Bob Woodward has an interview in the Washington Post with the top U.S. official responsible for overseeing military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. Susan J. Crawford confirms to Woodward that 20th hijacker Mohammed al-Qahtani wasn't put on trial because he was tortured.
She says after reviewing the classified reports and interrogation logs she concluded that he was definitely tortured. As a result, war crimes charges against al-Qahtani were dropped, although he remains in U.S. custody pending a decision by the incoming Obama administration on what to do with him.
Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. ... You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him.
She goes on to list some of the specific techniques used against al-Qahtani:
"For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani's interrogation records and other military documents. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister."
I actually downloaded the interrogation logs from Wikileaks and read them word for word. They were no doubt tough, but totally justified and not torture in my view. Even if it was torture, it doesn't matter because we had to get information out of him. We did in fact get the information out of him using these techniques, but Crawford decided she wouldn't allow it in court.
Crawford herself says even though he can't be tried in court because of the torture he's still a very dangerous man who no doubt intended to be a hijacker on 9/11.
"There's no doubt in my mind he would've been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in August 2001," Crawford said of Qahtani, who remains detained at Guantanamo. "He's a muscle hijacker. ... He's a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don't charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, 'Let him go.' "
I applaud the Bush administration for trying to do things the legal way and bring al-Qahtani back to Gitmo for a military tribunal, but in hindsight they should have done it differently. All high value detainees should have been taken to secret CIA facilities far from U.S. soil, interrogated vigorously, then simply shot. We could have said they died on the battlefield and no one would have been the wiser.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Good article, Chris. I fear that once they find it you're going to take a bashing from our leftist compadres.
Dave
2 - Cindy D
Shallow observations and flawed thinking, from a true patriot. Hope you won't want to make any political changes in your lifetime. "Any means" may just become the norm to use against anyone who doesn't agree with the government.
I see--"bad" Americans, then, are those who see the world with meaning beyond being a cheering section for the home team.
You might have had something similar to say to those who fought (against the established authority) to found this country.
rubbish...
3 - Roger Nowosielski
I'm sure Chris is a patriot, but at what cost? I guess there a different standards, even today, as to what it means to love America.
"All I care about is our Intel guys getting the information they need. How they go about getting it is irrelevant and inconsequential."
Aren't we forgetting here about some of the principles upon which this great nation was founded. It's the same ole "ends justify the means" routine which even Macchiavelli took for a grain of salt.
Also, I find it interesting that many articles on this and other sites are evaluated not on the basis of their merit, cogent or original thinking, a fresh perspective or insight, but simply in terms of whether we happen to agree. I believe all of us should try to raise our critical faculties a bit rather than merely re-articulating time and again our own views & positions as though they were written in stone.
Come on, guys & gals. We can do better. The world is watching.
4 - Ruvy
Cindy,
That is how you deal with the enemy. When you fight a war, you are engaging in organized murder, and showing any mercy to an enemy is absolute foolishness.Any new government starts out as rebels committing murder. What the hell do you think the priest who ran his sword through a Jew sacrificing to an idol in Modi'im was called? He was called a rebel and a murderer! Only the victory of his forces justified his actions - and made possible the holiday of Hanukkah.
But I happen to agree with Chris' money line here.
The Geneva Conventions are for lawyers who have nothing better to do but wag their fingers at the rest of us - who have to survive in a jungle. All tis garbage about "moral stances" is absolute rubbish. If you do not fight a war to win - you lose. More often than not, that means annihilating the enemy.
It's a nasty world out here, Cindy.
5 - sean
unfortunatly, when you defend torture, you defend terrorism... they are one and the same...
6 - Roger Nowosielski
Ruvy,
I appreciate your sentiments, but political acts, such as assassinations, for instance, are not equated to murder neither in ordinary language nor in the court of law. These ARE distinctions with a difference. (I'm sorry I don't have my OED on me to perhaps provide examples of usage.)
Anyway, I just thought I'd throw in my two-cents for clarity's sake. Shalom.
Roger
7 - Dan(Miller)
when you defend torture, you defend terrorism... they are one and the same... Perhaps there are different types of "torture" and "terrorism."
A comment on another thread suggested that $1,000 worth of property damage (say graffiti) in MN makes you a terrorist. I don't know whether this was in jest, but hope that it does not reflect a widespread perception. Torture has been said to include deprivation of holy texts and sleep. That does seem to reflect a widespread perception.
There are differences in degree, and they can be very substantial. Using large aircraft full of people to destroy large buildings full of people, as happened on September 11, seems worse than painting graffiti. Castration of a live prisoner with a dull knife seems worse than sleep or holy text deprivation.
To lump everything in with everything else, and then to refuse to distinguish the merely unfortunate or uncomfortable from the really and truly wicked and deadly, to me at least, makes no sense at all.
Dan(Miller)
8 - Dr Dreadful
I don't doubt that to some extent Chris is being deliberately provocative here, but he does illustrate the sort of attitude I was decrying on another thread and got harangued for: the attitude that says that if it's not American, it's automatically no good.
I question his applause of the 'officers' who tortured al-Qahtani for one reason other than the obvious one. Since the 9/11 attack was over, all of his co-conspirators were dead, he was in custody and the immediate threat was past, there doesn't seem to have been any obvious value in treating him thus. Other than petty revenge, of course.
9 - Roger Nowosielski
"I don't doubt that to some extent Chris is being deliberately provocative here. . . "
I should hope so, Doc. But in that case, he only adds fuel to the (sometimes unreasonable) hatred of the Right. Is that the lasting impression he wants to create?
10 - Dave Nalle
Dr. D., Chris makes pretty clear in his article that he questions the application of the term torture to what was done to al-Qahtani, and I have to say that when I read about that case I found what was done to him to be well within the normal definitions of interrogation without torture.
Waterboarding is clearly a form of torture. Nothing even close to that was done to al-Qahtani. The truth is that we're not very good at drawing these lines when they become politicized, and the result is that people who ought to be punished go unpunished and people who ought to be left alone get their rights abused.
This is why we need clear policies which we follow down the line and consistently.
Otherwise, I think Chris' attitude is understandable and he makes a good point about how unreasonable some of the complaints about American misbehavior are. Our misdeeds only look bad because we have relatively high standards. Worse abuses go on in virtually every other country every day. How can you take complaints about American abuses seriously when the countries making them do worse to their own citizens on a daily basis? We may have slipped a little, but we sure haven't fallen.
Dave
11 - bliffle
"...not torture in my view. Even if it was torture, it doesn't matter because we had to get information out of him."
OMG! Is our Sacred Warrior Class succumbing to the liberal leftist commie sin of Moral Relativism?
And I thought that the "20th hijacker" was some guy named 'Mousawi'. Where did this 'Qhatani' come from?
We better get this story straight.
12 - Roger Nowosielski
It isn't now, Dave, but consider:
"In 2007 it was reported that the CIA was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners. The United States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure.[15][16] The revelation sparked a worldwide political scandal." (Wikipedia)
Sometimes it takes public exposure and outrage for the government to change its legal opinion or definitions. What once is considered acceptable can very quickly be disavowed under pressure. Why? Because the perpetrators have suddenly seen the light or had a change of heart? Hardly so. So our definitions keep on evolving as more and more dirt resurfaces. Which is all to the good, I'd say, especially if one believes in a open society.
JFK had some first-class comments about transparency in government, I believe prior to his inauguration speech. I'll look it up and post on this thread if they're relevant to the issue at hand.
Roger
13 - Dr Dreadful
Dave,
I agree that what appears in the transcript constitutes stern interrogation, not torture. It's the cumulative amount of it that was causing concern - the question of whether a line was crossed.
Also, there are some conspicuous gaps in the log of this supposedly relentless interrogation. One wonders what was happening during these periods of 15, 20 or in one instance 50 minutes. Presumably they weren't playing bridge.
And last time I checked Bob Woodward was an American, not a foreign, national and I think it's safe to say that Susan Crawford is also.
Finally, the 'everybody else does it so don't complain when we do' attitude is almost as appalling as the 'everything not American is bad' one.
14 - Dave Nalle
One wonders what was happening during these periods of 15, 20 or in one instance 50 minutes. Presumably they weren't playing bridge.
hey, interrogators are entitled to coffee and lunch breaks too. hell, they probably even fed the prisoner.
Finally, the 'everybody else does it so don't complain when we do' attitude is almost as appalling as the 'everything not American is bad' one.
That's certainly not the attitude I was expressing. My point was that even with whatever small transgressions we've made, the only way to judge us negatively is by our own standards, and no one but us should have the right to do that. If the French judge us by French standards then they have no grounds for complaint, etc.
Dave
15 - Roger Nowosielski
From one patriot to another:
JFK's Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of the Press.
I'm sorry for the images, guys & gals. I'd rather the video did not contain them. But listen to the words.
Roger
16 - Roger Nowosielski
Dave(#14):
Part of the problem, Dave, seems to be that the rest of the world appears ready and eager to accept our standards. I'd say, that's great news. So we can't let them down now, can we?
Roger
17 - Cindy D
Dan(Miller),
I believe I am doing this right. These two statutes combine to create a situation where someone could be charged as a terrorist for graffiti that costs $1000 to clean up.
609.714 CRIMES COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE OF TERRORISM. (Minnesota)
Minnesota Criminal Property Damage Statute
More info and pending federal legislation:
It is also germane to note that the state of Minnesota has taken it upon itself to redefine what we mean by terrorist. They have broadened the meaning to include property damage exceeding as little as $1,000. So: If you spray-paint "Stop The War In Iraq" and a cleanup crew works a double-shift on a Sunday, you could be branded a terrorist. The Minnesota law is also a flag to pending federal legislation, Jane Harman's (D-CA) overreaching "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" (HR 1955) which would empower Congress to create a commission with powers to arbitrarily decide which organizations constitute a "homegrown terrorist threat."
18 - Cindy D
Rendell: Peaceful Protesters are now Terrorists:
Governor Signs House Bill 213: the "Eco-Terrorism" bill
The PA Gov. had apparently signed a bill that made protesters terrorists also. I may have been killed as I can't find it anywhere. But, the idea itself is enough to concern me.
19 - Cindy D
Well, actually, I wasn't killed. Hard to type when you're dead. But, the bill may have been. :-)
20 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, I agree that the ecoterrorism bill is over the top, and I bet it will be struck down by the courst. But your link is also incorrect in suggesting that damage to property is not terrorism. It absolutely is. Sabotage is a classic and very real form of highly effective terrorism, as serious as violence agaisnt people in many ways. Imagine if terrorists were to blow up enough stations on the power grid to black out the east coast. That would just be damage to property, but the results would be disastrous.
The real problem with laws like this is that terrorism should not be defined by WHO the terrorists target, but by what they do. If they engage in sabotage, intimidation, or other actions which are already criminal then they should be punished for those crimes. It's exactly like the silly hate crimes legislation. A crime can't be more criminal just because of the mental attitude of the person who commits it.
Dave
21 - Cindy D
Dave,
In effect, those terrorism additions make thinking something a terrorist act. They also make civil disobedience a terrorist act.
It effectively silences the people from taking even minimally effective action against what the government does.
Combine that with the recent police tactics of arresting all kinds of peaceful people for felonies--it's not good.
Well, I have never been interested in taking out power grids or really wrecking anything at all. But, I do like to modify poster advertisements and give library books my own editorial perspective. Hopefully, when NJ gets that law, they won't calculate the book value at replacement cost.
22 - Clavos
and give library books my own editorial perspective.
Appalling.
Not terrorism, but definitely destruction of others' property.
23 - Cindy D
I call it enhancement of property which is also partly mine. You see, I never actually cross out anything. I just add some suggestions for further thought.
I consider it part of what my +$10,000 in taxes goes toward. (it certainly isn't going to fix my road).
24 - Dr Dreadful
hey, interrogators are entitled to coffee and lunch breaks too. hell, they probably even fed the prisoner.
Dave, the log notates when breaks and meals were taken.
25 - Clavos
I call it enhancement of property which is also partly mine. You see, I never actually cross out anything. I just add some suggestions for further thought.
Although you pay taxes, the book is not yours, it belongs to the library. Your taxes ensure there will be a library with books for you to use, they don't give you the right to deface the books, no matter how you choose to describe it.
The next reader, who also pays taxes, just as easily might not consider your notes an "enhancement."