posted
I hope there is a thorough investigation into the tragic death of the man who owned the property where Daniel Pearl's body was found. It now appears he had nothing to do with Pearl's disappearance and murder, but he was 4 years "disappeared" himself, spending part of that time in Guantanamo and part in Pakistan only to be returned to his family weighing 44 lbs and suffering from psychiatric problems, TB, and meningitis.
Those with long enough memories will recall that we made friends with Saddam (and helped keep him in power) back when we were worried about the ayatollahs in Iran.
In our quest for peace in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have fostered the abusive regime of Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan. Why does this seem like a good idea still?
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did I say anything about US guilt? I said I wanted an investigation.
I also think we're pretty foolish to make the mistake of supporting brutal regimes for short term advantage. I think the Pakistani regime qualifies as brutal. While I hope that it turns out they did not have anything to do with this man's death, I fear and suspect otherwise.
Since the guy was a transfer from Guantanamo to Pakistan, we will have to investigate the circumstances of that transfer, and what exactly our government had to do with how this man's life ended. I hope the answer is "nothing" but there's at least a reasonable question as to how he got from our prison to theirs, and why.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Since the guy was a transfer from Guantanamo to Pakistan" You have proof for this claim other than the family said so?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're propping up an evil Pakistani regime, what's your solution?
Do we let him fall? The Pakistani gov't is walking a very fine line between pleasing the US and pleasing the population... a great number of whom support Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Would that be a better regime to have in power in Pakistan?
Remember, in that part of the world whatever you choose, it's going to be Evil.
I'd say just let them fester in their own filth, except they don't just stay in their own filth and Pakistan has nukes.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe he was on the computer list of names released by Lt Commander Matt Diaz, but I can't find the list easily online. It is public now, though, so it should be accessible.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
As for Musharraf, the point isn't that he's the lesser of several evils and we should do the expedient thing. The point is that we've been down this road before and should know better.
What I would do instead...not make deals to arm one group of evil people in order to score points against another group of evil people.
Sorry, but I think there's a line that should not be crossed even if we think it's in our short-term national interest to do so. We have enough examples of what this means in the longer term (and by longer term, maybe only 20-30 years is necessary) to our national interest.
Maybe God can turn the designs of evil men to good, but we as a nation have a horrible track record in this regard and should know better by now.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My preference: The Red Cross or an international Human Rights Organization such as Amnesty International or an arm of the UN.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
bias? In what sense? I've seen a bunch of non-sense from bloggers, but other than that, I haven't seen anything that discredits the Red Cross, or AI, with respect to anti-Americanism. As for the UN...well, the UN has done decent investigations of human rights abuses the world over so unless you want to tar the entire UN with failings in other areas, I submit that they could indeed handle this job.
I think there might be ways to handle it internally in the US too, but I submit that a team from the Armed forces and/or a special prosecutor assigned by the Bush Administration is not likely to be viewed as credible.
Ideally, the US would do its own investigation too, and thereby be ready to answer any allegations should it turn out that the man appears to have been at Guantanamo and/or that we may indeed have turned him over to the Pakistani government.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lavalamp: China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe all being members of the UN panel of human rights abuses demonstrates to at least me that the UN has NOT commited decent investigations into and responded appropriately to human right's abuses.
Kicking the US out for a year was an interesting idea, but those countries all still retained their seats. Hmmmm....
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious as to what proof there is this man was ever at Gitmo. The Washington Post lists all the names they've been able to compile, including the ones who've been released back to their home countries, and he doesn't appear there.
The AP story on this I found just says the family believes he was held by Pakistani forces. so, I don't see any evidence anywhere so far that points to him ever having been in US custody.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Apparently the Administration is now thinking the UN human rights panel is credible.
Belle: That list is by no means complete or official. To quote from the top of your link:
quote:The Pentagon has declined to identify the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, most of whom were captured in Afghanistan during and after the 2001 war there. Below is the largest list of names made public thus far, encompassing: 367 men whose identities have appeared in media reports, on Arabic Web sites and in legal documents.
If you read further, it's clear none of that list actually came from US official sources. One of the sites they got their list of names from is CagePrisoners.com (which is run by some British Muslims). That site actually does list Saud Memon as being at Guantanamo, however, when they listed him and whether that's a credible listing are open to debate.
I've seen lists of names that are 2x longer than what WP listed. Whether they are accurate or not is, of course, in question.
The US government has decided not to list who it has taken into Guantanamo, nor has it supplied anyone with a list of people on whom it practiced "extraordinary rendition" (which, given the family's report of this guy's disappearance, is actually the more likely of the two (making it unlikely that he ever made it to Guantanamo as they suspect, but, if we had him, it's far more likely that he was simply "disappeared" to some friendly country. Again...if we had him)
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Below is the largest list of names made public thus far, encompassing: 367 men whose identities have appeared in media reports, on Arabic Web sites and in legal documents.
If you read further, it's clear none of that list actually came from US official sources.
I think that list must be from very early in 2005; as I noted above, the US Navy lawyer Lt. Cdr. Matt Diaz released a list of 550 in 2005. That list only has 367.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If he was in U.S. detention, he was likely not ever at Gitmo. The United States runs a number of far seedier secret detention areas where we've kept unknown quantities of unknown people in cold storage without public record. The latest administration also has a rap sheet with extraordinary rendition that makes this scenario not impossible.
That said, at this point, we're just dropping accusations.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Updated: I found a PDF of Diaz's list and did not see anything I could identify as like "Saud Memon" on it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I am repeating accusations, not making up my own.
Whether they are credible or not is the question. And one that we cannot possibly decide here, no matter what our individual political or moral stance is, or how much we individually like or dislike this Administration or it's track record.
The point is, still, that at the very least, the court in Pakistan is treating claims of the man having been in their custody as "credible" despite official denials. The family has stated their belief that the man was snatched by the US. Since he was taken in South Africa (or so it appears) and that would require someone with a more global reach than Pakistan's, one candidate for "who did the snatching" is, in fact, the US. There are, of course, others who might've done it. There was a bounty on this guy (although not a large one in terms of buying transport from South Africa and/or paying an international bounty hunter (rough $50,000, IIRC).
So...the questions are:
0) Was he ever, in fact, in ANYONE's custody during the period when he was "missing?" 1) Was he in Pakistani Government hands? 2) If so, how did he get there? 3) Did the US ever have him? 4) If so, did they turn him over to Pakistan? 5) Throughout his 4 year disappearance, who did what to him? 6) Did his treatment while in custody lead to his condition when he died? (It's possible he went insane, got TB and meningitis later, I suppose)
And then finally, 7) Was he innocent of all the bad things he has been accused of?
In my first post, I called his death "tragic" and I meant that in terms of a mode of death.
I leave open the possibility that he was never in anyone's custody and when he "disappeared" he was actually off somewhere training to be a terrorist. It's a possibility (however, unlikely).
If he was in someone's custody, that place may or may not be one that the US uses, funds, sanctions or whatever.
And, he may or may not have become ill as a result of his stay in that place and the treatment he received there.
In a world in which people willingly blow themselves up in order to kill civilians, it is not inconceivable that someone would decide to be infected with horrible diseases in order to point the finger of blame at an enemy.
I doubt it, though.
What I think happened to this guy is that he probably did get snatched in South Africa by someone with international ties. That person turned him over to whoever would pay best. That group held him without acknowledging his presence and somewhere along the line he was tortured, became ill, and then was dumped back home.
It also seems plausible that whoever had him was never able to prove his guilt or association to terrorism. Otherwise, they would've been quick to point out their having nabbed the guy and to bring him to justice.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Can anyone decode that note at the top of each page? What's the CSRT process? Did every detainee go through that?
Sadly, even the leaked list is incomplete.
And this guys' family is really claiming things that look more like a disappearance than anything that would end up on a list of processed detainees.
Once again, without official documentation (or an official investigation) I don't exactly see how this can be put to bed easily.
If his name had been on the list, that would mean he WAS there, but a name might NOT be on the list and the person still have been there (or, elsewhere) in US custody.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, Lavalamp. It raises more questions. I found the list through U Pitt Jurist -- you may be able to get more info there.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held by the United States Department of Defense between July 8, 2004 through March 29, 2005, for the purpose of confirming whether the detainees the United States had been holding in Guantanamo Bay detainment camps in Cuba had been correctly classified as enemy combatants.
Following the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling (June 2004) the Bush administration began using Combatant Status Review Tribunals to determine the status of detainees. By doing so the obligation under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention was to be addressed.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
These hearings were conducted based on the assertion by the Bush administration that detainees in the war in Afghanistan were not eligible for prisoner of war status according to the terms of Article 2 of the Third Geneva Convention and as such were unlawful enemy combatants.
posted
Lavalamp, I didn't find your response to the Pixiest to be particularly illuminating. I too am puzzled by exactly what you think we should do. You don't want us to support such regimes; I presume you don't want us to overthrow them either (because that worked so well in Iraq). Basically, what else is there?
I guess it hinges on what you mean by "support". Anything we do in partnership with such nations--even ordinary trade--will extend their lifespan (unless it's extremely odious, in which case it might get them overthrown instead). Do you think we should cut off relations with Pakistan completely? (I keep hearing people say Bush is dumb for not being willing to talk directly to Iran, to Syria, to North Korea....) I'm at a loss here.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, various pseudoIslamic radical groups have a FAR stronger motive for kidnap and release than the US. They would not have been pleased that the body of DanielPearl was found at all. And to their eyes, the most likely suspect to have secretly reported the location was the owner of the property on which the body was hidden. Or at least believe that the owner is the most likely person to know who did.
The odds are closely approaching zero that the US had custody. The US would not expose its guards and interrogators to tuberculosis by failing to treat&cure a contagious prisoner. Nor would they risk losing intelligence value by failing to treat meningitis.
I very much doubt that Pakistani intelligence would either. And it'd be even dumber to release a tuberculosis sufferer into Pakistani society. Besides, if the Pakistani government were as nasty as claimed, it would be much easier to kill&disappear a prisoner than to release one.
So the questions become, who doesn't care about life, not even of its own membership--suicide bombers, anyone?--and where is the lack of modern medical treatment common? Which leads to the hiding places of the various pseudoIslamic radical groups. And whether SaudMemon was a captive, or a kidnapping&murder co-conspirator kept hidden by pseudoIslamist to thwart legitimate questioning? From his health, his "release", and the subsequent claims of his family, I'd strongly suspect the latter.
quote:The odds are closely approaching zero that the US had custody. The US would not expose its guards and interrogators to tuberculosis by failing to treat&cure a contagious prisoner. Nor would they risk losing intelligence value by failing to treat meningitis.
I very much doubt that Pakistani intelligence would either. And it'd be even dumber to release a tuberculosis sufferer into Pakistani society. ....
So the questions become, who doesn't care about life, not even of its own membership--suicide bombers, anyone?--and where is the lack of modern medical treatment common?
It might be worth remembering the photos from Guantanamo, including the face of the corpse. There have been times, quite recently, when adequate medical care is not at the forefront of [some] US detention.
Even in the mainland US prisons, healthcare is barely more than minimal. Tuberculosis is rampant. One of the screening questions for tuberculosis in the pediatric population is "has your child been in a prison or near someone who was a prisoner?"
--- Edited to add:
From the American Academy of Pediatrics, the following are identified risk factors which should prompt further lab testing for tuberculosis; i.e., this "risk assessment questionnaire can predict a positive tuberculin skin test (TST) result among children seen in a medical office setting."
quote:Questionnaire on Risk Factors for Positive TST Result in Children
1. Has your child ever received BCG (a TB vaccine sometimes given in foreign countries)? 2. Has there ever been TB or a positive skin test for TB in any household member? This includes your child, extended family, overnight guests, frequent visitors, babysitters, and daycare providers. 3. Was your child born outside the United States? 4. Has your child lived outside the United States for more than a month? 5. Was any household member (like the list of people in question 2) born outside the United States? 6. Does any household member have HIV or AIDS?
7. Has any household member worked in or been put in jail or prison in the last 5 years?
8. Has any household member ever lived in a homeless shelter? 9. Is your child a foster child or adopted child? 10. How would you describe your child's race or ethnicity? (Multiple-choice list appears on original questionnaire.) 11. Finally, for both mother and father, what is the highest level of school completed? (List appears on original questionnaire.)[italics added]
In other words, I wish it were so, aspectre. The TB rate in our mainland prisons is appalling, as is the lack of general basic medical care. As for the situation in Pakistan regarding the TB endemic, it has become a focus of WHO research and treatment lately, which is good.
quote:... where is the lack of modern medical treatment common?
Both US prisons and many areas of Pakistan, sadly.
The accusation is that the US had him and turned him over to the Pakistanis where he was tortured. At least part of that story is appearing to be confirmed -- or at least the Pakistani court is asking pointed questions of the authorities about when they had this guy (despite their denials).
CT, I recall reading somewhere that different TB strains are traceable to various locations. Is that true?
Mabus, Here's my take on it. We start with an objective that is desirable from a US-interests perspective. When we look to see if that objective is achievable, one of the questions we ask is:
Would we have to make deals that would materially support a repressive regime?
If the answer is yes, then I submit that we have to take a real hard look at our track record and, logically, decide that our short-term advantages are not likely to be worth the long-term damage we do ourselves. Since this has played out that way in so many of these encounters, I submit that we have more than enough data to inform our decision making on this issue.
You mention the idea that ANYTHING we do can be seen as support. I disagree. We can choose to give a country weapons or not, for example. And while you might think that even giving them grain to distribute "supports" a regime, the real question is whether in doing so we are having a net positive impact on the situation.
There is a huge gulf between giving such people armaments and something approximating normal trade. I don't think a reasonable case can be made against normal trade relations with ANYONE -- just as I think it'd be pretty difficult to make a reasonable case against holding talks with ANYONE. There are two concerns with these relatively benign measures: 1) That the regime will enrich itself through trade or otherwise gain legitimacy that will make it more entrenched and intractable.
2) That the regime is simply buying time by talking until it can strike a meaningful blow against our interests.
#1 is a tough argument to make if you look at the history of trade relationships. In more cases than not, the regime in question starts to adopt western-style capitalism and becomes friendlier to the west in general. Reform of financial processes can lead to reform in other areas of a society as well. In the meantime, we aren't having our own people killed in the pursuit of whatever the goal was.
#2 is also a tough argument to make IF (a big if, I realize) the US has reasonable intelligence assets to exploit. I would argue that if we lack such reasonable intel, just about anything we do will be ham-fisted and liable to eventual disaster anyway, so I don't really consider that an argument that is specifically against diplomacy so much as it is an argument against doing ANYTHING until we know more.
In sum, I think we should put two potential actions as the very last on our lists of "things to do when we feel threatened"
1) Make deals with brutal regimes that give them military support.
2) Invade countries before engaging in every possible effort at diplomacy.
There is an 3rd, but over-riding concern.
3) If we have insufficient intelligence assets to really know exactly what we're doing, then doing NOTHING should be our default option while we work very hard to improve our knowledge of the situations and cultures we're hoping to influence in our favor.
------------ In the specific case of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would not have gotten us into the situation in the first place. I would have done what we had to do get the Taleban out of power and chase down Al Qaeda where possible -- but that does not require bases in Pakistan. It never did. We can project power sufficiently without having to establish those bases and most of the rest of the world would have supported us absolutely with the proof we had of who did the 9/11 attacks and where they were based.
It's only because we intended to stay for a longer campaign in Iraq that we needed Pakistan.
This is where my three rules would have come into play. We lacked sufficient intel assets to really read the situation -- as has become painfully obvious. So our default option of doing nothing while we built up our knowledge would have been the first thing we did. That was easily possible because we could have simply kept the UN inspection process going by remaining silent and not forcing that issue as hard as we did. That could've bought us months if not years.
(note also that it may have been possible to engage in limited talks during that time too).
As things unfolded, we might have verified that Saddam really was ramping up to a spectacular attack on US assets or allies. In that case, we might have had no choice but to act, but, again, that would not have required making deals with Pakistan.
Assuming we had actual proof, of course, that would have been useful in turning the tide of world opinion in our favor.
Anyway, that's all hindsight, in my opinion. I just think that the US needs to understand the long-term costs of making deals to prop up tin-pot dictators and decide once and for all that we aren't going to do it.
I personally can't think of one of these situations that has worked out well for us in the long term. And "long term" in our vernacular is something on the order of 20-30 years. This doesn't really require that much foresight to see that we'll probably end up paying dearly for our adventures with Musharraf. And if we don't, it'll be because we got lucky, not because we did a better job of managing our little friend the dictator this time as opposed to all the other times.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thing to consider: Often times we decide that a particular regime is an enemy, not because of human rights violations against their people or military plans against us, but because they are socialist. We will sometimes favour more brutal regimes over more benign ones if they allow private industry and US ownership/trade of resources.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the clarification, Lavalamp. Your position makes more sense to me now. I'll have to think it over at length before I can respond adequately, and I have other things on my mind at the moment.
Kmbboots, I'm pretty sure that was an artifact of the Cold War--we made a judgement call (probably a bad one, in hindsight) that any socialist country would end up run by agents of the USSR, and that a bunch of little weak dictators was a better situation than one huge one. (I'd also say that any regime that prohibits private industry violates human rights, but I know not everyone will buy that.)
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I might agree with you, but there will always be a question of degrees of abuse. Our system in the US is not perfect with respect to human rights for our own citizens and somewhat further off the mark when it comes to the human rights of non-citizens. Still, I daresay most of us would rather live under our system than most others in the world (save, perhaps for parts of Europe).
Also, when one is daily worried about whether the government will come and take all that you have, or kill your family or self, concerns over whether one lives in a free market economy or not take a distant place in the hierarchy of rights.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying that you're wrong in talking about "an artifact of the Cold War" but...it's pretty clear that something lasting well over 1/2 of the 20th Century and that played a dominant role in our foreign policy can't simply brushed off as just a part of the historical record.
In fact, there's an over-riding consideration behind even the Cold War policies -- having other nations friendly to us (i.e., willing to trade with us) so that our companies have markets for their goods and we can grow richer by selling them stuff.
The big fear with the spread of Communist-style socialism wasn't so much that they'd be under Russia's thumb as that they would no longer be in the market for our stuff, but would buy stuff from others instead.
Well, that and hosting nuclear missiles pointed at us from nearby, of course.
Posts: 61 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ex-CIA officers quoted about "extraordinary rendition" in BBC News
Oddly, enough, there is some indication of flights from Spain to Guantanamo as part of the rendition process, so maybe not so unlikely that a suspect subject to rendition from Iraq might find himself transported there (as opposed to one of the several other suspected CIA secret prisons around the globe).
At any rate, the former CIA head for Europe seems to be suggesting that this stuff will plague us for years.
[ May 24, 2007, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: the doctor ]
Posts: 61 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
