 THE Pentagon official overseeing the tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees has concluded that the US military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the September 11 2001, attacks, The Washington Post reported today.
"We tortured (Mohammed al-) Qahtani," Susan Crawford said in an interview with the newspaper. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.
| But read on and you'll see that we were coercive but we didn't torture him, as she'll admit. |
Ms Crawford, a retired judge who also worked in the Reagan Administration, is the first senior Bush Administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.
President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have said that the US does not torture.
Ms Crawford told The Post the techniques used in Qahtani's case were authorised but applied in an overly aggressive and too persistent manner. "This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, Ms Crawford told the newspaper.
| Of course it was coercive. That was the point. We were trying to persuade him to talk so we coerced him. That doesn't make it torture. |
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Post in an email that the agency's reviews of the interrogation of Qahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker, concluded the interrogation methods at Guantanamo, including the special techniques used on Qahtani in 2002, were lawful at the time.
Ms Crawford dismissed war crimes charges against Qahtani in May 2008 but he remains at Guantanamo.
| So if it was lawful, why refuse to prosecute him? |
Ms Crawford said he was dangerous and that she would be hesitant to say "Let him go".
| And if it was unlawful, why refuse to let him go? |
Qahtani was denied entry into the US a month before the September 11 attacks and was allegedly planning to be the plot's 20th hijacker, the article said. He was captured in Afghanistan in January 2002 and transported to Guantanamo.
Ms Crawford said she sympathised with intelligence officials who were urgently gathering information in the days after 9/11. "But there still has to be a line that we should not cross. And unfortunately what this has done, I think, has tainted everything going forward," she said.
| And just where is that line? Do you get to decide where it is or does the law? We had laws and you just told us what we did was lawful? So where's the line, and why are you refusing to do your job? |
Ms Crawford told the newspaper that Mr Bush was right to create a system to try unlawful enemy combatants captured in the war on terrorism. But, she said, the implementation was flawed.
| According to her. This is all about her feeling good about herself. And she doesn't tell us how it's flawed. Not just President Bush but the Congress tried twice in writing laws to cover the unlawful combatants. Both times the USSC knocked them down but didn't tell us how to make the process legal. Thanks. |
President-elect Barack Obama, who takes office next Wednesday, is expected to issue an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. Defence Secretary Robert Gates also favours shuttering Guantanamo.
The prison is unlikely to shut until after US officials settle a myriad of legal and logistic issues, including a solution on where to house its occupants.
| Note that Ms. Crawford won't be any help there ... |
|