More On Murat Kurnaz

I previously linked this 60 Minutes bit scheduled for March 30th. Then I checked into the story of Kurnaz. It doesn't even qualify as news. The disputed story has been well reported as far back as 2005. Kurnaz wrote a 285 page book in 2007. Why 60 Minutes thinks this is now news is inexplicable.

(CBS) A German resident held by the U.S. for almost five years tells 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley that Americans tortured him in many ways - including hanging him from the ceiling for five days early in his captivity when he was in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The U.S. Pentagon responding by e-mail says, "We treat all detainees humanely… and all credible claims are investigated thoroughly…. The abuses Mr. Kurnaz alleges are not only unsubstantiated and implausible, they are simply outlandish."

Along with making unsubstantiated claims against the German military for abuse, Kurnaz wrote a 285 page book published back in April of 2007. Also see here.

Over the past few weeks, the German Defence Ministry has been at pains to present Kurnaz as a confused person making fantastic claims, while denying any contact between him and German soldiers. Then two weeks ago the ministry suddenly conceded that KSK units were involved in guarding the camp in Kandahar, following a request from the US, and that they had met with Kurnaz.

Evidently, a "man without a country" he just headed off to Pakistan with a digital camera and appears to have sold his cell phone to someone with a dubious reputation. There's only so much to be learned as much of the material and process is classified.

In the initial interrogations he was confronted with details which indicated knowledge of his background: where he purchased his digital camera before setting off for Pakistan, to whom he sold his cell phone, etc. �I had no doubt they were cooperating with German authorities,� Kurnaz declared.

Point being, his story has been well documented as far back as 2005. Sixty-Minutes is simply recycling old news from a guy with a two year old book deal.

Comments

[IslamoLlama]

Lulz. So first he's a serial liar and now it's old news? Are you trumpeting your wrongness or just indulging in redundancy?

But seriously, if this pundit thing doesn't work out for you, I can see a lucrative job in Hamas Spokesman.
"Pssh! Torture? Decapitation? That happened, like, five years ago man. What's the big deal? We're all about the free trade to Palestine now. Why you gotta get your knickers all in a twist?"

[Peter]

http://gopcatholics.blogspot.com/2008/03/take-down-dictators.html

[jharp]

And no one evens gives a dam that we detained an innocent an innocent man for 5 years.

Just imagine the Iranians grabbing an American citizen from some country and holding him for 5 years. No charges, no trial, no lawyer.

You Bush apologists should be very proud. What great policy.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- And no one evens gives a dam that we detained an innocent man for 5 years. --"

Yeah, well if the Iranians grab an American citizen - like they grabbed those British sailors (whom the American conservatives proceeded to label as pussies and surrender monkeys) - we'll promise to care just long enough until we can bungle a half-assed rescue mission and get the maximum number of people killed.

It's ironic, because Jimmy Carter gets run out of the White House on a rail for losing a US Embassy. Bush gets praised to the heavens for losing two full blown wars. If George Bush were a Democrat, the Democratic Party wouldn't exist anymore. Of course, if George Bush was a Democrat, we never would have invaded in the first place. Conservatives would have put up the world's biggest stink about exit strategies and responsible redeployment and budgets and protecting the troops. Thank god GW isn't a Democrat or that shit would actually matter.

[Fred Beloit]

"Sixty-Minutes is simply recycling old news..." Just like the trolls. What a coincidence.

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo, he's innocent of what?

[Fred Beloit]

The Iranians did grab many Americans. Jimmah Carter wasn't able to get them released. It took Reagan's inaugural to get them out.

[Scrapiron]

Yep, snatched from the embassy and held for 444 days. I missed being one of them by two weeks. Dem democrats can't get anything right. As for 60 minutes they didn't learn anything at the stock yard in Tx so they have to have some BS/HS to recycle.

Be careful when you quote anything over 30 days old. The democrats all suffer from attention deficit disorder and the liberal school systems no longer teach anything over 30 days old, waste of money.

[seekeronos]

"--- It's ironic, because Jimmy Carter gets run out of the White House on a rail for losing a US Embassy. ---"

Among so many other things.

[Lala]

From Jim's library

The toll of patient diplomacy was great, but President Carter's actions brought freedom for the hostages with America's honor preserved.

[jharp]

"Harpo, he's innocent of what?"

Fred,

You truly are a dunce.

How about trying to look at it this way for a time?

Innocent till proven guilty.

What was he guilty of?

[cindi]

being a wimp

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"we'll promise to care just long enough until we can bungle a half-assed rescue mission and get the maximum number of people killed." Funny you should mention Carter, almost alluding to his rescue missin to get the hosatges. Yeah WE failed but WE tried, I even give Jimmy props for OKing the mission. Then there's Mogadishu, Guys literally begging to go in and help those Rangers, Slick Willie refusing to allow it.

[Fred Beloit]

"You truly are a dunce."

Oh no. Hurtful speech. Isn't that against the law yet? Guess not, but I'm audaciously hopeful it soon will be. That's why I'm working so hard to get hurtful speech outlawed on behalf of myself and all other "dunces". (That d word has to be eliminated from all human discourse.) We need a replacement for the d word. Something like "intellectually questionable citizens", iqcs. Don't kid yourself, I'm working to get a few more vowels in there to make it a more pronounceable acronym.

Finally, I'm anticipating legislation for affirmative action for us iqcs. If the debilitating Dems get in, chances look good for passage.

[Fred Beloit]

But, seriously, Harpo, you are taking the position that Osama bin-Laden is innocent until proven guilty? What is he innocent of, do you suppose? If he is innocent, and we don't know of what, why do you Libs keep criticizing Bush because he hasn't "caught " bin-Laden?

[Fred Beloit]

I do like cindi's answer more than my own, don't you Harpo? Short and to the point. That's cindi.

[jharp]

I guess Osama is innocent until proven guilty.

Though when you are wanted for attacks against the U.S. you are allowed to capture at all costs. (cruise missiles)

I certainly believe he deserves a trial just like everyone else.

"If he is innocent, and we don't know of what, why do you Libs keep criticizing Bush because he hasn't "caught " bin-Laden?"

Fred, it's hard to respond to this without name calling. Don't take it personally but this is stupid beyond belief.

[templar knight]

jharp, do you believe Taliban fighters deserve a trial? For instance, if we capture 100 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, are we required to give them a trial? Are you suggesting we bring these people to the US and give them a trial in US Courts? Or should we send judges over there, take over jurisdiction, and give them a trial there? Or should there be military tribunals that try them? These fighters are not a part of any Armed Forces of a state that would give them any rights under the Geneva treaties. Really, I would like an answer to some of these questions.

[jharp]

TK,

Good question and to be honest I haven't thought of it much.

I think it's debatable whether they deserve the rights under the Geneva Convention. For one I think they deserve the right to not be tortured.

I guess if they are accused of crimes against the United States then yes they deserve a trial.

Military tribunals? Try them over there?

I don't know but would entertain arguments from all sides.

[Fred Beloit]

In short Harpo has not thought this through so he has no answer. Of course he is leaning, leaning, leaning toward the most impractical and ridiculous solution: "I guess if they are accused of crimes against the United States then yes they deserve a trial."

Harpo, if un-uniformed murderers of civilians (not real soldiers who attack other soldiers or fighters) are singled out as not being eligible for protection under the Geneva Convention, why should they have more rights than our soldiers, who if captured are killed by these same rightless terrorists? In addition, if our own military are accused by their commanders of murdering civilians, our military are tried under the UCMJ. They would not be eligible for civilian trials in the U.S. or anywhere else.

In fairness you did say you would entertain arguments about tribunals and their locations. However, I have no wish to entertain you nor attempt to do any thinking for you. I'm afraid I would be wasting my time.

"For one I think they deserve the right to not be tortured." One, if you are talking waterboard, that is not torture. Two, I am curious, Harpo, where this right you point to (well you don't point to it, you simply claim it) comes from. Is it in some religious document? Is it in the Constitution? Three, you use the word "deserve". Please explain how a bomber of civilians going about their peaceful business "deserve" a "right" to anything.

But here is something for your consideration. If our Muslim enemies suddenly decided to always wear a uniform into battle and thousands of them surrendered to us, would you favor civilian trials for them? Or should we just imprison them for the duration of the war as we have done in the past, as in WWII and Korea?

[BobInStamford]

As I was filling up my car this morning I looked over at the pump across from me and saw a panel van with a W04 sticker on it. The driver only put in $20 of regular. I guess full gas tanks are only for limousine liberals. Looks like things are working out well for him.

Mission Accomplished!!!!

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"As I was filling up my car this morning I looked over at the pump across from me and saw a panel van with a W04 sticker on it. The driver only put in $20 of regular. I guess full gas tanks are only for limousine liberals."

I think you're a liar. Now had you said an SUV with a Kerry/Edwards sticker and not even pretended to be filling your own tank you may have had something. But then I describe the cat that comes down to gas up my boat after putting it in the water for me.

[jharp]

Fred,

I've been critical of you when you post nonsense so I'll compliment you that this post makes sense.

"why should they have more rights than our soldiers, who if captured are killed by these same rightless terrorists?"

They don't. No one says they do nor does anyone believe they do.

"One, if you are talking waterboard, that is not torture."

I wonder then why we prosecuted the Japanese in WW2 for waterboarding Americans. I guess it's torture when the enemy does it and enhanced interrogation when we do.

"But here is something for your consideration. If our Muslim enemies suddenly decided to always wear a uniform into battle and thousands of them surrendered to us, would you favor civilian trials for them? Or should we just imprison them for the duration of the war as we have done in the past, as in WWII and Korea?"

I think one of the problems we are facing is just who is the enemy. The Sunni awakening councils? Mahdi army?

And who exactly did Congress declare war against?

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"I think it's debatable whether they deserve the rights under the Geneva Convention."

Harpie why not look up what the geneva convention says about combatants wearing civilian clothing and what is "legal" to do with them? You might also look at Geneva's definition of torture.

[jharp]

Wahoo,

Though Bob's been abrasive I can attest to the seeing the same thing often here in George Bush country.

Mostly pickups with confederate flags though.

[BobInStamford]

Nope. Crappy white panel van. I'm sure he's proud and a big supporter of the troops. Too bad he can't even fill up his tank.

My new 335xi gets 27 mpg highway, btw. The missus' X5 is a much different story though...

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"I wonder then why we prosecuted the Japanese in WW2 for waterboarding Americans."

Harpie, I wont pretend that boarding may have been mentioned visavis Japs in WWII but sport I dare you to read what those people did to their captives and tell me honestly that having water splashed in your face is anywhere near as bad. Until the 70s, we water boarded our own pilots during E&E training.

ANd yes, it is always difficult to ID the enemy in an insurgency.......gee very close to anoth4er of my reasons to stay out of the sand box

[jharp]

Willie,

It's quite confusing. I didn't look it up but I'm guessing the answer is shoot them.

Do they get a trial?

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Mostly pickups with confederate flags though."

Why would people in Indiana have Confederate flags? HA!! now that we know Obama is related to RE Lee don't be surprised if ole Bob goes wizzing by w/ one on his Beemer!

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"Do they get a trial?"

No, not combatants. You do not have to try spies but most countries do/have.

[jharp]

"but sport I dare you to read what those people did to their captives"

We're back to the two wrongs don't make a right.

"and tell me honestly that having water splashed in your face is anywhere near as bad."

You're being dishonest and I thought you and I were friends. It is not having water splashed in your face. Using your reasoning I waterboard myself every morning.

I'm going to watch the basketball games. Everyone have a nice night.

[jharp]

"Why would people in Indiana have Confederate flags?"

You tell me. I was as surprised to see it as you are to hear it.

I think it's the white trash's way of affirming they are racists.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

"We're back to the two wrongs don't make a right."
Noooo, the point was that consider what the Japs did (beatings,rape,eviseration,amputation, water boarding was almost playful.

"You're being dishonest" Actually I was being facetious because as I said we did it to our own people as training.

I HATE basketball. I'd spar with Bob, but he can't string together enough words to make it interesting.

"I think it's the white trash's way of affirming they are racists." For your area you may be correct but please dont let yourself believe that everyone who displays a "Confederate flag" is a racist.

"

[Islamollama]

"-- Why would people in Indiana have Confederate flags? HA!! --"

No one said you red necks were smart. West Virigina loves itself some Confederate Flaggage too, which is ridiculously ironic given the state's origin.

"-- No, not combatants. --"

And that's the magic of the game. You have to try civilians and you have to handle soldiers under the Geneva Conventions. But "enemy combatants" are a mythical, otherworldly type of being. Neither civilian nor soldier, by the magical legal reasoning of such Constitutional stalwarts as John Yoo, you can treat them worse than you're allowed to treat animals.

Of course, the entire practice of torture - of civilians, soldiers, and "enemy combatants" alike - is illegal under US and International Law. That's why Bush has to regularly issue public denials every time his administration gets caught in the act. But the very fact that Bush Admin lawyers had to doctor up a third class of wartime human being simply screams how desperate they are to evade their own legal system.

The "enemy combatant" status is such a new and nebulous legal concept that it hasn't had time to suffer the vetting of the various court systems. I suspect it won't long outlive Bush's departure from office. But don't let that stop you from flinging the term about like it has some historical precedent to shield your Dear Leaders from a quick trip to the Hague.

All I can say is that once Obama takes up the reigns of office, there's going to be a mad dash for the door by every neo-con and administrative shill north of the Rio Grande. Jan 20th, 2009 is going to see a few legal cases with publicity that'll make the OJ trial look like a small claims case.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[templar knight]

"....to shield your Dear Leaders from a quick trip to the Hague."

WTH? Moe, there will be no Americans tried at the Hague, I'll guarantee you on that. The Hague has no jurisdiction in the United States, nor any power over our leaders. Where in the hell did you get that ludicrous idea?

"All I can say is that once Obama takes up the reigns of office, there going to be a mad dash....is going to see a few legal cases with publicity that'll make the OJ trial look like a small claims case."

Bullshit, and you know it. You've hit the bottle a little early tonight, Moe. Obama will be lucky to win, won't have the guts to even try such a thing, and wouldn't be allowed to do such a thing if he tried.

[jharp]

Hi Templar,

It's not that the Hague has any jurisdiction in the United States, it's just that's where they try war crimes.

I agree no Americans will be tried in the Hague.

Though I do think war crimes have been committed.

I think that is where Moe got the idea.

[seekeronos]

As a citizen of the United States, I hold dear the conviction that the United States are a sovereign nation, and not subject to the dictates of a what a body of foreigners determines to be "meet and just".

That being said, The United States are a signatory nation to the Geneva Conventions. And the above linked UN directive lines up with the provisions of the GCs for handling enemy combatants (non-uniformed/civilians taking up arms/francs-tireurs).

To the degree that they bind us to give certain rights to prisoners of war and other captured enemy military personnel from belligerent nations, we do so.

The GCs also permit us to withhold those same rights from francs-tireurs and similar un-uniformed parties who engage in military operations against our armed forces.

The nature of how these insurgents/terrorists behave dictates that we treat them as francs-tireurs... such treatment may include actions which are quite harsh, up to and including summary execution, and even the taking of hostages and conducting operations of reprisal slaughter of those hostage to induce the surrender the enemy non-uniformed combatants (francs-tireurs).

Although I believe that the latter business of taking hostages is most extreme and should be avoided in the interest of not engendering longer lasting hostilities from the civilian population.

[LOL]

I see you hate tyranny abroad but support it when it's done by Republican administrators. Tell me Dan, why do you--ostensible small government conservatives--support giving the government the most abusive powers?

[templar knight]

Hey, jharp. Yeah, I got a little hard on the college guy. They have a tendency to take a few classes in college, and then think they know it all. Hell, I was the same way, a flaming liberal for all of two years. Then reality hit me like a ton of bricks right between the eyes, and I had to go to work and school at the same time. Oh, that reality was my first kid. But I was all the better for it, and felt a greater sense of accomplishment upon graduation, I promise you that.

Yes, International Law is hard for most people to understand, as there is no police power to enforce it, other than the militaries or police forces of nation-states. And most nations have little enthusiasm for enforcement, and only the most heinous crimes from countries that have no support end up at the Hague. For example, the leadership of the Sudan is responsible for the genocide in Darfur, yet none have been sent to the Hague for trial. And none will. So much for international law.

[LOL]

Live Free or Die

It seems you cowards on the right have forgotten this, and that you have forgotten there are worse things than death, worse things than terrorist attacks. I can't believe how much you have allowed your terror to overrun this country.

[templar knight]

No, it's not my fear, LOL, but your fear that is the problem. You're too scared to confront the terrorists, you would give in to them. Your answer is to talk..talk..talk, blah...blah...blah to the terrorists. Well, the time for talk was over, and we went on the attack. Whether the Iraq War was a part of the War on Terror is yet to be determined. I don't think it was a wise decision, myself, but others disagree. But it was not cowardice.

[jharp]

Seems to me we're having some good dialogue and making some good progress on settling the conservative/liberal conflicts.

As a matter of fact I feel I've made a few friends. Wahoo, Templar, Seeker.

We really don't disagree that much though we certainly have differing opinions on our leaders.

The most important thing to me is equal rights to every sonofagun on the planet. With no exceptions.

Includes Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, Buddhists, Athiests, homosexuals, transexuals, women, african americans, irish, hispanics, asians, and poor people.

I'm with LOL.

How have we let 19 hijackers destroy our constitution?

[jharp]

templar,

I just wrote that nice post and then I see yours.

"You're too scared to confront the terrorists, you would give in to them."

C'mon it's not the liberals are afraid and as a matter of fact you could argue we're not afraid enough.

"Your answer is to talk..talk..talk, blah...blah...blah to the terrorists. Well, the time for talk was over, and we went on the attack"

That is the $64,000 question. How to deal with it. And opinions obviously differ. The answer is not to pitch the constitution. And as far as taking the fight to them I think you're pissing into the wind. Nor do I think talking was a solution. I lean towards it being a law enforcement issue.

[templar knight]

Well, jharp, that particular post was directed at LOL, who trolls here quite often. And when he calls me a coward, well, I reserve the right to reply in kind. As far as law enforcement, I doubt whether our police or courts are in any position to handle terrorists operating in rogue states, or in terrorist-controlled regions of weak states.

In any event, I've said here on more than one occasion that there is no one who regularly posts here that I could not sit down and have a few beers and a few laughs with, including chris/Boob.

But political rhetoric is often heated. Just never take it personal. Now, I'll have that beer. You know any good jokes?

[jharp]

Q: What would be the best thing about electing a woman for President?

A: We could pay her less.

[templar knight]

Well, not really, as THAT would be a law enforcement issue. Haha! j/k

To all a good night, even you, chris.

[Fred Beloit]

LOL writes: "It seems you cowards on the right..." Now LOL, you filthy little socialist, you better ask Harpo about finding all of us untried folks guilty of being cowards. You don't really know whether we are cowards, do you, DO YOU?

[Fred Beloit]

Ah, sweetness and light. Harpo says this:

"Seems to me we're having some good dialogue and making some good progress on settling the conservative/liberal conflicts.

As a matter of fact I feel I've made a few friends. Wahoo, Templar, Seeker.

We really don't disagree that much though we certainly have differing opinions on our leaders."

And then Harpo asks the musical question:

"How have we let 19 hijackers destroy our constitution?

This is simply Lefty nonsense. I know several buildings were destroyed by terrorists, but only activist judges and extremeist pols can destroy our Constitution.

[jharp]

"but only activist judges and extremeist pols can destroy our Constitution."

Fred,

Your brain works in a most unusual manner if it is working at all. Though what you say is true, can you not see the 911 attacks were the key ingredient.

Without them even bozos like you might object to tossing out the 4th amendment and habeus corpus.