Posted on 03/04/2006 6:22:40 PM PST by Former Military Chick
Mohammad al-Qahtani, held in Guantanamo and touted by the U.S. as a major informant, is taking it all back, his lawyer says. PLUS: for the first time, TIME.com publishes a secret, 84-page record of his interrogation
Of the roughly 500 detainees held at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, none is more notorious than Mohammad al-Qahtani, the so-called "20th hijacker." Only weeks before 9/11, he tried to enter the U.S. illegally in Orlando, Fla., while the plot's leader, Mohammad Atta, waited to pick him up in the airport parking lot. As the Pentagon has said, "Had al-Qahtani succeeded in entering the U.S., it is believed he would have been on United Airlines Flight 93, the only hijacked aircraft that had four hijackers instead of five [and the one that ended up crashing in a Pennsylvania field instead of striking the White House, its widely believed intended target]."
Last June, TIME published excerpts from a highly classified, 84-page log minutely detailing al-Qahtani's interrogation at Guantanamo. Now, as an increasing number of detainees mount legal challenges to their incarceration, TIME is making the record of al-Qahtani's treatment available to the public in its entirety (except for some names which have been redacted) for the first time. Back in June 2005, the Pentagon insisted that al-Qahtani had provided vital intelligence, focusing on key al-Qaeda leaders and some 30 fellow prisoners at Guantanamo whom he identified as Osama bin Laden's bodyguards.
Now, in an eyewitness account of al-Qahtani at Guantanamo, his recently appointed American lawyer tells TIME that al-Qahtani has repudiated all of his previous statements — claiming they were extracted under brutal torture. And that repudiation is sure to fuel the growing number of challenges in American courts from the detainees at Guantanamo whom al-Qahtani fingered.
For most of his confinement at Guantanamo, al-Qahtani, like other "enemy combatants," has been in legal limbo, never charged with a crime, unrepresented by legal counsel and without any recourse to U.S. courts. But a source has told TIME that last year his father in Saudi Arabia approached the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based nonprofit organization, which has provided al-Qahtani with a lawyer.
That lawyer, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, a CCR staff attorney, has already filed a challege in federal court, in the District of Columbia, to al-Qahtani's detention. She has also visited him twice at Guantanamo, first in December 2005 and again in January of this year. After spending more than 30 hours talking with him through an interpreter, she told TIME that al-Qahtani today appears to be a broken man, fearful and at times disoriented — someone who has "painfully described how he could not endure the months of isolation, torture and abuse, during which he was nearly killed, before making false statements to please his interrogators."
When al-Qahtani got off his plane in Orlando in August 2001, he was refused entry to the U.S., deported, and captured in Afghanistan only a few months after 9/11 — as Osama bin Laden fled his mountain sanctuary at Tora Bora. Al-Qahtani was then brought to Guantanamo where, according to the Pentagon, he admitted that he had been sent to the U.S. by Khaled Sheik Mohammed, architect of the 9/11 attacks, and that he had met Osama bin Laden on several occasions. Al-Qahtani also confirmed that he had received terrorist instruction at two al-Qaeda training camps and met with numerous senior al-Qaeda leaders.
But from the standpoint of cases currently under review in U.S. federal courts, al-Qahtani's most significant disclosure was informing on some 30 fellow Guantanamo prisoners. The Pentagon quickly used his statements about those prisoners before special military tribunals to justify their indefinite detention as "enemy combatants."
Lawyers for detainees fingered by al-Qahtani strenuously object to that evidence. And a growing number are challenging the government, claiming that al-Qahtani's information was extracted under torture and is, therefore, unreliable and inadmissible in court.
But in a major case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to be argued on March 22 — a case that many observers believe will ultimately end up in front of the Supreme Court — the government is expected to argue that the reliability of statements like al-Qahtani's should not even be considered.
Instead, government lawyers will seek to apply the Detainee Treatment Act, a controversial December 2005 law sponsored by Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, that would preclude extensive court review of Guantanamo detentions. The Detainee Treatment Act says that habeas corpus — the right of prisoners to have their detention legally justified to a U.S. court — does not apply to Guantanamo prisoners except on appeal. Detainee lawyers argue that the provision clashes with a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that opened the federal courts to any detainee held by the United States anywhere in the world.
Questions surrounding the Detainee Treatment Act will also come before the Supreme Court on March 28, when lawyers for Salim Ahmad Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's alleged driver, challenge government attempts to put him on trial before a military commission. "The issue in this court case is critically important because if the government has its way, Guantanamo will be returned to a legal black hole," contends Eric M. Freedman, a professor of constitutional law at Hofstra University and legal consultant to detainees, though not al-Qahtani. "It would be an outrage if evidence being used to hold prisoners was extracted by unconscionable methods and that fact did not come to light in a court of law." For the Pentagon's part, a spokesperson told TIME that "it is longstanding Department of Defense policy to treat all detainees humanely." The detailed interrogation log of al-Qahtani seems to make clear that at the very least that policy has not always been followed, the definition of humane treatment is up for debate.
He says torture made him lie!!
I have no idea but aren't military interrogations taped? Granted, they would not be shown to the public, if they were, but any judge could view them in chambers.
They probably made him watch old episodes of "Facts of Life"!
Oh this guy is grasping for something and it wont work. As you said, they are video taped and if they weren't than we need to fire a bunch of folks.
He is doing this just to get media attention. imho
Aren't you the clever one. That would be torture for sure. Along with Differnt Strokes and Charles in Charge.
Now that I think about it, they should just turn off the lights, put a black and white TV in the cell and just have rerun's and reruns never stopping. Folks would fess up pretty quick.
LOL!
"... for the first time, TIME.com publishes a secret, 84-page record of his interrogation."
Here they go again publishing "secret" stuff - where is this going to stop ..?? After the NYT is indicted for releasing the NSA secrets ..?? Hopefully .. and it cannot happen soon enough to suit me.
I'm not buying it.
page one of the AQ handbook is "if captured, ask for a lawyer and claim the americans tortured you".
who leaked his interrogation transcript? when is someone inside the CIA going to be arrested for these leaks!
AMEN
Should have just flown to Mexico and walked to his waiting ride just beyond the nonexistent fence and Border. Bet they won't overlook this avenue again.
In WWII Time magazine would be shut down and the publisher dealt with for sedition.
We are not serious at all about the war on terror and let the equivalent of mazi allies "respresent" prisoners of war.
Adios, amigos, it was good while it lasted.
Thanx a bunch, TIME. Loose lips sink ships, and worse.
If any Freeper has a copy of that rag, please post the advertizers so hopefully we can dissuade TIME with a boycott ala Woopie Goldberg, Bill Maher, and Danny Glover.
I guess he didn't like the chicken with mixed vegetables that was on the Gitmo menu. that's "abuse".
Of course the left will buy it ... if it's something negative about our country or gov't, they'll buy it, no matter how flimsy or questionable.
Shoot him and his lawyer.
Both are terrorists. One for religion and the other for money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.