Comments on: Update on torture

By: Mary Martini

Mary Martini — Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:59:17 +0000

66 Days of Torture in Saudi Arabia Slush funds Lies and Deals Tortured for 66 days and nights sacrificed to global politics and oil interests, James Cottle a British citizen tortured abused and left to rot in a Saudi Arabian jail for 2 years 2 months. they cannot cover this up either the allegations that BAE Systems, the UK’s global arms group, paid millions of pounds in bribes to secure the huge Al Yamamah defence contracts with Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, has resurfaced in a BBC2 documentary. Living in UK James Cottle was tricked to go to Bahrain then kidnapped on the orders of the Saudi Ministry of Interior, this in itself was illegal and showing him on world TV confessing under duress to crimes he did not commit was also illegal, crimes that we know was the work of extremists. As horrific details of the torture come to light the evidence that could have set them free was covered up by the Americans and the UK foreign office, a UN report condemned the human rights abuses committed through their arrest and detention, yet the British Government remained largely silent about their plight and urged the families to do the same this was done with lies of course. The men withdrew their original confessions, but UK officials tried to persuade them to sign new ones in the hope the Saudis might release them. All but one refused. I saw John Pilger in ‘Stealing a Nation’ documentary it shows how the Foreign office uses secrets and lies, John Pilger spoke to Bill Rammel who is no stranger to covering up and avoiding issues for his band of incompetents in the FCO, no surprise there then as to what went on with the British detainees in Saudi Arabia our UK Government knew they were the victims of hideous torture being brutally beaten, sleep deprivation, teeth smashed out and loss of a mans dignity, James Cottle certainly wanted to die but they didn’t want him to as 66 days and nights of brutal torture is worse, if they wanted to demoralise and disable a man for life it worked. Dealings have been done there is proof, on May 14, 2003, the Pentagon quietly announced the release of five Saudi men from the camp for U.S. prisoners of war at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It was two days after suicide bombers had attacked a housing compound for foreigners in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, killing 35 people, including eight Americans. In a brief e-mailed press release, the Pentagon stated that the “senior leadership of the Department of Defense” (that is, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld), “in consultation with other senior U.S. government officials” (that is, the White House), had decided the five Saudi men “no longer posed a threat to U.S. security.” The Foreign office replied to this question of the exchange in a letter saying this.. The issue of press reports that the men detained in Saudi Arabia were freed as part of a ‘secret exchange deal for five prominant Saudi terrorists held at Guantanamo bay’ The British Government was relieved that the men detained in Saudi Arabia were returned to the UK. We worked very hard diplomaticlly with the Saudi’s to resolve this difficult situation. The release of the Saudi detainees from Guantanamo was a matter between the US and Saudi

By: Mary Martini

Mary Martini — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:36:25 +0000

This is all true and US and UK Gov knew these westerners were tortured in the first weeks of confinement, they were left over 2 years until Pres Bush ordered this deal, why then do hostages get beheaded now when deals are done, I know this is true because James Cottle was one of the westerners in the Riyadh jail he is the Father of my children and he is disabled for what our best friends the house of Saud did to him, yet governments continue to do deals and condone this torture that still goes on. Yes you guessed the named torturers have been promoted.. Report by New york times A document emerged that appears to confirm that the United States and Saudi Arabia had an agreement in place to swap prisoners at Guantanamo Bay for prisoners in Riyadh, in the summer of 2003. “In a few days, the U.S. ambassador will return from leave,” wrote the Belgian ambassador to Saudi Arabia on July 12, 2003, in a cable to his home office in Brussels. “I will ask him what the American reactions are to the Saudis’ non-fulfilment of their part of the agreement,” the ambassador wrote, adding in parentheses, “releasing the British prisoners in return for the release of five Saudi prisoners that were locked up at the Guantanamo base in Cuba.” Salah al-Hejailan, the lead counsel on the case, said he was not aware of any quid pro quo deal with the United States to exchange prisoners at Guantanamo for his clients. But he said that in a brief to Saudi officials less than three weeks before his clients were released, he pointed out that if Saudi Arabia released the men, British officials might, in gratitude, intervene or mediate to help secure the release of Saudis being held captive at Guantanamo. What Jack Straw said (BBC) The foreign secretary has refused to comment on reports that the release of six Britons in Saudi Arabia was linked to a deal to release Saudis from Cuba. The UK citizens were released last year after being convicted for terrorism offences in the Arab kingdom. The Independent reports their release was linked to that of five Saudis held in Guantanamo Bay – two of whom had allegedly trained with al-Qaeda. Jack Straw would only say he had worked hard for the release of UK citizens. Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said deals sometimes had to be done in a “murky world”. “The foreign secretary’s reticence may be less due to fastidiousness, and more to do with avoiding embarrassment for the British government and its Saudi counterparts,” he added. “The test of any such bargain has to be that the interests of UK citizens were paramount.” Asked if any deals had been done with Saudi Arabia Mr Straw had replied: “I worked very hard for the release of the British detainees and we were all greatly relieved once they were released. As to the precise circumstances I am not going to comment further.” The Independent quotes a senior British source as saying: “Of course there were government-to-government talks. “We were all anxious to solve the problem but one should bear in mind that it was the Americans who held the aces with the Saudi detainees, the British government did not have that kind of leverage. “So the term ‘negotiations’ should really be applied to the American-Saudi dialogue.” Five British men, along with a British Canadian and a Belgian national were released last August after being granted clemency by Saudi’s King Fahd. Times The Saudi Government was desperate for the return of their five nationals, who belonged to powerful tribal families in the kingdom, while the Pentagon needed to have airbases there as part of its war plan against Saddam Hussein. All three governments were trying hard at the timeto show some benefit from the Iraq invasion and this prisoner release was trumpeted as a diplomatic triumph between close allies. The five Saudi detainees in Camp Delta were flown to Riyadh in May 2003, but the Saudis were now also demanding that Britain hand over a number of Saudi dissidents based in the UK. The British Government will be embarrassed by this revelation as they have always denied taking part in any deal to free the seven: Their families claim that, at a meeting with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in February 2003, diplomats hinted “an arrangement” was close and pleaded with them to call off their public protests. The deal, the paper said, was an initiative by Robert Jordan, the US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, to satisfy calls from two of the US’s strongest supporters of the Iraqi invasion. The Times quoted an anonymous US official as saying: “There is a link. This was two courses that converged and had a mutual attractiveness.” As part of the horsetrading, it was reported early last year that Riyadh was asking Tony Blair to help seek the return of Saudis held at Guantánamo. Saudi Lawyer for the men Mr Hejailan said he had proposed that the Saudis release his clients in exchange for the release of Saudis held at Guantanamo

By: JamesW

JamesW — Mon, 04 Oct 2004 15:51:48 +0000

Source please for the Bush statement. There was a press conference by George Bush after the G8 Summit on June 10 2004: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html, where the reply is legal evasion. On June 22 there was a press briefing by Scott McClellan using the words cited : http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040622-3.html But the Press Secretary is an ultimately deniable spokesman, not the President of the United States.

By: Trammell

Trammell — Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:56:03 +0000

Why can’t we outsouce the president to Iraq, along with his entire criminal sdministration?

By: Trammell

Trammell — Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:55:24 +0000

Why can’t we outsouce the president to Iraq, along with his entire criminal sdministration.

By: bellatrys

bellatrys — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 12:04:26 +0000

Jet, have you talked to (or listened to, better yet) Terry Karney? He’s a military investigator by career. He knows some of the people who are being court martialed now. He was in country in the war on Terra. If anyone should know, he would. He’s been one of the fiercest denouncers of torture-as-tactic from the very beginning. A couple of other people with knowledge of intel and interrogation that does NOT come from Tom Clancy or H’wood have also commented here. Bottom line: the only thing torture works for is to terrorize the citizenry – this could be you. Or your wife/kid/dad. And that only works for a while, and in moderation. Then you get Resistance, followed by reprisals – as we have seen in every war/occupation throughout history.

By: George

George — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:47:47 +0000

Bob: Journal doesn’t say, they just cite “some critics.” One possibility: House Reps alarmed at the current proposals for intelligence reform (ie, taking power from the Pentagon) while the WH is highly motivated to get any “reform” law signed before the election. Would actually let Bush gain back some moral ground on the torture issue if he vetoes it.. a “twofer” from their perspective. Jet: I understand your thinking, but torture is and must remain outside the bounds of civilized behavior. If someone gets into a situation where he thinks an act of torture is justifiable “for the survival of civilization” or to save X lives or something, fine—such a situation (the classic “ticking bomb” scenario) is conceivable. But he must be prepared to justify his action on that basis, before a court of his peers, after the fact—and never on the basis that “it’s legal.”

By: liberal japonicus

liberal japonicus — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:35:37 +0000

bob, I think that poison pill meme is floated by Repubs who disagree but want to try and spin it as a business as usual (considering the source) The other alternative is that when confronted with the opposition, this offers a convenient emerg exit. Both points are not mutually exclusive. About the outsourcing torture meme, yes, it’s hilarious, but I wonder if we are going to get people saying no to outsourcing, yes to torture…

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:32:08 +0000

"Newspapers have reported that the second highest ranking official in the Department of Justice signed the order deporting Maher Arar to Syria, and that the President has signed a secret "finding" authorizing extraordinary renditions. But George W. Bush and his press secretary have never, ever been asked about what happened to Maher Arar. Nor have they ever been asked about their position on extraordinary rendition." Quoting from Katherine. My first thought that the important part of the bill, and the reason for the hard push on it (and sponsoring by Hastert and DeLay is meant umm, to add emphasis) is the retroactive provision. This is quite encouraging to me, because it means they think they might lose to Kerry. And explains why now, because they need the election threat. They want this bad Why? Well, Bush can pardon a whole bunch of people on the way out, as his father did, but they don't want Bush to need to be the first President to blanket pardon himself

By: jet

jet — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:20:57 +0000

I don’t understand this absolutist stance against torture. The US policy for using WMD’s requires that WMD’s first be used against the US or its allies. It seems reasonable that the US could fairly apply this policy to using torture. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like torture anymore than the next guy. But those who think torture is never necessary probably think war never solved anything also. But either way, we shouldn’t be outsorcing torture. That seems criminal to me.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:15:41 +0000

“The Wall Street Journal suggests that this provision is meant as a “poison pill” for the intelligence reform bill.” Yes, does anyone else have a good reason this is being pushed hard now? It really isn’t in itself going to cost a Senate or House election. And might be easier after the election. So the answer is possibly the opposite of a poisoned pill, but a rider on a bill that a Democratic Senator cannot safely vote against. Very much like the new work rules in the Homeland Security Bill, they either get what they want or they get a weapon. But just out of House Committee? Which means it has not yet gotten to the Senate, let alone reconciliation?

By: steve

steve — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:08:57 +0000

Kerry is the Candidate for You John Kerry's Position on Iraq

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:07:55 +0000

Kerry is the Candidate for You John Kerry's Position on Iraq

By: George

George — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:47:55 +0000

The Wall Street Journal suggests that this provision is meant as a “poison pill” for the intelligence reform bill.

By: Giles

Giles — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:07:00 +0000

“potential legalization of outsourcing torture” Beautiful – you’ve managed to put outsourcing and torture into one phrase. Lou Dobbs loves ya .