Imagine the bastards stealing 7 years of your life

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The case of Binyam Mohamed who returned to Britain after 7 years in Guantanomo without a trial.

Is this the Free World we mean?

[alienlovechild 75]

Some press reports have repeated the claim that Mohamed went to Afghanistan before the September 11 attacks for the purpose of kicking his drug habit. This is a flimsy alibi, to say the least. Why would anyone go to the heroin capital of the world to get away from drugs? In fact, there is no doubt that Mohamed traveled to Afghanistan in June 2001 to receive training in an al Qaeda camp. Mohamed admitted this to the personal representative assigned to handle his case at Guantánamo. Mohamed did not testify at his hearing at Guantánamo, but his personal representative submitted a memo on his behalf. The memo indicates that Mohamed "admitted items 3A1-4 on the UNCLASS summary of evidence." That is a reference to the unclassified summary-of-evidence memo that was prepared by the US government for Mohamed's case.

The items Mohamed admitted include the following:

1. The detainee is an Ethiopian who lived in the United States from 1992 to 1994, and in London, United Kingdom, until he departed for Pakistan in 2001.

2. The detainee arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan, in June 2001, and traveled to the al Farouq training camp in Afghanistan, to receive paramilitary training.

3. At the al Farouq camp, the detainee received 40 days of training in light arms handling, explosives, and principles of topography.

4. The detainee was taught to falsify documents, and received instruction from a senior al Qaeda operative on how to encode telephone numbers before passing them to another individual.

At a minimum, therefore, we know that Mohamed has admitted being an al Qaeda-trained operative.

Mohamed claims that he was not going to use his skills against America. Mohamed told his personal representative that "he went for training to fight in Chechnya, which was not illegal." In 2005, Mohamed's lawyer echoed this explanation in an interview with CNN. "He wanted to see the Taliban with his own eyes," Mohamed's lawyer claimed. "I am not saying he never went to any Islamic camp," the lawyer conceded, but he "didn't go to any camp to blow up Americans."

The al Farouq training camp was responsible for training numerous al Qaeda operatives, including some of the September 11 hijackers. Al Qaeda used the al Farouq camp to identify especially promising recruits who could take on sensitive missions. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, this is what happened with members of al Qaeda's infamous Hamburg cell. Some of the future 9/11 suicide pilots also first expressed an interest in fighting in Chechnya, but ended up being assigned a mission inside the United States.

This is what the US government, or at least the parts of it that investigated Mohamed's al Qaeda ties, believes happened to Mohamed. In the unclassified files produced at Guantánamo, as well as an indictment issued by a military commission, the Department of Defense and other US agencies have outlined what they think happened during Binyam Mohamed's time in Afghanistan and then Pakistan.

According to the US government's allegations, Osama bin Laden visited the al Farouq camp "several times" after Mohamed arrived there in the summer of 2001. The terror master "lectured Binyam Mohamed and other trainees about the importance of conducting operations against the United States." Bin Laden explained that "something big is going to happen in the future" and the new recruits should get ready for an impending event.

From al Farouq, Mohamed allegedly received additional training at a "city warfare course" in Kabul and then moved to the front lines in Bagram "to experience fighting between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance." He then returned to Kabul, where the government claims he attended an explosives training camp alongside Richard Reid, the infamous shoe bomber.

Mohamed was then reportedly introduced to top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. By early 2002, the two were traveling between al Qaeda safehouses. The US government alleges that Mohamed then met Jose Padilla and two other plotters, both of whom are currently detained at Guantánamo, at a madrassa. Zubaydah and another top al Qaeda lieutenant, Abdul Hadi al Iraqi, allegedly directed the four of them "to receive training on building remote-controlled detonation devices for explosives."

At some point, Padilla and Mohamed traveled to a guesthouse in Lahore, Pakistan, where they "reviewed instructions on a computer ... on how to make an improvised 'dirty bomb.'" To the extent that the allegations against Mohamed have gotten any real press, it is this one that has garnered the attention. Media accounts have often highlighted the fact that Padilla and Mohamed were once thought to be plotting a "dirty bomb" attack, but that the allegation was dropped, making it seem as if they were not really planning a strike on American soil.

Indeed, all of the charges against Mohamed were dropped last year at Guantánamo. But this does not mean that he is innocent. As some press accounts have noted, the charges were most likely dropped for procedural reasons and because of the controversy surrounding his detention. According to US government files, Padilla and Mohamed were considering a variety of attack scenarios.

Zubaydah, Padilla, and Mohamed allegedly discussed the feasibility of the "dirty bomb plot." But Zubaydah moved on to the possibility of "blowing up gas tankers and spraying people with cyanide in nightclubs." Zubaydah, according to the government, stressed that the purpose of these attacks would be to help "free the prisoners in Cuba." That is, Zubaydah wanted to use terrorist attacks to force the US government to free the detainees at Guantánamo.

According to the summary-of-evidence memo prepared for Mohamed's combatant status review tribunal at Guantánamo, Mohamed was an active participant in the plotting. He proposed "the idea of attacking subway trains in the United States." But al Qaeda's military chief, Saif al Adel, and the purported 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), had a different idea. Al Adel and KSM allegedly told Binyam that he and Padilla would target "high-rise apartment buildings that utilized natural gas for its heat and also targeting gas stations." Padilla and Mohamed were supposed to rent an apartment and use the building's natural gas "to detonate an explosion that would collapse all of the floors above."

It may have been this "apartment building" plot that Mohamed and Padilla were en route to the United States to execute when they were apprehended. In early April 2002, KSM allegedly gave Mohamed $6,000 and Padilla $10,000 to fly to the United States. They were both detained at the airport in Karachi on April 4. Mohamed was arrested with a forged passport, but released. KSM arranged for Mohamed to travel on a different forged passport, but he was arrested once again on April 10. Padilla was released and made it all the way to Chicago before being arrested once again.

The gravity of the charges against Mohamed is rarely reported in the media. The Bush administration and US intelligence officials believed he was part of al Qaeda's attempted second wave of attacks on US soil.

Critics charge that all of the more substantial allegations against Mohamed were trumped up, or the result of false confessions extracted during torture. But look again at the allegations. All but two of Mohamed's co-conspirators are in US custody. High-value detainees such as KSM, Zubaydah, and Abdul Hadi al Iraqi are all at Guantánamo, as are two other suspects whom Mohamed met during his travels through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Jose Padilla and Richard Reid have been convicted of terrorism-related charges and are serving time in the US Only Saif al Adel, al Qaeda's military chief who is living in Iran, and Osama bin Laden are not in US custody.

The point is that US authorities should have been able to figure out with a reasonable degree of certainty just what Binyam Mohamed was up to at the time of his capture. This is true even though some of his co-conspirators were subjected to "enhanced interrogation" techniques such as waterboarding, which is understandably controversial. Based on the publicly available testimony from senior intelligence officials, such as former director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, it is clear senior terrorists such KSM and Zubaydah gave up actionable intelligence during their interrogations. In all likelihood, Binyam Mohamed's mission is something they discussed.

None of this is intended to diminish the seriousness of the abuse that has been alleged. If Binyam Mohamed was subjected to the types of treatment he and his lawyers claim while under rendition in Morocco and elsewhere, then he was tortured. Mohamed claims, for example, that he was cut with a scalpel in sensitive areas of his body. Such practices make waterboarding look rather tame and could not possibly have been necessary to make Mohamed talk.

However, we cannot now verify the more fantastic claims that Mohamed makes about his time in custody. And even if he were subjected to deplorable treatment, that would not make him an innocent who poses no threat. There are good reasons to believe that when captured he was en route to the United States to kill Americans. Before the Obama administration agrees to send him to Britain, it should have that firmly in mind.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/200...hamed_the_f.php

Edited February 25, 2009 by alienlovechild

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is interesting that we can discount as lies the testimony of a person accused of terrorist activities in order to defend a policy that is an affront to the fundamental values that we supposedly hold dear.

[HAL 9000 96]

It is interesting that we can discount as lies the testimony of a person accused of terrorist activities in order to defend a policy that is an affront to the fundamental values that we supposedly hold dear.

Also of further interest is that even in light of said affront to a value system... is the fact that he was released for a reason. I am sure that theories can exist in abundance as to that as well to fit whatever model of justice some people hold dear.

[Shad and Dani 3]

Closing Guantanomo Bay?! Liberal BS!!! Let's see how many more people have to die in terrorist attacks before it's re-opened.

[46]

The case of Binyam Mohamed who returned to Britain after 7 years in Guantanomo without a trial.

Is this the Free World we mean?

We are at war in Afghanistan. A combatant from that theater left to attack the United States, allegedly. Captured combatants have never had trials and were always held indefinitely until the cessation of hostilities. The "Free World" did this during the Second World War.

Do you propose that captured Nazis should have been given a trial then held for a little while, then sent back to Germany to fight again? Or should every man captured from the German army have been sentenced for attempted murder and held until the 1960s?

FYI, were we playing by the "civilized" rules of the Second World War, non-uniformed combatants would be tried under espionage laws and shot.

For a world to be free, we cannot tolerate those who would rob us of our freedom. It's the paradox of freedom.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well apparently Guantanamo is now Geneva-compliant.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As far as Guantanamo Bay goes - I was surprised to read that the detention camp was intially set up by a couple of military personel without any specific, tacit guidance from the Bush administration on how to proceed or what legal standards were to be applied (those handed down later).

[alienlovechild 75]

It is interesting that we can discount as lies the testimony of a person accused of terrorist activities in order to defend a policy that is an affront to the fundamental values that we supposedly hold dear.

Well the man is as innocent as OJ so I'm not entirely outraged. Now he'll make some money in the UK as a minor celebrity on Big Brother or give lectures at universities. Not bad for a worthless drug addict ready to die on the battlefield or on a terrorist mission.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The case of Binyam Mohamed who returned to Britain after 7 years in Guantanomo without a trial.

Is this the Free World we mean?

We are at war in Afghanistan. A combatant from that theater left to attack the United States, allegedly. Captured combatants have never had trials and were always held indefinitely until the cessation of hostilities. The "Free World" did this during the Second World War.

Do you propose that captured Nazis should have been given a trial then held for a little while, then sent back to Germany to fight again? Or should every man captured from the German army have been sentenced for attempted murder and held until the 1960s?

FYI, were we playing by the "civilized" rules of the Second World War, non-uniformed combatants would be tried under espionage laws and shot.

For a world to be free, we cannot tolerate those who would rob us of our freedom. It's the paradox of freedom.

I'm not suggesting anything - I posted it simply because I knew it would piss some people off and they couldn't restrain themselves

As to your point - WW2 differs from this for the sole reason that there is no specifically identifiable "enemy". Nazi Germany was a specific entity - regional guerila movements and their affiliates and sympathisers are not.

It is interesting that we can discount as lies the testimony of a person accused of terrorist activities in order to defend a policy that is an affront to the fundamental values that we supposedly hold dear.

Well the man is as innocent as OJ so I'm not entirely outraged. Now he'll make some money in the UK as a minor celebrity on Big Brother or give lectures at universities. Not bad for a worthless drug addict ready to die on the battlefield or on a terrorist mission.

The charges were dropped - the man is "guilty" of nothing.

[HAL 9000 96]

As far as Guantanamo Bay goes - I was surprised to read that the detention camp was intially set up by a couple of military personel without any specific, tacit guidance from the Bush administration on how to proceed or what legal standards were to be applied (those handed down later).

No kidding... then again... it is Cuba... a tropical island in the Caribbean. You'd think that they'd actually like it and all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As far as Guantanamo Bay goes - I was surprised to read that the detention camp was intially set up by a couple of military personel without any specific, tacit guidance from the Bush administration on how to proceed or what legal standards were to be applied (those handed down later).

No kidding... then again... it is Cuba... a tropical island in the Caribbean. You'd think that they'd actually like it and all.

Incidentally the location chosen to house the detainees was chosen arbitrarily. Gitmo was actually near the bottom of the list - they originally wanted to keep them in NYC (no joke).

[HAL 9000 96]

It is interesting that we can discount as lies the testimony of a person accused of terrorist activities in order to defend a policy that is an affront to the fundamental values that we supposedly hold dear.

Well the man is as innocent as OJ so I'm not entirely outraged. Now he'll make some money in the UK as a minor celebrity on Big Brother or give lectures at universities. Not bad for a worthless drug addict ready to die on the battlefield or on a terrorist mission.

With your expert interpretation, of course.

[HAL 9000 96]

As far as Guantanamo Bay goes - I was surprised to read that the detention camp was intially set up by a couple of military personel without any specific, tacit guidance from the Bush administration on how to proceed or what legal standards were to be applied (those handed down later).

No kidding... then again... it is Cuba... a tropical island in the Caribbean. You'd think that they'd actually like it and all.

Incidentally the location chosen to house the detainees was chosen arbitrarily. Gitmo was actually near the bottom of the list - they originally wanted to keep them in NYC (no joke).

Yes I remember that...

Somehow I'd think that would likely have gotten a little too much attention from the evil liberal media and their insistence that our government follow the nature of the international agreements it signs onto. Keep ' em close enough... but far enough.

[46]

The case of Binyam Mohamed who returned to Britain after 7 years in Guantanomo without a trial.

Is this the Free World we mean?

We are at war in Afghanistan. A combatant from that theater left to attack the United States, allegedly. Captured combatants have never had trials and were always held indefinitely until the cessation of hostilities. The "Free World" did this during the Second World War.

Do you propose that captured Nazis should have been given a trial then held for a little while, then sent back to Germany to fight again? Or should every man captured from the German army have been sentenced for attempted murder and held until the 1960s?

FYI, were we playing by the "civilized" rules of the Second World War, non-uniformed combatants would be tried under espionage laws and shot.

For a world to be free, we cannot tolerate those who would rob us of our freedom. It's the paradox of freedom.

I'm not suggesting anything - I posted it simply because I knew it would piss some people off and they couldn't restrain themselves

As to your point - WW2 differs from this for the sole reason that there is no specifically identifiable "enemy". Nazi Germany was a specific entity - regional guerila movements and their affiliates and sympathisers are not.

I can assure you that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are identified. The ability of an enemy to remain hidden and ours to pick them out of a crowd seems incidental. Once you are a non-state actor and out-of-uniform, anything goes with international law.

Hey, I'm just glad I'm no longer subsidizing his stay at the Guantanamo Hilton. I'm sure the chavs of Britain will be punishment enough.