Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confesses 9/11

[detective-boy]

These facts should be presented and explored in an open court, not a closed one, and in order to truly occupy a moral high ground, surely our allies shouldn't use torture? And surely our elected representatives shouldn't be complicit in torturing (by allowing CIA prisoner flights through our air space, for example), as that implicates each one of us in the act.

Of course there should be public hearings. And legal detention for reasonable periods. And legal representation. And no use of, or complicity in, torture.

See post #172 (and dozens of previous posts on other threads) for my view on these points.

 

[JoePolitix]

It depends what you mean by "validity". If you mean reliability then that is clearly right. If you mean "accuracy" or "truth" that does not necessarily follow. And torture is immoral and internationally illegal (though, as I have already posted, there is room for a discussion as to when robust interviewing tactics end and "torture" begins).

How is one to guage the accuracy or truth of a statement if the conditions it was obtained in undermine its reliabilty?

I imagine your answer will be additional extraneous evidence, but such evidence is for a court of law to decide on not the general public. Therefor, given the legal blackhole that the Guantamano torture camp is, this "confession" is in fact worthless to the general public - agreed?

 

[detective-boy]

My real concern here is that this war is not so much against any sovereign de facto state, as against a collection of beliefs.

I totally agree. Whatever the rules are on where torture starts and finishes in times of peace and in times of war, what we have at the moment is definitely NOT a time of war. Peacetime norms should be applied. What we are struggling to deal with (beyond the borders of Iraq, anyway) is international crime and not war.

 

[rocketman]

That is EXACTLY what I have been arguing from the outset. Some of what someone under totrture says may be true, some may be false.
The ONLY argument I have been having is with the fuckwits like Aldebaran and nino_savette who seem to think no-one under torture EVER uttered a single true word.
Maybe you'd like to argue with them seeing as you clearly agree with my position. Maybe they'll feel able to agree with you whereas they (as many) have a pathologiocal inability to agree with anything I say because I was a pig.

Well, I side with them because I think evidence produced under torture is inadmissable until proved in an open court, and I think torturers - and their bosses - should also be punished in court. I think that evidence that comes from torture must be considered unreliable, until properly proved. I also think torture is a criminal act.

And I side with you, partially because if there's one thing about your posts I like - even when we disagree - it's that you use a logical way of thinking, and that helps you stay constructive. I find many I don't agree with use horrid bully boy tactics, but with you we actually end up with a discussion, and often find some level of agreement in the end, and when we don't, we move on.

I don't mind you were a copper once, frankly that's years ago now, isn't it? So surely people should judge you for what you are now, after all, whatever that is. And not every copper is a baddie, just like not every muslim is a terrorist, (though I do think most politicians are scum). Black and white thinking, dualist arguments, they are part of what got us into this messy situation at the start of this new century. There's always another way to see things.

In any case, a person's past isn't always a person's present.

 

[JoePolitix]

I totally agree. Whatever the rules are on where torture starts and finishes in times of peace and in times of war, what we have at the moment is definitely NOT a time of war. Peacetime norms should be applied. What we are struggling to deal with (beyond the borders of Iraq, anyway) is international crime and not war.

But the Guantamano detainees don't even have the rights of the POWs. Its all Bullshit, the US bang on about "the war on terrorism", the "war on terror(!)" and so forth and then when the capture people in those wars, they suddenly become "unlawful combatants" (whatever they are) and are hence not covered by the Geneva Convention. What a load of hypocritical bollocks.

 

[detective-boy]

How is one to guage the accuracy or truth of a statement if the conditions it was obtained in undermine its reliabilty?

That's a different issue again.

The "truth" is an absolute fact. It is what happened or what is. Some of what a tortured person says will be the "truth". Some will not.

Now how we establish what is and is not the "truth" is an entirely different matter. Sometimes the "truth" will be proveable by other enquiry leading to, for instance, some physical evidence (e.g. locating something like the guns buried on the beach I mentioned earlier). In those cases we can be pretty sure the information was true, because it has checked out.

Other times, however, the "truth" will not be proveable independently (e.g. Bill was also involved in the plan). We can only ask Bill. If he readily admits it, we may well be sure it was the "truth" but if he doesn't we won't know.

Where there are conflicting accounts, where there is no independent corroboration, then if we wish to use the account given in evidence we should test it in Court, with all the safeguards that go with that. Even if the court DO decide that they believe it will not, however, mean that it actually IS the "truth", just that it has been proved to the satisfaction of a set of rules and procedures we have invented. Courts have been known to get things wrong sometimes!

 

[JoePolitix]

That's a different issue again.

The "truth" is an absolute fact. It is what happened or what is. Some of what a tortured person says will be the "truth". Some will not.

Now how we establish what is and is not the "truth" is an entirely different matter. Sometimes the "truth" will be proveable by other enquiry leading to, for instance, some physical evidence (e.g. locating something like the guns buried on the beach I mentioned earlier). In those cases we can be pretty sure the information was true, because it has checked out.

Other times, however, the "truth" will not be proveable independently (e.g. Bill was also involved in the plan). We can only ask Bill. If he readily admits it, we may well be sure it was the "truth" but if he doesn't we won't know.

Where there are conflicting accounts, where there is no independent corroboration, then if we wish to use the account given in evidence we should test it in Court, with all the safeguards that go with that. Even if the court DO decide that they believe it will not, however, mean that it actually IS the "truth", just that it has been proved to the satisfaction of a set of rules and procedures we have invented. Courts have been known to get things wrong sometimes!

With all due respect this is not answering my post. The question I posed in that post was rhetorical and I provided my own answer to it. The real question was about the value of this "confession" to the general public. My contention is that it is has no value whatsoever.

 

[detective-boy]

Well, I side with them because I think evidence produced under torture is inadmissable until proved in an open court, and I think torturers - and their bosses - should also be punished in court. I think that evidence that comes from torture must be considered unreliable, until properly proved. I also think torture is a criminal act.

And I side with you, partially because if there's one thing about your posts I like - even when we disagree - it's that you use a logical way of thinking, and that helps you stay constructive. I find many I don't agree with use horrid bully boy tactics, but with you we actually end up with a discussion, and often find some level of agreement in the end, and when we don't, we move on.

I have absolutely no problem with the resaons you give for siding with them. I agree with you. But those reasons do not support their view in the simple, single argument they seem to have with me, namely that sometimes people being tortured may tell the truth.

Has no-one being tortured ever given their own name, for instance?

And thank you for your comments about my past. The logic comes from being a trained investigator - logic is always a better basis for finding out what happened than emotion ...

 

[detective-boy]

But the Guantamano detainees don't even have the rights of the POWs. Its all Bullshit, the US bang on about "the war on terrorism", the "war on terror(!)" and so forth and then when the capture people in those wars, they suddenly become "unlawful combatants" (whatever they are) and are hence not covered by the Geneva Convention. What a load of hypocritical bollocks.

Absolutely. I would not disagree with a single word of that.

I think that the US, in the way they are treating people, are very, very significantly making the situation worse.

And as for their hypocrisy, their continued refusal to submit to any international jurisdiction when it comes to the conduct of their forces takes the fucking biscuit ...

 

[rocketman]

The real value in this confession and the timing of its publication isn't in the US public interest, but is designed as a smokescreen to capture headlines in the US while thousands of people protest in Washington against the war in Iraq. It's a spin to hide bad publicity. It offers no inherent value because the claims have not been proved, bar admissions made under duress. Given the track record the US has on veracity, there is no reason to believe anything of these claims, unless and until they have been proved in a public trial.

 

[detective-boy]

With all due respect this is not answering my post. The question I posed in that post was rhetorical and I provided my own answer to it. The real question was about the value of this "confession" to the general public. My contention is that it is has no value whatsoever.

If you are talking about the precise circumstances of the confession allegedly made by Mohammed, I believe it is probably a mix of truth and untruth. I think it is likely that he has been treated in ways which probably amount to torture beyond the civilian / criminal definition anyway, and hence all of what he said must be considered unreliable. And, as far as the public are concerned, it doesn't really take anyone any further (though, to be fair, I'm not sure anyone in the USA is saying t shold, at this stage - my understanding is that the hearing was simply to review his detention - there may or may not be some sort of "trial" arranged at some time in the future ...).

 

[Bob_the_lost]

There you go again, taking on yourself the burden of deciding what is relevant or irrelevant. Now that's possibly an admirable trait as a person, but it does make a lot of your posts most limiting to the extent of the discussion.

We all have to take that burden onboard when we chose what to type. Some of us do try to take account of what everyone else has written though.

 

[rhys gethin]

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.

Alas, I don't know what you are talking about. Torture is humanly disgusting and is performed by perverts working for politicians. It is NEVER intended to find out truth but to shit on the idea of humanity. Are you in fact a Nazi or just confused?

 

[detective-boy]

It is NEVER intended to find out truth ...

Really?

 

[rocketman]

Really?

He may have a point in terms of state-sponsored means of brutalising both the person who is subject to torture, and also of the population of the torturing nation.

The point torture really makes is to say the enemy suffering torture is less than human, reinforcing the nature of the conflict in the first place.

Does this make a little sense? Perhaps state-sponsored torture has ruinous effects that go beyond the action itself.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Alas, I don't know what you are talking about. Torture is humanly disgusting and is performed by perverts working for politicians. It is NEVER intended to find out truth but to shit on the idea of humanity. Are you in fact a Nazi or just confused?

Are you taking the piss or just really stupid? Pull your head out of your philosophical arse and pretend to be connected to reality for a second.

1) Not everyone tortured is done at the behest of a politican.
2) You're wrong, sometimes people are tortured to find out information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_Two_Zero#Capture
3) Perverts? Depends how you define them, i'll lay money on it being "anyone who'll torture someone"
4) Yeah, everyone who points out you're talking shit is a Nazi.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If under torture no matter what is suggested to you, you confess to being guilty of this "no matter what".
It is as such impossible to make clear distinction between what a person confessing under - or as result of - torture effectively confessed to and what he confessed to from the "no matter what" suggestions. Add to this the person's own fantasies and how torture blurs the clear distinction between reality and fantasy and what you get as result is a completely distorted joke of reality. (Staying specifically with this case, you can bet on it that all he "confessed" to has been suggested to him repeatedly.)

salaam.

So true.

http://ccadp.org/williamsampson.htm

 

[rocketman]

4) Yeah, everyone who points out you're talking shit is a Nazi.

Do you think torture is acceptable?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Do you think torture is acceptable?

Do you read the thread?

Just because torture is involved it doesn't mean you can instantly dismiss it as lies. Just immoral.

Don't waste time telling me about the ethical issues of torture, it's off topic and we're probably in agreement.

But if you want it flat out? No it's not acceptable, it's morraly abhorrent.

That doesnt' mean that by torturing someone you instantly void the memories, nor does it mean that it never works. The posts that claim it is completely ineffective or make other daft claims are the ones i've taken issue with. It's a tool to gain information, just not one that should be used.

 

[rocketman]

It's a tool to gain information, just not one that should be used.

Mr Canuck's post says volumes about why information gained through torture is questionable, and while I don't think I can join the dots between all the protagonists here, I do feel that there's a connection now, at least now most of us agree it's immoral and (very often) unreliable.

I don't think torture is really a tool to gather information. The information gathered is too unreliable, or at least open to question. Surely then it's primary use is as a tool to create fear, and to brutalise whoever happens to be the 'enemy' at the time.

At the end of the day, surely there must be a way we can all get on.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Mr Canuck's post says volumes about why information gained through torture is questionable, and while I don't think I can join the dots between all the protagonists here, I do feel that there's a connection now, at least now most of us agree it's immoral and (very often) unreliable.

I don't think torture is really a tool to gather information. The information gathered is too unreliable, or at least open to question. Surely then it's primary use is as a tool to create fear, and to brutalise whoever happens to be the 'enemy' at the time.

At the end of the day, surely there must be a way we can all get on.

Information or confessions? If you're trying to prove guilt then it's shit, if you're trying to find out what unit someone's from then it works pretty well. Everyone breaks eventually.

 

[fela fan]

Alas, I don't know what you are talking about. Torture is humanly disgusting and is performed by perverts working for politicians. It is NEVER intended to find out truth but to shit on the idea of humanity. Are you in fact a Nazi or just confused?

Yes, a very good post.

It might be worth noting that in the days of the khymer rouge in cambodia that the torturers at S21 (the 'school' where they tortured and killed everyone) always ended up being tortured to death themselves.

Torture, like rape, is a worse crime than murder in my book. Humans cannot get more anti-human than when they torture.

And i have to add that in this regard the americans are probably the most skilled at this kind of practice. The death and destruction they cause to humanity beats all others. They are a shocking disgrace to our world, and have been for many decades now.

 

[nino_savatte]

Which ones are those? That he planned how to assassinate several US presidents? Why is that so outrageous? It's been done before by amateurs, why wouldn't a terrorist organisation examine the possibility?

Or were there some really far out ones?

It read like a wish list. If he is the so-called "mastermind", then where does that leave Bin Laden?

 

[nino_savatte]

No. I'm not. You bigoted fucking moron.

But you and the other fuckwits seem to be suggesting that no person has ever told the truth when being tortured. I really have trouble understanding the apparent stupidity of people posting here sometimes. Give them an emotional / controversial subject and they lose all powers or fucking reason.

Well, that's what you appeared to be suggesting you fucking thick cunt. If anyone is a "bigoted fucking moron", it's you.

It's a black and white world, eh, DB? Like I said, once a cop always a cop. Thick as pigshit and twice as sanctimonious.

The subtext to all your posts is "I was a policeman, therefore everything I say is right and you are wrong". You're a fucking joke, son. If only you had a truncheon in your hand, eh?

It's far easier to believe what the press or what the official channels say than to use your brain - non? But then, cops will only see this one way: towelhead who is labelled "AQ's mastermind confesses to almost every terrorist activity since 1945". That's easy, isn't it? Predigested nuggets of information, squeezed through official channels must mean that this is all FACT. Did you ever want to torture a suspect in order to get the 'truth' out of them? I'll bet you did. Shame the law wouldn't let you.

KSM fits the profile and that's enough for the one-dimensional man.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

It read like a wish list. If he is the so-called "mastermind", then where does that leave Bin Laden?

I only got a list of about four. Doesn't dismiss the point i made earlier, if he was in charge of planning then it should read like a wish list. You examine every possibility and plan how to hit the targets. Probability of sucsess*Potential results / Cost to implement decideds if you go forwards, but you have to plan them to know that in the first place. As such if he hadn't planned how to assasinate the US president he'd have been failing in his job.

Where does that leave Bin Laden? Perhaps he gets the final Yes/No call on the operations, perhaps he's involved in the planning itself. Perhaps he merely organises funding, perhaps he mainly deals with ongoing operations and leaves the theory to minions. Handing planning of operations over to subordinates is a common practice in the military. I don't have a clue, but there's no reason he can't have done everything i've seen reported so far.

 

[nino_savatte]

I only got a list of about four. Doesn't dismiss the point i made earlier, if he was in charge of planning then it should read like a wish list. You examine every possibility and plan how to hit the targets. Probability of sucsess*Potential results / Cost to implement decideds if you go forwards, but you have to plan them to know that in the first place. As such if he hadn't planned how to assasinate the US president he'd have been failing in his job.

Where does that leave Bin Laden? Perhaps he gets the final Yes/No call on the operations, perhaps he's involved in the planning itself. Perhaps he merely organises funding, perhaps he mainly deals with ongoing operations and leaves the theory to minions. Handing planning of operations over to subordinates is a common practice in the military. I don't have a clue, but there's no reason he can't have done everything i've seen reported so far.

I think that I have every right to be sceptical given the US authorities penchant for inventing clever stories.

But you may criticise those of us who are sceptical about KSM's confessions but here, I see you engaging in speculation in your last paragraph.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I think that I have every right to be sceptical given the US authorities penchant for inventing clever stories.

But you may criticise those of us who are sceptical about KSM's confessions but here, I see you engaging in speculation in your last paragraph.

I'm sorry, what the fuck are you on about?

Doesn't make them untrue, if he was involved in planning operations then he'll have seen and worked on hundreds of different plans, nearly all discarded or judged impractical.

This confesion isn't worth much, he'd need to give confirmable details (that only the planners could know) to make it belivable. Any details that could prove that he really did organise it will be classified up the wazzoo and certainly wont' be released. In this matter at least i don't trust the US authorities as far as i can throw a six foot blood drinking lizard.

Read the thread.

 

[nino_savatte]

This has probably been posted before. It should make DB foam at the mouth. Maybe he'll send the author a nice angry email and call him a "fucking bigoted moron" too.
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/03/khalid_sheikh_m.html

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm sorry, what the fuck are you on about?

Read the thread.

I've read the thread and there is no need for you patronising tone either. I've been involved in this thread since the beginning.

You can shove your rolleyes up your arse too.

This is speculation. Have a look at what you type before you post it.

perhaps he's involved in the planning itself. Perhaps he merely organises funding, perhaps he mainly deals with ongoing operations and leaves the theory to minions. Handing planning of operations over to subordinates is a common practice in the military. I don't have a clue, but there's no reason he can't have done everything i've seen reported so far.

The word "perhaps" indicates uncertainty. You're speculating.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I've read the thread and there is no need for you patronising tone either. I've been involved in this thread since the beginning.

You can shove your rolleyes up your arse too.

This is speculation. Have a look at what you type before you post it.



The word "perhaps" indicates uncertainty. You're speculating.

No "Oh sorry Bob, i missed that"

No. "Yeah, sorry, you didn't criticise those who were sceptical about KSM's confession at all"

If you want a polite discussion i'm more than willing to try. Throwing around accusations of Nazism (not you) or innacurate claims of critisism (you) doesn't help that.