.gif)
From Campaign for Liberty:
Guilty Until Proven Guilty
By Philip Giraldi
View all 32 articles by Philip Giraldi
Published 04/13/11
Printer-friendly version
The remarkable surrender by the Justice Department, which will now try a group of alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay prison instead of in a civilian court, is being widely commented on. It is only the latest reversal by President Barack Obama, who had pledged to close Guantanamo prison when he was running for office. The White House is now arguing that holding the trial in New York City or some other similar venue would increase the risk of a terrorist attack directed against the city hosting the trial. It would also escalate enormously the federal government's security costs required to safeguard a densely populated urban environment at a time when budget deficits are a matter of concern. But questions of cost and security are convenient rationalizations. The true reason why the site of the trial has been shifted is essentially political. Obama's own party, like the president himself, has become nervous about appearing to be “soft” on terrorism in turning the case over to a judge and jury. They also are reluctant to do away with the convenience afforded by having an extra-legal resource like Guantanamo. Guantanamo, combined with the Military Commissions Act, is an offshore and out of sight mechanism created to obtain convictions and incarcerate terrorist prisoners without any regard for the rule of law or the United States Constitution.
The Guantanamo trial would be first of alleged 9/11 conspirators, nearly ten years after the fact. The principal accused terrorist is Pakistani native Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who has long been regarded as the architect of 9/11. It is possible to suggest that the justice delayed in their still pending trial might be due to the inconsistencies and deficiencies in the cases against the accused. KSM and his four co-conspirators just might be innocent of any serious involvement in 9/11, which would certainly provide a compelling reason for shifting the trial to Guantanamo to be held before a military tribunal. It is widely believed that it would be easier to convict them before a military court.
For the government, which has been holding KSM for more than eight years, a not guilty verdict rendered by a civilian court would be totally unacceptable and would be considered a major political defeat. A military tribunal lowers the bar for conviction. It could admit evidence that would be inadmissible in a civilian court, even including information that had been obtained under torture. And there is no jury, only five military judges. The defense is also limited in that it cannot obtain access to or challenge evidence that is classified and has only limited ability to call witnesses to support its case. If KSM were somehow to avoid conviction, the White House knows that the familiar narrative about Democrats being weak on security would immediately rise to the surface with an obvious impact on the 2012 elections.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured by the Pakistani intelligence service ISI and the CIA in 2003. He was subsequently waterboarded 183 times while undergoing interrogation at a number of CIA secret prisons, including stops in Thailand, Poland, and Jordan, before being incarcerated at Guantanamo. The interrogations resulted in a confession. In fact, they produced a whole lot of confessions. KSM admitted to virtually every terrorist act committed during the past fifteen years, including a number which he could not possibly been involved in. He claimed that he personally beheaded American journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002. He described himself as Usama bin Laden's chief of staff and principal planner of terrorist operations. Planned terror attacks included blowing up the Panama Canal and assassinating Pope John Paul II as well as former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
The only problem with all the confessions is that they were obtained under torture, in many cases just to stop the pain, making KSM a classic case of why torture does not work. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted afterwards that he had provided and even made up information that he thought his interrogators wanted to hear to stop the waterboarding. One CIA officer who reviewed the transcripts of the confessions later stated his belief that many of the claims were “white noise,” misinformation deliberately included to confuse the interrogators regarding what was real and what was not. In March 2007 another former CIA officer, Robert Baer, wrote a piece for Time magazine called “Why KSM's Confession Rings False.” He noted that the man behind the confessions is frequently “…boasting, at times mentally unstable. It's also clear that he is making things up.”
Baer also notes that there is a lack of supporting evidence regarding many of the tales told by KSM. He certainly appears to have thought up the idea of 9/11 but his subsequent involvement might have been peripheral rather than central to the operation. It does not appear that he enjoyed a close and continuous relationship with his alleged boss Usama bin Laden and his contact with al-Qaeda's leader might have been intermittent at best. None of the information provided by KSM has proven useful to roll up al-Qaeda networks, suggesting either that he has been very effective at concealing information or, alternatively, that he actually knows little about the subject.
A computer seized at the same time that KSM was arrested contains information relating to 9/11, but KSM has claimed that the laptop actually belonged to Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who was arrested with him. If that is true, it reinforces the possibility that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was bit player in the operation and also in many of the other terrorist actions that he has claimed. It also has been alleged that Usama bin Laden himself considered Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be a bit of a screwball, someone he did not trust with anything serious.
One does not have to be an apologist for terrorists to recognize that a trial that has been ten years in the making and that involves a man tortured 183 times who then fabricated stories to stop the pain raises certain issues. And the desire to try that man before a court that would be more inclined to produce a conviction is also worrying. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was truly Usama bin Laden's chief of operations over a period of fifteen years there should be plenty of information available to convict him on terrorism charges in a properly constituted civilian court before a jury. Trying him in a United States Federal court in New York City or some other location was the right way to go. If he is tried and convicted in a military court there will always be some suspicion that the case was rigged against him. The end result will be that the United States judicial system will be regarded as corrupted by the zeal to find terrorists and convict them, no matter what the actual evidence. That result would send the wrong message and would be the worst possible outcome.
Copyright © 2011 Campaign for Liberty
Guilty Until Proven Guilty
By Philip Giraldi
View all 32 articles by Philip Giraldi
Published 04/13/11
Printer-friendly version
The remarkable surrender by the Justice Department, which will now try a group of alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay prison instead of in a civilian court, is being widely commented on. It is only the latest reversal by President Barack Obama, who had pledged to close Guantanamo prison when he was running for office. The White House is now arguing that holding the trial in New York City or some other similar venue would increase the risk of a terrorist attack directed against the city hosting the trial. It would also escalate enormously the federal government's security costs required to safeguard a densely populated urban environment at a time when budget deficits are a matter of concern. But questions of cost and security are convenient rationalizations. The true reason why the site of the trial has been shifted is essentially political. Obama's own party, like the president himself, has become nervous about appearing to be “soft” on terrorism in turning the case over to a judge and jury. They also are reluctant to do away with the convenience afforded by having an extra-legal resource like Guantanamo. Guantanamo, combined with the Military Commissions Act, is an offshore and out of sight mechanism created to obtain convictions and incarcerate terrorist prisoners without any regard for the rule of law or the United States Constitution.
The Guantanamo trial would be first of alleged 9/11 conspirators, nearly ten years after the fact. The principal accused terrorist is Pakistani native Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who has long been regarded as the architect of 9/11. It is possible to suggest that the justice delayed in their still pending trial might be due to the inconsistencies and deficiencies in the cases against the accused. KSM and his four co-conspirators just might be innocent of any serious involvement in 9/11, which would certainly provide a compelling reason for shifting the trial to Guantanamo to be held before a military tribunal. It is widely believed that it would be easier to convict them before a military court.
For the government, which has been holding KSM for more than eight years, a not guilty verdict rendered by a civilian court would be totally unacceptable and would be considered a major political defeat. A military tribunal lowers the bar for conviction. It could admit evidence that would be inadmissible in a civilian court, even including information that had been obtained under torture. And there is no jury, only five military judges. The defense is also limited in that it cannot obtain access to or challenge evidence that is classified and has only limited ability to call witnesses to support its case. If KSM were somehow to avoid conviction, the White House knows that the familiar narrative about Democrats being weak on security would immediately rise to the surface with an obvious impact on the 2012 elections.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured by the Pakistani intelligence service ISI and the CIA in 2003. He was subsequently waterboarded 183 times while undergoing interrogation at a number of CIA secret prisons, including stops in Thailand, Poland, and Jordan, before being incarcerated at Guantanamo. The interrogations resulted in a confession. In fact, they produced a whole lot of confessions. KSM admitted to virtually every terrorist act committed during the past fifteen years, including a number which he could not possibly been involved in. He claimed that he personally beheaded American journalist Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002. He described himself as Usama bin Laden's chief of staff and principal planner of terrorist operations. Planned terror attacks included blowing up the Panama Canal and assassinating Pope John Paul II as well as former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
The only problem with all the confessions is that they were obtained under torture, in many cases just to stop the pain, making KSM a classic case of why torture does not work. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted afterwards that he had provided and even made up information that he thought his interrogators wanted to hear to stop the waterboarding. One CIA officer who reviewed the transcripts of the confessions later stated his belief that many of the claims were “white noise,” misinformation deliberately included to confuse the interrogators regarding what was real and what was not. In March 2007 another former CIA officer, Robert Baer, wrote a piece for Time magazine called “Why KSM's Confession Rings False.” He noted that the man behind the confessions is frequently “…boasting, at times mentally unstable. It's also clear that he is making things up.”
Baer also notes that there is a lack of supporting evidence regarding many of the tales told by KSM. He certainly appears to have thought up the idea of 9/11 but his subsequent involvement might have been peripheral rather than central to the operation. It does not appear that he enjoyed a close and continuous relationship with his alleged boss Usama bin Laden and his contact with al-Qaeda's leader might have been intermittent at best. None of the information provided by KSM has proven useful to roll up al-Qaeda networks, suggesting either that he has been very effective at concealing information or, alternatively, that he actually knows little about the subject.
A computer seized at the same time that KSM was arrested contains information relating to 9/11, but KSM has claimed that the laptop actually belonged to Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, who was arrested with him. If that is true, it reinforces the possibility that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was bit player in the operation and also in many of the other terrorist actions that he has claimed. It also has been alleged that Usama bin Laden himself considered Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be a bit of a screwball, someone he did not trust with anything serious.
One does not have to be an apologist for terrorists to recognize that a trial that has been ten years in the making and that involves a man tortured 183 times who then fabricated stories to stop the pain raises certain issues. And the desire to try that man before a court that would be more inclined to produce a conviction is also worrying. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was truly Usama bin Laden's chief of operations over a period of fifteen years there should be plenty of information available to convict him on terrorism charges in a properly constituted civilian court before a jury. Trying him in a United States Federal court in New York City or some other location was the right way to go. If he is tried and convicted in a military court there will always be some suspicion that the case was rigged against him. The end result will be that the United States judicial system will be regarded as corrupted by the zeal to find terrorists and convict them, no matter what the actual evidence. That result would send the wrong message and would be the worst possible outcome.
Copyright © 2011 Campaign for Liberty
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment