Liberals Blast al-Iraqi Capture

The Washington Post kicks it off and Human Rights Watch follows closely behind

CIA Held Al-Qaeda Suspect Secretly: Officials Disclose That Use of Overseas Prisons Resumed

CIA Secret Detention of al-Iraqi 'Blatant Violation of International Law'

"The CIA's secret detention of Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi is a blatant violation of international law," said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch. "This transfer shows that Congress will have to act to end the CIA's illegal detention program."

Just over a day since the headline stories of the capture of Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi were saying this:

Administration officials say the questioning has provided critical intelligence information about terrorist activities that has enabled officials to prevent attacks, including with airplanes, within the United States.

All bets are off and it's back to bashing Bush and trying to undermine our efforts in the fight against terrorism. The Washington Post managed to get a quote from HRW but didn't feel the need to spell out how linked terrorists or cells would likely have evaporated immediately were the arrest promptly made known.

Only a fool would believe that we'd be able to hold such an individual within the United States secretly without civil rights charges flowing once his domestic detention was made known. So, for the safety of this Nation the Bush administration did what they had to do. But don't bother trying to sell that to the Left, more concerned with politics than protecting me and you.

Comments

[Kilo]

""Only a fool would believe that we'd be able to hold such an individual within the United States secretly without civil rights charges flowing once his domestic detention was made known.""

Ali Mohammad's been held in unknown locations inside the US for at least 8 years without conviction or sentencing.

Why don't you cite the human rights group outrage over that al Qaeda member's status to prop up this suggestion.

[sashal]

The only thing the announcement of his capture really does is point out that Bush lied again.

By touting his "capture" today as the corporate media and rightwing bloggers want to is just downright misleading. What is certain is that he was captured some months ago and is only now being moved to Guantanamo Bay - but the military won't say outright when he was captured. Estimates range between 2002 and the latter part of last year.

The AP notes that:

A U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said the Iraqi had been captured late last year in an operation that involved many people in more than one country.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano declined to say when and where al-Iraqi was captured. He called al-Iraqi "a veteran jihadist" and said his capture is "a significant victory in the fight against terror — getting him off the street is good news."

...The Pentagon took custody of al-Iraqi at Guantanamo Bay, the detention center for terror suspects, Whitman said. He is the 15th so-called high-value detainee to be taken to Guantanamo Bay after being held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad. The other 14 were sent to Guantanamo Bay last September and have since undergone military hearings there to affirm their status as enemy combatants eligible for military trials.
My pal Ken Anderson is rightly sceptical about the timing of the announcement and transfer:

The Tillman and Lynch testimonies were only the latest in an ongoing rush of bad news for Bush. So, you just had to know some vital announcement was in the offing. Right?

...Once again, we are being treated to the sight of the American media serving as a vehicle for White House/Pentagon propaganda designed to distract us from current imbroglios -- and there are a lot of them -- and make it seem like the military is winning, or at least not losing, the War on Terror™ by announcing the mere transfer of a years-long captured prisoner to Guantanomo Bay.
However, the folks at Amnesty International are paying far more attention than the media and they point out what should have been blaringly obvious to the keen story-sniffing poodles bloodhounds of the press.

If al-Iraqi was arrested prior to September 2006, where was he on September 6, 2006 when President Bush confirmed the existence of the secret CIA detention program, but stated that no one was at that time held in it?
A damn good question that one. And the answer appears to be that Bush simply lied back in September. That's not surprising, but it has worrying implications for this administrations disregard for the rule of law. "The lack of
information around this transfer only adds to the deep concerns surrounding the United States' conduct in the so-called 'war on terror'," said Amnesty International. And Amnesty isn't done with its questions.

Has he been subjected to the "alternative interrogation techniques" previously authorized for use by the CIA, but not elaborated upon by President Bush?

How many other people are in CIA custody?
Even if Bush were to respond to these questions, it is now very clear that we could not trust his answers. Since both the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee Against Torture have told the US government that secret detentions and torture violate the US's treaty obligations and international law, it is easy to see why he would want to lie.

[charles]

"All bets are off and it's back to bashing Bush and trying to undermine our efforts in the fight against terrorism"

well said dan, see example above ^ i believe that's a very prescient statement and here posts sashal to confirm

[Fight4TheRight]

sashal,

You stated, " ...Once again, we are being treated to the sight of the American media serving as a vehicle for White House/Pentagon propaganda designed to distract us from current imbroglios "

You CAN'T be serious! I'm laughing so hard at that comment that I nearly lost my coffee here. I can see it now, plastered all over the front page of the New York Times: "Yes, We...the NYT, admit that we have been nothing but a pawn for the Bush Administration for the past 6 years!"

I mean, I'm supposed to seriously consider any arguments in your posting after you make that statement?

On a sidenote sashal, al-Iraqi was picked up in Iraq - not on 5th and Main in Columbus, Ohio. What's your suggestion here? They pick up al-Iraqi in Iraq, immediately place him on a flight to NYC so he can meet with (ex)Attorney Lynne Stewart so any and all information he has will never be revealed?

What continually fascinates me with your Liberal/Leftist arguments is this: In one breath you cry out at these supposed illegal detentions, you make torture allegations, you wave your ACLU flag for foreign terrorists and in the next, the VERY NEXT BREATH, you make the argument that Bush has NOT found bin Laden!

Now, I have to finish my morning coffee and pick up that Right Wing White House-controlled piece of journalistic propaganda, called The Washington Post!

p.s. thanks for the belly laugh

[Zifnab]

"In one breath you cry out at these supposed illegal detentions, you make torture allegations, you wave your ACLU flag for foreign terrorists and in the next, the VERY NEXT BREATH, you make the argument that Bush has NOT found bin Laden!"

???

Score another point for complete non-sequitur! Because if only Bush had illegally detained and tortured more people he would have found Bin Laden, right? The 460-odd prisoners in Gitmo plus the thousand or so in Abu Garab just weren't enough.

If we caught Bin Laden himself, and Bush decided to pay some sleazy back-alley contractor to drag the man to an undisclosed location and electrocute his balls for a month, people would STILL object because Bush would be acting like a two-bit Soviet thug - again! - and would accomplish nothing more than giving his shitty approval ratings another half-assed bump. But he still hasn't found Bin Laden after invading two different countries and spending over half a trillion dollars in his Terror War. So instead he's got to pick up random criminals on the street and torture them, so he can feel like a big man and try to get his approval ratings among the 28%ers an even shittier half-assed bump while he says, "Man! If I ever catch Bin Laden, this is totally what I'm going to do to him! Vote Republican!"

You people are pathetic.

[Fred Beloit]

Wonder if al-Iraqi was armed when captured. Bet he was. If so, that would make him a soldier out of uniform and without rights under the Geneva Convention, not a criminal looking for a liquor store to stick up. Sashal, al-Sash, tell me something, where is Human (read terrorist) Rights Watch when the throat cutting takes place?

[Fred Beloit]

Z-nab, when, holding my breath here, will you say extremist Muslims are wrong to want to dhimmitize the "infidels" and cut prisoners heads off?

[Fred Beloit]

al-Ziffy, when will you say the enemy is very bad when they bomb the gathering places of fellow Muslims?

[Fred Beloit]

al-Sash will you admit sending out children to suicide-bomb their fellow Muslims is worse than waterboarding a terrorist?

[Fred Beloit]

Ah, a long, long reply is being prepared, but it will fail to answer my questions.

[charles]

You people are pathetic.

written by a guy who brings up bushs approval rating in a post about the capture of a top al qaeda
operative

sweet irony

[Firstsai]

At the risk of being skeptical, do we really know who they have? Do they really know? This guy could be the pizza delivery man for all we know. And why tell us anything, if they didn't have to? Are they again using the media to distract our attention from something more important, like George Tenet ratting them out?

[charles]

comment by comment the irony is piling up, are you guys working for a central clearing house of neo fascist propaganda?

[Zifnab]

Haha. George Tenet is a neo-facist now? Leave it to the Republicans to eat their own.

[charles]

no zif the hard left and their fellow travelers are the neo fascists

i think the shoe fits precisely

[Fred Beloit]

"This guy could be a pizza delivery man for all we know." Another classic from the Liberal Book of Penetrating Quotes! Look out, all you pizza guys and gals in Iraq. The CIA is after you.

[Phoenix]

The Leftist Union of Concerned Certifiably Qualified Insiders Intent on Saving the Paramecium at the Expense of the Amoebas says so................... (thanks to Seek, HR, and TK for making me laugh.. :)

God, is it amazing or what how fast these guys come up with their outrage? It is unbelievable. What is truly worth noting is that this is just *one* case we know about. There are plenty more where this came from. Our CIA and Mossad are the best in the world, but fortunately, because of The Leftist Union, et.al., they don't publish a newsletter for the public's perusal and approbation.

Considering only 30% of the American public can pick Iraq out on a map, it's probably a good thing our security agencies don't have an all-news, all-day channel to disclose their ..... watch for it... prepare yourself.... S E C R E T S.

[Phoenix]

"This guy could be a pizza delivery man for all we know."

Pardon me. Goddamn are you fricking STUPID!

[Zifnab]

"Z-nab, when, holding my breath here, will you say extremist Muslims are wrong to want to dhimmitize the "infidels" and cut prisoners heads off?
al-Sash will you admit sending out children to suicide-bomb their fellow Muslims is worse than waterboarding a terrorist?
Ah, a long, long reply is being prepared, but it will fail to answer my questions."

I'm sorry if I haven't been explicit in condemning murderers for murdering people. I'll openly condemn the terrorists for murdering people gladly. Terrorists are bad. They should be captured and punished, preferably by the countries that harbor them. Killing people, also bad. Theft, extortion, torture, religious indoctrination and brainwashing, bombing of civilian targets or of military targets during peace-time, assault both physical and sexual, rape, vandalism, blackmail, graft and corruption, intimidiation by use of force for personal gain, and genocide based on race/credo/lineage/political affiliation/sexual orientation/gender/height/weight/eye and hair color/eating habits/etc are all criminal activities that should be combated at home and abroad whether committed by a religious zealot or an aethist egoist or any man, woman, or child capable of cognative reason.

I have no condemned the width and length of violent human practice, including the terror attacks in the Middle East and the attacks on 9/11 by Muslim extremists. Let it never be said that I have failed to condemn anyone for violent actions perpetrated against innocent people.

[Zifnab]

Now, Fred, will you admit that the White House Administration is also guilty of ordering the violent deaths and unlawful, unjust detention and torture of innocent civilians? And will you condemn the President of the United States for his crimes against humanity in provoking an immoral war against a nation that had not provoked our attacks that has resulted in the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

I eagerly await your reply.

[Fred Beloit]

Here you go, Hon. Of course not, Zif. No case has been made for any of the charges you state.

[Fred Beloit]

For God's sake, the enemy has shown us videos of the crimes I asked you about. They BRAG about these atrocities they commit. What you want me to agree to are mere accusations. Not comparable, nice try. I will give you credit for your condemnations.

[Zifnab]

"For God's sake, the enemy has shown us videos of the crimes I asked you about. They BRAG about these atrocities they commit. What you want me to agree to are mere accusations. Not comparable, nice try. I will give you credit for your condemnations."

http://www.realitybasednation.com/images/abu-bush.jpg
http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/I5628-2004May05.JPG
http://jebba.blagblagblag.org/wp-content/January_Jan11GuantanamoBayArrivalProc.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detainment_camp

The abuses are well documented. Now try not to wriggle free there Fred. Either we can both be intellectually honest or you're ceding me the moral high ground. I just condemned jihadist torture, rape, and murder. The least you can do is condemn US-sanctioned torture, rape, and murder.

[ajacksonian]

What is missed is that, as part of the Treaties signed by the United States, terrorists are specifically not covered as an agreement in that realm infringes in the war powers of the American People. Presidents and the Senate have both been unwilling to do so because it does exceed their authority granted them by the Constitution. To fit into that framework one must: be a part of a Nation or non-recognized government in civil war, wear a uniform so as to identify your affiliation with said government, have an accountable command structure which can be addressed by a belligerent or combatant enemy, have clear identification as to your position in the command structure, and acknowledge to obey the Treaties involved and the requirements placed upon you by said Treaties.

By adhering to known of those and by waging illegitimate warfare, that is considered to be a war crime. Contravening the framework of international agreements and not even being able to sign up to them is an erosion of Nation States to have Sovereign ability to have means to defend itself against other hostile powers. Congress may, in good grace, set up some minimal conditions on how they may be treated under the UCMJ and that is a recognition that warfare is being waged and that this is not a civil crime amenable to the civil code of justice.

Your very rights as an individual depend upon that international framework of agreements holding up as the concept of Nation State contains the intrasystem National Government. In the case of the US that is the Constitution, which gives very few warpowers to Congress for waging war beyond Declaration, sustainment and offering the American People a way to fight for their Nation outside of the Armed Forces and yet still within the scope and purview of the Constitution. They also get to size and scope the Armed Forces and ensure that enough people, supplies and production is set aside by the Nation to meet National needs. They get the UCMJ portion, too. After that the sole Commander in Chief is the President. The sole organ of international relations, as seen in US v Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. is the President. Captures on foreign territory by the Armed Forces is governed by the UCMJ. Other organs of government may be held accountable via law internal to the US, but that reach may not extend beyond Treaty regularization outside the US.

Captured suspected terrorists get initial interview to determine their status: Soldier, Civilian, or neither. Congress has set up standards for them via the UCMJ when held by the Military. Once outside Treaty language other organs of government are solely under purview of the President overseas. Any soldier that contravenes the UCMJ can and usually is court martialed. These that fit under neither Soldier nor Civilian are informed of their expected behavior and how they will be treated. Grievances are investigated as is the case with Abu Ghraib, Haditha and a number of other lesser cases. Those cases demonstrate that the US holds to its Treaty obligations and its own Law.

If you want more rights to be given to terrorists, contact your Congresscritter for the UCMJ part of it. I would enjoy listening to why those that contravene the Laws of War, hold to no Treaty and have no Nation that they fight for, should get more rights than they have. It is always enjoyable to listen to how barbarians who wish to kill us should be well treated and, maybe, given chance to do so again if they look to be really nice folks with just a few dozen dead on their hands. Then commitment papers for such suicidal individuals can be brought together, so that they can't harm themselves, fellow citizens or the Nation.

So do, please, urge your Congresscritter on that. We really do need to know which ones are unstable so they can be given treatment.

[Buzzy]

To prevent another 9/11 they have my permission to waterboard any terrorist they want to. Also know that the day these terrorists are moved to the US and given criminal trials this country is much more in danger of further attack.

[Phoenix]

Oh, snap!, AJ.

I love your stuff. I wish you'd share it more often.

Buzzy,

Why don't some military dudes at Gitmo get any old prisoner and chop his head off. They could stand in front of a picture of our flag and Capitol Hill and have some photos of Pelosi and Reid and Cheney and Bush...all smiling, of course,.. and they could read The Gettysburg Address,..just for fun. Film it all and put it on YouTube. Then maybe the libs will like us.

On second thought, I doubt they'd get the irony. Oh well. Hollywood might fall into the Pacific.

[Kilo]

""What is missed is that, as part of the Treaties signed by the United States, terrorists are specifically not covered as an agreement in that realm infringes in the war powers of the American People.""

No, you've screwed that up. Like the guy before you referring to the geneva conventions, you needed to stick to 'treaty', not 'treaties'.

The story here is about detaining someone without record, forced disappearance, rendition to other countries (presumably where torture occurs), and prevention of access to those detainees.

The treaties broken by these actions, which aren't the geneva conventions, make distinctions for what civilised countries agree not to do to humans. That's as specific as they get because that's the point. Human rights.

If you apply shit like this to only the humans you respect or don't perceive as terrorists then nobody would adhere to it. Like white terrorist missionaries and farmers in Africa. Like anyone running a business or a radio station in totalitarian socialist states. These are people other countries will deem terrorists. Hence, there's no loophole for the government to disappear people based on a label.

What is missed isn't some issue about how certain detainees are defined. What is missed is that these laws define those doing the detaining. What is missed is that you're making an arguement for why you can stand beside tinpot dictators and the world's serial human rights abusers in ignoring them.

In reply to a post that's only a couple away from one decrying Saudi Arabia for human rights abuses. Well at some point you're gonna need to decide whether you want to validate Saudi Arabia by overturning or breaking from these treaties or not. They're the kind of partners you have in your dissent from these laws.

[Phoenix]

"Well at some point you're gonna need to decide whether you want to validate .... .... ..... ..."

And it will never happen. Utopia does not exist.

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage...

To the last syllable of recorded time
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death...

All our rules signify nothing when tomorrow depends on ignoring some of them...

[hobo]

Don't be too hard on Joanne Mariner, Director of Terrorism for the Human Rights group. She is paid well and knows her skills would land her a job at McDonalds flippin' burgers if she wasn't sounding off from the HRG.

[Fred Beloit]

Ziffy, all of us have seen these pictures. Looks like those a brother might take at a fraternity pledge event. Now if you want to show real torture, you have to get videos from al jazeera.