| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| StrategyPage: What the Washington Post Didnât Say (About Interrogations) |
| 2005-07-24 |
| The Washington Postâs coverage of the techniques used to extract valuable intelligence data from terrorist suspect Mohamed Qahtami is unique for what it did not tell â not only about these techniques (which the Washington Post reporter unfairly linked to Abu Ghraib), but also about the investigation into the allegations made by FBI agents attached to the facility. What is not explained, puts these facts in context, as opposed to the distorted picture painted by the media and human rights groups. The interrogation of Qahtani helped lead to the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, per Rumsfeld First, letâs look at Mr. Qahtami. Mohamed Qahtami is a senior al-Qaeda operative who was slated to be the fifth hijacker on Flight 93 (this is the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania after a revolt by the passengers), but was denied entry in August, 2001. He was captured along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in December, 2001. He was a trained terrorist sent to murder Americans (and others). Qahtami had held out against normal interrogation techniques over a period of eight months, and so permission was granted to use more aggressive techniques to get the information to engender a sense that resistance would be futile. They succeeded, and within two months, Qahtami was soon providing valuable intelligence on al-Qaedaâs plans for future operations, how it was organized, and how the organization supported operations. The techniques were all within the limits set by Defense Department policy in and of themselves. The cumulative effect was seen as abusive by the investigators. It is also to be noted that Qahtami was the only detainee these techniques were used on. What is also worth noting was that this was one of two options that had been devised. There are no details on the other one â and it turned out not to be needed. The Washington Post also left out three other incidents that also place the interrogation of Qahtami into perspective. The first was an incident uncovered during the investigation of the allegations from FBI agents. A naval officer threatened the mother of one detainee, a violation of Article 134 the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That matter has been referred to the Naval Investigative Service for investigation. In a second incident, an inmate who was chanting had duct tape placed over his mouth by MPs at the direction of an interrogator concerned about a potential riot. The person responsible was verbally reprimanded by a JAG in this one-time incident. The official report has recommended that a formal reprimand be given to the person responsible. In the third incident, an interrogator who was spat on, responded by smearing some red ink on the detainee and telling him she was menstruating. She was verbally reprimanded as well. Again, the report said that a formal reprimand was needed. However, since the interrogator has left the military, no further action has been taken. A number of these allegations, including use of sleep deprivation, interference with FBI agents, and denial of food and water, were found to have no basis in fact or to involve authorized techniques that remained within the guidelines (such as playing Britney Spears and Metallica, the adjustment of air conditioning, and the application of perfume). There is also a fundamental difference between what happened at Abu Ghraib and what went on at Guantanamo Bay. At Guantanamo Bay, the special techniques were authorized and the proper authorities were informed. Abu Ghraib was the actions of some rogue military policemen. The only thing the controversies involved have in common is that when the lines were crossed, action was taken, and those who crossed the lines were punished. The Washington Post has not told this side of the story â and by failing to tell this side of the story and instead focusing on a tenuous link to Abu Ghraib, it paints a misleading picture of what has gone on at Guantanamo Bay. |
| Posted by:ed |
| #58 Iff one is to go by the recent commentaries and analyses on local Amerikan State TV, the response to Glaze-gate and the "abuse" at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib is to interrigate prisoners politely, humanely, and intellectually whilst dev a new investigative bureaucracy to determine the merits or demerits of their answers, i.e an Amerikan KGB thats not the KGB. The dialectical Lefties-Socies are back now differens themselves as defenders of traditional US "civil liberties", i.e. Regulators for Non-/Anti-Regulation, in contrast to alleged Regulation/Empire-mad GOP-Rightists-Conservatives!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-07-24 23:48 |
| #57 ".. but fewer Japs were found and killed than had been expected, so our operation was probably no more effective than the earlier Chindit operation had been. " . [idiot period bandwdth and space usurper included] what are you talking about? Let me explain it to you, at Iwo Jima, the japanese killed 6,000 Marines, we killed 24,000 Japanese soldiers. We took three Japanese soldiers prisoner. Say what you will about the Japanese Imperial Soldier, but he put the Jihadi scum you and your ilk mollycoddle to shame. I mean to utter shame: the jihadi is a drug addicted agent, posing as a "insurrgent", operating on behalf of your average everyday Albanian Mafia. The Japanese soldier was the real thing, and it took only one thing to defeat him: namely the forces of Right had to be as, if notmore, ruthless than the Japanese Imperial Army. Or else there would be no victory. GetIt? |
| Posted by: an dalusian dog 2005-07-24 22:58 |
| #56 "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell Goodnight, Mikey. Sleep well. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 21:25 |
| #55 Mikey = zzzzzzzzzz |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-07-24 21:19 |
| #54 gosh |
| Posted by: Chorong Tholutch1372 2005-07-24 21:11 |
| #53 "On D-Day, we paratroopers had no place to put prisoners... Because we were moving so rapidly under these conditions, we understood the order, 'Take no prisoners.'â http://www.ddaymuseum.org/legacy/readstory/id=118 |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 21:10 |
| #52 Re #49 (Neutron Tom): Japan was not party to the Geneva Convention and was indiscriminately torturing and killing prisoners, so our troops had orders to take no prisoners... ... but fewer Japs were found and killed than had been expected, so our operation was probably no more effective than the earlier Chindit operation had been. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 21:10 |
| #51 Mike? Speechless? Well I do declare! No Washboard, nor slimes, nor Old Gray Whore rwetorts? You rwetard! No appending the omissions at these fine, venerable institutions? No addendums showing the selective omissions of agitprop? No bandwidthbusters� Cheez and crackers! For everyone! |
| Posted by: an dalusian dog 2005-07-24 21:07 |
| #50 "I suppose I would make him poop in his pants." Rummy's right. Look at you mikey, you're full of shit, and you blather on forever. |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-07-24 21:06 |
| #49 "...Japan was not party to the Geneva Convention and was indiscriminately torturing and killing prisoners, so our troops had orders to take no prisoners..." http://www.burmastar.org.uk/roberts.htm |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 21:01 |
| #48 Re #44 (Red Dog): Just exactally how would you get critical info from AQ shiek who knew where WMD was stored here in the US. That's quite a hypothetical situation, Red Dog! I suppose I would make him poop in his pants. Rumsfeld indicated that's how we got the critical info from Qahtami that helped lead to the arrest of KSM. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 21:01 |
| #47 Mikey Sybil'ter's WOT = 0 Mikey Sybil'ter's army = one [himself] Mikey Sybil'ter's effectiveness = 0 |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-07-24 20:59 |
| #46 Re #43 (an dalusian dog): I'll use you, an illiberal shill, schttupping for the enemy. How is it you guys kill 40 million human lives, and our military, thanks to you tranzi tape recorders, is supposed to be the "baby killers" here? Got an answer for that one? I mean one that doesn't involve all 26 volumes? I do admit that I do not have an answer to that one. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 20:57 |
| #45 Re #40: (Neutron Tom) The article says that was the only time Laurence ordered that no prisoners be taken. I presume that Laurence did support the taking of prisoners in all other instances. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 20:54 |
| #44 Mike Sybilwrester, Just exactally how would you get critical info from AQ shiek who knew where WMD was stored here in the US. |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-07-24 20:53 |
| #43 Hey Mike, yeah you, Mike Sylwester: If thats your real name. I'll use you, an illiberal shill, schttupping for the enemy. How is it you guys kill 40 million human lives, and our military, thanks to you tranzi tape recorders, is supposed to be the "baby killers" here? Got an answer for that one? I mean one that doesn't involve all 26 volumes? |
| Posted by: an dalusian dog 2005-07-24 20:49 |
| #42 Re #41 (too true): I was answering your last claim, cited here. Go read how many prisoners were NOT taken under certain circumstances - and why, and how it helped shorten the war significantly. I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Which last claim? Cited where? Do you think we should stop taking prisoners? . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 20:48 |
| #41 If we stop taking prisoners, then none of our opponents will ever surrender. I was answering your last claim, cited here. Go read how many prisoners were NOT taken under certain circumstances - and why, and how it helped shorten the war significantly. You are trying to reason your way through a topic on which you have little knowledge, either first hand or the historical record. No shame in that -- but realize that many of your claims are likely to be embarassingly off the mark as a result. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-07-24 20:24 |
| #40 Take no prisoners: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/lawrence.htm |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 20:23 |
| #39 Careful, tt, it's a trap! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-24 20:22 |
| #38 Re #37 (too true): Read the memoirs and military histories of WWII, What in particular should I learn about interrogations? . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 20:17 |
| #37 Read the memoirs and military histories of WWII, Mike. It's a place to start educating yourself on such things. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-07-24 20:13 |
| #36 Re #33 (Neutron Tom): we need to have quick tribunals, execute these war criminals, and stop taking prisoners. I don't oppose tribunals or the subsequent execution of war criminals. If we have enough evidence to convict, then I am in favor of the tribunals being quick. So far, though, the only tribunal underway is against a guy who was Osama bin Laden's driver. If we stop taking prisoners, then none of our opponents will ever surrender. Do you know of any military experts who support your idea that we should stop taking prisoners? . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 20:12 |
| #35 LOL. I'll be back to checkist your links. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-24 19:56 |
| #34 Re #30 (Jennie Taliaferro) You and your friends on the Left think Rummy's a liar and that our military are "baby killers in the manner of Jhenghis Khan." ... It's just that simple. A lot of the discussion here at Rantburg is like this. Virtually all of the rest of us here at RB .... ... think it's a real, serious discussion. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 19:53 |
| #33 Re #29: "The pertinent question for me in this thread are... whether Rumsfeld's statement is basically just some weasle words creating a false impression that the extraordinary methods caused such this result" Yeah, me too, because if the methods being used aren't gaining us useful information, then we need to have quick tribunals, execute these war criminals, and stop taking prisoners. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 19:47 |
| #32 Here we go! He's cranked up! Ready to rumble and lay down some baaaaaaad links. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-24 19:45 |
| #31 Re #30 (Jennie Taliaferro) that all depends on whether you think Rumsfeld lied The cited article (#10) says that Rumsfeld said that "information obtained during the interrogation of Al-Qahtani helped lead to the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed." He didn't say that the information was obtained using the extraordinary interrogation methods he approved. He also didn't say that the information was crucial for the arrest of KSM. In the circumstances and based only on that article, however, it seems to me that he intended to make that impression that the extraordinary methods were crucial for the arrest. It's my opinion that such an impression is a false impression. If that is the impression Rumsfeld intended to make, then it is contradicted by other military officials and by FBI officials. Here's some extracts from the texts I posted in my comment #3: Several officials familiar with the case said .... that the harsher interrogation methods used against him were largely unsuccessful, that he had little sense of other Qaeda plots, and that he had been most forthcoming under more subtle persuasion. ... a longtime [FBI] counterterrorism specialist who is fluent in Arabic and worked extensively on investigations of Al Qaeda .... built a rapport with Mr. Kahtani [who then] began to open up .... He disclosed [to the FBI interrogator] that he attended an important Qaeda planning meeting with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia .... ... complaints from some military officials prompted Mr. Rumsfeld to retract his approval for the more extreme methods, military officials said. ... ... several other officials disputed that characterization, saying he had not given any new information about plots by Al Qaeda. ... Pentagon officials [say] most of the intelligence gleaned from those sessions was recorded in other documents. .... Senior Pentagon officials [say] some of his most valuable confessions came not during the period covered in the log [of extraordinary interrogations] .... |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 19:39 |
| #30 Well, MS, that all depends on whether you think Rumsfeld lied and that our soldiers didn't do their jobs as members of the world's finest, and at the same time, most humanitarian military on the face of the planet. You and your friends on the Left think Rummy's a liar and that our military are "baby killers in the manner of Jhenghis Khan." Virtually all of the rest of us here at RB don't. It's just that simple. |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2005-07-24 18:57 |
| #29 Re #23 (ed): Intelligence does not have to as specific as .... Interrogations do provide useful intelligence, often indirectly as you describe. The pertinent question for me in this thread are whether Rumsfeld's statement proves that the extraordinary interrogation methods of this particular prisoner indeed significantly helped lead to the arrest of KSM -- or whether Rumsfeld's statement is basically just some weasle words creating a false impression that the extraordinary methods caused such this result. The issue is specifically the unique information obtained uniquely as a result of the extraordinary methods in this particular case. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 18:52 |
| #28 These f==in' nutjobs are going to get us all killed just so they can promote their propaganda: anything Bush does is bad. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-07-24 18:46 |
| #27 As I was trying to "Yes, The New York Times tells me so." He talks as if he has first hand knowledge of Qahtami's interrogations and that he speaks from that experience: Well, Mike, are you a guard at Gitmo or not?? And the Dhimms are obsessed with bringing down someone, anyone in the Bush Administration; if it can't be Karl Rove, then it should be Rummy. If not Rummy, then Cheney. If not Cheney, then Bush. And they'll eat Tom Delay for a snack. Rinse, repeat, and the beatings will continue until Red State America sees it their way. |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2005-07-24 18:07 |
| #26 Speaking of BS what ever happened to the secret f-11 and f-12 recon planes. Was it the Cubans or Mao? First one off Okinawa gets a cigar. |
| Posted by: J Rubenstein 2005-07-24 18:04 |
| #25 Looks like MS is near the edge. I call 1 week until total Ape Shittery per last time. Keep yur links close at hands boys MS is back with the BS posse. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-24 18:01 |
| #24 no Mike - the point has always been the quality of your comments - to say "lacking" does a disservice to the truly lacking. Your rhetorical questions with no answers have ALWAYS sucked. Your weakass defense of corrupt kleptocrats entitles me to say - I just don't like you, your positions, and your coterie of heroes |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-24 17:57 |
| #23 So Qahtami had been in US detention for about 15 months when KSM was arrested. One thing is for sure. The interrogation of Qahtami didn't obtain any statement along the lines of: "I saw KSM in Place X a few days ago." Mike, Intelligence does not have to as specific as "KSM will be at the Poona Jannah and Cathouse on March 1 from 2-4AM (after last call). He likes 9 year old girls named Aisha." to be valid. Mo the Pigeon could have given info such as: These people are in AQ and this is their place in the hierarchy. These are their friends. These people hid us and these people passed messages. I stayed at these safehouses. This is how we communicated. Any of them, even much less specific intel, could have led US and Pak intelligence to the people who were in contact with KSM. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-07-24 17:56 |
| #22 Posting links is, indeed, the correct method - yet you persist in your trollery - and this thread proves that you exceed me in quantity of text whenever you decide to visit. The comparison between just this one thread today and your allegation mock you, fool. See #89 on the same thread, Mikey. It sums your actions up rather well. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-24 17:44 |
| #21 Re #19 (.com) Anytime you agree to stop making an issue about the quantities of other people's comments, then I will agree to stop making an issue about it too. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 17:39 |
| #20 Re #16 (Neutron Tom): Just exactly what is your point, other than that you don't believe anything Rumsfeld says? I generally believe most of what Rumsfeld says, but not on this issue. He personally approved these interrogation techniques for this particular prisoner, so he has a personal position to defend. His statement on this particular issue is contradicted by various other officials who are familiar with the interrogation and its results -- accordig to the texts I posted in my comment #3. My exact point is that even if Rumsfeld's statement is significantly true (which I doubt), then it still doesn't necessarily mean that the information was obtained as a result of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that he approved. The information could have been obtained before the extraordinary techniques were applied, or it could have been obtained essentially in captured documents and then credited to the interrogation. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 17:35 |
| #19 Lol! Oh, Mikey... Mikey, I salute you for providing the link, instead of your usual full cite. I ridicule you for the stupidity of asserting that is a typical day's comments and that you are so Kool Aid addled and obsessive that you accumulated an unusual day's posts into a single post - a magnificent strawman - par excellence. It was, waaay back then, and still is, a singular example of just how egregious a troll and remarkably fucked up you actually are. *kudos* Please, do continue making my points for me, Mikey. :D |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-24 17:31 |
| #18 Re #11 (ed): Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured March 1, 2003. Mohamed Qahtami was captured Dec. 2001. So Qahtami had been in US detention for about 15 months when KSM was arrested. One thing is for sure. The interrogation of Qahtami didn't obtain any statement along the lines of: "I saw KSM in Place X a few days ago." ... or "a few weeks ago" or "a few months ago" or even "within the last year." We can definitely rule out any statement like that "helping to lead" to the arrest of KSM. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 17:23 |
| #17 Oh crap, you want to be an Attention Whore again. Can't afford a shrink? |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 17:17 |
| #16 Just exactly what is your point, Mikey -- other than that you don't beleive anything Rumsfeld says? You do have a point this time, don't you? I mean, this is not just another folly like your "Kofi can do no wrong" obsession from the spring, is it? |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 17:15 |
| #15 Re #9 (.com) Mikey's from the quantity = quality School of Trollery With regard to "quantity", here's a typical day of .com's comments (#88). . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 17:15 |
| #14 Re #8 (Neutron Tom): Meade's Maxim ... seems to be at a URL owned by one Ryan Miller, a high school student who aspires to be a liberal college professor. I don't know anything about the site except that it contained the TIME article's text that I quote in my comment. I found the text in a Google search, and that was the entirety of my interest in the site. . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 17:12 |
| #13 I believe Rumsfeld myself. That doesn't mean the guy knew his street address,but SOMETHING put us on his trail. I don't care what we do to these people,fillet them,they're absolutely lower than whale sh.it. Especially when we have the goods on them,not just a normal suspect,I'd execute them,go by the Geneva convention! |
| Posted by: Threrert Glereger4426 2005-07-24 17:08 |
| #12 Re #10 (ed) information obtained during the interrogation of Al-Qahtani helped lead to the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed I think Rumsfeld's statement means practically nothing. The expression "helped lead" is vague enough to mean whatever you would like it to mean. It's like saying that my taxes "help pay for" Rumsfeld's salary. And Rumsfeld doesn't claim that this particular information about the arrest of KSM was obtained by by the stupid interrogation gimmicks. He claims that only that it was obtained during the interrogation, which included distinct proper and silly periods. I suspect that if there is any real truth to Rumsfelds' statement, then it is that some useful information was found in documents captured with Qahtami and that Qahtami somehow confirmed the documentary information. The following statement might be significant: Pentagon officials tell TIME that most of the intelligence gleaned from those sessions was recorded in other documents. .... . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 17:07 |
| #11 If he started talking after being confronted with statements from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then how did his statements lead to the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured March 1, 2003. Mohamed Qahtami was captured Dec. 2001. Given that Mo endured 8 months of Britney Spears at a mildly irritating volume, but broke after only 2 months of Christina. Add another month for tranport and he could have been singing as early as Nov. 2002, 3 months before KSM's capture. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-07-24 17:04 |
| #10 LA Times July 13, 2005 Last month, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that information obtained during the interrogation of Al-Qahtani helped lead to the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is considered the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-07-24 16:46 |
| #9 Lol. Mikey's from the quantity = quality School of Trollery. Sure, just posting the links with a selected point for emphasis, like a normal non-idiotarian would do, would've been just as effective - especially given his *ahem* august sources, lol - but Mikey's still trying to define some bizarre Buchanian / Deanian / State Dept Wannabee / LLL / BDS / Rummy-Hate position. Such uber-nuance takes time. We should show "tolerance" and "patience" -- he'll have his patter down in another 3 or 4 years, methinks. Of course there is the issue of his chosen pet topics, lol, which haven't fared very well... He's had a woodie for many things during the time he's haunted RB. Most have fallen off his posting list... anyone wonder why? Pity poor Mikey. The Don Quixote of the Tranzi Multi-Culti Diplomatic Apology Corps. Big hug, Mikey. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-24 16:37 |
| #8 The NYT I can discount right away. Meade's Maxim is an interesting site -- it seems to be at a URL owned by one Ryan Miller, a high school student who aspires to be a liberal college professor. Just your kind of guy, Mikey. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-24 16:26 |
| #7 Mike, you think next time you could condense it down to a concise paragraph? My 'editor's pen' is twitching. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2005-07-24 16:15 |
| #6 Re #4 (too true) there can be feedback between different interrogations, statements used to locate others, whose subsequent statements are used to get more info from the first guy etc. I expect that eventually when it all is revealed, then it will turn out that this kind of indirect, convoluted, dubious indication will be about all there is to this claim that the interrogation of Qhatami led to the arrest of KSM. Or the explanation will be that the information was found on some documents in his pocket or his computer when he was arrested. The probability that Qahtami provided information leading to the arrest of KSM because of the stupid interrogation gimmicks is very close to zero. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 16:13 |
| #5 NYT = Pure Baloney |
| Posted by: SCPatriot 2005-07-24 16:02 |
| #4 Ummm ... you do know that interrogation isn't a onetime thing, right? That there can be feedback between different interrogations, statements used to locate others, whose subsequent statements are used to get more info from the first guy etc. ?? |
| Posted by: too true 2005-07-24 16:01 |
| #3 The interrogation of Qahtani helped lead to the arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, per Rumsfeld Pure baloney. ============= From The New York Times, June 21, 2004 ... Pentagon officials ... said the techniques prompted an important Qaeda member to give up vital information. But new details of that case, which involved a 26-year-old Saudi man who apparently tried unsuccessfully to enter the United States as the 20th hijacker in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, call some of those assertions into question. Several officials familiar with the case said that for months, no one at Guantánamo even knew who the detainee, Mohamed al-Kahtani, was and that he was identified only after the Federal Bureau of Investigation stepped in. The officials also said that the harsher interrogation methods used against him were largely unsuccessful, that he had little sense of other Qaeda plots, and that he had been most forthcoming under more subtle persuasion. ... The bureau [FBI] sent a longtime counterterrorism specialist who is fluent in Arabic and worked extensively on investigations of Al Qaeda. .... Over a series of interrogations that extended into the fall of 2002, the agent slowly built a rapport with Mr. Kahtani, approaching him with respect and restraint ... Mr. Kahtani began to open up, officials said. He disclosed that he attended an important Qaeda planning meeting with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia, in January 2000. Mr. Kahtani also said he had a relative he thought might be living near Chicago. The relative, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, is believed by officials to have been planted in the United States as a Qaeda "sleeper" agent. He was taken into custody as a material witness shortly after arriving in the country on Sept. 10, 2001, and was later confined to a Naval brig in Charleston, S.C., with two American citizens charged as "enemy combatants," Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi. One official said that Mr. Kahtani had admitted that he had intended to join the hijackers but that he had given up little or nothing about other Qaeda plans. To some F.B.I. experts, officials said, his ignorance seemed credible: he had been recruited to be what the plotters called a "muscle" hijacker, someone to subdue passengers rather than pilot a plane. Officials said such lower-level operatives were generally only minimally informed even as to the details of attacks in which they would take part. But military intelligence officials were skeptical, believing that new approaches to Mr. Kahtani might well reveal plans for attacks that were to follow the hijackings or that might have involved Mr. Marri. In late November 2002, Pentagon officials informed the F.B.I. that they would take over interrogations of Mr. Kahtani, an official said. A list of 17 new interrogation techniques ... was approved by Mr. Rumsfeld in early December. Ten of the techniques were used on Mr. Kahtani before complaints from some military officials prompted Mr. Rumsfeld to retract his approval for the more extreme methods, military officials said. ... Last month, a senior Bush administration official told The Times that Mr. Kahtani had provided information to interrogators "about a planned attack and about financial networks to fund terrorist operations." But several other officials disputed that characterization, saying he had not given any new information about plots by Al Qaeda. ... ============= From Time Magazine (excerpted in Meades Maxim): By itself, the log doesnât make clear how effective the interrogations were. The Pentagon contends that al-Qahtani has been a valuable source of information: providing details of meetings with bin Laden, naming people and financial contacts in several Arab countries, describing terrorist training camps where bin Laden lives and explaining how he may have escaped from Tora Bora in December 2001. Pentagon officials tell TIME that most of the intelligence gleaned from those sessions was recorded in other documents. .... Senior Pentagon officials told TIME that some of his most valuable confessions came not during the period covered in the log or as a result of any particular technique but when al-Qahtani was presented with evidence coughed up by others in detention, especially Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or KSM, the alleged mastermind of 9/11. The intelligence take was more cumulative than anything else, says a Pentagon official. Once al-Qahtani realized KSM was talking, the official speculates, al-Qahtani may have felt he had the green light to follow suit. ============= If he started talking after being confronted with statements from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then how did his statements lead to the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2005-07-24 15:57 |
| #2 This kind of shit pisses me off. If you want to tell the truth about something then tell the truth and not only those tidbits which further your cause (which in this case appears to be: giving aid and comfort to the terrorists). Freedom of the press is a right we all hold dear here. However along with that freedom is the responsibility to exercise that right properly. If you abuse that right (as WAPO as done by outright lies (I call omission of these facts a lie)) then you should not be allowed to enjoy that right anymore. In short the WAPO should be stripped of its 1st admendment protections. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-07-24 15:36 |
| #1 it paints a misleading picture of what has gone on at Guantanamo Bay. and so agitates wackos, incites further seething, facilitates confrontation, and thus serves the purposes of the terrorists. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-07-24 14:06 |