Number 10005
In October 2001, an Algerian relief worker, employed by the Red Crescent Society, was arrested in Sarajevo, Bosnia, where he lived with his wife and two young daughters. He was accused of being involved in plots to blow up the U.S. and British embassies in Sarajevo. Despite his consistent, repeated, and forceful assertions that he knew nothing about the conspiracy and had done nothing illegal, the Bosnian police arrested him, but even after an extensive search of his car, his home, his office, and his personal belongings, they could find nothing incriminating, and a Bosnian judge ordered him to be released.
But “no evidence” wasn’t good enough for the U.S. authorities. The Algerian relief worker was transferred into U.S. custody and taken to Guantanamo, where he stayed for the next seven and a half years. He was interrogated repeatedly about connections to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, of which he knew nothing. He was also subjected to torture. Curiously enough, though, the one thing he was never asked about was his supposed involvement with the bombing plot that got him arrested in the first place.
The Algerian relief worker, of course, is Lakhdar Boumediene, and last month a federal judge ordered the government to release him, which they did. Today, there is a lengthy article about Boumediene based on an exclusive interview he gave to ABC News.
About torture, Boumediene told ABC, “I don’t think. I’m sure.”
Boumediene said the interrogations began within one week of his arrival at the facility in Cuba. But he thought that his cooperation, and trust in the United States, would serve him well and quicken his release.
“I thought America, the big country, they have CIA, FBI. Maybe one week, two weeks, they know I am innocent. I can go back to my home, to my home,” he said.
But instead, Boumediene said he endured harsh treatment for more than seven years. He said he was kept awake for 16 days straight, and physically abused repeatedly.
Asked if he thought he was tortured, Boumediene was unequivocal.
“I don’t think. I’m sure,” he said.
Boumediene described being pulled up from under his arms while sitting in a chair with his legs shackled, stretching him. He said that he was forced to run with the camp’s guards and if he could not keep up, he was dragged, bloody and bruised.
He described what he called the “games” the guards would play after he began a hunger strike, putting his food IV up his nose and poking the hypodermic needle in the wrong part of his arm.
“You think that’s not torture? What’s this? What can you call this? Torture or what?” he said, indicating the scars he bears from tight shackles. “I’m an animal? I’m not a human?”
Vice President Dick Cheney has been adamant in his defense of the Guantanamo detention center and the treatment of those held there.
Last week Cheney said, “The facility down there is a fine facility. These people are very well treated.”
[...]
Boumediene said it was in his interest to lie to the interrogators, who would reward the detainees if they admitted guilt.
“If I tell my interrogator, I am from Al Qaeda, I saw Osama bin Laden, he was my boss, I help him, they will tell me, ‘Oh you are a good man,’” he said. “But if I refuse ? I tell them I’m innocent, never was I terrorist, never never, they tell me. ‘You are, you are not cooperating, I have to punch you.’”
After nearly four years locked up, Boumediene went on a hunger strike to protest his treatment.
[...]
Boumediene’s personal effects were taken from him at Guantanamo, including his wedding ring. He now has a stack of letters, that his wife wrote to him that never arrived, a “return to sender” stamp on the envelope.
“Over there you lose all the hopes, you lose all hope,” he said. “Any good news, they don’t want you to be happy.”
It took more than six years before Boumediene started to receive good news.
Emphasis is mine. Do yourself a favor and read the whole article.
15 Responses to “Number 10005”
Isn't it simply time to call Richard Cheney what he is. A liar and a thief.
Someone prominent needs to call the SOB out. He is an absolute disgrace to the vice-presidency, the country and himself. I'm old enough so I should remember, but can someone tell me what rock this creature came out from under?
Sorry to vent, but this is as good a time as any.
Richard York
Investigate, prosecute, allow civil suits. What is 7 years of an innocent man's life worth? Cheney should lose his entire fortune to those whose lives he ruined. Ditto for Bush, Ashcroft, Gonzo, Yoo and the entire pack of scum that reduced America to this.
Thanks Kathy
Sun Light is the best disinfectant. I look forward to the usua suspects find reasons for thngs like this are justified. I have a feeling though, all we'll hear is crickets.
Great post.
Nothing like taking Boumediene's story at face value without even thinking twice. He's seeking money from the U.S. government, so naturally he's going to claim he was tortured. And for all we know, it's possible he does have terrorist connections. It may just be a case that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute him. Or he could be completely innocent as he says.
” look forward to the usua suspects find reasons for thngs like this are justified.”
Imprisoning him was of course justified. Even Boumediene appears to recognize that the U.S. needed to err on the side of protecting the country. As he said, it just shouldn't have taken 7 years to figure out that he was innocent. Since he was only a suspect held on what appears to have been thin evidence, if he was tortured as he claimed, that was not justified.
UNRR Instead of ranting look into the facts.
The judge that released him was appointed and worked for Republican administrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Leon
LOL Another activist liberal Democrat judge…
“UNRR Instead of ranting look into the facts.”
Ranting? I made a couple of mild observations. If you want to see ranting there's a comment above by someone raving about Dick Cheney.
” But it was revealed that evidence the five men had planned to travel to Afghanistan was based on a single un-named source
So what? Maybe the source was correct. Maybe the government had other indications that he might have terrorist ties that weren't brought to the judge for whatever reason. Who knows? They felt like they needed to hold him for 7 years. Maybe it was sheer incompetence, but maybe not. I don't know and neither do you — unless you have full access to everything the administration knew.
All of what you posted about the judge is completely irrelevant to anything I wrote. I said nothing about “activist judges.” You can save time commenting by not arguing against strawmen.
Rudi never actually directly rebuts an argument. Just raises tangential points and hope everyone is dumb enough to not notice.
casualobserver said: “Rudi never actually directly rebuts an argument. Just raises tangential points and hope everyone is dumb enough to not notice.”
Yeah casual… Except Rudi's comments beat the hell out of your ad hominem.
For those “dumb enough to not notice” ad hominem is defined as:
1.appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
The pro torture crowd says:
Rudi never actually directly rebuts an argument. Just raises tangential points and hope everyone is dumb enough to not notice.
So now our own legal system is just tangential to their justice.
Well researched, Rudi. This is a rather chilling view into the mindset of the right. But I'm curious UNRR (and CO, feel free to attack me too): do you really not believe the judge's assessment “no credible evidence?” Here's what you said:
Why would the government not give all the evidence to a judge? They wanted him released? They wanted to set one of “the worst of the worst” free? It appears you do not consider a judge–any judge–to be a capable arbiter of justice. You no longer believe in our justice system? You seem to believe the only ones who can accurately assess guilt are the CIA and the President. No, I mean Republican presidents, since I'm sure you wouldn't want Obama to have sole authority to throw someone in prison without a trial. Unless I'm misunderstanding your viewpoint, that is a shocking admission that you actually want a monarchy, not a “nation of laws”.
I have a feeling though, all we'll hear is crickets.
So says HemmD. And the very next comment….
Hemm, you should know better by now, There is nothing so heinous in the U.S. government's treatment of human beings in their custody under George W. Bush that can draw the condemnation of a certain group of hard-core apologists. You may think whatever news account you are reading is so clear-cut, so straightforward, so clearly wrong, that *no one* could defend it or deny it. I know. I have been drawn into that deluded line of thinking many times. But you, and I, would be wrong.
Nowhere in the article did I find Mr. Boumediene thanking George Bush or Dick Cheney for sparing his life.
Although I didn’t agree with the Bush/Cheney administration’s policy of simply detaining enemy combatants and only using enhanced interrogation on the highest value prisoners, I went along with this kinder, gentler approach to international terrorists.
However, now that it’s clear that Mr. Boumediene didn’t even bother to voice his appreciation that he wasn’t placed against a wall and shot (as was the right of the U.S. forces) for being an admitted enemy combatant, I believe subsequent administrations should learn from this experience and execute future detainees immediately after questioning.
jwest, I believe there are two possible explanations for your latest comment, above. These two explanations could as well apply to everything you write, but this is the most extreme example I have seen to date.
1. You don't necessarily believe anything you write, but you do it for shock value, because you find it entertaining to make people think you are a raving right-wing lunatic.
2. You do believe what you write, in general, but deliberately exaggerate your statements because you find it entertaining to make people think you are not not simply right-wing, but a raving right-wing lunatic.
3. You are a raving right-wing lunatic, and to be completely accurate, probably on the edge of being clinically insane.
Kathy,
Amazingly enough, I had three explanations for what you write – and they are very similar.
I take it you don’t believe Mr. Boumediene owes a sincere thank you to former President. That is one point of view, although the facts would indicate that by walking out of the situation he was in alive it showed the benevolent nature of the past administration.
Your willingness to let terrorists back into society is probably seen as admirable by those on the left, but I tend to think of it as a naïve outlook on people who want to kill Americans.
We must agree to disagree.
jwest affirms that he has abandoned the Constitution and rule of law and believes that everyone fingered by BushCo and the CIA are “terrorists” even with “no credible evidence” against them, and that they should be thankful we didn't murder them. Pathetic.