Thursday, March 15, 2007

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Anyone who is suspicious of the "confession" of this man, please feel to read up on him. Please don't let your hatred of George Bush make you think he's some sort of patsy. He was also well-educated and well-traveled, an engineer.

If there was anyone who could be defined as a "ticking bomb scenario" it was this guy. If there is any one member of Al Qaeda who truly needed to be water boarded for intel, he is it. This is the guy that is the exception to the rule where even if it was illegal to torture him, you do it anyways.

Also, this creeps me out: Zawahiri actually visited my hometown and Taiwan in the 90's doing fund raising. (from the Looming Tower.)

UPDATE:
He "sang" to interrogators almost from the start, after his March 2003 arrest at a house outside the Pakistani capital. Much of the information in the 26 pages of released testimony has been long known.
I swear I read that he was water-boarded. Maybe he wasn't.
In his testimony to a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, released in redacted form by the
Pentagon on Wednesday, Mohammed claimed involvement in 31 attacks and plots. Some are almost surely true.

He was the mastermind of the 9/11 jetliner attacks and, in their wake, certified his bloodthirsty by personally beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl — bragging about it on the Internet then and in the testimony transcript of last Saturday.

"I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan," he said. "For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head."

His operations ranged from his admitted involvement in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, as well as a failed scheme known as Bojinka to bring down 12 Western airliners in Asia — claims that are well documented.

Less certain is his claimed role in the October 2002 bombings that killed 202 people in Bali, Indonesia, and aborted plots to assassinate former U.S. presidents and
Pope John Paul II.

"He's a boastful character. I think after four years of silence, he'd probably like to be up there with the likes of bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri as a major figure and ideologue, and impress people with everything he's done," said Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistan-based author on Islamic militancy.
So there is documentation for many of his confessions, as I noted, and at least this story mentions them. As for the Bali bombings, this guy was living in SE Asia for many years - I would not be surprised if he was involved. Then again, he can only do so much, so maybe he is lying for effect, under duress, or boasting.

UPDATE II:
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.
So, did he "sing" or did he have to be water-boarded? The Yahoo story says he "sang" almost from the beginning. This story says he had to be water-boarded. I guess those are not mutually exclusive.

8 comments:

Chaon said...

"Please don't let your hatred of George Bush make you think he's some sort of patsy."

I can't even tell when you are joking any more. Are you saying that the only reason one can be skeptical of Khalid's confession is because of a slavering hatred of Bush?

With enough waterboarding, you or I would cop to a list of terrorist activities just as long. Maybe longer in my case, because I hate water.

Don't let your everlasting devotion to Bush make you take everthing at face value.

Red A said...

Karl,

The problem is that there is mucho other evidence for all of those confessions, like computer records, photos, etc.

It's not like he confessed to Operation Bojoinko but in fact was living France and not the Philippines, or something. There are corrobations for most of his planning.

Plus, it seems to me sort of STUPID for people to think the NO. 3 in AQ is somehow NOT involved in planning terror attacks.

He's also on tape for Daniel Pearl beheading...

However, despite all of the evidence that backs up his confessions, we see endless people (see fark for example) snarkily saying he just said it because he was water boarded...as if he was as innocent as a New Jersey cab driver...

Sure, before water boarding he admitted to NOTHING, that's why he was water boarded. And yes, we need to take any intel gained that way with a grain of salt. But if he confessed to Bokoinko, and he was in the PI at the time, and they found his computer records...well...

I don't take it at face value - I have read a lot on the subject and I worry that a lot of other people don't, and the media stories I read just mentioned the confession laundry list without any examples of the corroborating evidence...thus my post.

Red A said...

Let me use a Clinton example to explain my sentence:

If someone told me we fired cruise missiles at Bin Laden's facilities in Sudan only because Clinton wanted political cover I would say the same sentence:

PLEASE DON'T LET YOUR HATRED OF CLINTON MAKE YOU THINK BIN LADEN IS SOME SORT OF INNOCENT.

Do you understand my point? It seems to me too many people look at everything through domestic politics lens and not thinking stuff through. You are not one of those people, BTW, but many are.

Red A said...

Of course, the minute I say that I am well read in this case...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070316/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida_s_future

Big Ell said...

Since I base most of my opinions on things from TV shows here is my view. I watch a TV show called the Wire (got all 4 season, will burn) and the cops catch a killer who did kill a guy. So when the guy realizes he is going to get busted and can't get out (after mucho interrogations) he admits to every unsolved murder the cops suspect his gang of doing.

So that is what i think happened. I don't doubt that he is bad but feel it may be a bit to convenient that he did them all. But the fuck do I know I am a coolie, that kill sme.

Bread said...

RedA misses the point for a couple of reasons:
a. as ponce points out, it is not a polarized, black and white argument. much as foxnews would like us to believe, people questioning the confession are not questioning Khalid's goodness. everybody agrees this guy is a bad dude, bush lovers and bush haters alike. the question is if we are going to blindly believe EVERYTHING in a confession obtained by torture. your clinton analogy fails to incorporate this element.

b. statements like "you do it (torture)anyway" are circular. as the ethical and public relations disaster of guantanamo and abu grahib demonstrate, torture helps fuel the fire of america/west haters. this in turn gives those same haters a talking point amongst recruits, thereby creating more america/west haters. whether you like it or not, that's the way it works.

c. as i've said to you before, the day we use torture is the day we start supporting the same negative tactics as saddam hussein and the saudi government, tactics we used as defenses to invasion (he tortures kurds and imprisons political enemies!). perhaps you are cool with this; i am not.

Red A said...

Bread,

1. "we need to take any intel gained that way with a grain of salt."

I am referring to people thinking of him as a "patsy" i.e. he's a sort of quasi innocent and we should discount him into becoming a mere footsoldier at best...He was not. If I am wrong about my impression of what I was seeing on message boards, well, then I am happy.

Torture even when its illegal: the point is you make it illegal so people don't do it except in extremely rare cases where they are willing to break a law...say you might drive down a one-way street to get someone to a hospital...that's what the ticking bomb is about. It's not circular reasoning. Abu Ghraib clearly shows the limit of making things illegal - idiots still break the law and manage to get 6 weeks of NYT coverage.

Michael Turton said...

Why be suspicious? He confessed to be in on the attack on the Plaza bank, though that wasn't built until after he was incarcerated. And he didn't mention his connections to Pakistani intelligence services though those have been widely discussed and documented. And he was tortured, which means that anything he testifies to is worthless.

Fundamentally torture renders all confessions suspect, Aaron. Our suspicion isn't driven by hatred of Bush. That exists for sound reasons, like this one right here: now we will never really know what he did, because his memory and his confession have been altered and degraded by torture. Because of Bush's support for a policy of torture -- a criminal act that hopefully will get everyone involved indicted, arrested, convicted, and imprisoned, including the President -- we now have no reliable information.

Also, we didn't hear any confession from his own lips. It was read by his interrogators. Big difference.

Michael

Michael