New information has recently come to light which has proven that one of the main suspects in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Abu Zubaida, was actually not involved in the attacks at all. Abu Zabaida, who has been incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay for the last seven years, actually did not have any contact with Al Qaeda until well after the attack occurred, and this interaction only happened because of their fear of a quick United States invasion of Afghanistan. As more facts come to light, it turns out that Zubaida was only a spokesman for radical Muslim groups, not a planner of international terrorist threats, even though former President George Bush called Zubaida "Al-Qaeda's Chief of Operations" and a "trusted associate" of Osama Bin Laden.
Now, the question is what to do with this man, who is not nearly as dangerous as what we thought he once was. For seven years, members of the CIA were pressured by the Bush administration to subject Zubaida to waterboarding and other severe interrogation procedures, and the only useful information that was procured from him was given before the waterboarding began. He still has been accused of having connections with the Ahmed Rassam, who was caught planning a bombing of Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve in 1999. The evidence is there to convict Zubaida of this crime and send him to jail, but CIA officials are afraid that if the case goes to trial the details of the torture used in their interrogation will come out in the public, and Zubaida would be acquitted because of the unnecessary torture and illegal gathering of evidence. This, in turn, would set up a legal precedent which would essentially let the hundreds of Guantanomo Bay prisoners be let free. Which is better for America? Giving a prisoner the chance of a fair trial and potentially setting him and other dangerous men free? Or sending him to Jordan where he will sit in jail for the rest of his life without a trial? If the CIA remembers what this country was founded on, it will give Zubaida a legitimate trial, and if he is proven guilty, then they can do whatever they want with him. The government can't preach transparency and hide their actions. That's hypocrisy, not democracy.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/30/officials_torture_confessions_not_proven_useful/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
After reading the blog post and then the article itself, there are a few pieces of information that were left out of the blog that are vital in determining the course of action for Abu Zubaida. He has openly admitted that he has worked with Al Quaeda.
One big part of the article that was left out was that "[Abu Zubaida] is accused of having links with Ahmed Ressam, an Al Qaeda member dubbed the "Millennium Bomber" for his plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve 1999. Jordanian officials tied him to terrorist plots to attack a hotel and Christian holy sites in their country. And he was involved in discussions, after the Taliban government fell in Afghanistan, to strike back at the United States, including with attacks on American soil, law enforcement and military sources said."
With all of that having been said, this isn't just some guy who was falsely accused and isn't a bad person etc.
This man is a dangerous threat to society and should be sent to Jordan and be kept in holding so as not to take the chance of him getting released on some ridiculous formality.
I made this point in an earlier response: the government has a responsibility to protect its people. I would like to ask the following question: how many people would feel comfortable with the release of this man that has proven links to terrorism? It's simply a bad idea to let a man loose if he has the potential to hurt the people of our nation.
I understand the point that it is hypocrisy to keep Abu Zubaida behind bars without a fair trial. Sure, it is ideal to have everyone go to a fair trial and then have everything work out from there. But the reality is we do not have ideal situations every time. As an American citizen, I want to feel certain that my country is doing its best to protect me and my family. If that means sending a dangerous man to jail, then so be it.
He is,to be clear, a dangerous man. True, he was not linked as we initially thought he was. And true, the torture techniques used were immoral. But he does have significant ties to terrorism and has a mind to attack America. That is enough to disqualify him from any benefit he may receive from the American government.
To protect its people, the government sometimes needs to make difficult decisions. In the end, safety is first priority.
Even though Abu Zabaida was not involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there is evidence that he communicated with and had connections to Ahmed Rassam who was caught when planning a bombing of Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. Allowing this man to go to trial, during which there is supposedly sufficient evidence for him to be convicted and sent to jail, would mean exposing the illegal torture methods used by the CIA. If the unjust torture methods are revealed, it could fuel further attacks against the United States. In addition, the methods revealed could be used against American prisoners of war in other countries.
Not only could the torture methods mean additional attacks or reciprocation on American troops, as Ross mentioned Zubaida's case could set a precedent leading to the release of hundreds of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The US government has to look at the larger picture. Allowing this one man to go to trial would be releasing hundreds of potential enemies to the country. I agree that if the government claims to operate with transparency then they should live up to that, but in this case decreasing the transparency to ensure safety of the American people is the best option.
I agree with Kristy, we’ve got to look at the big picture. Regardless of whether you may agree or not with the interrogation tactics of the United States, you have to agree that holding a trial that would shed light on these controversial tactics would not be something positive for the nation to deal with right now. What if this did go to trial and the results were exposed, what would come of it? Stricter laws could be set in place and implemented for interrogation methods. What if a crucial suspect comes in the midst of these new changes to the interrogation process, are we going to be prepared for him? What are the alternative methods going to be and will they be effective?
As far as the government being hypocritical, I disagree. The public knows the government is using controversial methods and the government isn’t denying it. As far as every little detail being exposed, this isn’t necessary. The general public doesn’t have enough background knowledge to determine what interrogation methods should be used. And further, it is important to remember that almost all of these prisoners are in fact bad guys. Just because they aren’t linked to what we may have originally thought doesn’t mean they aren’t linked to something else, something possibly worse perhaps.
I agree with JCruise in the fact that a main job of the government is to keep its citizens safe. In this case, they should ensure that Abu Zabaida does not become a free man. Although he may not be directly guilty in some instances, he is definitely guilty by association and of conspiracy. He is a criminal mastermind that should not be allowed to instruct his followers to inflict harm on United States citizens.
Idealy a fair trial should be granted, but even if Zabaida were to go on trial, it is doubtful that it will be fair. No matter the evidence, I do not believe any US citizen will find him innocent because of who he is thought to be, and who his acquaintances are. However, if he were to go on trial government secrets regarding interrogating prisoners would be exposed, and this would put US prisoners at greater risk.
Zabaida planned to attack the United States, and he should, therefore, not be allowed the same liberties of the citizens he was trying to kill. He should not be granted a trial, and should be held in captivity for the rest of his life. Putting this man out on the streets would be an example of the government failing its people.
Obviously, this story has created a great deal of controversy, and every critic has pointed out that Zubaida should be shipped to Jordan without the benefit of a fair trial. He has probably done some terrible things in his life, but until these allegations are proved in court,he should be able to at least have a fair chance to make sure that he is not jailed forever simply because he knows a lot of bad people. Being the intermediary between different terrorist groups in the Middle East is not necessarily a crime that needs to be punished by life in prison, but it is up to a judge, not the obviously biased American people. We should not be advocating for the immediate release of all the Guantanamo Bay prisoners; rather, we should be simply regarding Zubaida as a human being and deserving of his rights.
If, because of the release of the specific nature of the CIA's use of torture on Abu Zubaida, he is released, it is very unlikely that Zubaida will be able to get back in to terrorist organizations that he once had affilitiations with. Within the first few weeks at Guantanamo Bay, Zubaida released all the information that he knew about Al-Qaeda. The CIA then used this information to capture many other dangerous terrorists. There is simply no way that any terrorist groups would trust this man who has betrayed all of his previous groups and would probably be killed for these reasons if he is released. No matter what, Zubaida will pay for his crimes if he has committed them; it is just a matter if he is treated justly.
Post a Comment