A Terrorist’s Children, Leverage For Information
June 9, 2007 at 10:49 pm | Posted in America, American politics, Bush Administration, Cheney, corruption, family values, George W Bush, Gitmo, Middle East, neo-conservatives, Pakistan, Religion, Republicans, secret combinations, Torture, violence, War, War on Terror | 23 CommentsThis is the newest low of the Bush administration, and obviously one big reason why they’ve wanted to keep the black sites in Europe as secret as they could. Because one of the things that the Bush administration authorized was the capture and interrogation of children of terrorists (such as Khalik Sheikh Mohammed), to be used as a leverage against the terrorists, because hey, who likes to see their children suffer? This is the level to which our country has fallen, where we now torture children.
Andrew Sullivan quotes the CIA about KSM’s sons:
“His sons are important to him. The promise of their release and their return to Pakistan may be the psychological lever we need to break him.”
Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has the details.
Today, six human rights groups released a report (pdf) on 39 people who they think the US government might be holding in undisclosed locations, and whose location is presently unknown. (Thus, they are not counting anyone known to be at Guantanamo or Bagram; just people who are missing.) That we have disappeared anyone is shocking, and a violation of treaties we have signed and ratified.
This report has gotten a fair amount of play, but in all the coverage I’ve read, only the Philadelphia Inquirer has mentioned what is, to me, the most awful allegation: that we disappeared young children. The report (pp. 24-26) lists five groups of family members; those who are discussed at greatest length are the sons of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
She then quotes the article from the Philadelphia Inquirer:
“In September 2002, Yusuf al-Khalid (then nine years old) and Abed al-Khalid (then seven years old) were reportedly apprehended by Pakistani security forces during an attempted capture of their father, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was successfully apprehended several months later, and the U.S. government has acknowledged that he was in the U.S. Secret Detention Program. He is presently held at Guantánamo Bay.
In an April 16, 2007 statement, Ali Khan (father of Majid Khan, a detainee who the U.S. government has acknowledged was in the U.S. Secret Detention Program and is presently held at Guantánamo Bay) indicated that Yusef and Abed al-Khalid had been held in the same location in which Majid Khan and Majid’s brother Mohammed were detained in March/April 2003. Mohammed was detained by Pakistani officials for approximately one month after his apprehension on March 5, 2003 (see below). Ali Khan’s statement indicates that:
Also according to Mohammed, he and Majid were detained in the same place where two of Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s young children, ages about 6 and 8, were held. The Pakistani guards told my son that the boys were kept in a separate area upstairs, and were denied food and water by other guards. They were also mentally tortured by having ants or other creatures put on their legs to scare them and get them to say where their father was hiding.
After Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s arrest in March 2003, Yusuf and Abed Al Khalid were reportedly transferred out of Pakistan in U.S. custody. The children were allegedly being sent for questioning about their father’s activities and to be used by the United States as leverage to force their father to co-operate with the United States. A press report on March 10, 2003 confirmed that CIA interrogators had detained the children and that one official explained that:
“We are handling them with kid gloves. After all, they are only little children…but we need to know as much about their father’s recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of care.”
In the transcript of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s Combatant Status Review Tribunal, he indicates knowledge that his children were apprehended and abused:
“They arrested my kids intentionally. They are kids. They been arrested for four months they had been abused.””
Hilzoy states this correctly. This is something two-bit dictators would do. Is this something a supposed “Christian” democratic country does? Apparently. She asks at the end:
And note this: the only people who were included in the report are people whose whereabouts are presently unknown. These kids were captured over four years ago. They would be thirteen and eleven now. Does anyone know where they are? Does anyone care?
Not Americans. We’re too concerned about Paris Hilton’s latest sob story about prison. Andrew Sullivan adds:
One of the eeriest aspects of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror has been the inversion of previously held assumptions about the meaning of the West. We fought a war to end torture; we then occupied Saddam’s own torture prison and tortured people there. We fought a war to bring democracy to the Middle East and to show Arabs and Muslims how superior it is as a system; we then spawned chaos, civil war and genocide to brand democracy as a nightmare for an entire generation of Muslims and Arabs. But I recall one moment when I felt most secure about our rationale for the war: we liberated a prison full of children who had been targeted by the monster, Saddam. If ending a regime that jailed children was not right, what was?
Except now we know that the U.S. has itself detained, imprisoned and interrogated children.
He then quotes John Yoo, the mastermind behind the torture regime:
“Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty
Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that…”
Weren’t we supposed to be fighting AGAINST people like Mr. Yoo? Additionally Michael P.F. Van Der Galien is trying to find out what has happened to those children. To this point, he has not found any information.
What kind of nation makes children disappear?
23 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.
When we talk about those who violate human rights, liberals conveniently gloss over Hugo Chavez. His strong arm suppression of human rights in his country is to be forgotten as long as you can make accusations against the Bush administration. Unfortunately for your assertions, the story of the U.S. torturing children is based more in urban myth than fact. Just like so many accusations against the Bush administration that credit an ‘un-named source.’
As I recently wrote about, the Democratic Party is rife with corruption. Maybe you should be looking within instead of concocting more rumors about the President.
Comment by truthteller— June 10, 2007 #
Truthteller,
I’m not going to comment on Hugo Chavez. That is a red herring.
As far as the rest, the CIA actually publicly admitted that they had in custody KSM’s children. That is no rumor.
Finally, what “unnamed source” did I link to?
Comment by Daniel— June 10, 2007 #
I love it Daniel. The souces you use to make your case are other blogs. (Very reliable). 😉
Keep fighting hard for the rights of those who are trying to kill you!
“As far as the rest, the CIA actually publicly admitted that they had in custody KSM’s children.”
Ok, lets assume this statement is true. How does this proove they were abused? Is there something wrong with just holding them?
If blogs are your primary source, then here is a good example of the people we are dealing with, the people you are defending so feverishly…
http://mujahidfisabeelillah.wordpress.com/jihad-wallpapers/
http://shaheenvision.wordpress.com/2007/05/25/you-are-an-arab-imagine-that/
I just don’t understand why you would devote so much time to undermind your Country while it trys to protect you from these people…
It’s mind boggling.
Comment by knighthospitaller— June 12, 2007 #
um, hospitaller, it would probably be good for you to read what those other bloggers wrote, seeing as they quote official sources and all. I could link to the official sources if I wanted to, but I chose not to.
That right there is the very core of freedom, hospitaller. Thank you for pointing out that you are on the side of fascism and totalitarianism. Freedom is not just freedom for my kind, but freedom for ALL. At least that’s what we used to be fighting for. But we’re turning fascist these days and only really care about ourselves. How sad.
Comment by Daniel— June 13, 2007 #
Did you read the links I gave you? These guys are nutty.
I can see where you are coming from though. But you do have to draw the line somewhere…
Comment by knighthospitaller— June 13, 2007 #
oh knight knight knight!
I feel pitty on you really
so you are spreading your blindness in other americans right??
why can’t you just digest others accepting the facts.
why do you want that all other sane Americans become insane and ignorant like you
the world know the crimes of Bush administration and know that we have all the right to fight back.
and the links you gave that proove the extreme of your ignorance.
because the link you gave for my blog is only telling our devotion with our cause.
and the other link you gave tells how an arab feel when the bloody zionist terrosists captured their lands illegally and now slaughtering their children infront of their eyes.
there is nothing wrong in both of them for the sane people
but alas.
who am talking to???
the most ignorant person on the surface of the earth??
oh excuse me that is not true because i consider that position is reserved for Bush and you come way below that position 😉
Comment by Mujahid مجاهد— June 13, 2007 #
hospitaller,
Who cares if they’re nutty. They’re free to believe whatever the hell they want. That’s the point of America. That’s what we are supposedly fighting for.
Comment by Daniel— June 13, 2007 #
Daniel,
I do agree, to a cirtain extent. You are free to believe whatever you want, right up to the point where that believe starts to endanger others. Where does one draw that line?
Comment by knighthospitaller— June 13, 2007 #
The line should always be at action and never at words. Klu Klux Klan members are free to voice their hatred towards blacks. Their beliefs may endanger blacks at some point, but until action is taken, their beliefs are lawful.
Comment by Daniel— June 13, 2007 #
Daniel, this is an interesting topic. I did not know who Khalik Sheikh Mohammed was, maybe you already know this, but he was according to your source, “the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks”. His apprehension gave us immediate hope that we would have more information in trying to find Osama Bin Ladin. His children were taken into custody when a raid was conducted to try and capture KSM. “He fled just hours before the raid but his two young sons, along with another senior al-Qa’eda member, were found cowering behind a wardrobe in the apartment.” Hardly a good dad, who leaves his kids behind. Anyways, the children were taken care of “We are handling them with kid gloves. After all, they are only little children,” said one official, “but we need to know as much about their father’s recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of care” The U.S kept them, because once they did apprehend KSM, they were used as leverage to try and get KSM to talk. Mind you, this guy was one of the masterminds of the 911 attack. Using his children to try and get him to talk is hardly evil in my mind. The other option was for the U.S to leave the children where they were, cowering behind a wardrobe, while thier father abondoned them. If children of a criminal that helped murder over 2000 people were found abondoned here in the US, I presume they would be taken into custody and questioned about their father. You make this out to be an evil act?
Comment by knightstemplar— June 14, 2007 #
templar,
as always you paint the kindest light on the Bush administration. I like how you selectively cherry-picked the quotes that put your Dear Leader in the best light.
Do you even ask yourself where KSM’s children are today? They appear to be missing, i.e. to never have left American custody. Why would Americans hold them, now going on FIVE YEARS?
and I guess you pretended this little tidbit never existed:
Scaring little children? Denying them food and water? Is this really what America stands for?
Comment by Daniel— June 14, 2007 #
Daniel, you said, “as always you paint the kindest light on the Bush administration…”
In that sense, Templar is a good counter-balance to you… You tend to paint Bush in a very dark light. Maybe somewhere in-between lays the truth.
Comment by knighthospitaller— June 14, 2007 #
“Scaring little children? Denying them food and water? Is this really what America stands for?”
No, but I hardly believe America stands for believing what a father says his son said he heard from Pakistani guards who saw other guards commit what you describe. Try getting a more credible source and we can have this discussion again.
Comment by knightstemplar— June 16, 2007 #
Templar,
I wonder if you even hold your own Dear Leader to the same standard you hold me. After all, most of the “intelligence” he used for his war on Iraq came from a drunken informant named “Curveball,” who didn’t know much at all actually, and who the Germans considered loony.
Comment by Daniel— June 16, 2007 #
So let me get this straight, when you do not use credible sources, I should believe you because Bush does not use credible sources???
I had not heard of what you claim before, but if it is true, and the war was approved by both Democrats and Republicans based on the intelligence from a “drunken” source, then that is a sad thing indeed.
Comment by knightstemplar— June 16, 2007 #
Templar,
I dare you to challenge the credibility of my sources. Please. Have at it.
As far as the drunken source, yeah, read the following:
from Wikipedia:
Comment by Daniel— June 16, 2007 #
If you want to read all of the real intel, here you go…
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/#doc15
Comment by knighthospitaller— June 17, 2007 #
hospitaller,
I’m mighty disappointed in you. That NIE was already discredited by even those within the CIA because the Bush administration removed key words from that NIE, words that hedged the actual intelligence analysis. So that instead of saying what the CIA actually thought, say, “We ‘believe’ Saddam has reconstituted his programs, but are not sure,” the Bush administration would remove key words so in that NIE it actually comes out like this: “We ‘know’ Saddam has reconstituted his programs.” Note which words were taken out. The words that hedged the actual analysis. Why would the CIA not actually know for sure? The answer is simple. They no longer had operatives in the country who could verify claims coming from drunken crazies named “Curveball.”
Comment by Daniel— June 17, 2007 #
So, George Washington University is in on the conspiracy now too!?
What am I to do, when Universities become illegitimate sources?
Comment by knighthospitaller— June 17, 2007 #
hospitaller,
You must not be learning well at the university you are attending. Did you even read the article you linked to? Or did you simply google a particular search, and because it comes from a university you seem to think it will best make your point? Why don’t you read the document? Let me share with you the most important aspects of the particular document that you linked to from George Washington University.
And another particularly important section is this:
This particular article that you linked to, hospitaller, is called research. It is a great source for someone wishing to study how things came to be, how the Bush administration misled Americans, for example. They offer the original documents, unaltered. So you link to the original October 2002 NIE which happened to be one of the very examples of the Bush administration misleading America. George Washington University is providing the world the originals for study.
This is called higher education.
Comment by Daniel— June 17, 2007 #
now, since we’re quoting from George Washington University, let’s take a look at this:
CIA Whites Out Controversial Estimate on Iraq Weapons
Note this particular passage:
In other words, the Bush administration removed the “caveats, hedged language, and dissents” from the public NIE. Because after all, if the public knew that the CIA was not 100% sure, or even 50% sure of the accusations against Saddam and his WMD programs, would they consider going to war?
Comment by Daniel— June 17, 2007 #
Daniel, you said,
“That NIE was already discredited by even those within the CIA…”
By saying that, you discredited it as a legitimate source. Then when you actually took the time to read the documents, you found info that supported your biased views and commenced butchering it to make your point…
If this is not a accurate source, why are you using it to prove me wrong?
I guess sources are inaccurate, so long as they do not support Daniels views… 😀
Comment by knighthospitaller— June 18, 2007 #
dude, you need to read better.
I don’t discredit the George Washington University link. Your response shows me that you didn’t even read what I wrote. Read it again. More carefully. Slowly.
Comment by Daniel— June 18, 2007 #