I believe that Bradblog.com is totally full of it.

Detainee Who Gave False Iraq Data Dies In Prison in Libya
By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 12, 2009

A former CIA high-value detainee, who provided bogus information that was cited by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war, has died in a Libyan prison, an apparent suicide, according to a Libyan newspaper.

A researcher for Human Rights Watch, who met Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi at the Abu Salim prison in Tripoli late last month, said a contact in Libya had confirmed the death.

Libi was captured fleeing Afghanistan in late 2001, and he vanished into the secret detention system run by the Bush administration. He became the unnamed source, according to Senate investigators, behind Bush administration claims in 2002 and 2003 that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to al-Qaeda operatives. The claim was most famously delivered by then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in his address to the United Nations in February 2003.

Powell later called the speech a "blot" on his record, saying he was not given all available intelligence and analysis within the government. The Defense Intelligence Agency and some analysts at the CIA had questioned the veracity of Libi's testimony, which was obtained after the prisoner was transferred to Egyptian custody for questioning by the CIA, according to Senate investigators.
ad_icon

In their book "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War," Michael Isikoff and David Corn said Libi made up the story about Iraqi training after he was beaten and subjected to a "mock burial" by his Egyptian interrogators, who put him in a cramped box for 17 hours. Libi recanted the story after being returned to CIA custody in 2004.

When President George W. Bush ordered the 2006 transfer to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of high-value detainees previously held in CIA custody, Libi was pointedly missing. Human rights groups had long suspected that Libi was instead transferred to Libya, but the CIA had never confirmed where he was sent.

"I would speculate that he was missing because he was such an embarrassment to the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski, the head of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch. "He was Exhibit A in the narrative that tortured confessions contributed to the massive intelligence failure that preceded the Iraq war."

The first independent confirmation of Libi's whereabouts came two weeks ago. Heba Morayef, a researcher for Human Rights Watch, said she and a colleague met him briefly in a courtyard at the Abu Salim prison on April 27. The two were there to examine the treatment of prisoners in Libya, including other detainees once held by the United States.

Libi angrily rejected speaking to the researchers, saying, "Where were you when I was being tortured in American prisons?" according to Morayef, who described the encounter in a phone interview.

The Libyan newspaper Oed reported Sunday that Libi was found dead in his cell after killing himself, but added that friends of the 46-year-old former preacher, who ran a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, questioned the alleged cause of death.

The Libyan government has not confirmed the death, and the Libyan Embassy in Washington said it had no information. The CIA also declined to comment.

Human Rights Watch called for an independent investigation of the death.

Libi was among dozens of former "ghost prisoners" who were in American custody overseas but whose disposition has never been officially released, according to human rights groups and a recently leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Most of these former detainees are believed to have been returned to their home countries, including to states such as Syria.

The Obama administration recently announced that it was decommissioning the CIA's global network of secret prisons, which have been mothballed since 2006, but human rights activists say the U.S. government should still provide the ICRC with an accounting of where it sent every prisoner it once held.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

If all we were looking for were "post 911 terror plots", then why did we torture prisoners (that were SOLD to us, not actually captured off the battlefield) trying to get them to admit some sort of tie-in with Al Qaeda and Saddam? What did that have to do with so-called "post 911 terror plots"?

Mesa, all the domestic terrorist attacks you listed pale in comparison to 9-11

. Maybe we should have just executed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed instead of waterboarding him. It would have saved a lot of time and money.

Btw, here’s the terrorist “bios” of the two mentioned above.

Making statements about how torturing prisoners "saved lives" is nothing more than your basic neocon fear-mongering which in turn apparently fed the disgusting desire of some to satisfy their sadistic needs. (BARF) .... Sad and sick.

Making statements about how torturing prisoners "saved lives" is nothing more than your basic neocon fear-mongering which in turn apparently fed the disgusting desire of some to satisfy their sadistic needs.

Your continual misdirection in dealing with answering the actual question is also getting rather tiresome.

And it was already pointed out a long time ago that it did not "save lives".

Are you out there taking care of all those maimed and mutilated and mentally disturbed lives? That just happens to be my job, so naturally I'd see things somewhat differently than a couple of boobs in here trying to make some A$$hole jerk look good for torturing prisoners.

You should tell those two neocon propaganda bunkers Barack Obama and Leon Panetta that because they disagree with you.

Really were you there healing the thousands of Kurds who were gassed by Saddam?
Do you care for the women who are stoned to death by the Taliban?

The confessions obtained by torture could have been gotten by other means by skilled interogators.

Jack the Ripper in literature was accused of violently slashing innocent women to death

Casualties in Iraq
The Human Cost of Occupation
American Military Casualties in Iraq
(Page last updated 05/16/09 5:47 pm EDT )

American Deaths:
Since war began (3/19/03):
Total to date … 4296
In Combat … 3444
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03)
Total … 4157
In Combat … 3336
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):
Total … 3835
In Combat … 3138
Since Handover (6/29/04):
Total … 3437
In Combat … 2811
Since Obama Inauguration (1/20/09):
Total … 68
In Combat … 39

American Wounded:
Official Total … 31,249
Estimated Total … 100,000

Others:
Other Coalition Troops - Iraq … 318
US Military Deaths - Afghanistan … 683
Other Military Deaths - Afghanistan … 467
Journalists - Iraq … 138
Contractor Employee Deaths - Iraq … 1,306

Iraqi Deaths Due to U.S. Invasion … 1,331,578

Study: 300,000 US troops from Iraq, Afghanistan have mental problems, 320,000 brain injuries

PAULINE JELINEK
AP News
Apr 17, 2008 09:47 EST
Some 300,000 U.S. troops are suffering from major depression or post traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 320,000 received brain injuries, a new study estimates.

by Aaron Glantz
(Excerpt)
According to documents obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, 25 percent of veterans of the "global war on terror" have filed disability compensation and pension benefit claims with the Veterans Benefits Administration.

One is a July 20, 2006, document titled "Compensation and Pension Benefit Activity Among Veterans of the Global War on Terrorism," which shows that 152,669 veterans filed disability claims after fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of the more than 100,000 claims granted, Veterans Administration records show at least 1,502 veterans have been compensated as 100 percent disabled.

The numbers hardly surprise Adele Kubein, a graduate student in a teaching position at Oregon State University and a member of the group Military Families Speak Out. Her daughter Makesha, a member of the Oregon National Guard, was blown out of her helicopter in Iraq.

"Her leg was shattered and she was kept in combat two more months after that with a shattered leg," Kubein told IPS. "She was eventually medically evacuated out, and she was held on a base in Colorado interminably. They were not going to release her because there was no plan in place for medical assistance for National Guard members. They were threatening to release her from the military without FURTHER medical care."

Kubein said she contacted her congressman, Democrat Peter DeFazio, and explained her daughter's situation. DeFazio then took the floor of the House and demanded she be returned home.

"At this point all politicians like to jump on the bandwagon for individual troop issues," she said. "They like to say that by doing that they are supporting the troops. What we are trying to say to Congress entails more than one than helping one of them at a time. Supporting the troops is to bring them home."

"My daughter will never again be able to walk around the block without excruciating pain," she said. "I think about the [budget] cuts the Bush administration is making in Veterans Affairs. This is a legacy that we are going to have to bear and I hope that every time an American sees a disabled veteran they realize that we are all complicit in what happened to our troops."

The main reason the techniques were used was because time was of the essence, and agents simply didn’t have the luxury of spending weeks or months gaining the terrorists confidence.

On June 11, 2008 Newsweek published an account of material from a "A previously undisclosed CIA report written in the summer of 2002". The article reported that on August 7, 2002 CIA analysts had drafted a high-level report that expressed serious doubts about the information flowing from al-Libi's interrogation. The information that al-Libi acknowledged being a member al-Qaeda' executive committee was not supported by information from other sources.

Al-Libi has been identified as the primary source of faulty prewar intelligence regarding chemical weapons training between Iraq and al Qaeda that was used by the Bush Administration to justify the invasion of Iraq. Specifically, he told interrogators that Iraq provided training to al-Qaeda in the area of weapons of mass destruction. In Cincinnati in October 2002, Bush informed the public: "Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases."
This claim was repeated several times in the run-up to the war, including in Colin Powell's speech to the U.N Security Council on 5 February 2003, which concluded with a long recitation of the information provided by al-Libi. Powell's speech came less than a month after a then-classified CIA report concluding that the information provided by al-Libi was unreliable and about a year after a Defense Intelligence Agency report concluded the same thing.

Postwar findings support the Defense Intelligence Agency February 2002 assessment that Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was likely intentionally misleading his debriefers when he said that Iraq provided two al-Qa'ida associates with chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training in 2000… Postwar findings do not support the CIA's assessment that his reporting was credible… No postwar information has been found that indicates chemical and biological weapons training occurred and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war… CIA's January 2003 version of Iraqi Support for Terrorism described al-Libi's reporting for chemical and biological weapons training "credible", but noted that the individuals who traveled to Iraq for chemical and biological weapons training had not returned, so al-Libi was not in position to know if the training had taken place… In January 2004, al-Libi recanted his allegations about chemical and biological weapons training and many of his other claims about Iraq's links to al Qa'ida. He told debriefers that, to the best of his knowledge, al-Qa'ida never sent any individuals into Iraq for any kind of support in chemical or biological weapons. Al-libi told debriefers that he fabricated information while in U.S. custody to receive better treatment and in response to threats of being transferred to a foreign intelligence service which he believed would torture him. He said that later, while he was being debriefed by a (REDACTED) foreign intelligence service, he fabricated more information in response to physical abuse and threats of torture.

Under insistent questioning from a Senate panel, Mr. Panetta said that in extreme cases, if interrogators were unable to extract critical information from a terrorism suspect, he would seek White House approval for the C.I.A. to use methods that would go beyond those permitted under the new rules.

“If we had a ticking bomb situation, and obviously, whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I would not hesitate to go to the president of the United States and request whatever additional authority I would need,” Mr. Panetta said in his nomination hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Really? I'm honestly curious about this, can you link to an article indicating that Obama is in favour of these interogation techniques?

POWs, The Geneva Conventions and the Second Gulf War (March 2003)
By Stephanie Carvin
If a picture speaks a thousand words, the images transmitted around the world in late 2001 of the “unlawful combatants” being transferred to the US detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, spoke volumes. Blindfolded, handcuffed and strapped to hospital beds, the prisoners looked like they were undergoing some hideous scientific experiment rather than merely being transported to their new prison.

But that was just the beginning of the PR nightmare in which the US government found itself regarding to the prisoners from the ‘war on terror.’ The Bush Administration came under fire for announcing that the captives, were illegal combatants, and therefore did not have any protection under the Geneva Conventions.

The outcry was immediate from NGOs, international organizations and allies who insisted that the United States adhere to the Geneva Conventions to which it was a signatory. All were quick to point out that even if the ‘detainees’ were not classified as Prisoners of War (POWs), they would be protected under the Fourth Geneva convention for the protection of civilians in conflict areas.

By late January 2002, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, under international pressure, acknowledged that the Conventions do apply to all of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, reversing earlier statements to the contrary.

The moral of this story is that despite the changing face and nature of war, the Geneva Conventions are surprisingly flexible and remain relevant for the protection of all individuals who find themselves embroiled in armed conflict. Even when given seemingly justifiable circumstances to do otherwise, countries continue to profess the importance of the Conventions and their commitment to adhere to them. They do so for the sake of their moral image and for the protection of their own personnel.

It has been over a year since the Guantanamo controversy. However, with the outbreak of war in the Gulf, the Geneva Conventions have again returned to the spotlight.

The Geneva Conventions

There is much confusion over what exactly the Conventions are and whom they protect. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two Additional Protocols of 1977 are the documents that currently outline the humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflict. There are four separate Conventions that govern the treatment of neutral personnel, medical workers, POWs and civilians. Specifically:

Convention I: for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.
Convention II: for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea.
Convention III: relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
Convention IV: relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
These four Conventions have been signed by 190 states. The Additional Protocols of 1977 (AP I and II) have been signed by a majority of states, but by substantially fewer than the 1949 Conventions (161 and 156 states respectively of 191 UN member countries).However, they are still considered to have customary, if not moral, authority by many. The purpose of the two Additional Protocols was to clarify and strengthen the protection afforded to individuals, POWs and civilians in armed conflict.

Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States ratified the Conventions on 2 August 1955 and Iraq ascended on 14 February 1956. However, both countries are not signatories to the Additional Protocols of 1977.

The Conventions become applicable at the beginning of hostilities. According to the Conventions, this includes “all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.” In the case of the present conflict, the Conventions would have become effective when the Coalition Forces began their attack on 18 March 2003, although international law, international humanitarian law and international human rights law would have always been in effect.

Degrading Treatment of POWs

Using prisoners of war for propaganda purposes is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and organizations which monitor compliance of international law, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), have requested that both the Iraqi and Coalition forces refrain from releasing images of POWs to the media. This is, of course, problematic as there are at least a thousand journalists in the region with the ability to send images of POWs all over the world.

The US has made the claim that by “parading” American POWs on television, Iraq has violated Common Article 3 of the Conventions which prohibit “outrages on personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” Also, directly relating to this issue, the Conventions specify that “No one shall be subjected to physical or mental torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.” This could also be considered a violation under Article 13 of the Third Convention which states that “prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

POW status is also governed by Article 4 of the Third Convention. The General principal of this article is that any member of the armed forces of a party to a conflict is a combatant and any combatant captured by the opposing party is a POW.

Finally, as mentioned above, further clarification of POW status is located in Additional Protocols I and II. Specifically, AP II, 4 prohibits “outrages on personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault."

Again, neither the US or Iraq are parties to AP I and II. However, this does not mean that the Protocols are not binding upon both Parties. The Geneva Conventions specify that in cases not covered by the Conventions, the Protocols or other international agreements, or in the case of denunciation of these agreements, “civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.” This, the so-called Martens Clause, indicates that the Additional Protocols may be considered customary law and that all parties are morally bound by the rules in them if they truly wish to be seen as adhering to both the letter and the spirit of international law.

Although these rules may sound frivolous or run counter to the imparatives of modern warfare, they are historically significant. In World War II some 200 US and British POWs were forced to march through the streets of Rome and forced to endure insults and other indignities. It is worth noting that the officer who staged the event was later prosecuted as a war criminal.

Irregular Forces

Another issue that may emerge as the Coalition forces make headway into Iraq are the Amn Al-Khas (Special Security Service/Office) and the Fedayeen Saddam (Saddam’s Martyrs/ “Men of Sacrifice”). These are not regular army personnel or members of the Republican Guard Special Forces. Rather, they paramilitary organizations who are fiercely loyal to Saddam and known to operate in plain clothes. By most accounts, they are led by Saddam’s sons. Other groups said to be participating in the fighting include the Al Quds (Jerusalem Brigades) made up of both men and women fighters, Ashbal Saddam (Saddam’s Cubs) – a military organization for children ages 10-16 and the Youth Civil Defence Force whose 12-17 year old members are trained to protect cities. (It is worth noting that enlisting soldiers under the age of 15 is considered to be a war crime.)

In the present conflict, the Al-Khas and Fedayeen have been providing assistance and enforcing loyalty to the regular Iraqi forces in cities like Nasiriyah. According to some reports, these forces fight without a uniforms, identification and/or without openly carrying their arms. In this case, these forces are “illegal combatants” – that is, private persons who do not have the right to take part in the conflict. These individuals may face trial for their participation. If a combatant who is not a member of a recognized armed force wishes to be accorded POW status, he/she must adhere to Article 4 of the Third Convention: 1) to be under the command of a person responsible for his subordinates (part of a hierarchical organized force); 2) having a fixed or distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; 3) carrying arms openly, and; 4) conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. It is uncertain at this point how well the Al-Khas and Fedayeen have complied with these four requirements.

The exception to this would be if the Al-Khas and Fedayeen are considered to be participating in a levée en masse (a general uprising of the population against an invading force). It is doubtful that the US will regard their participation as a part of such a movement.

However, being designated an ‘illegal combatant’ does not mean that any such individual is not protected under the Conventions. Rather, instead of being given POW status under the Third Convention, they would be protected under the Fourth Convention as civilians.

Compliance with the Conventions

Iraq has declared that it will act in line with the Geneva Conventions – likely out of a desire to maintain a degree of respectability in the eyes of the international community. However, given its past record, it is understandable that many on the Coalition side and international organizations remain concerned. During the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, Iraq (as well as Iran) confounded the ICRC’s efforts to identify the deceased and captured POWs and prevented visits to some 20,000 Iranian POWs. Well over a decade since the last shot of that war has been fired, all prisoners have still not been released. During the Gulf War, captured American pilots were beaten while being interrogated by Iraqi forces. If the fighting in Baghdad becomes messy, Saddam’s willingness to abide by the Conventions is questionable at best. If allegations that American POWs were shot while attempting to surrender prove true, this would already be a grave breach of the Geneva Convention.

On the other hand, it is clear that the US and Coalition forces wish to be seen as adhering to international law as much as possible in this conflict. Yet already there has been concern over pictures of Iraqi POWs published in the Western media. On 23 March, the Washington Post published a picture of a bound and blinded Iraqi POW. Iraqi POWs have also been seen during “live-on-the-scene” reporting from the front lines of the conflict.Nevertheless, one can expect that the Coalition forces will attempt as much as possible to maintain the spirit of the international law. Even while it denied that the prisoners in Guantanamo were protected by the Conventions during the war in Afghanistan, spokespersons for the US government and military insisted that all prisoners would be treated along the lines specified under international humanitarian law.

It is clear that the Geneva Conventions are profoundly important to American and Coalition forces. It also appears that Iraq has shown a greater degree of respect for the Convention than in previous wars.Respecting the Conventions is crucial to launching complaints when the rights of one’s own troops are abused. Any time one side in a conflict shows less than full compliance with the rule of law, they have diminished their moral stature and made it easier for their opponents to refuse to comply. It is hoped that the damage done over the rights of prisoners in Afghanistan will not result in a tougher time for Coalition POWs in Iraq. It is in the interest of the of all warring parties to adhere to international humanitarian law at all times.

Stephanie Carvin is the Research Officer of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies

Copyright CISS 2003

... throughout history we have imprisoned thousands of innocent people and most were forced to sign papers or brutally interrogated by police to confess only to have a torture stop.The barbaric procedures of the few must stop,in a modern world we have experts at humane ways of extracting good intel,

Casualties in Iraq
The Human Cost of Occupation
American Military Casualties in Iraq
(Page last updated 05/20/09 11:52 am EDT )

American Deaths:
Since war began (3/19/03):
Total to date … 4296
In Combat … 3444
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03)
Total … 4157
In Combat … 3336
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):
Total … 3835
In Combat … 3138
Since Handover (6/29/04):
Total … 3437
In Combat … 2811
Since Obama Inauguration (1/20/09):
Total … 68
In Combat … 39

American Wounded:
Official Total … 31,249
Estimated Total … 100,000

Others:
Other Coalition Troops - Iraq … 318
US Military Deaths - Afghanistan … 683
Other Military Deaths - Afghanistan … 467
Journalists - Iraq … 138
Contractor Employee Deaths - Iraq … 1,306

Iraqi Deaths Due to U.S. Invasion … 1,331,578