The USS Cole plotter’s unbelievable story

This article was originally published at The Weekly Standard under the title Going Fishing?

On Wednesday, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post reported a bit of old news that was dressed up as something new. Susan Crawford, the convening authority of military commissions, said that Mohammed al Qahtani (the would-be 20th hijacker on September 11) was tortured while in U.S. custody and that is why she did not move forward with his trial at Guantanamo. The story of Qahtani’s interrogation has long been known, but that did not stop Woodward’s article from making a splash.

Human rights groups and critics of Guantanamo quickly trumpeted Crawford’s “admission.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took it a step further, claiming in a press release that the charges against another Guantanamo detainee, Abd al Rahim Hussain Mohammed al Nashiri, should be dropped. The ACLU and Nashiri’s lawyers argue that because Nashiri was waterboarded, he too should not be tried at Guantanamo.

One need not agree with the way Nashiri (or Qahtani, for that matter) was treated to see that the ACLU’s argument is without merit. Nashiri is a notorious al Qaeda terrorist, responsible for orchestrating the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 American servicemen, as well as other attacks. It was not surprising that the ACLU would come to Nashiri’s defense. His story has been continuously misreported.

In 2007, the Department of Defense released a transcript of Nashiri’s hearing at Guantanamo. And the media quickly latched onto Nashiri’s allegation that he “confessed under torture” to the Cole bombing and other terrorist acts. Nashiri claimed that he was not a

member of al Qaeda and that his admissions were all either coerced or a misunderstanding.

But if you take a look at Nashiri’s own testimony, it becomes readily apparent that his denials are not credible. Moreover, Nashiri freely made a number of important admissions while attempting to rebut the serious charges against him. It is hard to believe that a good prosecutor could not move forward on the basis of those admissions.

Consider Nashiri’s exchange with a member of his tribunal concerning his ties to Osama bin Laden.

Board Member: How many times did you meet Osama bin Laden and did you take money from him every time?

Nashiri: Many times. I don’t remember what year I met Osama bin Laden. What year, I don’t remember. I don’t remember what year. Maybe 96 or 95. And during that time whenever [I] went to Afghanistan I just stop by and visited him. And if I needed money I would just ask him and he would give money to me.

Nashiri claimed that he took bin Laden’s money for “personal expenses,” including getting married. Nashiri admitted that he met with bin Laden in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks:

Board Member: So you were with [Osama bin Laden] in Afghanistan in late 2001 and into 2002?

Nashiri: I don’t remember exact date. But I remember when the war started. When you went into Afghanistan, when you interfered in Afghanistan. I was in Kabul during that time. And I saw Osama bin Laden during that time.

I rented house and I was sitting there. I met him there like you meet other people. On that day that’s when he told me that he told we could use the ship. They were planning to use for a fishing project and use it in a military incident. After that I never saw him again. I have no idea where he is.

The U.S. government believes that the “ship” Nashiri and bin Laden discussed was being prepared for a post-9/11 attack. Nashiri claimed, implausibly, that bin Laden mentioned using the ship for “military” purposes, but Nashiri was only interested in using it for his “fishing” business.

Nashiri took that story to absurd lengths. He was asked about his dealings with the al Qaeda terrorists who bombed the Limburg, a French oil tanker, in the Gulf of Aden in 2002. Nashiri said: “I help them go to Yemen but in reality I did not know what they planning to do.” Nashiri claimed that he met with them “one to two days before” they left Pakistan for Yemen, but he only learned the details of the attack afterwards.

Nashiri tried the same story when it came time to explain away his involvement with the USS Cole bombers. Nashiri said that he “got to know the people who were involved in the explosion [attack on USS Cole].” He added: “We were also, we were planning to be involved in a fishing project.”

The board at Guantanamo asked Nashiri to elaborate on his dealings with the Cole bombers. He did:

“When I knew that two people were going to Yemen to be involved in a fishing project. And, I took about five or ten thousand dollars from Osama bin Laden. He used to help all people. He used to help people get married and so forth. So I just I get help from him too. So I went to Yemen to get involved with those people [note: the Cole bombers] but during the investigation that’s not what was explained. In the investigation they think that I took the money to be involved in a military incident.”

That is, Nashiri claimed that his interrogators thought he went to Yemen with the Cole bombers to, well, blow up the USS Cole. He says his confession in that regard was coerced. Nashiri claims his trip was related to his fishing business and the money he took from bin Laden prior to the trip was to be used for other purposes.

And what about the explosives used in the attack on the Cole? Nashiri conceded that during his interrogation he admitted to arranging for the purchase of the explosives: “I told them [Nashiri’s interrogators] that I took some money then I gave it to somebody to buy, to buy explosives. That’s, this, this thing news in general is true.” But he tried to explain away that confession by claiming the explosives were going to be used to dig wells. “In Yemen they use that to dig wells. So buying explosives is a common thing. That’s in general what happen.”

Now, this must have sounded ludicrous to the members of the board that presided over Nashiri’s tribunal hearing at Guantanamo. And, in fact, one of them wanted to make sure he (or she) had Nashiri’s story down:

Board Member: So, you took money from Osama bin Laden in order to get married? To get married and because he was being generous to you?

Nashiri: Yes. I took a lot of money from him.

Board Member: And, you gave explosives to friends but that was to dig wells?

Nashiri: Yes. But during the investigation [note: his interrogation] I told them those things were used to bomb, to bomb the COLE.

Board Member: And, [your] involvement with the people, who did bomb the COLE or involved in the Limburg, was because of your fishing business and not because of the bombing?

Nashiri: Yes. It was business relationship, like fishing projects.

Nashiri’s not-so creative testimony did not stop there. Nashiri was asked about his relationship with Walid bin ‘Attash, who assisted al Qaeda in the August 1998 embassy bombings and is accused of helping to select and train some of the 9/11 hijackers. Nashiri said: “I met him [in] Afghanistan. He the regular guy who was Jihadist. He was with Osama bin Laden.”

Similarly, the board at Guantanamo asked Nashiri about his relationship with Mohammad Rashid Daoud Al Owhali, who confessed and was then convicted in a New York court for his role in the embassy bombings. Al Owhali fingered Nashiri as the al Qaeda leader who helped him acquire a fraudulent Yemeni passport. Nashiri explained: “I may have met him accidentally. But I have no relation with this individual.” Nashiri then casually admitted: “Even my cousin, he was also involved in those bombings.” Indeed, Nashiri’s cousin was one of the suicide bombers who attacked the U.S. embassy in Kenya. Again, Nashiri’s tribunal thought this was all quite amazing. One board member asked: “How do you explain how you have so many relationships with business associates in Yemen, Dubai, and Saudi Arabia, who have been involved in some form of terrorism?”

Nashiri responded (emphasis added):

It’s a common thing. We are young men. I travel a lot. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya. I used to go to the battle fields. And witness how the fights were taking place. And I met so many people. And many incidents were related to those people. But that doesn’t mean that I was involved with them.

Of course not.

The ACLU has every right to question the efficacy and necessity of techniques used on terrorists such as Nashiri. But that does not mean that anyone should believe his testimony, or his allegation that waterboarding forced him to falsely confess.

Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for FDD's Long War Journal.

Tags: Yemen