NationStates Jolt Archive

That was the headline of a story featured on MSNBC on October 26, 2006, and an unanswered question ever since...

The methods
Mohammed al-Qahtani, detainee No. 063, was forced to wear a bra. He had a thong placed on his head. He was massaged by a female interrogator who straddled him like a lap dancer. He was told that his mother and sisters were whores. He was told that other detainees knew he was gay. He was forced to dance with a male interrogator. He was strip-searched in front of women. He was led on a leash and forced to perform dog tricks. He was doused with water. He was prevented from praying. He was forced to watch as an interrogator squatted over his Koran.
While some aggressive treatment of al-Qahtani had begun months earlier — on Oct. 1, 2002, a military police dog was used to scare the Saudi, an Army investigation found — now it began in earnest.

He was interrogated for 18 to 20 hours per day, for 48 of the next 54 days, according to an Army investigative report. On Dec. 7, 2002, he had to be revived at the detainee hospital when his heart rate fell to 35 beats per minute, according to a log of the interrogation published by Time magazine. Then the interrogation continued.

FBI agents at Guantanamo joined the opposition. A Nov. 27 FBI "legal analysis," since reported by Newsweek, labeled several parts of the plan as "coercive interrogation techniques which are not permitted by the U.S. Constitution." It also warned that several of the proposed tactics could constitute torture, depending on how a judge viewed the intent of the interrogator.

The result
The Qahtani interrogation was a success, the Pentagon has said. Al-Qahtani admitted he had been sent to the United States by Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohamed, that he had met Osama bin Laden several times, that he had been trained at two al-Qaida camps, that he knew the shoe bomber Richard Reid, and that 30 other detainees he identified had been bodyguards for bin Laden.

The law enforcement investigators, however, say the interrogation produced little new. "I will just say that most of what we knew, we knew before," Col. Mallow said. "A lot of the intelligence 'successes' that have been touted were a result of much earlier disclosures made by detainees to our agents."

Al-Qahtani’s lawyer says her client repudiates his statements. "He adamantly denies all of that," said Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

She said al-Qahtani, now in his late 20s, is physically and psychologically broken. In addition to the degrading treatment, she said, al-Qahtani was subjected to a "fake rendition," in which he was tranquilized, flown off the island of Cuba, revived, flown back to Cuba, and told he was in a country that allows torture.

"The government," she said, "has never come forward with any evidence that wasn't obtained by torture."
Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361462/)
This was of course debated on NSG way back then.

But disregarding the flashback - We are revisiting Guantanamo, and the results are in. Now we know:

Key 9/11 suspect charges dropped
The Pentagon has dropped charges against a Saudi citizen alleged to have been the "20th hijacker" in the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.
A Pentagon official said the charges against Mohammad al-Qahtani had been dropped "without prejudice", meaning they could be reinstated.

The US military gave no reason for its decision.

But lawyers for the defendant say they believe the charges were dropped because he "was tortured" under interrogation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7398953.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7399644.stm

And this is supposed to be one of the most dangerous people there, and absolutely one of the most symbolic people.

I'm not surprised though. Using torture is a quick way to invalidate any testimony. I am surprised that it has gone this far, though. I can't see the Bush administration being willing to release him, even if they're not going to charge him.

And what will the next president do?

You almost couldn't guess there's an election coming.:rolleyes:

The next president will hopefully order trials for the whole lot, close down Gitmo and release the innocent with very generous compensation and apologies for their mistreatment. Up to and including turning over W for war crimes trials.

You almost couldn't guess there's an election coming.:rolleyes:

This isn't directly election related - or at least, that wasn't my meaning. But as the lame duck president Bush gets more and more irrelevant and marginalized, the question of what the next president will do with this horribly ugly mess is one that should be asked.

But feel free to ignore all of that and post comments about your views on the point that it's most likely the use of torture that has caused the charges to be dropped after keeping this "dangerous man" locked up without trial or due process for all of these years.

This isn't directly election related - or at least, that wasn't my meaning. But as the lame duck president Bush gets more and more irrelevant and marginalized, the question of what the next president will do with this horribly ugly mess is one that should be asked.

But feel free to ignore all of that and post comments about your views on the point that it's most likely the use of torture that has caused the charges to be dropped after keeping this "dangerous man" locked up without trial or due process for all of these years.

Meh. It may have not been your meaning, I was merely putting this into a time frame.:)

Meh. It may have not been your meaning, I was merely putting this into a time frame.:)

'twill be nice to have when we dig up this thread in three years to say "The guy is STILL in Guantanamo", then we'll know when this thread was made quite quickly :p

No wonder he "confessed". Ok, I'll admit, I can't say he's guilty or innocent, but I do think there is something odd about the fact that he confessed, especially given how he was treated.

The next president will hopefully order trials for the whole lot, close down Gitmo and release the innocent with very generous compensation and apologies for their mistreatment. Up to and including turning over W for war crimes trials.

You mean the same kind of Innocent that within 6 months of being released into the hands of Middle Eastern authorities, blow themselves up in Iraq?

You mean the same kind of Innocent that within 6 months of being released into the hands of Middle Eastern authorities, blow themselves up in Iraq?

Sounds like the same kind of innocent as you or I. We're all innocent until we break the law.

Is their freedom worth the dozens that each one could kill?

Is their freedom worth the dozens that each one could kill?

As long as none of the posters family or friends are hurt, yes (too them).

Is their freedom worth the dozens that each one could kill?

Is your freedom worth the hundreds you could kill?

You mean the same kind of Innocent that within 6 months of being released into the hands of Middle Eastern authorities, blow themselves up in Iraq?

Hmmm. Innocent. Captured. Brutalised. Tortured. Imprisoned. Released.

You know, I'd be pretty pissed off at the people who did that to me too.

Hmmm. Innocent. Captured. Brutalised. Tortured. Imprisoned. Released.

You know, I'd be pretty pissed off at the people who did that to me too.


Most of which were captured with guns in hands. How does that make them non combatants?

Is your freedom worth the hundreds you could kill?

I have not pledged my self to kill all people that do not believe as I do. I pose no threat.

Most of which were captured with guns in hands. How does that make them non combatants?



Well since we're playing the "Let's pull stuff from out my ass" game, if they were guilty, why were they released? Hmmm?

I have not pledged my self to kill all people that do not believe as I do. I pose no threat.

Doesn't mean you won't climb a clock tower with a high powered rifle tomorrow. Besides, do you have any evidence that he has pledged to do anything of the sort (evidence not obtained under torture)?

Well since we're playing the "Let's pull stuff from out my ass" game, if they were guilty, why were they released? Hmmm?

Because one of their rights was violated.

Because one of their rights was violated.

Care to expand on that? Or are you just going to stick with vague generalities to back up you're wild assertions?

Despite the fact it doesn't detract from my point that brutalising and torturing people in your care aren't going to endear them to you when you release them.

Actually, forget it. You can continue to fish, I'm not biting this one.

/done

Care to expand on that? Or are you just going to stick with vague generalities to back up you're wild assertions?

Despite the fact it doesn't detract from my point that brutalising and torturing people in your care aren't going to endear them to you when you release them.

Actually, forget it. You can continue to fish, I'm not biting this one.

/done

So we don't release them. Let them sit in Gitmo until they die, or kill themselves.

Most of which were captured with guns in hands. How does that make them non combatants?
Prove it.



I have not pledged my self to kill all people that do not believe as I do. I pose no threat.
Prove that everyone in Guantanamo has.
So we don't release them. Let them sit in Gitmo until they die, or kill themselves.

Clearly the terrorists are doing their job right. You seem quite terrified of people who may not pose any threat to you.

Is their freedom worth the dozens that each one could kill?

If we don't have a justification for keeping them? Yes.

You mean the same kind of Innocent that within 6 months of being released into the hands of Middle Eastern authorities, blow themselves up in Iraq?

those who trade liberty for security deserve neither. We cannot hold people we cannot prosecute simply because of what they might do.

Also, I agree with who ever said that Bush needs to be charged with war crimes by the UN.

Rolling squid;13707444']those who trade liberty for security deserve neither. We cannot hold people we cannot prosecute simply because of what they might do.

Also, I agree with who ever said that Bush needs to be charged with war crimes by the UN.

If you can gain security and liberty for the masses, by revoking the rights of the smallest minority of a group, why not?

Because it is not right and it will start a chain reaction in which we can lose all the rights people have fought for so hard in our past.

So we don't release them. Let them sit in Gitmo until they die, or kill themselves.

Your personality indicates a dangerous possibility that you might pledge yourself towards killing people tomorrow (0.5%). Based on this reason, you must thereby be incarcerated for the remainder of your natural life without parole, trial or charge. Furthermore, you will be tortured daily in order to obtain "confessions".


If you can gain security and liberty for the masses, by revoking the rights of the smallest minority of a group, why not?

Why stop at just revoking their rights? Why not kill them? In fact, since people like you are fast becoming the minority, how about we kill you? You might represent a threat for the masses one day. Just like Timothy McVeigh. I propose we kill you right now, to preserve the safety of all of course.

This is unfortunately just a part of the human condition. How do you change the views and opinions of the people in power in any nation, race, creed, for a short time period, much less forever. This is far from the first time something like this has occured, people!!! :headbang:

Why don't we ask the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Japanese Americans who were imprisoned in "camps" due to their "possible domestic terrorist threat" during WWII what their experience was and what they think of the whole situation!? Ahh, but almost ALL U.S. citizens are conviently not taught about this, nor does the average person care to learn about history.

This is only one example, of one nation, in one period of time. You could spend your life researching how this has occured in every nation, culture, and time period. People tend to see anybody different as a threat to begin with. All it takes is a few "different people" to do something seen as harmful to a society to give those in power an excuse to subjugate them.

I hope anyone reading this has heard the saying that "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." Please, lets not act surprised that ANY government, or "leader", would do the same, if not worse. History also dictates that how the western world responds to this will determine its future. We will either become much better, worse, or flat out collapse or implode. We, as a people, have been given a huge challenge. By whom is debatable, but the fact that it must be answered isn't.

Please, don't get me wrong. I am NOT defending the shadowy powers (as well as the ones that are visible) that are in charge!!! The onus is on us, the people. Whether we allow our leaders to enslave us, or decide to have a major attitude change, enlighten and empower ourselves, and make our damn "leaders" SERVE us, will determine our future. The call to arms has been sounded... how will you (we) answer?

Your personality indicates a dangerous possibility that you might pledge yourself towards killing people tomorrow (0.5%). Based on this reason, you must thereby be incarcerated for the remainder of your natural life without parole, trial or charge. Furthermore, you will be tortured daily in order to obtain "confessions".

If you say so.

Master.

Why stop at just revoking their rights? Why not kill them? In fact, since people like you are fast becoming the minority, how about we kill you? You might represent a threat for the masses one day. Just like Timothy McVeigh. I propose we kill you right now, to preserve the safety of all of course.


Really? Then by golly shoot me now. I'll even buy the gun and bullets.

If you can gain security and liberty for the masses, by revoking the rights of the smallest minority of a group, why not?

Except you can't do that, so it doesn't really matter. You can't just kill all the evil terrorists and make this a world of rainbows and lollipops.

He was massaged by a female interrogator who straddled him like a lap dancer.

Hrm... some people pay for that.

If you can gain security and liberty for the masses, by revoking the rights of the smallest minority of a group, why not?

That's why.

Hrm... some people pay for that.

They should have just covered them in Bacon.

If you say so.


Actually, you were the one to go all "Human rights don't apply when we say so", so it would be you who condemned yourself to life imprisonment for thought crime.


Really? Then by golly shoot me now. I'll even buy the gun and bullets.

Of course you will.

Getting a massage and a lap dance is torture :confused:

Is their freedom worth the dozens that each one could kill?

Is our freedom worth their freedom?

Is our freedom worth their freedom?

is their freedom worth our freedom?

is their freedom worth our freedom?

A question asked often and answered frequently 'No' with little regard for who will be the next 'them'.

A question asked often and answered frequently 'No' with little regard for who will be the next 'them'.

Which is why I propose those who answer "No" in that aspect be the first 'them'.

If you can gain security and liberty for the masses, by revoking the rights of the smallest minority of a group, why not?

Would you say that if it was your minority losing their rights?

Us citizens: It is time you hand Bush and his cronies over to the ICC! Stop pandering to his scaremongering, think for yourselves ! Bush has destroyed your international reputation, he's systematically taking away your own rights, he's put your country so deep in debt it's practically owned by China!

anything CAN happen, but the REAL "20th hijacker" is still in the oval office.

(bush & co DO need to be "exrodinarily rendered" to international law, and thence condemed to the treatment they have been subjecting 'enimy combatants' to in gitmo and abu grabe, for the rest of their lives)

=^^=
.../\...

And the defence secretary has only good news to offer:

The US is "stuck" with the Guantanamo Bay detention centre even though it wants to close it, Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said.
Mr Gates told a US Senate hearing: "The brutally frank answer is that we're stuck. We have a serious 'not in my backyard' problem.

"Either their home government won't accept them or we're concerned that the home government will let them loose once we return them home," he said.

"What do you do with that irreducible 70 or 80 who you cannot let loose but will not be charged and will not be sent home?" he asked.

The Pentagon has said 36 former inmates who were released are "confirmed or suspected of having returned to terrorism".

Democratic Party Senator Dianne Feinstein told Mr Gates: "Nothing you have said absolves the enormous loss of credibility we have in the eyes of the world.

"We are being called hypocrites, that we have double laws, laws for some, and no laws for others."

Rights groups condemned Mr Gates's attitude.

Vincent Warren, executive director of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, told Reuters news agency: "The secretary's comments really are astounding in light of the money, resources and personnel of the department of defence."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7411862.stm

A serious cop-out, and yet again a failure to take the responsibility for a failed policy. Well done.

The Qahtani interrogation was a success, the Pentagon has said. Al-Qahtani admitted he had been sent to the United States by Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohamed, that he had met Osama bin Laden several times, that he had been trained at two al-Qaida camps, that he knew the shoe bomber Richard Reid, and that 30 other detainees he identified had been bodyguards for bin Laden.

I'm pretty sure he would've confessed to being Hitler, Judas and Pontius Pilates if you'd told him too.

But no, he shouldn't be tried using any testimony garnered through this type of treatment. The kind of precedent that would set would be retarded.

"Well, we know torture is against the law, and we know we're not supposed to use it, but since we've already used it and he's already confessed why don't we just prosecute him anyway?"

You mean the same kind of Innocent that within 6 months of being released into the hands of Middle Eastern authorities, blow themselves up in Iraq?
Were they terrorists first, or did they only turn to terror after the abuse and torture?

Most of which were captured with guns in hands. How does that make them non combatants?
Many were not, yet were still held for several years, and then released with a quiet "oops".


I have not pledged my self to kill all people that do not believe as I do. I pose no threat.
How do we know?

If you can gain security and liberty for the masses, by revoking the rights of the smallest minority of a group, why not?
Because of human rights, equal rights, and that it sets a bad precedent.