...In a landmark move, the Biden administration has advised [SCOTUS] that Abu Zubaydah..who has been in US custody for nearly 20 years, can provide limited testimony for use in a Polish criminal investigation into his torture at a CIA "black site" in that countryBefore this abuse commenced, Zubaydah was interviewed by FBI operative Ali Soufan. While he was recovering from life-threatening injuries incurred during his capture by Pakistani intelligence --he had been shot in the thigh, testicles, and stomach with an assault rifle--..The FBI'ss top Al-Qaeda analyst, Dan Coleman, describes Zubaydah as a mere "safehouse keeper"with severe mental problems, who "claimed o know more about Al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did."he torture he suffered no doubt played a pivotal role in prompting him to make such claims[torture someone into saying things the CIA and other sthen use to justify the past and possibly future torture. Stalin/Hitler woudl approve -ED]
In any event, Soufan was confident Zubaydah had no more secrets to tell, but the CIA claimed to be unconvinced--after all, Langley paid its Pakistani counterparts $10 million for him, and needed a greater return on that investment. When the torture finally stopped, with no further intelligence gathered, the agency was forced to conclude Soufan had been right all along.
As the Senate Select Committee report later found, the CIA still considered its tactics a success, to be "used as a template for future interrogation of high-value captives," on the basis that such hideous treatment had "confirmed Zubaydah did not possess the intelligence" it erroneously assessed him to have.
Other shocking excerpts reveal that a number of CIA personnel attached to the detention and interrogation program had on their personal files [info about their own backgrounds being shocking]Among them were officers who, "Among other issues, had engaged in inappropriate detainee interrogations, had workplace anger management issues, and had reportedly admitted to sexual assault"
The agency seemed assured of its immunity from prosecution for its crimes, with several detainees having been informed they would never get out of CIA custody alive. One was told they'd be leaving only "in a coffin-shaped box," while another was warned "we can never let the world know what I have done to you" CIA officers also threatened several detainees with harm to their families should any details of their maltreatment be made public -- this included telling one that their children's s lives would be at risk, a second that his mother would be sexually abused, and a third that his mother's throat would be cut.
...Since September 2006, Zubaydah has been held at Guantanamo Bay, despite the CIA having acknowledged that he wasn't even a member of Al-Qaeda, let alone a significant figure within the group. The scars from his time in "black site" detention remain writ large today, with virtually perpetual headaches, an "excruciating sensitivity to sounds," frequent seizures, and an inability to recall his own father's name.
Still, the Supreme Court permitting him to make limited disclosures about his experiences is an encouraging sign that the invocation of "state secrecy privilege" to block disclosure of key evidence related to the CIA's global post-9/11 torture program may no longer be a viable get-out for officials. This, in turn, raises the prospect that, at long last, someone might finally be held accountable for the gross human rights violations the agency and its assorted contractors inflicted on so many with such impunity for so long.
After the closing statements, the panel of six senior military officers began deliberations. If convicted, Mr. Hamdan faces a possible life term. Even if acquitted, he will probably remain in custody [prison camp] as an ' 'enemy combatant' ' until the government determines [decides to declare] the war on terrorism is over - NY Times reporting on our "free" country (nother defense lawyer, Joseph M. McMillan, said the s contentions amounted to guilt by association. He noted that after World War II, s driver, Erich Kempka, Hitler's driver, was not prosecuted as a war criminal._
Elusive al-Qaeda mastermind Osama-bin Laden may have terrorised the world, but his 26-year-old son Omar wants to launch a movement of peace. Omar also wants his father to give up violence and find another way to pursue his goals. Omar, who last saw Osama in 2000 when he decided to leave al Qaeda, said that he did not think his father was a terrorist and was sure that he must have felt very sorry for the September 11 terror attacks.. however [Omar] expressed apprehensions that his father "doesn't have the power to stop the movement at this moment." .."I try and say to my father: 'Try to find another way to help or find your goal. This bomb, these weapons, it's not good to use it for anybody, "he said. Omar said he doesn't consider his father to be a terrorist. When his father was fighting the Soviets, Washington considered him a hero, he said. "Before they called it war; now they call it terrorism," he said. He said his father believes it his duty is to protect Muslims from attack. "He believes this is his job -- to help the people," he said. "I don't-- -- think my father is a terrorist because history tells you he's not." However, Omar bin Laden said he differs greatly with his father over the killing of civilians. "I don't think 9/11 was right personally, but it happened," he said. "I don't think ... [the war] in Vietnam was right. I don't think what's going on in Palestine is right. I don't think what's going on in Iraq is right." [notice how this last phrase was self-censored out in australian version of this story; see link below for fuller story] He said he left al Qaeda because he did not want to be associated with killing civilians. He said his father did not try to dissuade him from leaving al Qaeda. "My father is a very kind man," Omar told ABC. "And he very sorry when he does something like September 11." "He believes if he put two buildings down, maybe some people will die," explained Omar. "But millions other will be saved. He believed that." [source interview] [Sounds like George Bush's excuses for killing Iraqis, except Bush killed not 3,000 but over 300,000! -ED] Asked why he did not protest more strongly to his father's role in the killing of civilians, he said it is up to the religious clerics close to his father to tell Osama bin Laden to change tactics in the name of Islam. And even if that most unlikely scenario were to occur, he said, al Qaeda would not stop. "My father doesn't have the power to stop the movement at this moment." .."I still love him, so much, with all my heart," he said, adding "if you ask Bush's daughter if she loves her father, sure she will love him."
* Former Pakistani diplomat reveals: Washington was planning in mid-July, long before the terrorist attacks to invade Afghanistan (this fall, before winter). Here's the URL for that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm
Do you want to go down in history as one of LBJ'S killers! Think it over, talk it over. Act together. Don't let the Babykiller think for you. It's your head. USE IT, DON'T LOSE IT"
"We need to attack Iraq not to punish it for what it might have, but preemptively, as part of a global war. Iraq is just one piece of a campaign that will last years, taking out states, cleansing the planet" -Washington's military leaders at the private Davos summit of world rulers.
Unfortunately environmental degradation by "world's biggest polluter" [see comments section] won't be significantly decreased by either of the 2 corporate parties. Worst failure? Iraq.Iraq, Iraq.... A war of aggression is the supreme international crime. Bush's reactionary response gave Bin-Laden an astounding return on his investment in the 9-11 hijackers (Mostly Saudis): Fear, A breeding ground for more terrorism, Increased threat of nuclear proliferation, more Gov't control of our freedoms, a doubling of our oil $'s for the Saudis & Trillions$ wasted on Death & Destruction , What do we owe Iraqis for destroying their country?
click here
to learn more
Except for two things: terror is always wrong (unlike drug use, which I personally avoid but is not always terrible thing) including being wrong when the U.S. and other states are the ones committing "wholesale" state-terror (as well as wrong when non-state entities carry out the "retail" version) but also sadly, this: their actions are far from always "Freeze or I'll shoot" - it is often shoot to kill (WOT) without benefit of even a trial (drone strikes) and even in War on Drugs, TheYoungTurks and others have covered many cases of "[kick down the door and] shoot first, ask questions later"