The Daily Background
| Why Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s “confession” is not legitimate
by Arlen Parsa
The traditional media is all abuzz over KSM’s (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s) apparent confession to having been “responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z.” And of course the Administration is pleased as punch about it.
The problem is, it’s very difficult to say that after you kidnap someone illegally, hold them illegally for more than 3 years in a secret detention facility, and torture them in violation of international human rights law– that the confession is at all legitimate. And it’s extremely difficult to argue that the person hasn’t been tortured into confessing.
When he was asked before a military tribunal whether or not he had been tortured, he answered something. We don’t know what, because the transcript released to the press is redacted in that specific area.
It doesn’t really matter though, because we already know through leaks and simple offhand confessions that Administration at the highest levels (President, Attorney General, and SecDef) approved torture and that illegal techniques were used on KSM that would never, ever be admissible were he a US citizen, and that any evidence gained from that point onward (”confession” and all) would never be admissible evidence either.
Why? For the simple reason that if the prisoner confesses after he’s been tortured, lawyers can easily argue that he was only confessing because he was afraid of being tortured again. It’s a very compelling argument, and very difficult to counter, because who wouldn’t be afraid of being tortured again after you’ve been tortured the first time?
Anyways, for more on the torture techniques that the Administration uses, I suggest reading a piece I wrote for Truthout (an online magazine with about 250,000 subscribers) back in January titled Torture, Lies, and Videotape, in which I detailed several types of illegal torture the Administration has approved for use against KSM and others.
I agree completely that a confession extracted by torture is not reliable. I’m so certain that the Administration will rush this man to the gallows (or whatever) and trumpet their success in bring 9/11 terrorists to justice and in the “war on terror.” It sickens me.
Looking at this from the flip side is just as amazing and as damning. If this guy whom they’ve held now for three or more years was responsible for 9/11 “from A-Z,” what was Afghanistan about? What in blazes was IRAQ about? If they accept this confession at face value, how can they justify all the death and destruction, and the loss of U.S. credibility around the globe?