The news of the death by possible suicide of former CIA "ghost prisoner", Ali Mohamed al-Fakheri, also known as Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, has caused only a small murmur in the U.S. press. The Washington Post’s Peter Finn wrote a story on it Monday, noting the key fact that it was the tortured confession of al-Libi in an Egyptian prison, where he had been rendered by the U.S. and subjected to beatings and mock burial, that was used by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell in his February 2003 presentation to the UN as evidence that Iraq was in league with the Al Qaeda terrorists and/or interested in using WMD.
Bmaz made this point the other night when writing on the initial reports of al-Libi’s death. Marcy Wheeler, in a new article, notes some suspicious matters concerning the timing of the events. The newly breaking story has also now been picked up by McClatchy (H/T Perris). Both Marcy and the McClatchy article note the "relentless pressure" put on interrogators to find some link between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
Powell’s claims that Al Qaeda had been trained in chemical and biological weaponry by Saddam Hussein’s regime was a key element of the U.S. drive to invade and occupy Iraq. But al-Libi recanted this story in January 2004. According to the Washington Post, the Defense Intelligence Agency and some CIA analysts weren’t apparently convinced. The fact he lied "to avoid torture" was verified by "a bipartisan report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence," according to a press release Monday on Al-Libi’s death by Human Rights Watch (HRW).
HRW’s press release was notable for another reason, as they reported that they had seen al-Libi alive on April 27 at Abu Salim prison in Tripoli, Libya, where they had gone to conduct a fact-finding mission. While al-Libi was uncooperative, HRW did end up speaking to "four other Libyan prisoners whom the CIA had sent to Libya under the rendition process in 2004 to 2006. The men claimed that before they were sent to Libya, US forces had tortured them in detention centers in Afghanistan, and supervised their torture in Pakistan and Thailand."
From HRW’s press release:
As part of their investigation, the Libyan authorities should reveal what they know about al-Libi’s treatment in US and Egyptian custody, Human Rights Watch said.
“The death of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi means that the world will never hear his account of the brutal torture he experienced,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “So now it is up to Libya and the United States to reveal the full story of what they know, including its impact on his mental health.”
Al-Libi was returned from US custody to Libya in late 2005 or early 2006 and was detained at Abu Salim prison. The Abu Salim prison authorities told Human Rights Watch in April 2009 that he had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the State Security Court, a court whose trial proceedings fail to conform to international fair trial standards.
Human Rights Watch briefly met with al-Libi on April 27 during a research mission to Libya. He refused to be interviewed, and would say nothing more than: “Where were you when I was being tortured in American jails.” Human Rights Watch has strongly condemned the CIA’s detention program and documented how detainees in CIA custody were abused, but, like other human rights groups, was never granted access to prisoners in CIA custody.
The Libyan newspaper Oea first reported al-Libi’s death on May 10, saying that he had committed suicide and that an investigation had been initiated by the General Prosecutor’s Office. The Libyan authorities have not yet made an official statement on the matter.
Human Rights Watch pointed out that the closed nature of prisons means that all prisoner deaths warrant investigation, but that given the special nature of al-Libi’s case, his death merits special scrutiny.
“The Libyan authorities should authorize an investigation into al-Libi’s death that is transparent, thorough, and impartial,” Whitson said.
Al-Libi’s comment about being "tortured in American jails" was described somewhat differently to me in an email from HRW’s Tom Malinowski Monday morning, who wrote that al-Libi told HRW personnel, "where were you when the Americans were torturing me in Gtmo"? The Guantanamo connection is an intriguing one, as human rights workers and journalists are trying to put together an understanding of what actually has occurred at that benighted facility.
As al-Libi was moved from place to place as a ghost prisoner in the CIA’s secret prison system, did he spend some time at Guantanamo? A short story on al-Libi’s death at UPI doesn’t mention it. However, in a story in Monday’s UK Telegraph, it’s reported the former leader of the Al Khaldan training camp in Afghanistan was "was captured in Pakistan in early 2002 and sent first to Kanadahar in Afghanistan, then to the USS Bataan and finally to Guantanamo Bay, before he was sent to Egypt for further interrogation."
Malinowski told the Washington Post why he thought al-Libi was not sent with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other "high-value detainees" from CIA prisons to Guantanamo in 2006:
"I would speculate that he was missing because he was such an embarrassment to the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski, the head of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch. "He was Exhibit A in the narrative that tortured confessions contributed to the massive intelligence failure that preceded the Iraq war."
The UK Telegraph article also reveals al-Libi "had been in contact with the legal charity Reprieve."
Clive Stafford Smith from Reprieve, said: "We are told that al Libi committed suicide in his Libyan prison. If this is true it would be because of his torture and abuse, if false, it may reflect a desire to silence one of the greatest embarrassments of the Bush Administration.
"Reprieve has been exploring tentative contacts with al Libi, and his death may have been a result of the pressure to allow him to speak openly about his torture."
There’s much more that can be written and/or asked about the al-Libi situation. Andy Worthington has been following the story, and has an updated post at his blog:
Few in the West will mourn al-Libi’s death in a Libyan prison, although legitimate questions may well be raised about whether he died, as the Libyan authorities stated, by committing suicide, or whether he was, in fact, murdered by Colonel Gaddafi’s regime…. after seven years of torture in Jordan, Egypt and Libya, and in CIA prisons in Afghanistan and Poland, which seems, in the end, to have produced no intelligence of any value whatsoever, I can only wonder what genuinely useful information he might have provided had the FBI, which was initially involved in his questioning, been allowed to continue interrogating him without the use of torture.
Cageprisoners also released a press release Monday questioning the story around al-Libi’s death, and, like HRW, calling for an investigation of the circumstances:
Cageprisoners questions a disturbing report, as yet unconfirmed, that Ali Mohamed Al-Fakheri, otherwise known as Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, committed ‘suicide’ while detained in a Libyan prison. No further details have been revealed although it is known that Al-Libi was extremely ill and suffering from tuberculosis and diabetes and had endured torture in the year that he was detained as part of the ‘High Value Detainee Program.’
Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi had never been charged with a crime by the US and was summarily sentenced to life imprisonment in Libya. Given the well-documented abuse of prisoners in Libya, it is highly probable that his abuse would have continued during his proxy detention.
Cageprisoners demands that the US and Libyan authorities disclose full details of his detention and the circumstances of his suspicious death.
Cageprisoners’ Director and former Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg, said:
“The case of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi – the man whose tortured testimony was used to justify a war that cost the lives of tens of thousands of people and, ironically, indirectly led to the pre-trial detention of thousands more – should serve as a stark reminder of what happens when torture is applied to gain information. President Obama has recently granted immunity to CIA agents who may well have been involved in Al-Libi’s interrogation and torture. If the desire to get at what went wrong is so blatantly covered up under colour of incongruous ‘national security concerns’ there will be no end to this. And once again, the warmongers will get away with another odious and criminal cover-up."
Given the role of the torture and "confession" of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi in the run-up to and U.S. rationale for its invasion of Iraq, al-Libi is not just another "ghost prisoner", good for reporting by human rights blogs and ignored by all but a few of the media. By virtue of how he was used and abused, by the role given to him in the drive to execute the Iraq War — and by how he died — al-Libi is a pivotal figure in modern U.S. history.
I believe the International Committee of the Red Cross should initiate their own investigation into the death of al-Libi, under their mandate to investigate conditions in prisons around the world, and given al-Libi’s status as one of the "high-value" prisoners in CIA prisons, which has been a previous source of ICRC investigation. I don’t trust the U.S. or Libyan authorities to organize or run a fair investigation.
Something about al-Libi’s death, especially after tentative contacts with two human rights agencies, seems very fishy, especially when one considers the mystery of his presence or non-presence at Guantanamo at some time in the past. We need to find out more, not just to render justice regarding Mr. al-Libi, but so we can know our own history, and make accountable those who ill-served this country by executing a lawless policy of kidnapping, torture and murder.
Related posts:
- 04-309: Death from Torture
- Rendition, Coffins, Torture, Guantanamo – The Too Familiar Case of Mohammed Madni
- With His Children Still Missing, KSM’s Torture Continues
- What Did Dick Give Judy to Go Pro-Torture?
- Rock and Rap Stars Join FOIA Request to Reveal How Music was Used in Torture at Guantanamo, Other US Facilities





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Sure hope the ICRC answers your call.
And reading that al-Libi was held on the Bataan reminds me how quickly America has gone from trying torturers to protecting them.
The ONLY reason to torture is to extract precisely the confession being demanded of the victim…in time for the big sales job on the American people.
The US government knows for a fact that confessions that result from torture are not to be taken at face value. Therefore it follows that if leaders in possession of such knowledge opt to torture, they are doing so specifically to obtain false confessions – intentionally – for political reasons.
Is this shit easy to figure out, or what?
All Rovian brainwashing to the contrary, 2+2 still does equal 4.
Why would you immediately assume the Libya government had anything to do with the man’s death?
Note the timeframe:
Why Gaddafi’s Now a Good Guy
“Rice attributed the ending of the U.S.’s long break in diplomatic relations to Gaddafi’s historic decision in 2003 to dismantle weapons of mass destruction and renounce terrorism as well as Libya’s “excellent cooperation in response to common global threats faced by the civilized world since September 11, 2001.”
When the Cheney’s of the world finally consolidate their hold on power, it will become known as the Bataan March For Life.
I don’t know about embarrassment, how about liability. Maybe it’s already been mentioned, but it occurs to me that destruction of torture tapes could have as much to do with covering up a detailed map of the substantive confessions interrogators were after as it might have been to cover up visual evidence of torture.
In light of everything we know today, it might appear shockingly obvious to see tapes of interrogators relentlessly interrogating al qaeda detainees about Iraq instead of about al qaeda and Afghanistan. Depending on how slanted the interrogations were towards Iraq, the tapes could have been extremely damning wrt true motive and intent.
Powell, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfiwitz and the Decider all need to be put in a stress position. Sitting in the docket at the war crimes tribunal at the Hague.
Fourth para of the post:
What was he “charged with” in the first place
Among the questions, does Mr. Cheney’s network still work as efficiently offshore as it used to? Have we a contractor or government’s response to the Cheney lament, “Who will rid me of this priest?”
I can’t help but be reminded of all those palates of cash that disappeared in Iraq. I wonder how much cash Cheney planned for in advance to fight his Long War.
The case of al Libi shows how much we still don’t know about the government’s embrace of torture. Along with other revelations, it suggests not a series of ad hoc decisions but that we had at least a couple of torture and detention bureaucracies, one in the DOD and one at the CIA. Bureaucracies have structures, budgets, personnel, and records (both paper and digital). My question is where is the information on those?
It doesn’t follow.
Spandau prison was in Russia territory, but that didn’t stop the British from murdering Rudolf Hess.
I must disagree (though your heart and passion are in the right place). ONE reason for torture is to produce false confessions.
When insiders in govt or military get together, they have often spoken of the fact that intelligence can be gleaned through torture. Just because Cheney is (partly) correct about this is not a good reason to take the opposite view. The whole argument over the utilitarian function of torture is extremely unfortunate, and plays into the hands of the right-wing. If you tell everyone that torture only produces false intel, and then it’s proven that it doesn’t, and that is the argument upon which your opposition to torture is constructed, then you will have set up a straw man that the Right will blow down. And I say this with the strong belief that in fact the U.S. did seek to get false confessions from Zubaydah, Nashiri, Binyam Mohamed, al-Qahtani, etc.
What is known is that torture produces unreliable intelligence, i.e., it may or may not be true. (This is not the same thing as false intelligence or confessions.) The fact it was tortured makes it suspect. But the good interrogator doesn’t take “rapport” produced intel as immediate good coin either. (That’s why “stovepiped” intel is so suspect.) As I noted in a comment to Spencer’s story today, the whole Padilla bogus “dirty bomb” story was garnered from Soufan’s non-coercive FBI interview.
Torture is about breaking down the will and resistance of another human being (and terrorizing others who know of the torture, if not the entire society). Once you have garnered the requisite “dependence”, one can use the prisoner as a source of intelligence, of producing “false confessions” (as the Stalinists did for their “show trials”), or using for propaganda purposes, to “turn” as agents, or simply to punish as an example to others, etc.
The myth that torture only produces false confessions (and from my interviews of torture victims I know this not to be true) came from the U.S. covering for use of biological weapons during the Korean War, a fact that was “confessed” by a number of airmen and officers held captive by the Chinese, and even verified by an international investigation through the UN. The U.S. had to maintain this story through the decades, and it became the germ of the “brainwashing” meme, and all later assertions re “Chinese torture produces false confessions” stories, even if the origin of this story is now lost in the mists of time.
Much of the argument can be found in a July 2008 article I wrote that’s available online.
Agreed. Practically everything the government has done (executive branch, and especially CIA, DOD, FBI) has been about obfuscating the record, or falsifying, or destroying the evidence. Glenn Greenwald has an article up today on how this continues under the Obama administration. True, they did release some of the most important OLC memos (but not all!), but they also threatened to cut off Britain re intel sharing over the Binyam Mohamed case.
Can you provide a link to the Spencer (Ackerman?) that you are referring to? Is on a different website?
Excellent and thoughtful reply, Jeff.
Brian Ross’ reporting on al-Libi changed very much over the years. He first claimed, in 2005, that al-Libi was waterboarded. Then, in 2007, when the story was being formed that “only 3″ detainees were waterboarded by the US, he had al-Libi in al-Nishri’s spot among the three. Since Ross is usually seen as a CIA mouthpiece, it’s interesting how that story has changed over the years. I have the links for this information in my Oxdown.
Here’s today Dept of State briefing re: Libya and al-Fakheri – stonewalling and no info, but one good persistent reporter, with Press Rep Kelly equivocating on whether US policy is to follow UN standards on ‘well founded fears….’ Anyone know who the reporter was?:
QUESTION: Is the U.S. Embassy in Libya asking the Libyans about the death of its former Guantanamo prisoner —
QUESTION: Al Libi.
QUESTION: — Sheikh al-Libi, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi?
MR. KELLY: I do have something for you on that, and unfortunately it’s not a whole lot.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. KELLY: I have to refer you to the Government of Libya for any details regarding the matter. We’re looking into the situation, but we’re not in any kind of position right now to comment or report on it.
QUESTION: Have the Libyans talked to you at all about this?
MR. KELLY: Like I say, I really have to refer you to the Government of Libya. Of course, we have an embassy there and we have – we, of course, have constant consultations with them. But I’m just not aware if we’ve specifically addressed this issue.
QUESTION: But can you at least confirm that al-Libi was detained at Guantanamo at some time?
MR. KELLY: As I said before, we’re looking into the situation, and regarding any detention at Guantanamo, I have to refer you to the Pentagon.
QUESTION: This may raise the broader issue, now that President Obama is closing Guantanamo, the risk of sending former Guantanamo inmates to, say, prisons in the world where human rights may not be guaranteed. Have you been – has the State Department been in talks with countries, say any Arab countries or any other countries beyond Europe?
MR. KELLY: Well, you know, we have a process in place, and the first step in this process leading to the closure of Guantanamo is a review of all the cases. And this review is being taken – is taking place at the lead of the Department of Justice. The Department of State is a player in this interagency process. As a general rule, we would not send prisoners to any country where we would have a well-founded fear that these detainees or prisoners could suffer some kind of abuse.
QUESTION: Where we or they would have a well-founded fear?
MR. KELLY: Where the U.S. Government, based on the evidence, had a well-founded fear that –
QUESTION: What about the detainee, himself or herself? That’s the – I mean —
MR. KELLY: The detainee personally?
QUESTION: — the standard of the – you know, the UN standard is that they have a well-founded fear, not – anyway, is it both, or is it just the U.S. Government?
MR. KELLY: Well, it’s the U.S. Government. And I think you’re right, Matt. I think it is – I think the UN standard is if they have a well-founded fear as well.
the point I made from the article is the fact that every single agency kept telling cheney/rumsfeld that there was no link between al-qaeda and Iraq, they had absolutely no evidence anywhere otherwise
yet cheney insisted they “get that evidence” anyway and cheney endorsed torture
this is without a doubt saying, “torture them if that’s what it takes to create the evidence we want”
I’ll hunt down the quotes
from the mcclatchy piece
yet both the cia AND the fbt KNEW there was NO link, EVERYONE knew there was no link, therefore they HAD to torture if they were to falsify a link they knew did not exist
this HAD to be called down from the top SINCE everyone in BOTH of these agencies knew with no doubt THERE WAS NO LINK
that’s the elephant in the room, these agencies were tasked with gathering information the agencies themselves knew did not exist, this is the ONLY reason you have policies of torture, to gather FALSE information
the mcckatchy article goes on;
Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn’t any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies.”Senior administration officials, however, “blew that off and kept insisting that we’d overlooked something, that the interrogators weren’t pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information,” he said.
see that?
EVERYONE told them there was no link, they did not care, if it took torture to create false evidence then torture it would be
cheney instituted his house of pain for one reason, to create information he knew with no doubt was false
he’s famous for doing just that, he and rumsfeld created false data to undermine nixon’s detante, he and rumsfeld renew their shaddow government under reagan/ford and now as vice president
Great piece, Jeff.
I’d reviewed a number of articles last night that I’d read before about al-Libi and one from Douglas Jehl, Nov 6, 2005 in the NY Times speculated that he was in Guantanamo at that time.
My initial timeline for him is here. I must say, I’m not convinced he was returned to the Americans until after 2003.
If I read the Washington Post story today correctly, HRW didn’t know Al Libi was in that Libyan jail, until they spotted him during a visit to see prisoners there in general on April 27. At which point they spoke to him.
Then, two weeks or so later, he committed “suicide”.
Coincidence?
So, when Izzy Stone wrote about our using germ warfare in Korea, he wasn’t just spouting Communist propaganda, he was telling the truth?
Well, I’ll be — live and learn.
On this topic, a comment currently on the front page at TPM seems relevant:
I think that’s it exactly. Al-Libi was used to establish an al-Qaeda/Iraq connection. No wonder he’s now dead.
Precisely, which was my earlier point, that they ONLY wanted prisoners to lie under threat of imminent death. The interrogators were being threatened by Cheney and Rumsfeld to force one of these bastards read the script – or else! They were on a time deadline.
Cheney knew damn well that there was no further threat of terror on US soil at that time, since it was all internally orchestrated by his Shadow Government to begin with. There was only ONE reason to torture in this instance, and it was to extract precisely the fake confession that they subsequently ran with.
This also serves to explain the only logical reason I can think of why they would actually video tape their own illegal torture activities. They needed to get any coerced fake confession on tape to document it.
Is this shit obvious, or what? The gig is up.
Where’s the records? The budgets? the paper trail? Well, I know EW has been following that issue in relation to the Appropriations committee in a number of recent posts. That would be a good place to start looking, as they hid much of this stuff there, as Marcy explains.
The comment to Spencer’s article I mentioned is here.
Bush was cloaked in plausible deniability. He ran the ceremonial government.
Cheney ensured that Bush be kept out of the decision chain, while running the Shadow Government (actual operational entity).
Anyone who has yet to comprehend that the Shadow Government is the ACTUAL government ought to google it and start reading.
Obama took Bush’s seat in the Ceremonial Government. Rahm assumed Cheney’s position on behalf of the Shadow Government (CFR / Rockefeller, Inc.).
Thanks for this update. State sounds pretty defensive. The non-comment on Guantanamo and any al-Libi stay is itself pretty interesting.
Yes, that’s my reading. Compare that to the story from Reprieve, who apparently did know, and were making “tentative contacts.”
The whole Korean War/biological weapons issue is still, over 50 years later, one of great controversy. I think the immaculately documented monograph by Canadian historians Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman, The U.S. & Biological Warfare: Secrets From Early Cold War and Korean War, Univ. of Indiana Press, is the best source of info for this story. The case is still mostly circumstantial, but strongly so. Endicott has also answered the charges re the release of Stalin-era documents refuting his thesis in an online essay.
“It’s drowning,” Ventura responded. “It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you — I’ll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.”
BINGO
they KNEW there was no association and they told that to cheney, he said;
SO?
Jeff,
Not to in any way detract from your excellent article (it doesn’t), but I don’t see how the Telegraph can be reporting that he was captured in Al Khaldan in February of 2002. I have it in my notes, and will now go find out where I got it, that NBC News reported him in captivity on January 4, 2002. There was no Guantanamo prison when he was captured, so if he went there, it was either somewhere other than the detention camp, or it was later.
Here is where I cited NBC News last year. I will look and find out where I got that. Note that even January 4th, which was not, as I recall, a date of capture but after it, was well before President Bush signed orders “exempting” anyone from the Geneva Conventions. So he is embarrassing and possibly damning on two counts: that his forced concoctions were used as a case for war, and — and this may be more prosecutable — that his case proves that the various memoes were after the fact, and not well reasoned legal opinions.
Also, not to nitpick again, but if the ICRC does an investigation, we won’t hear the results. They will be reported simultaneously to various levels of the governments involved, in strict confidence, right?
Here is one online version of the January 4, 2002 NBC News transcript.
Here is the NYTimes piece.
My mistake, there was a prison at Guantanamo that the U.S. brought inmates to in the Bush administration starting October 7, 2001.
Sorry to be dribbling my thought processes all over your comments, but I have the reasoning back that I used in the blog piece last year: The NBC piece is January 4th 2002, and cites 273 prisoners captured so far. These have to be “foreign fighters”, that is, not Afghan and not Pakistani, and they have to have been captured before January 2nd, since Al Ahram Weekly reports the previous week that there have been 3000 Pakistanis in custody and 275 non-Afghans, of which 10 are killed in a prison incident in Pakistan, and who are held at Kohat and that they are being interrogated by FBI and CIA, and that some have already been disappeared, er, “shifted to unknown destinations.”
Apparently he was driving a car with a bumper sticker that read: Allah is my co-pilot.
Eh.
I’m not certain what the base was always used for, but didn’t they set it up as a holding area for Haitian boat people or Cuban boat people or something like that? Pretty convenient that they had that and then the ‘prison’ was in place. Oh well, coincidences *do* happen. Not absolutely everything is part of a conspiracy.