Truth News Australia

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

OZ-Surprise!!!

By Solaris on 2014 12 19 - 13:59:22
From the entry 'The virtue of selfishness'.

dickhead josh… you seem to be in a very verbose mood..
how many planes hit the pentagon?

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 19 - 09:40:44
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

OZ-surprise!!!

By Solarisquartz on 2014 12 19 - 09:25:34
From the entry 'Top 10 Crimes Against Truth 2013'.

OZ-surprise!!!

By Solarisquartz on 2014 12 19 - 09:25:33
From the entry 'Top 10 Crimes Against Truth 2013'.

OZ-surprise!!!

By Solarisquartz on 2014 12 19 - 09:25:30
From the entry 'Top 10 Crimes Against Truth 2013'.

Leonard Clampett is correct if he states that airway charts are no direct indication of actual traffic.

However it shows that there are designated routes over South Burnett. It’s not an area where air traffic is unusual.

For the actual traffic consult Flightradar 24 over the South Burnett region.

Regarding the semantics of “from/to Sydney and Brisbane” let me clearly state that I never had the route between Sydney and Brisbane in mind. This might have been more clear to people following the discussion with Cris.

The bottom line and the relevant point is that there is just no evidence for days with “only one jet” over South Burnett. Flight tracking shows clearly that there is constant traffic over the region. Show me a day with only five jets over South Burnett on Flightradar 24 - even limited to the daylight period - and I will be convinced.

The statement of Cris (“We are lucky to get 1 jet a day visible here normally”) can indeed only refer to the visibility with bare eyes on a non-trail day, not the actual traffic, as explained extensively and repeatedly.

Regarding the “3 or more abreast” situation that Cris referred to, I quote my reply from the first time this was brought up:

Next time you see three planes abreast, or circles, or grids - grab a camera and take a picture. Otherwise it’s hard to say what you saw. May have been normal traffic where the many routes are bound to intersect at some points, or circling in holding positions, or military exercises.

Without seeing pictures, it’s just speculation.

I can add now that I have observed several situations on Flightradar where three planes were close together (vertically separated of course), going in the same direction. Why should that be unusual?

 

By Josh on 2014 12 19 - 01:13:29
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Surprise!!!

By Solarisquartz on 2014 12 18 - 14:36:34
From the entry 'Twilight of Freedom'.

chris

By the way I I still don’t have an answer for when there are 3 or more abreast?????

you dont get answers from josh anonymous.. its beyond his capabilities, you will get a whole heap of incomprehensible bluff and bluster though..

i usually try to make it easy for the poor sap, just asking simple yes or no questions, or those requiring a one word answer..  but they seem to be the ones he struggles with the most? - he really is an enigma.. he should donate his body to science, and i dont think he should wait till he dies either..

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 18 - 12:45:51
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard

This means aircraft from/to Sydney and Brisbane. There is no mention of any other geographical locations so it is demonstrable that you refer to those two cities.

he must really struggle with simple day to day tasks.. honestly.. that is another example of when he accussed me of making threats, then denied he wrote that, then wanted me to show him precisely where he did, and when shown, simply ignores all reference to it..  pretends it didnt happen at all.. unbelievable really - if he is the best answer to prove that chemtrails dont exist, they really are struggling.. 

he thinks proving a point, obviously, is simply banging away at the keyboard and hitting submit, with no consideration to rhyme or reason.. relevence, consistency, logic or common sense.

he wont / cant even answer simple questions.. incapable of providing a yes or no answer to a simple question. he feels his inconsistencies, lies, qualifications, credibility, have no relevence to anything so long as he keeps the babble going on and on.. he is doing a good job.

I suspect Janonymous is a whack-job rather than a shill.

you might be right there, it would be almost impossible for a shill to pretend to be so stupid.. and in most instances, id feel a little bit of pity..  but i dont in this case, he needs medication or something, he is obviously in a lot of misery..

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 18 - 12:42:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Pretty busy here.
Looked at the link late last night.
If there were planes on those routes I would have seen very few as nearly all of the routes don’t come close enough to me.
Maximus, you are not omniscient.
You are clueless.
By the way I I still don’t have an answer for when there are 3 or more abreast?????
What about the ones that intersect those paths….only a few of which go near me?????
What about the stop start ones?
And the ones that make curvy border around an approaching weather front?
Or the giant circle that I took photos of?
Just because the lap dog news can pump out NWO propaganda unopposed because they won’t print evidence to the contrary doesn’t mean you will get away with it.
Do you need hearing aids?
VERY FEW JETS UP HERE UNLESS THERE IS IMMANENT RAIN!!!

By Cris on 2014 12 18 - 12:30:48
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories