Death In a Libyan Jail Cell

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball | NEWSWEEK
Published May 16, 2009
From the magazine issue dated May 25, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Sooriamoorthy @ 07/09/2009 12:06:26 AM

    Very good. What about those people who are tortured and murdered in the US jails? By the way,the way the impostor shitting in the White House reacts, one would think that those so-called extraordinary renditions had absolutely nothing to with the US.So it would seem that others were to be held responsible( preferably by the US?) not only for what they do, but also for the actions of the US, even if these actions are directed against them.

  • Posted By: disposableidentity @ 05/30/2009 1:56:52 AM

    Isn't it more likely that he was murdered at the specific request of some current or former CIA to cover up their actions in case war crimes prosecutions go ahead? What does Libya have to gain from his death? Not much. What do Bush administration officials and CIA agents gain? It may help them avoid a lethal injection down the road.

  • Posted By: kunino @ 05/18/2009 8:09:37 AM

    The Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi story neatly draws together a number of chains of evidence of the blundering irrelevance of Bush "anti-terror"tactics. al-Libi, supposedly a terrorist in Afghanistan -- the issue has not yet been before any court -- was captured by Pakistani officials, not Americans, at the end of 2001. Handed over to Americans and interrogated at the time, he was determined by February 2002 to be spouting nonsense of no real value. Even so, he was kept in prison for another seven years and three months, which turned out to be a life sentence.. No charges appear ever to have been brought against him, but his known lies and bluffs were used by the Bush administration to justify its invasion of Iraq, which has so far cost more than 4200 American lives -- more than those who died on 9/11. Those 4200 died in defense of an enemy's easily disregarded lies.

    The al-Libi case is not unique. Six years have passed since Thai police captured Hambali, "the Asian bin Laden" and, like the Pakistanis before them, handed him over to US authorities. He has not been heard from since. He was held for three years in CIA-sponsored secret jails and since then in Guantanamo. Unlike al-Libi, Hambali, his birth name Riduan bin Isomuddin, is believed to have been at the heart of grave terror crimes including the Bali bombing that killed 202, mainly westerners. His testimony was not released to foreign governments trying to apprehend and bring to justice his companions in evil. He was a real terrorist. Saddam Hussein, whatever his other faults and crimes, clearly was not; and the Hussein Iraq was clearly not a terror state, Al-Libi was a most successful terrorist, with his main success coming after his capture and imprisonment in CIA hands. . .

    • Posted By: marknikholas @ 05/25/2009 9:39:01 AM

      This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone.

      mark

      <a href="http://www.legalx.net">lawyer directory</a>

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 05/18/2009 6:24:16 PM

      The Fear at the time was that Saddam Huisein could conceivably pass weapons such as the poison gas he used on the Kurds on to terrorists as a way to strike back at the United stateths for their unrelenting sanctions. This man in all likelyhood lied but the possability of his story was compelling enough to warrant aggressive action. The invasion had many reasons not the least of which was potential threats which later turned out to be bogus. But if Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions had not cheated repeatedly on the sanctions and had not shot anti aircraft missiles at our planes flying legally over the airspace his country would not have been invaded. To assert that 4200 americans and thousands of Iraqi''s have died over one low lifes fabrications is a bit much. Rather you consider the terrorist the Low life or the former president.

      • Posted By: boom shaka @ 05/19/2009 1:37:30 AM

        "But if Saddam had complied with the UN resolutions had not cheated repeatedly on the sanctions and had not shot anti aircraft missiles at our planes flying legally over the airspace his country would not have been invaded."

        Actually, if 9/11 never happend, Iraq would not have been invaded. It really didn't matter what Saddam did before or after, once the towers came down Iraq was placed in the crosshairs.

        I'm surprised you're so gullible, as the rest of your post is not at all inaccurate.

        Regards,

        BS

  • Posted By: TerryMac @ 05/22/2009 9:00:17 AM

    And still Cheney supports this treatment. He is a WAR CRIMINAL.

  • Posted By: kjair @ 05/18/2009 7:15:00 PM

    Onepoker, this man was tortured and as all anecdotal evidence staes after centuries of torture, people will say anything including lying in order to stop torture, no matter what you see on my favourite show 24.

  • Posted By: kjair @ 05/18/2009 7:12:16 PM

    May I point out that the airspace that our planes were flying over was Iraq airspace which had been designated a no-fly zone, not "legal" airspace. We got it by kicking Sadaam's butt but we have paid a steep price. Once again that old maxim comes to mind, " look before you leap". When will we ever learn?

  • Posted By: Dredd @ 05/18/2009 4:36:08 PM

    Hence the mid-east curse "may the Americans bring democracy to your country".

    http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/05/one-perspective-on-spawning-freedom.html

  • Posted By: shadow7 @ 05/17/2009 11:21:27 PM

    We know about the rendition flights. We know about the torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. We have the evidence. We have the confessions. And we still pretend to be 'shocked' at all that has taken place. Google 'Kafka for Dummies + torture' for a walk through the very simple and very ugly nightmare we're having.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse