Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses 9/11

[oake]

If for example, he said that he stored the plans for an attack in a bank vault in Switzerland then it'd be possible to locate, retrieve and confirm his story. If he were to give details about how the identities of the hijackers were fabricated (if they were) and the methods used in a level of detail that the average terrorist would not be able to do so then it confirms his involvement in that phase.

And suppose that the interrogators already had this information from elsewhere, and wanted to implicate their suspect in the associated crime, then they could coerce him into 'providing' this information, and bingo! job done.

You would then say that only a guilty man could have provided the information, so you're convinced of his guilt.

Forgive me, Bob, but I think you underestimate how devious this process can be.

 

[rocketman]

If you want to have a rant about the immorality of it all then do so, but don't bring me into it by quoting me unless you're going to address something i say.

Who are you to decide whether I can quote you or not? We are all entitled to quote here, and be as relevant or irrelevant as we like.

Who made you the big boss?

If you ever were the big boss, then as far as I'm concerned, you're sacked.

 

[Aldebaran]

For the last time i'm asking you to provide a source or some evidence to back up your claim.

Read my posts.

Torture does not mean that a memory is automatically false. It means that it can be false. Because something is unreliable does not make it untrue.

Once again: It is enough that the possibility for it to *be* false was created to make any resulting confession unreliable and hence to be considered as untrue by default. No matter if such a confession (or parts thereof) *could* have factually true information, it is worthless and should be taken and treated as such.

salaam.

 

[JHE]

Questions for those who claim that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession has been tortured out of him:

What tortures has he been subjected to? When was he subjected to them? How do you know?

 

[rhys gethin]

Did you read before you replied? If you did then you didn't think.

A false confession would be me saying "i blew up the pentagon with a nuke this morning" a true confession would be me saying "i had coco pops for breakfast this morning while i read a book". If you hit me around the head and put me in the stress position for hours on end, then simulate drowning then those answers would be no less true or false if given then. However i might be persuaded to sign my name to the former. A false confession and the reason torture is not a reliable method of gaining them.

If i was being forced to sign my name to the second one but didn't want to admit my breakfast reading habits then it doesn't make it a false confession. It makes it one that had to be extorted from me. That's all.

How do you know that the only facts in this case were the ones given parrot fashion by the interrogators? You don't, you assume. Don't waste time telling me about the ethical issues of torture, it's off topic and we're probably in agreement. This isn't about morality right now. It's about stupid assumptions.

If you torture people and tell them what to say, you get what you told them to say. That is not a confession. Why not leave out the torture and just give evidence yourself?

Nothing is more stupid, in my opinion, than to believe you can get 'facts' by such a method. Most people have a very poor notion of truth at the best of times, particularly inquisitors, and under these circumstances both torturer and victim are off into a shared fugue. I take it you have never been questioned by the bullies: I have. I was grilled by RAF SPs for three hours when drunk, and I can assure you it taught me NEVER to believe any kind of authority ever. Fortunately they only threatened me, and I'm bloody stubborn, but if they could have locked me away for days - let alone years - they'd have got any old bullshit out of me - except the truth, which they had no interest in, anymore than the yank thugs do.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Who are you to decide whether I can quote you or not? We are all entitled to quote here, and be as relevant or irrelevant as we like.

Who made you the big boss?

If you ever were the big boss, then as far as I'm concerned, you're sacked.

I never said you couldn't, i merely asked that you didn't.

 

[rocketman]

Questions for those who claim that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession has been tortured out of him:What tortures has he been subjected to? When was he subjected to them? How do you know?

Well, there is this:
BBC News Report

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's 'confession' was not made in a court of law but in a secret screening process that bars lawyers," said Amnesty UK spokesman Mike Blakemore.
"Before his six months at Guantanamo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was apparently held in a totally secret CIA-run prison for three-and-a-half years where he alleges torture."

 

[Bob_the_lost]

If you torture people and tell them what to say, you get what you told them to say. That is not a confession. Why not leave out the torture and just give evidence yourself?

Do you? Do you really? Wow! All this time i thought that the SAS captured in B20 were being asked which units they were from, all this time they were being told to say they were combat medics by their interrogators!

Is it too much to ask you to think for a fucking second (waves finger indiscriminately). You can have confessions exactly as you describe and just as worthless thanks to torture, it does not mean that all are.

 

[JHE]

Well, there is this:
BBC News Report

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's 'confession' was not made in a court of law but in a secret screening process that bars lawyers," said Amnesty UK spokesman Mike Blakemore.
"Before his six months at Guantanamo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was apparently held in a totally secret CIA-run prison for three-and-a-half years where he alleges torture."

As Mandy Rice-Davis said, "Well, he would, wouldn't he?"

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Read my posts.

Then you refuse to do so again and i class you in with Jazzz.

 

[Yossarian]

Questions for those who claim that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession has been tortured out of him:

What tortures has he been subjected to? When was he subjected to them? How do you know?

It's been proved beyond doubt that the US tortures 'war of terror' detainees in places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, does anyone believe that they wouldn't have tortured this guy in three-and-a-half years in some secret prison?

 

[Aldebaran]

Then you refuse to do so again and i class you in with Jazzz.

Impressive.

salaam.

 

[JHE]

It's been proved beyond doubt that the US tortures 'war of terror' detainees in places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo...

Has it?

does anyone believe that they wouldn't have tortured this guy in three-and-a-half years in some secret prison?

You're just guessing that he has been tortured, aren't you?

I notice that you haven't been able to say what tortures he suffered or when.

You don't know any more then I do whether or not his confessions have been extracted under torture.

 

[rocketman]

Here's an interesting story about US torture which may have bearing on this discussion.

Observer Story

Here is a charity which looks after torture victims
Survivors International
Some of the symptoms described here would lend support to both sides of this discussion.

Here is a discussion of the meaning of US torture and Europe's complicity in it, (it's from CounterPunch, mind, so not everyone will buy it, though there is some interesting info in it)
On Torture

The funny thing about torture is that people will say things to stop it happening. This means that anything claimed under torture still needs to proved using evidence in order for any confession to have true validity.

 

[Yossarian]

Has it?

Unless you think those photos from Abu Ghraib were done in Photoshop, then yes.

You're just guessing that he has been tortured, aren't you?

I notice that you haven't been able to say what tortures he suffered or when.

You don't know any more then I do whether or not his confessions have been extracted under torture.

I admit to not being present at any torture sessions in the secret CIA prison.

 

[JHE]

...anything claimed under torture still needs to proved using evidence in order for any confession to have true validity.

By evidence, you mean other evidence.

I agree, more or less - and I think this applies to confessions not extracted under torture, too. People do sometimes claim to have committed terrible crimes that they haven't committed. If there is nothing to support a confession, it's not worth much on its own.

The 'intelligence' about KSM is that he's a senior al-Q shite. I doubt that his confession is the only thing that points to him having been involved in the various atrocities he is now reported to have claimed.

 

[JHE]

I admit to not being present at any torture sessions in the secret CIA prison.

Why not go the whole hog and admit that you DO NOT KNOW whether KSM's reported confession was extracted under torture or not? (Unlike torture, it wouldn't hurt you.)

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Why not go the whole hog and admit that you DO NOT KNOW whether KSM's reported confession was extracted under torture or not? (Unlike torture, it wouldn't hurt you.)

We don't know it, then again we don't know he really confessed for that matter. The most probable situations in both cases are that he was tortured and he did confess as a result, the probabilities are strong enough in both cases to use as a working hypothesis.

 

[lunatrick]

common sense has to weigh in here - I mean if you capable of the thngs he's been accused of - hardcore muthafucker - then torture would be the only way to get you to admit it - although even then given the religious connotations you'd think that he'd rather die than confess?

 

[Yossarian]

Why not go the whole hog and admit that you DO NOT KNOW whether KSM's reported confession was extracted under torture or not? (Unlike torture, it wouldn't hurt you.)

I don't even *know* that anyone called Khalid Sheikh Mohammed exists and is in American custody - but I definitely regard it to be almost certainly true.

 

[JHE]

We don't know it, then again we don't know he really confessed for that matter.

I agree - though I think it's unlikely that the stories of his confession are entirely made up.

The most probable situations in both cases are that he was tortured and he did confess as a result, the probabilities are strong enough in both cases to use as a working hypothesis.

It's a hypothesis, though some people here talk as if they knew that is what has happened.

Here's another hypothesis. Whether or not he has been mistreated at some unspecified points during his detention, he has now decided that there is nothing to gain by not admitting his involvement in various atrocities and so has admitted to them. After all, he's not ashamed. From his POV, these horrors were justified acts of Holy War.

 

[rocketman]

Surely though the question we have to ask is to consider the implications of torture. Can we support the use of torture by being complicit in it? If we do, in what way does that make us less monstrous than that which we claim to be fighting against?

 

[nino_savatte]

Questions for those who claim that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession has been tortured out of him:

What tortures has he been subjected to? When was he subjected to them? How do you know?

He's got an Islamic name and he's most definitely an Arab of some description. That's enough - isn't it?

 

[Aldebaran]

common sense has to weigh in here - I mean if you capable of the thngs he's been accused of - hardcore muthafucker - then torture would be the only way to get you to admit it -

Every serial killer needs to be tortured in order to get him "confess" in secrecy, after which no public trial follows?
Why not propose to simply execute everyone you think guilty of a crime?

although even then given the religious connotations you'd think that he'd rather die than confess?

Can you clarify this point?

salaam.

 

[JHE]

He's got an Islamic name and he's most definitely an Arab of some description.

Really? I thought he was from the Baluchistan region of Pakistan.

 

[Aldebaran]

I agree - though I think it's unlikely that the stories of his confession are entirely made up.

That doesn't give them any validity if they are extracted by force or under torture.

After all, he's not ashamed. From his POV, these horrors were justified acts of Holy War.

Most probably, but to put your own questions back to you:
How exactly do you know that for certain?

salaam.

 

[JHE]

How exactly do you know that for certain?

I don't know for certain - though I do think it's highly likely.

It would be interesting to see (or read) an interview with him, to learn what the shit has to say.


Salami

 

[lunatrick]

I don't know for certain - though I do think it's highly likely.

It would be interesting to see (or read) an interview with him, to learn what the shit has to say.


Salami

 

[detective-boy]

Really? And on what do you base your thesis?

The fact that lots of stuff extracted by torture is independently verifiable |(e.g. the code IS what the person says it is; the forces ARE where the person says they are; the weapons ARE where the person says they are) and that has been seen repeatedly over the years which is why the military like to use it.

And common sense. Are you REALLY suggesting that every tortured person only ever tells lies?

Accuracy and reliability are different, unrelated concepts.

 

[detective-boy]

... they turn EVERYTHING into untruth, because nothing that comes out of them can ever be trusted.

No. It doesn't. Unreliability does not make it untrue.