KSM's evidence is unreliable

[Kevin Fenton]

Much of the 9/11 Commission Report is based on evidence provided by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. However, there are some problems with his testimony and this is a very interesting article dealing with it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1650417,00.html

"The main evidence of Mr Padilla's involvement in the plots against US cities had come from two captured al-Qaida leaders, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, believed to be the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, and Abu Zubaydah, a leading al-Qaida recruiter. But the officials told the newspaper Mr Padilla could not be charged with the bomb plots because neither of the al-Qaida leaders could be used as witnesses as they had been subjected to harsh questioning and could open up charges from defence lawyers that their earlier statements resulted from torture. Officials also feared that their testimony could expose classified information about the CIA prison system in which the men were thought to be held."
The evidence isn't good enough for a court room, but it is good enough for the 9/11 Commission.

"The CIA has never publicly acknowledged it is detaining Mr Mohammed and Mr Zubaydah. It is not known where they are being held. But it was reported last month the CIA was using secret detention centres in eastern Europe, possibly in Poland and Romania, for interrogations, thus beyond the reach of US law."
Where are they? I doubt they'll ever be released. They can't be tried in open court now.

"Internal reviews by the CIA have raised questions about the treatment and credibility of the two men. The New York Times said one review, completed in spring last year by the CIA inspector general, found that in the first months after his capture Mr Mohammed had suffered excessive use of "waterboarding", a technique involving near drowning which entails the detainee being strapped to a board and then submerged."
Torture is not always the best way to get the truth. I doubt they've got the real deal from KSM.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

1. Of course Zubaydah is correct when talking about Padilla

but a lying bastard when implicating Saudi Princes (who happen to meet an untimely end).

My problem with the evidence of supposed terrorists in US custody is that we have absolutely nobody to rely on but the government officials who repeat it. The Padilla thing could easily be something invented by the Justice department (or perhaps even extracted via an Egyptian or Saudi prison).

Out of interest, what do you make of KSM & Ramzi bin al-Shibh's "confession" to Yosri Fouda? (Personally I like Fouda a lot (especially after watching him in a discussion on Iraq & terrorism that went on for something ridiculous like 5-hours).)

[Kevin Fenton]

4. Masterminds, etc.

Christ! You raise a lot of issues.

(1) Saudi Princes
Zubaydah didn't only implicate the three Saudi Princes, he also implicated the Air Chief Marshall of the Pakistani Air Force Mushaf Ali Mir, who died in mysterious circumstances a few months after the princes. I have a short post about him here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
I should also point out that a PAF pilot was a member of the Hamburg cell initially and that another one (possibly the same guy under an alias) was a member later.
The Saudi Princes story comes from Gerald Posner, who says he got the details from one US government source and broad confirmation from another. I doubt Posner is making it up, but he might be the victim of false information from his source or from Zubaydah himself. However, there is some evidence to support the claims, as discussed in Chapter 6 of DRG's Omissions and Distortions. Also, I've read Interrogator's War by Chris Mackey about interrogations of Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan and the circumstances of Zubaydah's interrogation (Americans posing as Saudis) are very similar to one ruse Mackey used when interrogating other Al Qaeda prisoners in Afghanistan.

(2) Quality of evidence from torture
"My problem with the evidence of supposed terrorists in US custody is that we have absolutely nobody to rely on but the government officials who repeat it. The Padilla thing could easily be something invented by the Justice department (or perhaps even extracted via an Egyptian or Saudi prison)."
There are lots of problems here:
(a) Generally, when somebody is interrogated he comes out with some crap initially, like "I came to Afghanistan to lead a pure life." Then the interrogator gradually peels away the layers of his cover story, until he (hopefully) gets to the truth. However, if you're torturing somebody and he eventually tells you the truth, but you don't recognise it as the truth and keep torturing him, then he'll just tell you what you want to hear. All information from a detainee is worthless unless is verifiable and verified;
(b) Given that the detainees are obviously trying to lie, how do we know they were not lying successfully when they said X?
(c) We don't trust the government passing on the information.
(d) The 9/11 Commission could not talk to detainees directly, they merely passed a list of questions they wanted asked on to the interrogators. They had no way of checking whether the questions were actually asked - maybe the interrogators just made the answers up or maybe they didn't insist on getting thorough answers from the prisoners - they could have just fed the 9/11 Commission any old crap to get it off their backs. It seems the interrogators were more interested in details about Al Qaeda's organisation and members on the loose than the historical details of the planes operation.
btw, Under interrogation KSM claiming he was lying in some parts of the Masterminds interview.

(3) Fouda/Masterminds
Fouda is obviously a competent journalist and I guess he's telling the truth (about 95% of the time) about the Masterminds interview, although there might be a little lie here and there.
I think he really did interview KSM and Binalshibh, but some things do not ring true true and I doubt they provided the interview purely for the benefit of the historical record. For example:

"Now it was Ramzi's turn to interrupt the story with a surprise. He had gone to the next room, returning with a dirty grey suitcase. He caught my eye as he unzipped it. "Yes, it is my Hamburg souvenirs," he smiled, handing me a cup of tea, "and you are the first outsider to have a look at this." He carefully began to unload these souvenirs one by one. Soon, strewn on the floor in front of me, were the bulk of the planning materials used by Mohammed Atta and the other hijack pilots as they plotted their attacks. A glossy Boeing brochure and manuals, a thick how-to-fly textbook, an air navigation map of the US eastern seaboard, how-to-speak English books, floppy disks, flight simulator CD-ROMs: it had all been in the Hamburg apartment that Ramzi shared with Atta, where in the earliest days the cell had gathered to work out its strategy."
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2002/australian09090...
A how-to-fly textbook! A computer flight simulator! This is like something out of Monty Python. He's one of the world's most wanted men and he's been lugging a suitcase full of how-to-speak English books round with him for 7 months! He's taking the piss.
The questions are what are their ulterior motives and when are they telling the truth and when are they lying?
I would say that the ultrior motives are:
(1) Self publicism for KSM and RBS;
(2) Keeping the organisation in the media spotlight;
(3) Dissementating false information about the attack - if you ask me, the named pilots didn't fly the planes - they must have had better pilots and I think they got them from the PAF, a subject I touched on above. They were putting their weight behind the idea that Atta and Co. flew the planes to divert the investigation and stop it getting the real names. Apparently Fouda wrote a book about it, but I haven't read it yet. What do you think?

[TomClash]

5. This is the classic reason

why such hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible in a court of law, like the ridiculous affidavit in Padilla's case. No one can question KSM or even his interrogators. So you can never determine whether he's telling the truth or impeach his credibility.

[spooked911]

2. Torture was probably used to get him to say what they wanted

-- seriously.

[TomClash]

6. Or they simply made it up

which is worse but hardly inconceivable.

[spooked911]

3. Thinking about this more-- this is a really good point.

It should be in General Discussion...