The only sources for this article are the statements given by the captured enemy to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals or their attorneys for publication in the press.

When determining the veracity of such claims, consider how al Qaeda trains its terrorists to act when captured. Here is Lesson 18 - Prisons and Detention Centers translated by the FBI from a captured al Qaeda training manual:

IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:

1 . At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators ]before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

3. Make arrangements for the brother’s defense with the attorney, whether he was retained by the brother’s family or court-appointed.

4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge.[These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]

5. Some brothers may tell and may be lured by the state security investigators to testify against the brothers [i.e. affirmation witness ], either by not keeping them together in the same prison during the trials, or by letting them talk to the media. In this case, they have to be treated gently, and should be offered good advice, good treatment, and pray that God may guide them.

6. During the trial, the court has to be notified of any mistreatment of the brothers inside the prison.

This fact that al Qaeda trains its terrorists to make up stories of torture for propaganda purposes has been widely known for years. Why then do the WP and many of its readers take this propaganda at face value and credulously disseminate it without a question?

Indeed, if the government was perpetrating the "torture" alleged in this article and committing war crimes, why would the CSRT's freely publish the detainees' claims of torture given at the status hearings which the WP is using as source material? Such publication does not exactly indicate a guilty mind.

The Soviets used to call those in the West who credulously believed their propaganda to be useful fools. If you want to avoid being one of al Qaeda's useful fools, cast an exceedingly critical eye on uncorroborated claims of "torture" made by its members.
 

Bart writes: "The only sources for this article are the statements given by the captured enemy to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals or their attorneys for publication in the press."

The article itself, however, also refers to "documents," "human rights advocates," and "former U.S. officials" -- at least some of whom presumably are not "captured enemies."

More importantly, the article states that "[i]n the aftermath of Sept. 11, . . . the GID was attractive for another reason, according to former U.S. counterterrorism officials and Jordanian human rights advocates. Its interrogators had a reputation for persuading tight-lipped suspects to talk, even if that meant using abusive tactics that could violate U.S. or international law."

Oh, and then there are the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which "have issued reports on abuses in Jordan, often singling out the General Intelligence Department."

And the U.N. special investigator for torture, who found that "the practice of torture is routine" at GID headquarters and concluded "that there is total impunity for torture and ill-treatment in the country."

And, for good measure, those al Qaeda operatives over at the U.S. State Department, who have for several years "cited widespread allegations of torture by Jordan's security agencies in its annual report cards on human rights."

Bart, really, I'd appreciate if you would stop abusing the comments section, thanks.
 

Marty:

The article itself, however, also refers to "documents," "human rights advocates," and "former U.S. officials" -- at least some of whom presumably are not "captured enemies."

As an attorney, are you truly this credulous?

As I posted above, the only sources which allege personal knowledge are the captured enemy trained to lie that they were tortured.

If the WP had a smoking gun document written by someone credible with personal knowledge, they would produce it. Most likely, the "documents" referred to are either detainee statements produced by the government or pleading documents created by the detainees' attorneys.

Any genuine "human rights advocates" like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch would not insist upon anonymity and would offer any evidence they possessed. The unidentified "human rights advocates" relied upon by the WP could be anyone including the enemy, just like the "human rights advocates" which came forward with the Haditha massacre claims or the "green helmet man" working for Hamas in Lebanon manufacturing massacre photo ops - both of which have been since debunked by people who challenged allegations credulously published by the press.

Finally, I could give less than a damn about anonymous former bureaucrats with a political ax to grind. The papers are filled with anonymous lies spread in this manner.

Nothing here except for the statements of the detainees would be admissible as evidence in a court of law and, as I have shown, the terrorists' credibility is more than questionable.

More importantly, the article states that "[i]n the aftermath of Sept. 11, . . . the GID was attractive for another reason, according to former U.S. counterterrorism officials and Jordanian human rights advocates. Its interrogators had a reputation for persuading tight-lipped suspects to talk, even if that meant using abusive tactics that could violate U.S. or international law."

This is a perfect example of how the WP reporter is doing the inuendo without really telling you a thing. (Credit to Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry.")

Let us examine what the reporter is actually saying...

Jordan's interrogators convince their "tight lipped" subjects to talk. Well, I would hope that you could say the same thing about any lawful interrogation.

Jordan's interrogators use "abusive tactics that could violate U.S. or international law."

What exactly is an "abusive tactic?" Some people here think that interrogation without a criminal defendant's right to silence is abusive.

Moreover, the lawyered weasel phrase "could violate U.S. or international law" says absolutely nothing. All this says is that the interrogation techniques may or may not be lawful. Given that this covers the entire spectrum of possibilities, the statement does not make an actual claim.

Finally, note what the WP is not saying in this paragraph - The "former U.S. counterterrorism officials and Jordanian human rights advocates" actually have personal knowledge that these unidentified "abusive techniques" which may or may not be legal were ever actually used on the al Qaeda terrorists.

Once again, there is not a single scrap of admissible evidence in this passage.

Bart, really, I'd appreciate if you would stop abusing the comments section, thanks.

I appreciate that you actually replied to the points I made in my comment rather than your usual shutting down of the comments section. However, false accusations of "abuse" does not help your response argument.

There is nothing "abusive" about using the comments section to challenge the credibility of al Qaeda terrorists, even if you would personally would like to believe what they say.

This is a perfect example of the misuse of the term "abuse" simply to mean something with which you personally disagree. What you really mean is that you would appreciate not having your claims challenged.
 

Bart refers to Al Qaeda training it's members to fabricate stories of being tortured if they are captured. How does he know this? The Al Qaeda manual? How do we know it is genuine? What is its provenance? How do we know it is not, in fact, a fabrication intended to serve the purposes of the West? I don't claim to know whether it is genuine or not, but I would not think it a sufficient bedrock to dismiss claims by detainees held in countries known to practice torture that they have been tortured.

Moreover, even if the Al Qaeda manual is genuine, one can assume Al Qaeda knows pretty well the treatment they're likely to receive if captured, particularly if captured by other middle east nations such as Jordan, Syria, etc. Rather than assuming the manual "trains the members to lie," perhaps it assumes captured members WILL be tortured and emphasizes that they must make this known and make use of it in any legal defense they might mount.
 

robert cook said...

Bart refers to Al Qaeda training it's members to fabricate stories of being tortured if they are captured. How does he know this? The Al Qaeda manual? How do we know it is genuine? What is its provenance? How do we know it is not, in fact, a fabrication intended to serve the purposes of the West?

Between the unidentified and unpublished "documents" cited by the WP and the identified and published document translated by the FBI, I will give credence to the latter. Even al Qaeda has not denied that this is their work.

Moreover, even if the Al Qaeda manual is genuine, one can assume Al Qaeda knows pretty well the treatment they're likely to receive if captured, particularly if captured by other middle east nations such as Jordan, Syria, etc. Rather than assuming the manual "trains the members to lie," perhaps it assumes captured members WILL be tortured and emphasizes that they must make this known and make use of it in any legal defense they might mount.

The manual says nothing of the kind. al Qaeda does not instruct its terrorists to report instances of torture. Rather, they flatly instruct their terrorists to claim they were tortured in all cases.

Nor is this instruction limited to certain nations. As instructed by al Qaeda, al Marri made all kinds of incredible claims of torture against the South Carolina Navy brig which seem improbable on their face.

Consider the source before you accept any of these allegations at face value.
 

"Consider the source before you accept any of these allegations at face value."

If someone held captive by a country we know tortures its prisoners claims to have been tortured, I think we have reason to give the claim credence.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

[Prof. Lederman]: The article itself, however, also refers to "documents," "human rights advocates," and "former U.S. officials" -- at least some of whom presumably are not "captured enemies."

["Bart" DePalma]: As an attorney, are you truly this credulous?

"[C]redulous...."

"Bart", OTOH, only trusts his own gummint and maladministration's word as being "good as gold". "[W]e gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in", for instance.

["Bart"]: As I posted above, the only sources which allege personal knowledge are the captured enemy trained to lie that they were tortured.

"Bart" knows this as fact....

["Bart"]: If the WP had a smoking gun document written by someone credible with personal knowledge, they would produce it. Most likely, the "documents" referred to are either detainee statements produced by the government or pleading documents created by the detainees' attorneys.

Oh. Waiddaminnit. Maybe not. Sounds a bit more like "off-the-cuff" speculation, despite the ironclad assurance of factuality in "Bart"'s first assertion. "Bart" is just 'guessing' here.

["Bart"]: Any genuine "human rights advocates" like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch would not insist upon anonymity and would offer any evidence they possessed....

But of course. AI and HRW workers are universally respected by all the host gummints, and are given great deference, privilege, and freedom to do their work. They're never hassled, and never in danger.

And the fact that "Bart" hasn't seen the specific allegations is conclusive proof that such allegations don't even exist; let's all sing the Solipsist Song....

["Bart"]: The unidentified "human rights advocates" relied upon by the WP could be anyone including the enemy....

"I have a list...." -- J. McC.

But of course. AI is the "enemy". They're anti-Amur'kun and giving the "enemy" "aid and comfort", not to mention sapping our Precious Bodily Fluids. Not to mention they say mean things about "Dubya"....

Pardon me, Prof. Lederman, for saying what should need not be said, and polluting the thread even more, but the plain fact is that "Bart" is truly incorrigible, and there is no other way to deal with this garbage than to ban him (as Greenwald already did). Let him rant all day on his own effin' blog. The InterNets are free and vast, and he's free to go find his own audience .. and on his own dime.

Cheers,