We are being spoon-fed stupid again...

Lovelynice

wet at present
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Posts
5,696
Link to the article;
We are being spoon-fed stupid again...

Can someone explain to me how 5 suspected members of Al Qaeda (although there is no question regarding KSM) suddenly got their own PR machine from inside Gitmo and at the hands of a military judge, not to mention getting a world stage through which to frighten Americans some more? And the media? Well, they are too well versed is stupid to ask any sensible questions:
"Five Guantanamo prisoners accused in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the U.S. staunchly defended their actions, calling the operation "blessed" and "great" and the accusations against them "badges of honor."

"You are the last nation that has the right to speak about civilians and killing civilians," the five said in a response this month to the U.S. government's war crimes charges.

"You are professional criminals, with all the meaning the words carry," the response said. "Therefore, we will treat you the same. We will attack you, just like you have attacked us, and whomever initiated the attacks is the guilty party."

The six-page response from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who plotted the attacks, and four others castigates the actions of the United States and its allies in the Middle East and calls the United States "the terrorist country number one in the world."'

Okay, now someone explain the following to me:

1. How did 5 alleged Al Qaeda members come together to form this statement, given that they are being held each in isolation at Gitmo? Are they allowed to meet and discuss various topics, including their alleged joy at bombing the United States? Somehow I don't think so. We know that some of their own attorneys were not even aware of this filing or what it said. So was this done telepathically?

2. And how is it that this filing was accepted by the court when some of the attorneys for the 5 men were not even aware that such a thing was going to be filed? Take a gander:

"The ACLU is angry that a military judge has accepted an incendiary legal pleading filed by five 9/11 suspects, despite President Obama's order stopping the Guantanamo military commissions and even though attorneys for some of the defendants were unaware of it."

Now stay with me here. 5 alleged Al Qaeda members issue a statement of guilt, an incendiary statement rejoicing at the lost American lives of those attacks 7 years back, through a filing with the court. This filing is accepted by the court despite some of the attorneys not being made aware that this was going to be filed or what was going to be declared on behalf of their clients. Moreover, defying President Obama's ruling putting a halt on all Gitmo military commissions, the judge on the case not only accepted this filing, but also released it to the public.

Does anyone else find this just all a bit too well timed, not to mention idiotic? Seriously, what purpose could this serve in helping the American cause or in keeping the nation safe?

I think we are witnessing the military industrial complex defying the President of the United States and using the attacks of 9/11 to upset the public and gain support for their own objectives. That is the nut graph people. The media has spent all day rehashing this, calling in military experts to decipher the minds of the accused without ONCE asking the two obvious question: how and why?

-How did these 5 men discuss and approve this statement if some of them and their attorneys were not even aware of it?

-Why did the court happen to accept this filing given the above issue?

-Why did the court decide to release this to the public, despite years of secrecy on everything else, including denying access to something as basic as current photographs of the accused?

-Why is this being released now?

-How does it benefit anyone to release this this to the public? (it only benefits one group of people)

Yes, that's right, the military and its defense contractors - that terribly incestuous pool of corruption - are playing scare the foolish American people again, in public, and for the world to see in order to frighten us to bend to their will.

Their only problem, per the usual, is that they are too swathed in stupid to actually pull it off- even with such a compliant fourth estate. Some of us actually still rely on reason and logic, common sense even.

Consider what the MSM did report, however:
Gitmo prisoners defend 'blessed' 9/11 attack
Guantanamo detainees admit to 9/11 plot
9/11 detainees accept responsibility for attacks


Now, put aside your belief on what you think happened with these men, what they did or did not do. I am not debating that here. The secrecy and corruption of law are what I am talking about. So please don't bombard me with emails that I am some sort of "gatekeeper" for the New World Order. It is funny, yes, but annoying.

So, as to the secrecy and corruption of justice and law, let us consider something called the Bush-Cheney war on terror. We were told for 7 long years that all of this secrecy was needed to stop any future attacks (right... maybe the secret bailout winners are all protecting us from another Wall Street meltdown).

In their so-called aim at keeping America safe, the Bush administration ended up holding no one to account formally - only in secret and in doing so, actually endangered national security. How very clever of them? No, not hardly.

Since when has the public accepted secret rulings, in secret courts, based on tortured confessions, of people held illegally by the US and on foreign soil without a shred of evidence being presented to the public? How does that keep us safe? Moreover, how has torturing and detaining these people for years and then quietly releasing them keep us safe? Nope, not clever either. But I have given up trying to understand the motives of the insane and corrupt.

But I digress, as I often do.

We have detained these men for years, refusing to release even a picture of them to the public claiming that national security reasons override the rule of law and then as if by magic and as President Obama moves to cut off the military industrial feeding troth, suddenly all 5 detainees admit their guilt. Wait, and the kicker is not only do the 5 admit their guilt, but they sing it with joy, despite some of them and their attorneys not even being aware that this filing was being introduced. The military court, apparently no longer concerned about national security and in violation of an order given by their Commander to halt all such proceedings, accepted the filing and set it free for the public to consume. Secrecy games are political and this is politics, make no mistake about that.

Now I am not saying these 5 were not involved in 9/11. In fact, the most damning evidence - the little of it we have been given - implicates KSM. But again, I am not discussing the who and what of 9/11 here. I am addressing this level of crazy that we now call law and order. Since when can someone admit guilt through the filing of someone who is not their own attorney and without being made aware that such an admission was being filed on their behalf?

And how does it help the American cause by having justice delivered in secret?. Moreover, playing politics with something as tragic as 9/11 by pulling stunts like these serves only to further illustrate the level of corruption that justice - be it military courts or the DOJ - has been subjected to in this long 8-year winter of the Bush-Cheney cabal.

I don't believe this crap from the USA government either.
 
When you completely lose your mind, how does it feel? Is it like being on a never ending bad acid trip?

Tell me, do you actually believe that crap? The article makes some good points.

1. How did 5 alleged Al Qaeda members come together to form this statement, given that they are being held each in isolation at Gitmo? Are they allowed to meet and discuss various topics, including their alleged joy at bombing the United States? Somehow I don't think so. We know that some of their own attorneys were not even aware of this filing or what it said. So was this done telepathically?

2. And how is it that this filing was accepted by the court when some of the attorneys for the 5 men were not even aware that such a thing was going to be filed?

Since when can someone admit guilt through the filing of someone who is not their own attorney and without being made aware that such an admission was being filed on their behalf?

And how does it help the American cause by having justice delivered in secret?



.
 
Tell me, do you actually believe that crap? The article makes some good points.

1. How did 5 alleged Al Qaeda members come together to form this statement, given that they are being held each in isolation at Gitmo? Are they allowed to meet and discuss various topics, including their alleged joy at bombing the United States? Somehow I don't think so. We know that some of their own attorneys were not even aware of this filing or what it said. So was this done telepathically?

2. And how is it that this filing was accepted by the court when some of the attorneys for the 5 men were not even aware that such a thing was going to be filed?




.


None of that matters. You're insane on so many levels.
 
Tell me, do you actually believe that crap? The article makes some good points.

1. How did 5 alleged Al Qaeda members come together to form this statement, given that they are being held each in isolation at Gitmo? Are they allowed to meet and discuss various topics, including their alleged joy at bombing the United States? Somehow I don't think so. We know that some of their own attorneys were not even aware of this filing or what it said. So was this done telepathically?

2. And how is it that this filing was accepted by the court when some of the attorneys for the 5 men were not even aware that such a thing was going to be filed?

Since when can someone admit guilt through the filing of someone who is not their own attorney and without being made aware that such an admission was being filed on their behalf?

And how does it help the American cause by having justice delivered in secret?



.

The military commission set up to hear the men's cases at the Guantanamo Bay inmate facility received the signed document Thursday, and a military judge ordered its release on Monday.

The five are members of the al Qaeda terror network. Mohammed, who has taken credit for planning the attack, and the four other prisoners call themselves members of the 9/11 Shura Council.

Where does it say they were isolated? Not in the CNN article that this all comes from.
Anyone can file anything in a court. Anyone.

You're an idiot.
 
The military commission set up to hear the men's cases at the Guantanamo Bay inmate facility received the signed document ...

Yes, and it's meaningless.

How did the men sign the document and collude about it when they are each held in isolation?

"signed confessions" are generally not worth the paper they're written on.

Can all of those men actually read English?
Mohammed, who has taken credit for planning the attack, and the four other prisoners call themselves members of the 9/11 Shura Council..

Yes, he also took credit for lots of things that he couldn't have done. Torture does that to people.

That's why it's worthless

I believe he also confessed to shooting Abraham Lincoln, blowing up the Hindenburg, masterminding the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, the 1898 sinking of the Maine and being Lee Harvey Oswald’s handler in the JFK assassination. He has also marked down the precise locations of the reptilian alien bases on the dark side of the moon. :rolleyes:

.His confessions gained after being TORTURED are hilarious NONSENSE

Try again, dear. Statements gained after torture mean FUCK ALL. :rolleyes:

Torture does not make valid evidence or valid witnesses,

The victim will just say lots of garbage to support anything that the torturers seem to be happy to hear - and any other nonsense that makes it stop. Truth isn't gained by torture. It serves no purpose other than revenge and sadism.

Didn't the CIA also kidnap his two sons and keep them for four months as well?

Wonderful government that you're supporting there, one which kidnaps kids and tortures people....
CIA 'disappeared' seven-year-old children
:rolleyes:



.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and it's meaningless.

How did the men sign the document and collude about it when they are each held in isolation?

"signed confessions" are generally not worth the paper they're written on.

Can all of those men actually read English?


.

Again, who says they were in isolation? Only that article you posted that is itself an answer to a CNN article that does not say they were. Just because someone says they were doesn't make it true. Show me something that says they were in isolation. I bet you won't.
English is taught in every country in the world and if these men really are terrorists who plot against the US then it would only make sense they speak it.
Your argument isn't about whether the confession will hold up or not. That is moot.
 
English is taught in every country in the world ....

So, with all that, you still can't show that those men could read English.

French is taught in every country too, but I can't read French.

Please show evidence that those men could READ English.

if these men really are terrorists who plot against the US then it would only make sense they speak it.

"IF" is part of the problem, They were tortured, they'd admit to whatever the torturers want them to say. Doesn't make it true.

Not everyone who speaks a language can also read it. You haven't yet shown that they can read English.



.
 
Last edited:
So, with all that, you still can't show that those men could read English.

French is taught in every country too, but I can't read French.

Please show evidence that those men could READ English.


.

Where does it say it was written in English? It doesn't have to be.
 
Where does it say that it's not in English?

Your argument doesn't hold up.




.

I'm not making an argument, you are. You claim things that are not stated in either article. There is no mention of isolation in the CNN article that this is based on and no mention of what language it was written in. It's your argument not mine.
You make assumptions based on nothing at all.
 
I'm not making an argument, you are. You claim things that are not stated in either article. There is no mention of isolation in the CNN article that this is based on and no mention of what language it was written in. It's your argument not mine.
You make assumptions based on nothing at all.

Actually, you make assumptions based on nothing at all.

It's long been reported that these men are held in isolation.

It's normal for English to be used in legal documents in the USA so the judge can read them

The men were tortured for YEARS, so the confessions are utterly worthless. Torture is condemned not just because it is morally repugnant, but also because the confessions it produces are unreliable.


Great country you have there
US Makes Canadian Torture List
-The US, along with China, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and Israel, is listed in an official Canadian foreign ministry document of countries where prisoners are at risk of torture, the BBC reports.




.
 
Last edited:
The men were tortured for YEARS, so the confessions are utterly worthless. Torture is condemned not just because it is morally repugnant, but also because the confessions it produces are unreliable.




.

I believed this for 42 of my 43 years myself, but I have since found out that it's not true. Information gained from well-performed torture (pardon the morally repugnant concept) has actually been shown to be quite reliable.
 
I believed this for 42 of my 43 years myself, but I have since found out that it's not true. Information gained from well-performed torture (pardon the morally repugnant concept) has actually been shown to be quite reliable.

Highly debateable:

-However, historical examples suggest that the use of torture should be prohibited during interrogations, not just because it is morally reprehensible, but because, as historical precedents show, it does not produce reliable intelligence.

-Recently declassified British Security Service (MI5) records reveal that, during the Second World War, MI5 ran a highly successful top-secret interrogation facility in Britain.

-MI5's wartime interrogation facility was operated on the strict rules that torture would not produce reliable intelligence even though Britain was at risk of invasion by Nazi Germany.

-The experience of France in Algeria shows that even where torture does produce useful intelligence, it is counter-productive in the battle to win the 'hearts and minds' of the civilian population.

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-78.html
 
I believed this for 42 of my 43 years myself, but I have since found out that it's not true. Information gained from well-performed torture (pardon the morally repugnant concept) has actually been shown to be quite reliable.

I disagree, and I already know that torture is unreliable.

You can compel someone to say anything at all, if you torture them enough. You can compel someone to admit to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby, if you hurt them badly enough.

Torture designed to wring confessions out of people is part of a sham trial process. The victim will, eventually, say anything to stop the pain. The truthfulness of the confession is irrelevant, and everyone knows that. All that matters is that the confession is made.

Ever heard of Maher Arar?

He was seized at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport in September 2002 as he was traveling back to his home in Canada. He was then sent to Syria under the CIA's program of "extraordinary rendition" and, by his account, whipped repeatedly on the hands with two-inch-thick electrical cables.
"Although he initially tried to assert his innocence, he eventually confessed to anything his tormentors wanted him to say," wrote Mayer. She quoted Arar as explaining his false confession this way: "You just give up. You become like an animal." The Syrians eventually concluded that Arar was innocent. He was released without charges.

Ever seen the movie or read the book "In the name of the Father"?
It demonstrates a lot about the unreliability of torture, and particularly that of confessions gained through torture.

You can get people to agree that they'd do any bad thing at all, say, torturing a three year old child to death, if you can stipulate that something much much worse will happen if they don't do it.

Imagine (against all logic and rationality) that the USA government is convinced that you have vital information and getting it from you could save lots of lives.

You've made all the disclaimers you can, you know nothing! Nothing! But they don't believe you and their patience is getting thinner and thinner. Imagine that your torturers have been told to get results by any means necessary. How long do you think that you can resist before finally admitting to whatever nonsense that they want you to say?

What, precisely do you want them to be able to do to you?





.
 
Last edited:
If you think isolated prisoners can't communicate with each other, you are suffering from a severe lack of imagination.
 
Turd and LN, you're referring to outdated methods, and LN, you cite one particular case. I know you're a better debater than that.

Truth is, actionable intel has been obtained recently by use of coercive methods.
 
Back
Top