Whatever the case with al-Libi--whether he committed suicide or not--a dead man must necessarily leave a corpse, some definite piece of physical evidence for the world to examine, particularly useful in cases like these. So we might ask whether anyone besides a prison guard has seen this man's body, perhaps someone close to him - like a family member?
The Libyan government did, in fact, report that his body has been delivered to his family and buried afterward, so does this family have a story? Did they actually receive a body? Did they examine it? Could they identify it? Did they personally lower it into the ground? The correspondents at the Associated Press tried contacting the family, according to the May 12th press release. However, the family "couldn't be reached for comment." Should we take both the AP and the Libyan government at their word?
3. A Murder Without Motive?
Most of these clues point to something other than suicide here, and so if we assume a murder has been committed then we must also address the issue of motive.
According to what we have now read, the U.S. "officially" suspects that the Libyan government may have been responsible for al-Libi's death, a subtle implication that perhaps he was abused, tortured, killed, then officially "suicided" to cover up the incident. This is plausible considering the environment. In reference to motive, then, this would most likely fall underneath the umbrella of "hidden" or "accidental" motive to murder--in other words, probably not pre-meditated--as the detention of al-Libi as a "high-value detainee" has always been undertaken under the direction of the U.S. government.
A stronger motive, it would seem, could lie with the Libyans determination to cover up an accidental murder, which is a plausible motive, especially if they believed that al-Libi had value to the Americans, and taking into account his scheduled appearance in an upcoming trial. Although here we find – again – that neither of these reasons addresses the nagging coincidence: that his strange and sudden appearance happened only weeks before his death.
This is a "coincidence" that, perhaps, American officials would have the power to orchestrate, but then why? Did the Americans really have a motive to dispose of this detainee, this witness that might help further the cause of justice? And what might that motive be?
Turning back to his role as the "prime potential witness" for a moment, let’s remember that it was al-Libi's publicly-recanted "intelligence" that has since been used to undercut the Bush administration's entire argument for war; a war which has translated into trillions of dollars spent, numerous villages destroyed, a government forcefully overturned, over a million Iraqis now dead, an empire in expansionist mode, and a whole world suspicious of American motivations. Although it may be true that statements attributed to al-Libi have been details in the selling of this story, the statements he made were years ago. And so we ask, would this man now serve as a legitimate threat to anyone?
I address this question with another question of my own: is there any momentum at all from either inside the current administration, inside the Democrat-controlled Congress or the corporate press - any at all -to investigate the Bush administration? In fact, it could be argued that the most accurate description of Washington is one of 'willful indifference' to the rule of law. And so we conclude that it matters not one bit as to whether al-Libi should somehow re-issue previous statements of torture abuses, of intelligence manufacturing, or even offer anything new. Because enough of this information is already available. Because it is already criminally damning. And because still nothing has been done.
If this be a murder, it seems like murder without motive.
4. Did Human Rights Watch Even Visit al-Libi?
The more we look at the evidence, the more strongly we conclude that Human Rights Watch is probably the linchpin of the entire case, at least how their statements are now being used. Because without Human Rights Watch, we have no body, no prisoner, and really no death. With their testimony, they have revived a man lost to the world, even given him a cough, a jail cell, a location, an angry scowl referencing years of abuse. Is it a coincidence that we read of their visitation testimony only now, only after this "prime potential witness" was soon to be called forward from his prison cell and shown to the world?
As Andy Worthington already pointed out in the posted article above, it seems "highly unlikely" that Human Rights Watch ever visited al-Libi in the weeks before his death. Let us note this suspicion. But we don't need Worthington's suspicions to point out that, in truth, the whole story hinges upon this supposed meeting. The question for us remains whether Human Rights Watch is a trustworthy source. And what would their motive be for acting otherwise?
5. Details, Details Details: A Huge Waste of Time?
Allow me to suggest here that, truly, any detailed focus upon the "whos" and "whats" and "whys" of this case, although entertaining from an analytical point-of-view, is probably a huge waste of time. I'm almost sorry that I invited you along.
From reviewing the details with any perspective, humility, and honesty, we are forced to then conclude that, not only does the case offer a beguiling plethora of unsubstantiated details and twisted logic, it forces us to throw our hands up and conclude that whatever happened in that Libyan jail cell will never be known.
The Libyan government did, in fact, report that his body has been delivered to his family and buried afterward, so does this family have a story? Did they actually receive a body? Did they examine it? Could they identify it? Did they personally lower it into the ground? The correspondents at the Associated Press tried contacting the family, according to the May 12th press release. However, the family "couldn't be reached for comment." Should we take both the AP and the Libyan government at their word?
3. A Murder Without Motive?
Most of these clues point to something other than suicide here, and so if we assume a murder has been committed then we must also address the issue of motive.
A stronger motive, it would seem, could lie with the Libyans determination to cover up an accidental murder, which is a plausible motive, especially if they believed that al-Libi had value to the Americans, and taking into account his scheduled appearance in an upcoming trial. Although here we find – again – that neither of these reasons addresses the nagging coincidence: that his strange and sudden appearance happened only weeks before his death.
This is a "coincidence" that, perhaps, American officials would have the power to orchestrate, but then why? Did the Americans really have a motive to dispose of this detainee, this witness that might help further the cause of justice? And what might that motive be?
Turning back to his role as the "prime potential witness" for a moment, let’s remember that it was al-Libi's publicly-recanted "intelligence" that has since been used to undercut the Bush administration's entire argument for war; a war which has translated into trillions of dollars spent, numerous villages destroyed, a government forcefully overturned, over a million Iraqis now dead, an empire in expansionist mode, and a whole world suspicious of American motivations. Although it may be true that statements attributed to al-Libi have been details in the selling of this story, the statements he made were years ago. And so we ask, would this man now serve as a legitimate threat to anyone?
I address this question with another question of my own: is there any momentum at all from either inside the current administration, inside the Democrat-controlled Congress or the corporate press - any at all -to investigate the Bush administration? In fact, it could be argued that the most accurate description of Washington is one of 'willful indifference' to the rule of law. And so we conclude that it matters not one bit as to whether al-Libi should somehow re-issue previous statements of torture abuses, of intelligence manufacturing, or even offer anything new. Because enough of this information is already available. Because it is already criminally damning. And because still nothing has been done.
If this be a murder, it seems like murder without motive.
4. Did Human Rights Watch Even Visit al-Libi?
The more we look at the evidence, the more strongly we conclude that Human Rights Watch is probably the linchpin of the entire case, at least how their statements are now being used. Because without Human Rights Watch, we have no body, no prisoner, and really no death. With their testimony, they have revived a man lost to the world, even given him a cough, a jail cell, a location, an angry scowl referencing years of abuse. Is it a coincidence that we read of their visitation testimony only now, only after this "prime potential witness" was soon to be called forward from his prison cell and shown to the world?
As Andy Worthington already pointed out in the posted article above, it seems "highly unlikely" that Human Rights Watch ever visited al-Libi in the weeks before his death. Let us note this suspicion. But we don't need Worthington's suspicions to point out that, in truth, the whole story hinges upon this supposed meeting. The question for us remains whether Human Rights Watch is a trustworthy source. And what would their motive be for acting otherwise?
5. Details, Details Details: A Huge Waste of Time?
Allow me to suggest here that, truly, any detailed focus upon the "whos" and "whats" and "whys" of this case, although entertaining from an analytical point-of-view, is probably a huge waste of time. I'm almost sorry that I invited you along.
From reviewing the details with any perspective, humility, and honesty, we are forced to then conclude that, not only does the case offer a beguiling plethora of unsubstantiated details and twisted logic, it forces us to throw our hands up and conclude that whatever happened in that Libyan jail cell will never be known.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
