German man files torture case against CIA

[George.]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A German man filed a lawsuit Tuesday claiming he was held captive and tortured by U.S. government agents after being mistakenly identified as an associate of the September 11 hijackers.

Khaled el-Masri, who is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, said he was arrested while attempting to enter Macedonia for a holiday trip and flown to Afghanistan. During five months in captivity he was subjected to "torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," says a lawsuit he filed in U.S. District Court in suburban Alexandria, Virginia.

The suit names as the main defendant former CIA Director George Tenet. In addition to torture, he claims his due process rights were violated and that he was subjected to "prolonged, arbitrary detention." He is seeking damages of at least $75,000.

"I am asking the American government to admit its mistakes and to apologize for my treatment," el-Masri said in a statement. "Throughout my time in the prison, I asked to be brought before a court but was refused. Now I am hoping that an American court will say very clearly that what happened to me was illegal and cannot be done to others."

Condoleeza Rice has admitted, when asked by Merkel, that the arrest of this man was a mistake.

HE WAS INNOCENT. AND YET HE WAS HELD WITHOUT HABEAS CORPUS, AND TORTURED.

How many other innocents are being held and tortured? How many other children's fathers have simply "disappeared"? How many who are not so fortunate as to be German citizens, and to have the German government speak for them?

[LeeG]

waiting for Jacks Outrage.

You see George, we don't condone torture.
AFter 9/11 everything changed.
Sure some bad things happen.
But we're a big country.
A few dozen incidents sound bad but in big operation the percentage is low. On the order of .01% bad stuff.
Cheney is working hard to ensure that .01% is possible to prevent the Iraqi water polo team from swimming up the Potomac with a nuke.
It's unfortunate some little fishies get caught.
But you gotta break a few eggs to make a metaphor.

[ 12-06-2005, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

[Victor]

"....turn the country into a caliphate and then spread it around the world." Interesting choice of words, exp. if you substitute "democracy" for "caliphate".

[John of Phoenix]

I heard Rice on the radio. Uh's and mmm's and ah's and stammering galore. She actually sounded worried. :eek:

Shoulda sent Cheney. He ain't afraid of no euro-weenies.

[martin schulz]

BERLIN (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faces the first test on Tuesday during a visit to Germany of whether her defense of U.S. handling of terrorism suspects can quell concern in Europe over alleged abuses.

On the eve of her five-day, four-nation trip to the continent, she gave the most robust defense of U.S. policies to date, seeking to reassure allies demanding explanations after media reports the CIA has run secret prisons in Eastern Europe.

She said Washington echews torture and works with its allies in lawful intelligence operations designed to protect the public, not least in Europe.

But she refused to address the allegations directly, risking further speculation around an accusation that has been a lightning rod for criticism of possible illegal practices.

Germany is an awkward first stop for Rice because new Chancellor Angela Merkel is under intense pressure to get answers on the alleged prisons and covert transfer of detainees.

Even if Rice weathers the storm in Germany, the pressure is unlikely to abate later on Tuesday when she visits Romania, a country the campaign group Human Rights Watch says may have hosted a secret prison. Bucharest has issued repeated denials.

Rice praised Romania as "very fierce in the war on terror" but declined to discuss any specific intelligence operation.

Human rights groups say incommunicado detention is illegal and often leads to torture, stoking concern in Europe, where there is already widespread criticism of U.S. treatment of detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

A new television report on Monday cited current and former CIA officials saying al Qaeda suspects had been held in Europe until last month but were then transferred to north Africa.

U.S. channel ABC news added that interrogation techniques used included sleep deprivation and a practice in which the subject feels they are being drowned, but that these were not classified as torture. The CIA declined comment.

Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, said Rice could not deny the secret prisons existed.

[Keith Wilson]

Criminals. I'll post it again, in case anyone missed it. US federal law:


Section 2340. Definitions

As used in this chapter -
(1) ''torture'' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) ''severe mental pain or suffering'' means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from -
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

Section 2340A. Torture

(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy. - A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

[ 12-06-2005, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[LeeG]

Dang,,this whole "everything changed since 9/11" doesn't still apply to words? It worked when everyone was afraid. Time to revisit "The Vulcans".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120501615_pf.html

Ms. Rice said, "It is also U.S. policy that authorized interrogation will be consistent with U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture, which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." What she didn't explain is that, under this administration's eccentric definition of "U.S. obligations," cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is not prohibited as long as it does not occur on U.S. territory. That is the reason for the secret prisons that the CIA has established in European countries and other locations around the world, and for the "renditions" of detainees to countries such as Egypt and Jordan: so that the administration can violate the very treaty Ms. Rice claims it is upholding.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

The USA (as defined by this administration) doesn't care what other countries think about torture or secret prisons or anything else.

The best thing to do is not to travel to the US. ;)

[ 12-06-2005, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

[Bruce Taylor]

Maher Arar (http://www.maherarar.ca/)

[uncas]

JEEEZ...Askin for $75,000...? :rolleyes:
That sounds like small claims court...
Heck in this country...he wouldn't even be able to find a lawyer to take it...

[ 12-06-2005, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: uncas ]

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Maher Arar is the reason I don't cross the border. That guy is lucky to be alive. He'll never win any recompense from the states. I bet he doesn't go there anymore either :(

[George.]

Originally posted by uncas:
JEEEZ...Askin for $75,000...? :rolleyes:
That sounds like small claims court...
Give him a break, he is from Europe. ;)

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

That's a good tactic. It shows he's not in it for a big payday.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

This suit has one big problem. If there are allegations that CIA operatives were involved the agency can fall back on claims of "national security". That might trigger moving into a special security court which is allowed to restrict knowledge of what goes on.
The government moves should be interesting.
Charlie

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
Maher Arar is the reason I don't cross the border. That guy is lucky to be alive. He'll never win any recompense from the states. I bet he doesn't go there anymore either :( IIRC, the Feebies have nipped people out of Canada without all that messy extradition hearing stuff... ;)

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Who know? we may get to see George Tenet or Porter Goss testifying about their stewardship.
Should be fun.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

As you can see... nobody cares. ;)

[Jagermeister]

From this storyCIA Flying Suspects To Torture? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678155.shtml) dated March 6, 2005, we learn:


El-Masri says he wasn't tortured, but he says he was beaten and kept in solitary confinement. So either he changed his story about torture once the lawyers got involved, or he changed the definition of torture.

So, once again, we have forumites playing fast and loose with facts and definitions, designed all to what end...?

Looks to me like more scatology from the bilge.

[Meerkat]

Hmmm... one day CBS News is part of the liberal agenda, and the next day it's as reliable news source...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Jaegermeister! :D

[Jagermeister]

Meerkat:

Bias can be as much in the omission (which is the charge I usually level against CBS) rather than commission. I usually reserve that charge for the New York Times opinion page. :D

[ 12-06-2005, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Jagermeister ]

[Meerkat]

These days, "news" is just "opinion" under a different banner - both are subject to (sceptical) interpretation. ;) tongue.gif

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Jäger,
If the Germans kidnap you in retaliation there won't be a wet eye in the house. A year at Spandau would give you time to reassess your peculiar political proclivities.
Charlie

[John Gearing]

About the $75k....I expect that Masri is filing suit in US Federal Court. In order to do that, you have to meet a couple of requirements, IIRC. One is that you have to allege a certain minimum amount of damages, in dollars. IIRC the amount used to be fairly low, but has been raised at some point in the last few years. I believe that this is what the "at least $75K" is in the suit for.

Now I don't know exactly what happened to Masri, but I'd put beatings in with torture. Of course there are beatings and then there are BEATINGS, like the one the British national suffered at the hands of the Saudi govt. Among other things they suspended him upside down from a steel bar and then beat his buttocks, soles, and testicles with a stick. The next day his testicles were the size of oranges. I heard this from the man himself. Now, there is as far as I know no evidence that the US was involved in this particular case, but it does illustrate what happens in other countries.

The whole thing is really very simple. If we aren't torturing or mistreating these suspects, why do we have to hide them overseas???

[John Gearing]

About the $75k....I expect that Masri is filing suit in US Federal Court. In order to do that, you have to meet a couple of requirements, IIRC. One is that you have to allege a certain minimum amount of damages, in dollars. IIRC the amount used to be fairly low, but has been raised at some point in the last few years. I believe that this is what the "at least $75K" is in the suit for.

Now I don't know exactly what happened to Masri, but I'd put beatings in with torture. Of course there are beatings and then there are BEATINGS, like the one the British national suffered at the hands of the Saudi govt. Among other things they suspended him upside down from a steel bar and then beat his buttocks, soles, and testicles with a stick. The next day his testicles were the size of oranges. I heard this from the man himself. Now, there is as far as I know no evidence that the US was involved in this particular case, but it does illustrate what happens in other countries.

The whole thing is really very simple. If we aren't torturing or mistreating these suspects, why do we have to hide them overseas???

[Bob Cleek]

How come everybody's so upset about torturing these guys, but nobody seems much upset about killing them?

[Stiletto]

I think your government hides them overseas to avoid your own laws covering such matters.

[PeterSibley]

How come everybody's so upset about torturing these guys

Bob ,what do you mean ...these guys? He hasn't got a European name ?

[martin schulz]

Originally posted by Bob Cleek:
How come everybody's so upset about torturing these guys, but nobody seems much upset about killing them?"these guys"?

Hey this guy is a German citizen, kidnapped by the US while on vacation and was then flown to Afghanistan to be "interogated".
Unfortunately our government obviously knew about it, because his lawyer contacted the Home Office asking questions about his detention.

I wonder what would happen if the German intelligence were to capture, lets say an American on vacation in Paris to take him to a secret prison in russia to question him?

[George.]

Originally posted by Jagermeister:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> El-Masri says he wasn't tortured, but he says he was beaten and kept in solitary confinement. So either he changed his story about torture once the lawyers got involved, or he changed the definition of torture.

</font>[/QUOTE]Let me get this straight. You kidnap an innocent man (Condi admitted he was innocent and picked up "by mistake"), put him in solitary confinement for five months (one month in solitary is considered harsh punishment for hardened convicts), and occasionally beat the crap out of him.

But that is not torture, and those who object have a political agenda.

Jagermeister, YOU are the one with a political agenda. You are trying to throw a smokescreen over your government's crimes.

[Jagermeister]

George, I'm not the one who said he was beaten, not tortured. It was reported by CBS news (certainly no friend of Bush) that those were his words. You have a problem with the definition, take it up with him.

Every terror suspect picked up is a citizen of some country. So, every single one of them is "kidnapped" under some definition.

Personally, I would define "kidnapping" as picking up a suspect without the knowledge of the authorities in the country in which he is apprehended. Obviously, if I visit Brazil, and the Brazilian police pick me up, I wasn't "kidnapped". From the story, this guy was picked up in Macedonia by the Macedonian authorities and turned over to the CIA. I don't see that as "kidnapping".

I am more disturbed by the incompetence of the CIA in picking up the wrong guy, and not knowing it for five months, than I am by the mechanism of apprehending terror suspects and talking them some place for interrogation. Intelligence gathering is a necessary part of any war.

Taking suspects to an interrogation center seems a necessary evil. I wouldn't think you could hold them in your average jail, which has virtually no security for such activities. And the very nature of the war requires secrecy.

Given Germany's rather open opposition to the U.S. "Global War on Terror" I can see why we wouldn't share information about who they are holding. I'm not sure it is the right policy, but I can understand the reluctance. The German government is so openly anti-American that I wouldn't put it past them to sabotage American endeavors.

The bottom line is I regret this guy got picked up and held for five months. I doubt beating him did any good, and I hope the people who did it are reprimanded. I am very concerned that they were so incompetent as to get the wrong person and that it took them so long to discover and rectify their mistake.

George - My attitude has nothing to do with race or skin color. Your insinuation was uncalled for.

[ 12-07-2005, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Jagermeister ]

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

which has virtually no security for such activities. Really? Wow... a maximum security prison cannot segregate prisoners, keep them incarcerated, and interview them in relatively secure surroundings. That's news to me. Why do you think it's necessary for the CIA to keep these interrogation centers secret? Why doesn't the UN get to inspect Gitmo, and talk to prisoners in private?

Everybody knows why... ;)

[George.]

Originally posted by Jagermeister:
Personally, I would define "kidnapping" as picking up a suspect without the knowledge of the authorities in the country in which he is apprehended. When authorities pick up a suspect, charge him with a crime, and give him some chance to prove his innocence through due process, I call that an "arrest".

When authorities pick up a suspect, deny him any due process of law, ship him to a country where he is beyond the jurisdiction of any human rights laws of his native country or of the country where he was picked up, and hold him incommunicado for months, I call that a "kidnapping." The fact that the ones doing it were government authorities doesn't change the substance of the deed.


Originally posted by Jagermeister:
I am more disturbed by the incompetence of the CIA in picking up the wrong guy, and not knowing it for five months, than I am by the mechanism of apprehending terror suspects and talking them some place for interrogation. Exactly. Even I would not be opposed to torture, in an ideal world where the only ones subjected to it were actual terrorists with important information to disclose.

Unfortunately, such a world does not exist. Law enforcement agencies make mistakes - many mistakes. That is why civilized countries have something called habeas corpus and defendant's rights - to make sure that most mistakes are corrected before undue hardships are imposed upon the innocent.

I am sure none of us would support the suspension of these rights as part of crime-fighting in our own hometowns, where we ourselves, and our loved ones, might be subject to wrongful imprisonment. Therefore, it is morally inconsistent to support their suspension with regard to anyone.


Originally posted by Jagermeister:
George - My attitude has nothing to do with race or skin color. Your insinuation was uncalled for.Fair enough. I apologize. I was trying to make the point I made above, and perhaps went too far.

[Keith Wilson]

Even I would not be opposed to torture, in an ideal world where the only ones subjected to it were actual terrorists with important information to disclose.I entirely agree, although reluctantly. Would that we could be that efficient. However, those responsible for catching terrorists are no more intelligent or virtuous than the rest of humanity, and make mistakes, all too many mistakes. They are also vulnerable to organizational pressures, (C'mon George, you haven't brought anyone in for four months now, get on the stick! - and one's standards of evidence slip a little), excesses of zeal, desires for indiscriminate revenge, and the love of cruelty buried (deeply buried in most cases) in most of us.

[ 12-08-2005, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Jagermeister]

George and Keith:

It seems we are not as far apart as we might originally have thought. The only thing in either of the previous two posts to which I would take exception is your last line, Keith:


love of cruelty buried (deeply buried in most cases) in most of us Actually, I think that most people have a innate aversion to cruelty. From what I remember, it takes great effort to enable people to act cruelly towards others - usually requiring institutional support and / or continuous desensitization. Unfortunately, both of those elements are present in quantity in penal systems and interrogation systems - which makes it more likely that cruelty occurs in that setting, and makes oversight more necessary. But, my point is that I try to believe that people, well adults at least, are charitably inclined unless persuaded otherwise.

[High C]

George: "Even I would not be opposed to torture, in an ideal world where the only ones subjected to it were actual terrorists with important information to disclose."

Keith: "I entirely agree, although reluctantly."

Then we very much concur.

[George.]

I suspect that we agree far more than we disagree, on most issues, High C and Jager.

But Jager, there is a classic experiment done a few years back in a college - UCLA, I think - where half the subjects were made into "jailers" and half into "prisoners". The jailers had total power over prisoners. The idea was to see how far the average person would go. They had to stop the experiment before schedule, as most "jailers" started to become inordinately cruel... :(

I am afraid we all have angels and devils buried within us. Which one emerges is largely a matter of context.

[Gonzalo]

Originally Posted by HighC:


George: "Even I would not be opposed to torture, in an ideal world where the only ones subjected to it were actual terrorists with important information to disclose."

Keith: "I entirely agree, although reluctantly."
Keith and George, haven't you among others been making the point in other threads that torture is ineffective? If that is the case, I find the statements you made above puzzling. Doesn't the practical ineffectiveness of torture align with the ethical considerations, even when the torture victim is an "actual terrorist?" In other words from both practical and ethical standpoints shouldn't torture be off limits?

And what do both of you mean by "actual terrorist?" One who has been whisked away without due process? One who has been tried and convicted?

There are certain very extreme hypothetical situations, such as the "ticking bomb" scenario, that get brought up as justifications for torture, but that is not what I think you meant. Or was it? Please elucidate.

Frankly, I don't think the hypothetical extreme is very effective in thought or discussion of this and many other issues. In fact, it is a well-known logical falacy called "reductio ad absurdum."

[ 12-08-2005, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Gonzalo ]

[George.]

Gonzalo, I said in an ideal world. We don't live in one.

If one were sure beyond reasonable doubt that one was dealing with a terrorist - and that would involve a very well done trial, at the very least - then one might use torture to try to extract information in the famous "ticking time bomb" scenario.

Nine times out of ten, such information would be useless or misleading. But one time out of ten it might be of some use, if corroborrated by other sources. And the other nine times, at least the guy who was tortured could reasonably be said to deserve it.

In the real world, of course, nine times out of ten they torture the wrong guy, an innocent man. And that right there is enough reason to not do it. I am sorry, but the lives of people who work in the WTC are not more valuable than the lives of all the poor Muhammeds who got picked up "by mistake."

[Keith Wilson]

Ah, George beat me to it.

In the hypothetical "ticking bomb” case, where lots of lives are at sake, you’re absolutely sure you have the right man, and there’s a strict time limit, it may be morally justifiable. However, the chance of abuse, and the certainty of error, means that we should prohibit it in any case. It may still happen; probably will, given human nature, but more rarely and in secret.

[Bruce Taylor]

UCLA, I think Google "Stanford Prison Experiment."

More interesting, in some ways, is the Milgram electric shock experiment.

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by Jagermeister:
Personally, I would define "kidnapping" as picking up a suspect without the knowledge of the authorities in the country in which he is apprehended.This puts you in agreement with the Milanese prosecutor who seeks the arrest and extradition of CIA agents. For kidnapping.