Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Cheney authorised the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

19 December 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

The confession by Cheney that the criminal case against KSM is built on evidence acquired through torture gives us some of the best evidence so far in support of the 9/11 Truth Movement's claim that a new investigation of 9/11 is urgently needed.

Dick Cheney has admitted in an ABC television interview that he personally authorised the water-boarding of the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM).

This is surely prima facie evidence for criminal charges. As noted in a recent Raw Story piece, after World War II Japanese soldiers were tried and convicted of war crimes in US courts for water-boarding.

Wikipedia defines water-boarding as:

a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent.

In 1968, a U.S. soldier was court-martialed for water boarding a Vietnamese prisoner.

The efficacy of torture methods for extracting useful information from prisoners has been thoroughly debunked by experienced interrogators and Cheney's claim that the program has been "very effective" is ridiculous in the light of the multitude of implausible confessions made by KSM, including plots to assasinate Jimmy Carter, Bll Clinton and Pope John Paul II. He claimed to have personally beheaded Daniel Pearl, as well as overseeing the Bali Sari Club bombing in 2002. He most astounding confession was a plan to bomb the Plaza Bank in Washington State, which was founded three years after his arrest.

More recently the withdrawal of confessions by KSM and four others has made a complete mockery of the Guantanamo Bay trial.

The very notion that the primary purpose of torture is to extract information is false. Torture is a tool of intimidation and totalitarian control, nothing more, As the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services director told Congress:

"... torture is the deliberate mental and physical damage caused by governments to individuals to ... terrorize society."


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=WkILjPu3KTE

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

Andrew Adams,

I don’t claim to be an expert. However, I have read a lot about both chemtrail claims and their dissection from a scientic point of view, from sources that are accessible to everyone.

If something specific that I wrote is wrong, I certainly welcome a correction. Usually, I’m giving references from actual experts, so it’s only fair that any rebuttal should include specific references too. Also, I’d welcome if we could stay polite.

The science of persistent contrails is well established. They were observed since the early days of aviation (see also the top article), and the conditions that favour them were researched in the middle of the 20th century (Schmidt and Appleman, see for instance the introduction of this paper).

The Appleman Chart is a rule of thumb for contrail prediction. It is not very intuitive, but there is a visualization available which allows to adjust the parameters and see how the contrail properties are changing (needs Java).

Any claim that a specific persistent contrail cannot be explained with this knowledge needs to be based on very good evidence. If the evidence is reviewed and still stands, science has to be corrected. That’s the whole idea about scientific research - but the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 22:38:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

It amazes me how rational people can think that the same stuff coming out the back of a plane can one day increase to enormous size and exhibit strange transformations(usually when rain is forecast) and other days is either non existent or merely dissipates from visibility within a minute.

By Cris on 2014 10 31 - 21:51:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

“i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive” - yes, you have mate. Earlier you said “how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU”. That is both dictatorial and abusive. We’ll now add “dishonest” to the list of your shortcomings. Have a nice day.

By Hereward Fenton on 2014 10 31 - 21:01:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Moderate Muslims:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=253_1412566275

By Eugene Donnini on 2014 10 31 - 20:28:52
From the entry 'A review of violence and intolerance in Islamic and other societies'.

fenton, i didnt say i didnt want to engage in rational debate, i said i wasnt interested in engaging with an obviously mendacious shill. i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive, and as far as failure to prove anything goes, ignoring evidence does not mean evidence has not been provided, nor proof been established.

you have certainly not proven by any stretch of the imagination, that chemtrails are imaginary, and the concern of thousands of credible experts worldwide is without justification.

may i suggest if you can not prove what you are asserting, that you also take a hearty sip yourself. have a shitty day.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 31 - 15:33:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

The onus of proof is on those promoting geoengineering (David Keith, etc.Ken Caldera) to prove that what they say about the spraying, i.e. that it is a proposal, not a global reality, is true. That follows from the precautionary principle.

By W, Hall on 2014 10 31 - 15:10:14
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

As admin of this site I feel I need to step in here. Andrew, if you do not not want to engage in discussion and debate that’s fine, however you have absolutely no right to tell anybody to “STFU”.

I have provided a comment section to encourage free discussion and debate. Your dictatorial and abusive tone merely demonstrates your failure to prove anything.

Since you don’t want to engage in rational debate may I suggest that you refrain from posting here?

Have a nice day!

By Hereward Fenton on 2014 10 31 - 14:52:32
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

@ lumpen josh
what part of “I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say, ” is too hard for you to understand?
I do not have to justify anything to you, i dont have to point you to anything, i dont have to engage you in any sort of conversation here because you have proven yourself to be of no credibility, a nonsensical bore.

nothing you can say can prove that chemtrails are a figment of the imagination of highly qualified credible people worldwide, so how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU and stop pretending you are some sort of authoritive arbiter on anything.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 10 31 - 14:08:25
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

First off i applaud you for seeking facts rather that resorting to slander as i have all too commonly seen among alternate media. On that note i would like to make known some experiments the Australian government was carrying out! My grandfather was an aircraft maintenance technician many years ago. He obsessively tells me of an experiment they carried out where dry ice was shoveled into a modified chute into the clouds. He claimed they were at the aircraft altitude ceiling and the dry ice would cause the clouds to drop their water. He claimed they were wearing oxygen masks to breathe!

By Stephen on 2014 10 29 - 14:39:09
From the entry 'Chemtrails brownshirts renew threats against TNRA'.

Andrew Adams,

‘looking up’ does not tell you much about atmospheric physics. You can’t see that the air gets cooler with increasing altitude and decreasing density. You can’t see the wildly varying relative humidity, the pockets of ice supersaturation or the jet streams.
It takes knowledge and measurements to understand and make predictions. That’s what meteorologists and atmospheric scientists are there for, after all.

Regarding the notorious “Case Orange” text - supposedly compiled by an anonymous group of people - it is not even coming close to a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It piles up a lot of conjecture together with well-meaning statements that everybody can subscribe to. It also constantly mixes up contrails, cloud seeding and low-altitude chemical dispersion which are entirely unrelated things.

Can you point me to the best evidence in this text for the claim that persistant contrails are deliberately mixed with spraying material, as part of “large-scale geoengineering projects through commercial aviation”? I can’t find any.

What do you think is the single most important fact that supports the theory that persistant contrails are not just ice crystals? I am ready to be convinced if it stands up to scrutiny.

By Josh on 2014 10 28 - 09:51:35
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories