trouble complete with pain meds.  It wasn't a lack of paying attention to news, but of being able to only give it so much time out of my day.)

    Noir has a tough year. (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:05:24 PM EST
    Sounds like you had a real tough year in '03.

    Yessir, real hard.

    I mean extremely hard. So hard you must have forgotten about those children on the 9/11 airplanes.

    "Why is that lady have blood coming out of her throat, mommy??"

    "I'm scared Mommy. Why is everyone screaming,Mommy?"

    BTW - That last paragraph is so self-centered I can hardly believe it. Are you trying to be ironic??


    More off topic (none / 0) (#24)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 07:57:54 PM EST
    ad hominum attacks. This thread is about KSM's confessions.

    Don't let your guard down around here.

    double standard (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 09:51:38 PM EST
    Then why did noir bring up the subject of children?

    I just wanted to make sure he had an opportunuty to be concernced for all of them.

    Not to mention the "Little Eichmans" in the towers... guess they didn't have any children..


    torture (none / 0) (#35)
    by Sailor on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    Two senators who watched Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confess to planning the Sept. 11 attacks and other plots said Friday that his allegations of mistreatment by U.S. captors should be taken seriously and investigated.

    "To do otherwise would reflect poorly on our nation," Sens. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., and Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., said in a joint statement.

    Pathetic (none / 0) (#36)
    by Brad Eleven on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:09:04 PM EST
    "Trolling is not tolerated here... all trolls will be deleted."

    That's funny; all I see here is trolling. And baiting. And flaming. And personal attacks. Very little discussion of the matter at hand. Oh, well, it's your site, and I'm just a guest.
    What I think:

    KSM probably was the key planner for al-Qaeda. He was also in charge of propaganda--think about that for a few minutes. It doesn't seem humanly possible to have been deeply involved in even half of what he's confessed to. I don't care whether he's confessing because of his ego, harsh interrogation, or to cover for others. It would be a world record for naivete to presume that we've now got all of those cases solved.

    Note also the timing of the announcement, and of the special ceremony to present the findings, which featured special invitations to Senators. We've had him for, what? Three years? More? I think it's merely a ploy to distract from the towering inferno of White House scandals. Whatever you think of this administration's use of the words "Nine" and "Eleven" spoken in quick succession, with the emphasis on the second syllable of "Eleven" (nine uh-LEV-en), you're a clueless fool if you think it their utterance of it has any meaning except, "Now shut up and listen." Whether what they have to say merits listening any more is left as an exercise to the reader.

    It's the height of desperation to pounce on this like it means anything at this point. If we were going to make KSM the scapegoat for 9/11, the time for that passed years ago. Think about it: YEARS AGO. Either we got nothin' on the guy, or we've had plenty on him and either failed to follow up, or just plain dropped the ball. Again.

    It's Khalid Sheik Mohammed, FFS. The mastermind behind the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. The event that changed the world, for ever. How in the world do we not already have this guy in prison, executed, or frozen in carbonite? I'd have thought that we'd have invented some revolutionary science to extract facts directly from his brain. It's like we captured Satan himself without his armor, and we've just let him chill out for a few years before suddenly parading what's left of him onto a stage to confess.

    Think carefully. If this was your project, would you really have waited for so long just to announce what he'd confessed to? Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you had seventeen solid reasons for waiting. Are you really going to sit there and tell me that you wouldn't have already had at least one of the confessions fully investigated, corroborated, and proven to have led to the arrests of other dangerous terrorists? Let's assume that you didn't, that it really, really, really took you years to get the confession. Maybe you got a few confessions up front, then he clammed up for a few months, then a little more, you know, maybe he nickel-and-dimed you. Okay, fine. I think I've been very generous here.

    Given all of that [implausible] point-spotting, now tell me with a straight face that you never once considered investigating at least one of his claims. You really thought your job was simply to extract confessions? Did you, maybe, pass this information along to whomever you thought might have the job of investigating?

    I feel exactly the same way about KSM that I do about the invasion of Iraq. During "shock and awe", I was indeed awed by our military might. I had high hopes--even after the naive soldiers and/or Marines put the American flag where Saddam's statue had been*--but now that we're coming up on the FOURTH ANNIVERSARY of the invasion with nothing to show for it but 3000+ dead and tens of thousands wounded, I conclude that our leadership is incompetent--and in denial.

    [Surely someone will pounce on this and spew a load of talking points, e.g., "We do so have something to show for it!" Rattle on. You're twice as entertaining as a circus geek.]

    KSM: We caught him, or at least the Pakistanis did and turned him over to us. That's worth a lot of points. Way to go. Sitting on him for years on end, though, is further evidence of incompetence.

    You fools who are still backing this administration probably wouldn't kick the preacher out of your church for anything--except maybe getting caught having sex with an intern.

    And if you think for even a moment that KSM's capture did anything but teach al-Quaeda a lesson, you're dumber than my dog. Al-Qaeda is decentralized. Designed to operate with the head removed. Think "cockroach", or more accurately, "cockroaches". We caught a really big one, and we got him to talk, but there are many, many more in the walls, and they're multiplying. The big roach has confessed to eating the Jell-O, running across the baby's face, flying into Mom's hair, and showing the other roaches how to get into the baked goods on the counter. Meanwhile, the house is infested with vermin, and we're too busy watching TV to do anything about it today.

    FFS, wake up, y'all. Captain Ahab is out of his mind.
    * If you don't get why this was a Very Bad Idea, you can just go back to whatever other ignorant pursuits you were involved in before you read this, and your last words will probably be "Hey, y'all--watch this!" Hint: We were not invading to take over, but trying to fly our flag there made it look like we were simply installing our government in place of theirs. See also LACK OF VISION OR PLANNING.