Author: R J Adams

There is not one iota of doubt that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a ruthless and extremely dangerous individual. Sufficient evidence exists of his involvement in various terrorist acts around the world over two decades, to put him away for the rest of his life. Of course, dependent on where he is brought to justice, the rest of his life may not be very long.

The catalogue of crimes and potential crimes he purports to have been involved with is so long as to be almost incredulous. He was held for at least three years in secret CIA prisons and subjected to interrogation techniques that the President of the United States described as definitely “not torture” (this ABC News account from November 2005 will allow you to judge the truth of that). It will likely never be known just how deeply involved Khalid Sheikh Mohammed really was in the plots he confessed to, and how much was due to “interrogation techniques”, or merely the result of an over-imaginative ego.

The brutal and underhand manner in which the “allies” have conducted their so-called “war on terror” has left those of us still grimly clinging to the few ethics we have left, unable to believe anything we are told by the leaders entrusted with our welfare. Both in America and Britain, the nations’ top politicians have betrayed the people with their lies and “spin”.

George Bush told Americans the interrogation techniques used by the CIA were “necessary”. He said, “America does not torture.”

He was wrong. Waterboarding cannot be classified as anything other than torture, and was so described by America in the Tokyo War Crimes Trials immediately following the end of WW2.

Writer Robin Rowland, researching his latest book, “A River Kwai Story: F Force and the Sonkrai Tribunal” certainly agrees with that conclusion. As someone who has thoroughly researched Japanese forms of torture for his book, he presents a view difficult to counter.

There seems to be an effort within this American administration to justify their actions as a means to an end, as though they can accurately define the fine line between coercion and torture. Websters defines “torture” as “anguish of body or mind”. Not necessarily physical pain, then, but “anguish of mind”.

According to the ABC News report (link above) tough CIA operatives who were voluntarily subjected to waterboarding lasted an average of 14 seconds. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was “admired” for lasting upto two and a half minutes “before begging to confess”. Little wonder then he has admitted to over thirty terrorist plots and involvements.

As John Sifton of Human Rights Watch states in the ABC report, “The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law.”

We will probably never learn the true facts about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Either his confessions were accurate, or he is lying to protect others who may consequently remain at large to commit further terrorist acts. US and British politicians may well pat themselves on the back, once Sheikh Mohammed has gone through the secret military tribunals, been found guilty and suitably punished, but likely it will be a short-lived celebration. The methods they have used, despised by all decent human beings, leave no basis for trusting the accuracy of their results. In factual terms, we know no more about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed than we did before his capture.

Torture elicits only the confessions the torturers wish to hear. Use of such barbarous techniques by those sworn to uphold justice and human rights for all is not only a living perjury of the oath, but will almost certainly have created an even more dangerous world for us to live in.

Filed under: War criminals

“The next war … may well bury Western civilization forever.” ~ Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn June 8, 1978.

Following his death, Baha Mousa, a twenty-six year old Iraqi hotel receptionist was found to have 93 separate injuries on his body. He and a number of other men were arrested by British soldiers following a raid on a hotel in Basra. They were taken to the Darul Dhyafa military base for interrogation after weapons and “suspected” bomb-making equipment was found at the hotel.

After six months of courts martial hearings, six soldiers were acquitted of all charges. One soldier had already pleaded guilty to inhumanely treating Baha Mousa. No-one was found guilty of Baha Mousa’s death. Yet there was no doubt he died of his injuries in British custody.

According to a BBC report today:

“Col David Black, of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment’s Regimental Council, said that British servicemen needed to operate without being “inhibited by the fear of such actions by over zealous and remote officialdom”.

While it is obvious that the prosecution’s case was ill thought-out; the evidence they presented was weak in the extreme, one salient fact that cannot be overlooked is that a man is dead. He died as a result of ninety-three separate injuries.

This was no quick shot at an escaping prisoner, or the result of a scuffle while being restrained. Ninety-three separate injuries, sufficient to kill a man, take time to inflict.

Other men taken in the raid showed evidence of being beaten, but no-one has been punished for the death of Baha Mousa.

Much has been written, both on this blog and elsewhere, criticizing American forces in Iraq for their often brutal treatment of prisoners. Colonel Black’s remark that his men should be able to operate with impunity, uninhibited by fear of lawful redress whilst interrogating prisoners, is disgraceful and totally outside the legal framework of the Geneva Conventions.

Tony Blair and his British government may not have been so openly and vocally derisory of those Conventions as the present American administration, but this “relaxation” of the British military’s code of ethics when interrogating enemy suspects is surely proof the British government has fallen squarely behind its American counterpart in the de-humanizing of enemy combatants.

There was a time, before the advent of modern weapons of mass destruction, that man took pride in the honor and glory of war. However misplaced such feelings, this Iraq war has finally laid them to rest. There is no honor or glory in the actions of Britain and America in Iraq. Civilizations are dependent on some degree of moral code, and between them George Bush and Tony Blair have sacrificed our morality for their success.

The prophecy of Solzhenitsyn is being realized.

Filed under: Fallen standards

George W Bush’s “tour’ of South America has been dogged, unsurprisingly, by demonstrations and unrest from the locals. In Guatemala today he visited a Mayan shrine. After he had left, the priests in charge of the site hastily performed purification rituals, to rid the site of “evil spirits” Bush may have left behind.

The US president’s remarks during a speech in Columbia, stating, “The US cares about the people of South America” cuts little ice, either there or in the US.

The true reason for Bush rushing south recently has more to do with China, and the rapidly developing ties between it and the Latin American nations Bush is now desperately endeavoring to foster. Those more narrow-minded members of Congress, who forever see “Reds” under every bed, and view China as the next US adversary after the Middle East, are becoming nervous of the Oriental invasion taking place in their backyard.

Unfortunately for Mister Bush, the Venezuelan lefty, Hugo Chavez, is probably doing a better job of persuading South Americans that his way is better. After all, there is a measure of truth in his statement that George W Bush is a “political corpse”, given that the US president is entering the final death throes of his incumbency, and unlike Bush – who dare not risk speaking directly to the people, and is content to only converse with national leaders – Chavez woos the populace, drawing huge crowds to his conventions.

While George W Bush claims to be the “close personal friend” of Guatemalan President Oscar Berger and Columbia’s wholly dubious Alvaro Uribe, Hugo Chavez is presenting himself as amigo to all Latin American peoples.

At least, for now.

Filed under: Chinese chequers