Originally posted by murrowre Vandeveld, the prosecutor you're referring to:
He said "I resign". Amongst other things.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7761315.stm
The problem is, the "evidence" on which you have based your conclusions as to this man's guilt seems from your wiki link to be based entirely on BM's alleged confessions. But because of the way he was treated, any such confession would not be admissable in a re ...[text shortened]... return to the UK. The fact that he was allowed to walk free suggests to me there is none.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrel_Vandeveld
Frakt claimed that Vandeveld had recommended a plea bargain and an early release for Jawad, who was a youth when the event took place, and who had been subjected to coercive "enhanced interrogation techniques", including prolonged sleep deprivation in Guantanamo's frequent flyer program.[1]
Frakt commented that Vandeveld: “could no longer continue to serve ethically as a prosecutor.”[1]
Chief Prosecutor Colonel Lawrence Morris asserted[1]:
* “...there are no grounds for his ethical qualms.”
* “All you have is somebody who is disappointed that his superiors did not agree with his recommendation in a case.”
Originally posted by murrowre the evidence, the source of the evidence is not provided in the summary of evidence posted.
He said "I resign". Amongst other things.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7761315.stm
The problem is, the "evidence" on which you have based your conclusions as to this man's guilt seems from your wiki link to be based entirely on BM's alleged confessions. But because of the way he was treated, any such confession would not be admissable in a re ...[text shortened]... return to the UK. The fact that he was allowed to walk free suggests to me there is none.
here is a discussion of the evidence.
note also that BM and Jose Padilla were supposedly working closely together and were both detained in Karachi airport on the same day on false passports or passport irregularities and released.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/02/binyam_mohamed_the_f.php
Binyam Mohamed: The false martyr
By Thomas Joscelyn February 20, 2009 1:21 PM
...
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.
...
BM was fingered by Zubaydah and Padilla (below).
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-officials-wrong-padilla?page=3
Obama Officials Wrong on Padilla
Al Qaeda terrorist Jose Padilla started talking only after he was designated an enemy combatant.
BY Thomas Joscelyn
February 11, 2010 9:35 PM
...
According to Padilla, he first met KSM in Karachi, Pakistan after Abu Zubaydah sent Padilla and his Accomplice [Weekly Standard’s Note: The accomplice is Binyam Mohamed] there in March 2002 to present the nuclear/dirty bomb operation. After being taken to a safe house by Ammar al-Baluchi, Padilla presented the idea to KSM, who advised that the idea was a little too complicated and that he wanted Padilla to resurrect the apartment building operation originally discussed with Atef. KSM wanted Padilla to hit targets in New York City, although Florida and Washington, D.C. were discussed as well. Padilla had discretion in the selection of the apartments. Padilla now admits that he accepted the mission. …
...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574375012840827276.html
AUGUST 27, 2009, 2:15 P.M. ET
The Real CIA News
Interrogations were carefully limited, briefed on Capitol Hill, and yielded information that saved innocent lives.
Whoever advised people to be skeptical of what they read in the papers must have had in mind this week's coverage of the documents about CIA interrogations. Now that we've had a chance to read the reports, it's clear the real story isn't the few cases of abuse played up by the media. The news is that the program was thoughtfully developed, carefully circumscribed, briefed to Congress, and yielded information crucial to disrupting al Qaeda.
In other words, it worked—at least until politics got in the way.
That's the essential judgment offered by former CIA Inspector General John Helgerson in his 2004 report. Some mild criticism aside, the report says the CIA "invested immense time and effort to implement the [program] quickly, effectively, and within the law"; that the agency "generally provided good guidance and support"; and that agency personnel largely "followed guidance and procedures and documented their activities well." So where's the scandal?
***
Mr. Helgerson describes how the CIA collaborated with the Pentagon, the Justice Department and even outside experts to develop specific guidelines for 10 enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that passed legal muster. The enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) "would be used on 'an as needed basis' and all would not necessarily be used. Further, the EITs were expected to be used 'in some sort of escalating fashion' . . ." The agency had psychologists evaluate al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, to ensure he would not suffer physical or long-term mental harm.
As the program expanded, the CIA "implemented training programs for interrogators and debriefers." By early 2003 it had created guidelines on detention and interrogation and required "individuals engaged in or supporting interrogations be made aware of the guidelines and sign an acknowledgment that they have read them." The guidelines also made "formal the existing . . . practice of requiring the field to obtain specific Headquarters approvals prior to the application of all EITs." This was hardly a rogue CIA.
Congress also knew about it. The IG report belies House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that she wasn't told about all this. "In the fall of 2002, the Agency briefed the leadership of the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of both standard techniques and EITs. . . . Representatives . . . continued to brief the leadership of the Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of EITs and detentions in February and March 2003. The [CIA] General Counsel says that none of the participants expressed any concern about the techniques or the Program . . ." Ditto in September 2003.
...
The most revealing portion of the IG report documents the program's results. The CIA's "detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world." That included the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed, who planned to detonate a dirty bomb, and the arrest of previously unknown members of an al Qaeda cell in Karachi, Pakistan, designated to pilot an aircraft attack in the U.S. The information also made the CIA aware of plots to attack the U.S. consulate in Karachi, hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow, loosen track spikes to derail a U.S. train, blow up U.S. gas stations, fly an airplane into a California building, and cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York.
...
Originally posted by zeeblebotYes, well torturers would claim that wouldn't they.
Interrogations were carefully limited, briefed on Capitol Hill, and yielded information that saved innocent lives.
Have any of the mass slaughter of 'wedding parties' in Afghanistan perpetrated by NATO forces been caused by faulty "evidence" extracted under torture? Has the CIA ever admitted this to be so? On how many occasions?
Innocent lives are innocent lives, the world over.
However, this debate goes a little deeper than this, zeeblebot, and therefore might not be suited to your style of discourse.
This is a question of whether one should try to (allegedly) prevent crimes against humanity - that might or might not happen - by committing crimes against humanity of your own - and ones that certainly damage the long term 'moral leadership' of a nation and, who knows, lead to even larger numbers of - and foreseeable - crimes against humanity in the future by the allies and surviving colleagues of the people tortured.
It's a complex question that cut and pastes of this kind do little to unlock.
Originally posted by FMFhttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100029445/would-we-rather-see-women-and-children-die-than-waterboard-a-terrorist/
Yes, well torturers would claim that wouldn't they.
Have any of the mass slaughter of 'wedding parties' in Afghanistan perpetrated by NATO forces been caused by faulty "evidence" extracted under torture? Has the CIA ever admitted this to be so? On how many occasions?
Innocent lives are innocent lives, the world over.
However, this debate goes a little d ...[text shortened]... rtured.
It's a complex question that cut and pastes of this kind do little to unlock.
Would we rather see women and children die than waterboard a terrorist?
By Gerald Warner World Last updated: March 11th, 2010
Much moral indignation is being expressed over the waterboarding (163 times, allegedly) of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, author of the September 11 atrocity, by American intelligence agents. The information extracted from him enabled our own security services to foil planned attacks on hotels in London – the so-called “gas limos project”. In other words, American agents’ waterboarding of this terrorist saved British lives.
So, who are the bad guys? The Americans, it seems. Some of the more delicate flowers in the herbaceous border of British liberal-left opinion even feel uncomfortable about the use of intelligence gained in so distasteful a way. This self-flagellation has been going on for years. In 2005 Lord Nicholls stated the obvious, in a House of Lords ruling: “The government cannot be expected to close its eyes to this information at the price of endangering the lives of its own citizens. Moral repugnance to torture does not require this.”
...
The kind of self-righteousness that liberals exude would, in certain circumstances, condemn large numbers of innocent men, women and children to death. That is self-indulgent grandstanding, not morality. This exaggerated sensitivity derives partly from our current mania for abasing ourselves before other “cultures” while denigrating our own, partly from the American neo-con aberration that we are fighting a “war” on terror.
It is not a war: it is a police operation against terrorists whose lexicon does not contain the words “compassion” or “decency”. In that squalid reality, tough decisions have to be made. The Americans recognise that because they watched their fellow citizens jumping from the Twin Towers, at which point they abruptly engaged with reality. We have not. Which frightens you more – al-Qaeda or the British liberal establishment? Yeah, me too.
SO, to sum up, the indications are that:
- Binyam conspired with Padilla and al-Qaeda middle managers to travel to the West and carry out nefarious, mass destruction plots.
- He and Padilla were caught.
- This was early days in the War on Terror.
- Paths to success were still being felt out. RIchard Reid, caught earlier, clammed up (see next post). Padilla also clammed up. The US then decided to move Padilla to a military brig at which point he started spilling the beans.
- Someone got overzealous, or maybe Binyam got unlucky; he was given over to the Moroccans who tortured him at the behest of the US and the UK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160238/How-MI5-colluded-torture-Binyam-Mohamed-claims-British-agents-fed-Moroccan-torturers-questions--WORLD-EXCLUSIVE.html).
Result
either:
- Binyam was more or less innocent, the US figured it out, and let him go, conditionally.
- Binyam was more or less guilty, but the US decided that based on the torture they could not prosecute him further, and let him go, conditionally.
(post referenced above re Reid - Padilla treatment):
http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/?p=3165
Obama administration misleads and repeats intelligence failures of the past
by Tim Sumner @ 5:28 pm on February 8, 2010.
The Obama administration apparently never made or discovered a mistake not worth repeating.
Counter-terror chief John Brennan incredibly states the four Members of Congress he briefed on Christmas Day should have assumed Flight 253 bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab was read Miranda warnings. Yet the administration has given mixed signals on if and when terrorists will be provided a right to remain silent and a lawyer. For example, during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on November 18, 2009, in response to a question by Senator Amy Klobuchar, AG Eric Holder said:
“The people in the field have been making determinations about giving Miranda warnings or not for some time now. They have had thousands of people come into their custody; only a small number of them have been given Miranda warnings.”
Minutes before that, Holder refused to offer a clear opinion to Senator Lindsay Graham on whether custody begins (for the purpose of civilian trials and Miranda warnings) at the same time a terrorist is captured.
Congressman Pete Hoekstra is disputing John Brennan on both the facts and his presumptions:
Brennan told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Hoekstra and other top Congressional Republicans were told on Christmas Day that the Detroit bomber was in FBI custody, and should have known that he would therefore be read his rights according to Miranda.
But Hoekstra tells National Review Online that it would have been unreasonable to infer any such thing from his phone call with Brennan, which was brief and carried over an unsecured line.
“He never brought this stuff up,” Hoekstra says, adding that the FBI was the natural choice to hold Abdulmutallab until a detainment and interrogation strategy could be settled. “No, I wouldn’t expect the military to be at Detroit Airport waiting to arrest somebody,” Hoekstra adds, but he thought the administration would carefully investigate alternatives and consult with national security principals before moving forward with Miranda rights and other criminal procedures.
Abdulmuttalab was not read Miranda warnings until approximately 11 PM Eastern time and it is likely Brennan briefed the four well before that time. While it is not clear Brennan then told them whether Abdulmuttalab had provided intelligence during his initial interrogation, we now know that he was not initially read the warnings. President Barack Obama has acknowledged that some number of agencies and personnel failed in their responsibilities prior to the Christmas Day attack and Abdulmuttalab stopped providing intelligence when read “his” rights. (AG Holder directed that he be Mirandized prior to the FBI’s clean team attempting to question him further.)
In addition, we know that on Tuesday, February 2, 2010, the White House Press Secretary’s Office intentionally leaked “on background” sensitive information to the media that Abdulmuttalab was now cooperating:
Gibbs explained that the White House felt the need to provide background briefings about what Abdulmutallab was now saying in order to “contextualize” the information after receiving inquiries from reporters.
In other words, the Obama administration was getting pounded for providing a foreign terrorist Constitution rights not afforded them in that document. The White House felt the need to push back politically. They leaked secrets, made the intelligence we are now getting from Abdulmuttalab less valuable, and then falsely implied that Senator Kit Bond had disclosed the information.
Stupid is as stupid does, that Richard Reid was read “his” rights was a poor example to follow; that too was an intelligence failure.
Reid was arrested not three months into our invasion of Afghanistan, while the hunt was still under way in Tora Bora, and several months before Jose Padilla, Binyam Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Ramzi Binalshibh were captured. Bush 43 could have ordered Reid turned over for military detention as his November 13, 2001 Military Order proscribed and yet he at least seemed to learn from his mistake; he ordered Padilla turned over for military detention and the rest eventually ended up at Gitmo.
After leaving Afghanistan, Reid traveled separately through several countries in the Middle East. His interrogation would likely have provided valuable intelligence on both al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the contacts he made during those travels. Only through the interrogations of other detainees was Reid’s accomplice, Saajid Badat, discovered and arrested, in England in November 2003. Ten months after Reid pled guilty, British police found Badat’s still armed shoe-bomb when they searched the home of his parents. Badat did not use his bomb for he had had a change of heart, immediately confessed to police, told them how to disarm the device, and pled guilty. Richard Reid was (and is) a committed jihadist who we should have interrogated.
...
Originally posted by zeeblebotHmmm. We may have to agree to differ on this.
SO, to sum up, the indications are that:
- Binyam conspired with Padilla and al-Qaeda middle managers to travel to the West and carry out nefarious, mass destruction plots.
- He and Padilla were caught.
[...]
either:
- Binyam was more or less innocent, the US figured it out, and let him go, conditionally.
- Binyam was more or less guilty, ...[text shortened]... d that based on the torture they could not prosecute him further, and let him go, conditionally.
I still find it hard to believe some guy from a chess site could find evidence on the global intertubes enough to prove someone's guilt of such serious crimes yet the US authorities would let the guy go ("conditionally"? what conditions?) without ever prosecuting him.
Re Padilla:
http://www.reprieve.org.uk/2008_10_07USGovtdropsdirtybombplotbinyammohamed
The long history of the supposed ‘dirty bomb plot’ dates back to April 2002, after Jose Padilla, an American citizen, was seized at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport and accused of plotting to detonate a ‘dirty bomb’ in a US city. At some point the US authorities decided that Mr. Mohamed was also included in the ‘plot’, even though he insists that he never met Mr. Padilla, and even though the ‘plot’ did not actually exist. In June 2002, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy to US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, admitted that “there was not an actual plan” to set off a radioactive device in America, that Mr. Padilla had not begun trying to acquire materials, and that intelligence officials had stated that his research had not gone beyond surfing the internet.
his "research had not gone beyond surfing the internet" means they arrested him before he got very far, in the US. he, BM, and al-Qaeda planned this while overseas.
if BM had been tortured in the US for a crime committed here, and the police had tortured him here, i think that maybe the prosecution would have given up the case. so maybe this is what is going on with the BM case.
that the chief prosecutor wanted to continue the case but the incoming administration released him indicates his release had more to do with the incoming administration than with his innocence or guilt.
Back on the topic of the UK's role.
Here, for the princely sum of 50 pounds, you can sue (1) the prime minister, (2) the home secretary, (3) the foreign sectretary, (4) the defence secretary and (5), for good measure, the attorney general.
Now that's good value for money.
http://www.reprieve.org.uk/static/downloads/2010_02_23_PUB_Torture_Policy_Grounds_for_Judicial_Review.pdf