http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binyam_Mohamed#Combatant_Status_Review
A Summary of Evidence memo was prepared for the tribunal and the detainee, listing the alleged facts that led to his detention as an "enemy combatant". His memo accused him of the following: [32]
a. The detainee is associated with al Qaida or the Taliban.
1. The detainee is ########## 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 Faruq training camp in Afghanistan, to receive paramilitary training.
3. At the al Faruq 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 Qaida operative on how to encode telephone numbers before passing them to another individual.
5. The detainee proposed, to senior-al Qaida leaders, the idea of attacking subway trains in the United States.
6. The detainee was extracted from Afghanistan to Karachi, Pakistan, where he received explosives and remote-controlled-detonator training from an al Qaida operative.
7. The detainee met with an al Qaida operative and was directed to travel to the United States to assist in terrorist operations.
8. The detainee attempted to leave Pakistan for the United States but was detained and interrogated by Pakistani authorities, revealing his membership in al Qaida, the identities of Mujahidins he knew, and his plan to use a "dirty bomb" to carry out a terrorist attack in the United States.
Although Binyam Mohammed did not attend his Tribunal, notes from one of the Personal Representative's meetings with him were published.[2] According to that Personal Representative "BM" agreed that the first four allegations were true.
"Detainee admitted items 3A1-4 on the UNCLASS summary of evidence, but stated he went for training to fight in Chechnya, which was not illegal. The detainee stated that the other items were rubbish or made under duress."
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/richardson-report/torture-debate-022310#ixzz0gOwjUTkM
February 23, 2010, 12:36 PM
Why the Torture Fight Keeps Going Around in Circles
Because the middle ground has been lost on liberals calling for the head of America's least favorite hospital patient, and the new Justice Department report isn't helping. Some much-needed perspective on how to correct our course before Obama's no-torture rule gets broke
...
expect neither side will be pleased by the Justice Department's long-awaited report, released this week, on the Bush administration lawyers who gave the greenlight to torture. Although the Office of Professional Responsibility found that John Yoo and Jay Bybee both committed professional misconduct by failing to "exercise independent legal judgment and render thorough, objective and candid legal advice," it was immediately overruled by a senior DOJ attorney named David Margolis. As a result, the AP reported, "An internal review said the department lawyers showed 'poor judgment' but did not commit professional misconduct in giving CIA interrogators the go-ahead at the height of the U.S. war on terrorism to use harsh interrogation tactics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques#Methods_used
Methods used
At the onset of the War on Terror, only 35 days after the September 11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced it was looking at "alternative interrogation techniques" that might include administering truth serums or renditioning prisoners to foreign countries with "more rigorous and brutal" methods of interrogation.[6]
A bipartisan report in December 2008[7] established that:
harsh interrogation techniques used by the CIA and the U.S. military were directly adapted from the training techniques used to prepare special forces personnel to resist interrogation by enemies that torture and abuse prisoners. The techniques included forced nudity, painful stress positions, sleep deprivation, and until 2003, waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning.
Central Intelligence Agency
Depiction of a waterboarding technique as used in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime but not precisely the same method used by the CIA.
According to ABC News,[8], former and current CIA officials have come forward to reveal details of interrogation techniques authorized in the CIA. These include:
1. Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes them
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap to the face aimed at causing pain and triggering fear
3. Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours
5. Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius), while being regularly doused with cold water.
6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over them. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt
In December 2007 CIA director Michael Hayden stated that "of about 100 prisoners held to date in the CIA program, the enhanced techniques were used on about 30, and waterboarding used on just three."[9][10]
The CIA removed waterboarding from its list of enhanced interrogation techniques in 2006. The last use was in 2003.[11]
Department of Defense
The following techniques were being used by the U.S. military:[12][13][14]
1. Yelling
2. Loud music, and light control
3. Environmental manipulation
4. Sleep deprivation/adjustment
5. Stress positions
6. 20-hour interrogations
7. Controlled fear (muzzled dogs)
In November 2006, former US army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, in charge of Abu Ghraib prison until early 2004, told Spain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter signed by United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.'"The methods consisted of making prisoners stand for long periods, sleep deprivation ... playing music at full volume, having to sit in uncomfortably ... Rumsfeld authorised these specific techniques." She said that this was contrary to the Geneva Convention and quoted from the same: "Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind". According to Karpinski, the handwritten signature was above his printed name and in the same handwriting in the margin was written: "Make sure this is accomplished".[15]
On May 1, 2005, The New York Times reported on an ongoing high-level military investigation into accusations of detainee abuse at Guantánamo, conducted by Lieutenant General Randall M. Schmidt of the Air Force, and dealing with: "accounts by agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation who complained after witnessing detainees subjected to several forms of harsh treatment. The FBI agents wrote in memorandums that were never meant to be disclosed publicly that they had seen female interrogators forcibly squeeze male prisoners' genitals, and that they had witnessed other detainees stripped and shackled low to the floor for many hours."[16]
On July 12, 2005, members of a military panel told the committee that they proposed disciplining prison commander Major General Geoffrey Miller over the interrogation of Mohammed al Qahtani, who was forced to wear a bra, dance with another man, and threatened with dogs. The recommendation was overruled by General Bantz J. Craddock, commander of US Southern Command, who referred the matter to the army's inspector general.[17]
In an interview with AP on February 14, 2008 Paul Rester, chief military interrogator at Guantanamo Bay and director of the Joint Intelligence Group, said most of the information gathered from detainees came from non-coercive questioning and "rapport building," not harsh interrogation methods.[18]
Originally posted by zeeblebotOkay. Not sure how you get to this conclusion from the links / text you have pasted here.
torture bad, interrogation good.
I know the background. Just interested in opinions on this case. EG was it right he was tortured (I guess from the above you think 'no'?); should the UK be on the hook for having known about his situation and done nothing?
Originally posted by murrowIt's filthy and it's depraved. It was also likely illegal.
Okay. Not sure how you get to this conclusion from the links / text you have pasted here.
I know the background. Just interested in opinions on this case. EG was it right he was tortured (I guess from the above you think 'no'?); should the UK be on the hook for having known about his situation and done nothing?
Either the Security Service (or those within it who were party to this) felt they had authority to participate in the way they did - in which case those who gave that authority need to be brought to justice - or there was insufficient control over those who participated. Either is shameful.
Originally posted by zeeblebotHow many of those techniques would the US government consider "torture" if they were used on captured American service personnel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_interrogation_techniques#Methods_used
Methods used
At the onset of the War on Terror, only 35 days after the September 11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced it was looking at "alternative interrogation techniques" that might include administering truth serums or renditioning prisoners to forei ...[text shortened]... ve questioning and "rapport building," not harsh interrogation methods.[18]
Originally posted by zeeblebotWell, in this case, BM was arrested in Pakistan at the airport. I hardly think "captured" is the right word.
captured as uniformed combatants or as non-uniformed?
You consider him a "combatant", I take it? Based on what?
In any event, no-one that I know of has suggested he has ever been "uniformed". Is that what you consider the crucial difference to be?
Originally posted by zeeblebotThere is no "third category"!!!
you're the lawyer, you tell us.
captured as uniformed combatants or as non-uniformed?
There are criminals, and there are POWs. If you are being held, you are either one or the other.
Criminals have rights under national justice systems. POWs have rights under the Geneva convention. There is no third category of indviduals who can be held in indefinite detention facing years of torture!!!
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is very clear on this:
Article 5.
•No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 9.
•No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
•Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Originally posted by spruce112358Wrong: you could also be a suspected criminal, but innocent. Maybe you meant "suspected criminal"? To be a criminal, you have to be charged, prosecuted and found guilty (something about innocent until found guilty, yada yada...) This is relevant in this case, of course, as all charges against BM were dropped.
There are criminals, and there are POWs. If you are being held, you are either one or the other.
(Or, of course, you could be unlawfully detained.)