quote:Executives said it's not uncommon for AP news people to be picked up by coalition forces and detained for hours, days or occasionally weeks, but never this long. Several hundred journalists in Iraq have been detained, some briefly and some for several weeks, according to Scott Horton, a New York-based lawyer hired by the AP to work on Hussein's case.
Horton also worked on behalf of an Iraqi cameraman employed by CBS, Abdul Ameer Younis Hussein, who was detained for one year before his case was sent to an Iraqi court on charges of insurgent activity. He was acquitted for lack of evidence.
AP officials emphasized the military has not provided the company concrete evidence of its claims against Bilal Hussein, or provided him a chance to offer a defense.
"He's a Sunni Arab from a tribe in that area. I'm sure he does know some nasty people. But is he a participant in the insurgency? I don't think that's been proven," Daniszewski said.
Information provided to the AP by the military to support the continued detention hasn't withstood scrutiny, when it could be checked, Daniszewski said.
For example, he said, the AP had been told that Hussein was involved with the kidnapping of two Arab journalists in Ramadi.
But those journalists, tracked down by the AP, said Hussein had helped them after they were released by their captors without money or a vehicle in a dangerous part of Ramadi. After a journalist acquaintance put them in touch with Hussein, the photographer picked them up, gave them shelter and helped get them out of town, they said.
The journalists said they had never been contacted by multinational forces for their account.
Horton said the military has provided contradictory accounts of whether Hussein himself was a U.S. target last April or if he was caught up in a broader sweep.
The military said bomb-making materials were found in the apartment where Hussein was captured but it never detailed what those materials were. The military said he tested positive for traces of explosives. Horton said that was virtually guaranteed for anyone on the streets of Ramadi at that time.
Hussein has been a frequent target of conservative critics on the Internet, who raised questions about his images months before the military detained him. One blogger and author, Michelle Malkin, wrote about Hussein's detention on the day of his arrest, saying she'd been tipped by a military source.
Give us a few more months and we'll be able to torture him into confessing to something. Then everything will be all right.
Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
I thought the Bush administration decided a few months ago that journalists were on the side of the terrorists?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That would be an interesting Executive Order: "Everyone not for us is against us."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:shrug:
This looks to me like the Post's attempt to push the issue. Being a political rag, it's unsuprising.
From the report, it seems to me that Hussein is being detained for something; the military just isn't telling the AP what it is. The report is huffy, but huffiness doesn't exactly entitle one to classified information.
I wonder if one of the problems here is the transient nature of guerilla warfare-- US forces have to detain suspected terrorists, even without charging them, because in two days, that person may be going somewhere else.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, Did you read the article? My impression is very different from yours.
Also, considering that we are considering writing into law that we can torture people like this, I don't know, I feel like some reassurance that we're picking up and holding them for some good reason is important.
edit: I'll add:
quote:Information provided to the AP by the military to support the continued detention hasn't withstood scrutiny, when it could be checked, Daniszewski said.
Considering that we've had several instances that have become public where we've detained and sent to be tortured people based on things like "He has the same name as someone we're looking for." I think that verifying that they actually have some case against this person is important, especially in light of how, apparently, that which was offered falls apart when scrutinized.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I saw this thread title, assumed (still naive, I know) that somebody else was holding him. Thought, "see how outraged we are when other people do this!". Then read the post. Damn.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I did too.
It's disconcerting to realize that your own country has become the "somebody else."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Did you read the article?
Yep.
quote:My impression is very different from yours.
How odd.
quote:Also, considering that we are considering writing into law that we can torture people like this, I don't know, I feel like some reassurance that we're picking up and holding them for some good reason is important.
I'm not going to get up in arms about civil rights in a warzone. I need to feel like we have people in charge that are responding to this war in an ethical, Geneva-convention-mandated way. (Which is why I support change at the top of the pyramid)
But I do NOT need to know all the reasons for holding Mohommed X.
quote:Considering that we've had several instances that have become public where we've detained and sent to be tortured people based on things like "He has the same name as someone we're looking for."
Link, please.
quote:I think that verifying that they actually have some case against this person is important, especially in light of how, apparently, that which was offered falls apart when scrutinized.
I disagree. Releasing the fact that, "We detained Abu Muhammed because his cousin told us he was getting reports from insurgents about when and where they'd strike," would be a very, very bad idea.
I agree he needs to be charged with something. I think a secure process of dealing with classified information during trials needs to be created first.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think that verifying that they actually have some case against this person is important...
How do you feel about privacy laws and face/biometric recognition software/databases?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, If you read the article, why did you say this?
quote:From the report, it seems to me that Hussein is being detained for something; the military just isn't telling the AP what it is
The article detailed that the military gave the AP at least some (possible all) of the reasons they were claiming to hold him, but that these reasons turned out to either be false or flimsy.
quote:Link please.
Do you really not know? Serious question. I mean, I thought the cases have been well publicized, but maybe my perception is off.
There are others, from people in Guantannamo or the Canadian citizen from (I think) a little over a year ago. I'm sure if you care, you can find them pretty easily.
quote:I agree he needs to be charged with something. I think a secure process of dealing with classified information during trials needs to be created first.
I think a secure process of dealing with classified information during trials needed to be created years ago, when they made the decision to hold people like this.
I'm okay with things being secret. I'm not okay with them being done without oversight.
edit: I'm not okay with no oversight in any case, but considered the god-awful and self-serving decision making the people in charge have exhibited, I think this is of even more immediate concern.
[ September 18, 2006, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
Sadly we seem to have turned kidnapping foreign nationals and sending them off to the 'Stans to be tortured into a closet industry.
Thanks to 'National Security' concerns you'll never know how often this happens, but as the program is cloaked in so much secrecy, it can pretty much be guaranteed that what is publicly known is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The article detailed that the military gave the AP at least some (possible all) of the reasons they were claiming to hold him, but that these reasons turned out to either be false or flimsy.
Squick, read the last page carefully.
The military isn't obligated and shouldn't be obligated to tell the AP why a certain person is detained. This is for security reasons, which I've outlined above. It's ridiculous for the AP to think that they are entitled to classified information merely because they bought Hussein a camera.
quote:Do you really not know? Serious question. I mean, I thought the cases have been well publicized, but maybe my perception is off.
I seriously did not know about the details in this particular case. Thanks.
Now, I asked a question that hasn't been answered yet: there is a way to effectively stop erroneous renditions and to link identities of terrorists so that it is more difficult for them to bypass security forces. Biometric tracking and databases-- how do you feel about those?
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote: Biometric tracking and databases-- how do you feel about those?
I'd feel great about those if I was a bona-fide terrorist. Every biometric system that has been actually deployed thus far can be easily defeated, and those databases are both already so screwed up as to be completely unreliable, and easily manipulated by people that aren't already in the system.
The only practical purpose those serve is to track the movements of ordinary citizens, not terrorists.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm ashamed that we made this mistake, and Arar should be compensated.
Again-- the change in policy needs to come from the top down. Field agents need to be better trained/educated/equipped for this work, and we need to stop the policy of sending terrorism suspects to go get whipped in Egypt, Syria, etc.
(Hussein's case is not a case where extraordinary rendition was used; neither is it a case of mistaken identity. I'm not convinced that he isn't being detained for a good reason.)
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote:Arar should be compensated...
Out of curiousity, what would you propose as a reasonable compensation for yourself if you had been kidnapped off an international flight and spiritited away to a place where you were locked in a coffin-sized cell and beaten and starved for a year, amongst other things?
Is there some dollar value you were attaching to this?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:This looks to me like the Post's attempt to push the issue.
I would hope they are attempting to push this issue! If the media is letting stuff like this go unreported and unnoticed by the American people, it isn't doing its job.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Is there some dollar value you were attaching to this?
No.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Palliard:
quote:Arar should be compensated...
Out of curiousity, what would you propose as a reasonable compensation for yourself if you had been kidnapped off an international flight and spiritited away to a place where you were locked in a coffin-sized cell and beaten and starved for a year, amongst other things?
Is there some dollar value you were attaching to this?
In all likelihood, the Canadian government will ultimately compensate him. It isn't about attaching a dollar value to the horrific experiences to which he was subjected, it's about helping him and his family to get back on their feet financially. The fact that no dollar value can meaningfully be attached to what happened to him doesn't mean we should refrain from compensating him.
This snippet in particular resonated with me strongly:
quote:The Arar tragedy has much to teach Canada, and indeed all Western democracies. This is that rare story deserving of the overused label "Kafkaesque," a story that viscerally reminds us why a civilized justice system always insists on due process, even -- especially -- in times of stress. The reason is to protect and preserve human dignity.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I still remember how some people in the Canadian government responsible for handing him over swore that not keeping him jailed was a huge mistake and they were going to prove his involvement,etc, real soon.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
He was never "handed over" from Canada to the U.S. -- he was detained by U.S. authorities in New York on his way back from a vacation in Tunisia with his family, on the basis of faulty information inappropriately supplied to them by Canadian authorities, who went on to leak more inaccurate information about him in an effort to cover their butts after America sent him to Syria without consulting them.
There's plenty of blame to go around, here, but let's keep the facts straight. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Hmm. That's not the way I remember it.
I mean, I have no interest in removing blame from the U.S.. We did it. I just remember that the Canadian government was in there somewhere.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
See, this is why I am againts Coercive Practices being used by the CIA and other interrogators.
Sure, the terrorists deserve nothing better, but we are all human, prone to mistakes. How many innocent people will we sacrifice to gather that information?
If torturing one guilty person is the price to save lives, the argument is purely moral. If torturing one or two or ten innocent people is the price for hopefully, maybe, possibly saving lives, then it becomes a question of who is doing the most harm to the US?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Storm:
We were! I'm definitely not trying to minimize the fault of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Have a look at my link above. The Commissioner concluded that the Americans most likely wouldn't have sent him to Syria if the RCMP hadn't told them a bunch of lies about Arar.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, O.K. That's who it was. The RCMP.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
So:
Canadian officials were at fault for using bogus "information" abour Arar in egregiously incompetent, inappropriate, and damaging ways.
U.S. officials were at fault for sending him to Syria rather than Canada, and doing so without consulting Canada or providing Arar with access to counsel.
Syrian officials were at fault for torturing him and for not returning him to Canada.
Heads should roll at the RCMP for this, and as per Justice O'Connor's recommendation, based on the RCMP's repeated demonstrated near-criminal incompetence, a watchdog agency should be set up. Further, the Canadian government should compensate Arar in a manner acceptable to him and his family.
Ideally, Arar would at least get apologies from all three governments, but as it is the U.S. and Syrians refused to participate in the inquiry process and neither has apologized.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, Maybe you could point out to me what you think on the last page supports what you are saying?
The AP doesn't have the right to demand classified information but, in answer to their challenges they have been provided with information that turned out to be either false or flimsy. And remember, the journalists who he was supposed to have help kidnapped but actually helped rescue haven't even been contacted the officials who leveled this charge.
What the AP has been give makes it look like the officials here aren't all that concerned with making sure what they are saying is correct. Past behavior makes it somewhat probable that this constitutes all the evidence they have.
---
As I said the AP doesn't have the right to demand classified material. But the military doesn't have the right, morally, and shouldn't have it systematically to pick up, hold, and (if the administration has its way) torture people without any form of oversight.
I have no idea if this guy is actually guilty. I suspect that he isn't, based on the logic of the situation, but I really don't know. I'm sure, however, after they gain to explicit right to torture him or other like him, they'll start confessing to whatever it was people said they were picked up for. Whether guilty or no, it doesn't change the fact that there needs to be some sort of oversight process in place before people assume the ability to disappear people.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Um, the military *can* charge him with something and then proceed to classify the charges. But they haven't even done that.
The AP isn't asking for access to classified information. The guy helped win us a Pulitzer, for Christ's sake. We have a moral obligation to try and make sure he is being handled with decency and respect, and that means either letting him go or charging him with something, regardless of whether or not they tell us what that something is.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)