Today's Topic: Gitmo draws confession from alleged 9/11 mastermind

Hello to all,

Secret "tribunals", secret "evidence", secret "prisons" and the "Court of Bush" and Republican Party needing a shot in the polls. Suddenly, a "censored" transcript of Mohammed's trial is released and - congratulate us! We caught the ultimate bad guy! He did it all! Osama Bin Laden? We don't need no stinking Osama.

Mohammed is most certainly a terrorist. The transcript release is most certainly crammed full of half-truths and non-truths coming from Mohammed and from the "Spin Wizards".

Namaste, Wayne

I agree with Wayne. There have been so many instances in the past when the GOP was in hot water and, lo and behold, a news item comes out of the blue making them look like heroes.

It's the old story of crying wolf. Who can ever trust what they say again? The fact that they use torture, for me, compromises any information they may get out of detainees.

Rich - and where have you been for the past 5 years? Somewhere warm, I hope.

There are no facts supporting he didn't get tortured, so get off the high horse.

The problem is we can't know without transparency, and this administration doesn't seem to like that idea. We can only guess as to what is happening and that is not justice. Besides, it only proves their intellegence wrong again, if he did mastermind it. Bin Laden did it becomes more false intellegence.

Speakin of spewing "garbage" - "Youre as moronic as the other haters."

I think that statement is all we need to know of you Rich. Are you still in Junior High?

And since when is 9-11 different than 9-11? He claimed to be the 'mastermind' (aka All him) of 9-11. Where is Bin Laden in that confession, and where is the "specific plot" you speak of? It states "from A to Z" of 9-11 is him.

Speaking of evidence

"Do you suspect coercion by U.S. officials? Yes. I suspect they did everything needed up to the limit of being cruel and unusual. Of course, the bush haters will ASSUME they totured him with no evidence - but thats to be expected."

Proof?

Gosh, Rich, I guess I don't have DNA evidence for you, but seems like anybody can take the overwhelming circumstantial evidence (personal testimonies from detainees and military troops who worked there, signed letters by the President of the US, statements made to Congress by military high-ups, etc) and come up with the same conclusions.

And don't call me Sherly.
(ha - get it?)

Glad I can amuse you, Rich.

Enjoy the following reads:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_03/feature.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/15/news/intel.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/15/news/letter.php
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/

Where is your evidence to the contrary Rich?

ACLU isn't evidence? I suppose the only evidence you will accept is Bush stating he ordered torture in a speech? Give me a break.

You must be such a happy guy, Rich. I wish I could live in such a happy world, too.

You don't bother me, Rich. Really, I would like to be so blissfully happy, too, and believe that our government doesn't use torture.

Ted Kennedy???? When did he nose into this conversation? Gosh, I sit at the end of a hard day at the office enjoying a cold Heineken with my co-workers and Ted sneaks into the room!

There is plenty of evidence that McCain is fighting for us to actually follow the Geneva Convention, who, then, is he fighting against Rich?

There is plenty of evidence that we fly prisoners to other countries for interrogation, what are we hiding Rich? Why not do it at home?

You, in fact, do need evidence to hold your stance. Sorry to break that to you.

Why not carry out interrogations at home? Because the libs would have an even bigger fit. Their idea of interrogation is to offer them a Starbucks and ask them to tell us their secrets ......... pretty please.

I'm a little skeptic of this guy's confession. He seems to have confessed to everything except for fathering Anna Nicole Smith's baby! I think I'll sit back and see how this all plays out.

I find it hard to put too much stock into a confession from someone that was tortured for 4 years, and which just happens to show up just when the administration needs to divert the news from itself.

In the lead-up to the Iraq war those same amazing things kept happening. Just when the administration was in a bind to convince people that the WMD's were indeed in Iraq, some new piece of evidence to counter the naysayers would just pop up out of thin air.

They have done this too many times to have any credibility with me.

Rich is is so far off the mark.It is unbelievable that after all these years that some folks still think Saddam was still involved in the 9/11 plot but they do.It is equally unbelievable that so many people think those of us who want to see an end to the war do not support our troops.Our troops are hearing exactly what their president wants them too and what their commanders train them to hear."Whatever it takes" meaning-subvert the Constitution,place right wing judges in the Supreme Court,kill the ammendment to the recently passed approval of Iraq war funds by stripping out the clause to not let these funds support an invasion of Iran(stay tuned),physically and emotionally maim tens of thousands of our troops and allow to be killed over 3,200 more.Kill and maim tens of thousands of innocent men,women,children and elderly Iraqi's,torture innocent civilians and handily make them dissapear from the face of the earth,set up torture chambers in foreighn countries,fondle 80 year old women at the airports in the name of security...need I say more?

Someone said "secret" this and "secret" that,how about this.I think Bush is a secret cross dresser,homophobic,an ex drunk,an ex drug addict,having an affair with his mesquite bushes,smoking tumbleweed,sniffing his dog's butt,has his daughters in Gitmo,is bumping cheeks with Dick C.,has Gonzales's hands in both of his pockets ,ran Ted off the bridge at Chappaquiddek,is boffing Condi "Wondi", but mind you...I cannot prove any of this so it is not an accusation,I'm just thinking it.

Did they get into the info he gave Rumsfeld about Iraq's WMDs and Saddam's ties to Al Qaida?

Like I'm really going to fall for the "I am Sparticus" gesture. I think he claimed responsibility to the Chicago Fire too. He's out of the game now, might as well go out with everybody thinking he's the big shot meanwhile America concludes its search for real ringleader for a scapegoat. He got everything to gain by telling the truth right?

Whoop-de-doo! They tortured a terrorist. All we got out of it was bad intel and an unneccesary war... and this lousy t-shirt.

This article is now the Lead Feature in The Renewed Activist.

I am amazed and glad to see this confession. I never thought anything like this would happen. Of course, I don't want Bush to take credit for this.

As usual, intellegence from Hugh Jass (the name insists upon respect, of course).

If we get crazy idiots claiming nonsense from torture, then what is the point of it? Revenge? Childish nonsense?

We liberals only complain when the right is being stupid. It just turns out we complain a lot because the right is stupid a lot.

I don't believe anything that comes out of this guy's mouth. We have other evidence on him that can't be heard in an open court, because it may divulge our methods and sources. He deserves the death penalty, I believe.

Um, how do we KNOW it's a full and accurate transcript.

It was a secret trial in front of a kangaroo court!

This is what despotic regimes do. I don't care how nasty the defendant is. We must always uphold high standards of justice, or we become as bad as the criminals we prosecute.

"The military barred reporters or other independent observers from the sessions for the 14 operatives and is limiting the information it provides about them, arguing that it wants to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information.

Legal experts have criticized the U.S. decision, and The Associated Press filed a letter of protest, arguing that it would be "an unconstitutional mistake to close the proceedings in their entirety."

The transcripts refer to a claim by Mohammed that he was tortured by the CIA, although he said he was not under duress at Guantanamo when he confessed to his role in the attacks. The CIA has said its interrogation practices are legal, and it does not use torture.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, questioned the legality of the closed-door sessions and whether the confession was actually the result of torture.

"We won't know that unless there is an independent hearing," he said. "We need to know if this purported confession would be enough to convict him at a fair trial or would it have to be suppressed as the fruit of torture?" " (AP) <-- Not an opinion piece from FOX.


He wasn't tortured in front of the people that witnessed the confession if he was tortured. You are assuming I know for sure he was tortured. I don't, but that is the problem, no one knows for sure either way, but you (with no evidence) claim I am wrong to question this.

You also have a warped view of evidence - No ACLU or Human Rights watch, but opinion pieces on FOX (or any other news station) is fine? There is blacked out sections of the transcript that everyone is using for this, including your FOX news. You dont know what it says under there anymore than anyone else. You are just taking the word of the people that possible tortured him, real reliable.

Since you can't read I will tell you again that I am not saying he was tortured as a FACT, but there is plenty of evidence that it IS happening. Why don't you ask McCain why he is arguing to support the Geneva Convention you twit? He was in a prison that tortured him and he doesn't want to be a part of a system that allows it. Are you calling him a terrorist? You are really hardcore 'Right', aren't you?

Whether you are smart enough to understand it or not, they are blocking McCain, and why? They aren't going to admit to torture, but by blocking the Geneva Convention and keeping the definition vague, they are KNOWINGLY letting it happen.

Just saying there is "zero evidence" is not for that to be true, as much as you simple minded folk wish it were. It doesn't matter what I say or show to you, you are just going to write a mispelled rant anyway. Calm down and use your head.

I (and others here) gave evidence and references you can use to get some information on the subject before you speak, you don't feel it necessary to use those resources, so I give up on you.

P.S. If someone beats you up, are your statements "meaningless" because you are a "victim"?

Think, then speak.

I honestly never saw this confession coming. I am happy it came, even if it is not entirely true. We know that he had something to do with these attacks. I do not condone the use of torture to get confessions (if it was done), but why should a man who helped kill thousands of our people to make a political statement be treated more humanely than he treated the people that he helped plan to kill?

"If no one beats you up...." isn't biased?You are assuming he is falsely claiming that before you know anything. That is not the US justice system you were just raving about. You have proven him guilty of lying before even listening to him. I was simply stating that if someone claims something it should be looked into, you just decide by what they look like and go with that. I believe that is what the dictionary calls - prejudice.

And for the LAST TIME RICH I am claiming we don't know, not that it is a fact HE was tortured.

What you are confused on (besides a lot of shit) is that it IS a FACT that we have tortured prisoners during this war. Have you read any of the resources given to you yet? You are proud to proclaim having only read one of several given to you, but have a lot to say about facts. Interesting.

Have you e-mailed Senetor McCain (a republican) on why he is so concerned about following the Geneva Convention? Ask him who and why he is fighting for these measures, and stop going on with your idiocy.

a note to all republicans of Hugh Jass' stripe; there have been many 'confessions' throughout the years which have later been found to have been the result of coercion or even blatent blackmail/fabrication. The Birmingham Six, The Guildford 4 to name but two.....it seems unfortunate that no law making or legislative body is free entirely from the possibility of corruption. One which operates in total secrecy however, gives people less a feeling of satisfaction, more perhaps a feeling of having been cheated? People who lost loved ones or suffered because of 9/11 need closure in many cases so surely a purely open and public trial would have been preferable to this? Total transparency. Already Gitmo as a place where people who are definately terrorists or where the Geneva Convention is observed has been thrown into doubt so people's opinion of it, and those who run it, has been damaged.........so people will doubt any confession made there because they don't know if torture or similar awful practises are carried out there. Already there have been demonstrations, already people are unsure. Surely you must admit there are reasons for doubts, any open minded individual must consider all angles surely? To close your mind is dangerous, look where it's gotten us in the past.....no-one is saying they can prove the confession and subsequent charges were coerced, forced out of or upon this man but neither can anyone except, it seems, a privilaged few, prove anything to the contrary......we can't be spoonfed anymore, we need proof, show us concrete proof and we'll accept what we see

the point which is being made here isn a clear and simple one, so i'll make it clear and simple; people are suspecting and even accusing the adminstration of carrying out torture (the more physical kinds of torture are not the worst, ask any SAS man or woman, they'll tell you)......Saddam Hussain had similar accusations regarding WMD levelled at him.....he kept inspectors out and, ultimately the US and UK invaded..why? Because they made the very same assumptions made by many here now..........assumptions supported by those who now deny assumptions made by others....hypocracy? Take a good hard look and show me the difference (i'm sure you will but i mean a logical and reasonable one)......also show me how these closed door trials and confessions are any different to the Old Soviet kind?

If there is nothing to hide or be ashamed of, let the inspectors in, make them sign non disclosure agreements, their talking punishable under the full force of the (public) law if they disclose anything dangerous to national security of course but if there is nothing to hide, then disperse the rumours and stop hiding it!

it's like building an aircraft hanger in the middle of nowhere but having nothing inside and surrounding it with security, people are going to suspect something but no-one will know..same here....denial but secrecy creates possibilities

a final thing and then i'll be quiet, a very salient quote;

"the ultimate aim of terrorism is, as the name of course suggests, terror. To sow terror and dissent among the population. To undermine governments and ways of life and to turn brother against brother, to divide and conquer. To distract and to draw people away, to fool and confuse. But to emulate the terrorist is worse far than the terrorist himself. Disempower the terrorist, do not speak his name or acknowledge his existence because in doing so you give him legitimacy. Marginalise the terrorist until he makes the kind of mistake which will make his supporters bow their heads in shame and disperse. Without supporters, terroists are worse than useless, freedom fighters and rebels are revealed for the thugs they are."

"The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. It seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers."
(Martin Luther King Jr.)

Who is trying to make you switch religions? All we (crazy libs) want is not to be forced to be YOUR religion, lay off.

Nobody Water Boarded me to make me confess. Usoma Bin Laden is hiding in my house. Iraq's WMD's are in my garage. I have Yellow Cake in my cubboard. I have a Nuclear Missle in my attic. I actually have a copy of the Qu'ran in my house. I was flying one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. I was a CIA spy but George Bush outed me. You better send the Marines to get me.