• Home
  • News
  • Pentagon Official Says Alleged 20th Hijacker Was Tortured by US

Guantanamo/Detainees

Pentagon Official Says Alleged 20th Hijacker Was Tortured by US

Posted Jan 14, 2009 7:08 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The Pentagon official charged with deciding whether to try Guantanamo detainees says she refused to allow the prosecution of the alleged 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 attacks because he was tortured by the U.S. military.

Susan Crawford, who is convening authority of the military commissions created to try the detainees, spoke to the Washington Post about why she declined to prosecute Mohammed al-Qahtani in her first interview since she took on the Pentagon job in February 2007.

Guantanamo interrogators exposed Qahtani to long periods of cold, deprived him of sleep, forced him to wear a bra and stand naked in front of a female agent, and made him bark like a dog and perform dog tricks, according to the Post and a New York Times account of the Post interview.

“His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution, Crawford said. She told the Post the tactics created a "life-threatening condition." Qahtani was twice hospitalized for a low heart rate that that at one point dropped to 35 beats a minute.

"It did shock me," Crawford said. "I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it."

Crawford said the techniques had been approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Despite her decision not to prosecute, she said that Qahtani is “a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don’t charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, ‘Let him go.’ ”

Qahtani tried to enter the United States at the Orlando airport in August 2001 but was turned away. “There’s no doubt in my mind he would’ve been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country,” Crawford said.

The Pentagon released a statement to the Times and the Post saying the interrogations had been determined to be lawful, but that some of the aggressive questioning techniques used on Qahtani are no longer allowed.

Comments

1.

J.D.
Jan 14, 2009 9:27 AM CST

If making people wear a bra has become the new definition of torture, we truly have become a country on the verge of being unable to defend itself.

Torture is pulling fingernails, burning with a branding iron, blood letting, cutting off fingers and toes.

Get back to me when we start doing this.

Flag this comment

2.

Deyseeme T. Rollin
Jan 14, 2009 9:46 AM CST

@J.D.—Agreed.  The impact and brutal meaning of the word “torture” has been lessened by allegations such as these, which more closely resemble hazing than true torture.

Flag this comment

3.

J.D.
Jan 14, 2009 10:30 AM CST

I’m pretty sure this is standard operating procedure during Sigma Chi rush:

long periods of cold
sleep deprivation
forced wearing of bras
standing naked in front of a females
made to bark like a dog and perform dog tricks

And the detainees weren’t even paddled.

Flag this comment

4.

B. McLeod
Jan 14, 2009 10:37 AM CST

The reduced heart rate of 35 bpm suggests by “long periods of cold,” we are euphemistically discussing induced stage 3 hypothermia.  This was a Nazi technique, and is a form of real and significant torture, with associated risk of mortality.

Flag this comment

5.

J.D.
Jan 14, 2009 11:54 AM CST

Lance Armstrong has a resting heart rate of 32-34 beats per minute.

Pro tennis player, Bjorn Borg had a resting heart rate of 35 beats per minute.

The fact that we are carefully measuring the heart rate of the detainees is a good sign we’re being cautious.

Flag this comment

6.

Jose
Jan 14, 2009 12:26 PM CST

so were the people in the planes and the towers…maybe we should kidnap him and send him to a fiery death as well….

it is time to wipe islamic terrorists off the face of this earth

Flag this comment

7.

Paul
Jan 14, 2009 1:21 PM CST

In politics, the aphorism is “To the victors go the spoils.”  In international affairs, it is (although unstated), “To the victors go the morals.”  Perhaps the United States should put its support behind the International Court of Justice and allow it to decide whether the United States’ “higher-ups” committed war crimes.

Flag this comment

8.

B. McLeod
Jan 14, 2009 7:10 PM CST

This whole thing is really very puzzling, and seems to be just one more instance where the Bush administration started off on some knee-jerk course of conduct without any strategy or thought.  From the news coverage, we don’t know what, if anything, this prisoner has actually done.  Although he is said to have been “captured” in Afghanistan, the articles don’t say if he was taken in arms, or simply kidnapped by our military.  Even if he was fighting against our military in Afghanistan, Afghanistan is not our country, and that conduct would not be a crime under any law that has been identified by our government up to this point.  He does not actually seem to be charged with any act that is a violation of any of our laws, or of the laws of any other country.  I guess J.D.‘s point is that we would be justified in torturing this prisoner, and/or making up some ex post facto charge on which to try him because he hates Americans and “wants to kill” us (which, by this point, I think we can take as a given).  If that is the gist of it, I am concerned that we lack the resources for all the torturing and killing this policy will call for.  I also do not see what is to be gained by trying to dress it up as some kind of sham “trial” when there is no real law behind it and it does not meet any of our recognized standards for legitimate trials.

Flag this comment

9.

J.D.
Jan 15, 2009 1:25 PM CST

Sorry, Paul, there is no such thing as an “International Court” under our constitution. We are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and you shouldn’t care less what any socialist in a black robe somewhere in Europe has to say.

Flag this comment

10.

J.D.
Jan 15, 2009 1:30 PM CST

You’re onto something McLeod. There is no need for a “sham trial” as you call it. We should just return them to the battlefields and resume the gunfight. It’s as simple as that.

Certainly, I do agree that we probably were able to get all useful information out of them within 12 months of capture, and there doesn’t seem to be a reason to continue detaining them.

But perhaps we have turned them into moles who are willing to tap into jihadist communications so that we can go and kill more jihadists. That’s not a bad thing. And if that is currently the method we’re using, and if it’s preventing attacks (which it seems to be) then we must continue.

Obama will come to the same conclusion once he starts to get CIA reports. He won’t want the blood of Americans on his hands. It will be the biggest let down for the radical left.

Flag this comment

11.

B. McLeod
Jan 15, 2009 7:58 PM CST

I think quite a few of them would like to be sent to fight against our soldiers at this point.  Maybe you can get Bush to order that before he goes.  Then the prisoners would be happy and you would be happy.  Sort of a win/win solution.

As far as “moles,“I don’t think we’re turning anyone into “moles.”  One old guy that I know in Minneapolis has been preventing all the attacks (I can’t explain how without compromising national security).  I can say, though, that It has nothing to do with the CIA, which is not really designed for domestic operations.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.