Hi there Khalid! Long time no see!

[Undesired Walrus]

New picture of KSM:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8248355.stm

[progge]

New picture of KSM:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8248355.stm

Another new:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1212418/Khalid-Sheikh-Mohammed-First-pictures-emerge-mastermind-9-11-Guantanamo-Bay.html

[A W Smith]

Wow, See what prison does to you? That chest hair has gone out of control and grown up into his face!

[Darat]

From the BBC article:



... according to Jarret Brachman, former research director at the Combating Terrorism Center of the West Point US Military Academy. ...snip...

"What's problematic for me is it really humanises the guy," Mr Brachman told AP news agency.

...snip...

Eh?!

[paulheinze]

Wow, See what prison does to you? That chest hair has gone out of control and grown up into his face!

It is pathetic and sad how you react to a person been subjected to torture. Any confession by him is worthless and should not be allowed as evidence.

[Pardalis]

Wow, See what prison does to you? That chest hair has gone out of control and grown up into his face!

:roll:

[A W Smith]

It is pathetic and sad how you react to a person been subjected to torture. Any confession by him is worthless and should not be allowed as evidence.


What are you doing to set him free jackass?

Keep it civil please.

[paulheinze]

What are you doing to set him free jackass?

If human rights and the rule means something to you and to the judicial system, his confession would not be allowed. But not the principles of human rights are to blame but the ones who tortured him.


torture is the fastest way to get a lie stopping the torture.

[Pardalis]

Your answer is "nothing" then.

[A W Smith]

If human rights and the rule means something to you and to the judicial system, his confession would not be allowed. But not the principles of human rights are to blame but the ones who tortured him.


torture is the fastest way to get a lie stopping the torture.


He confessed before he was even captured!

[Pardalis]

I wonder if KSM thought about human rights when he was planning and financing the attacks?

[paulheinze]

Your answer is "nothing" then.
What does this have to do with torturing him? I do not understand. If you want to suggest me not doing anything to get him free is some kind of approval to torture, you make completely stupid conclusions.

Making fun about this stuff is telling a lot about you.

[Lupie]

It is pathetic and sad how you react to a person been subjected to torture. Any confession by him is worthless and should not be allowed as evidence.

It's pathetic and sad how you react to a person who personally beheaded Daniel Pearl, and is directly responsible for the brutal murder of over 3000 people on 9/11/01. Any conspiracy theory you put forth is worthless and you have no evidence to prove a single shred of the ridiculous garbage you push in the name of "troof".

L.

[Pardalis]

Making fun about this stuff is telling a lot about you.

And apologizing for that mass murderer on 9/11 tells me alot about you.

[paulheinze]

I wonder if KSM thought about human rights when he was planning and financing the attacks?

Even the most vicious criminals have human rights. A state denying them is neither a democratic state nor upholds the rule of law.

[paulheinze]

And apologizing for that mass murderer on 9/11 tells me alot about you.

If they convicted him observing the procedural requirements under the principles of human rights and the rule of law, I would have no problem with it.

I take the declaration of indepence seriously and especially Thomas Jefferson:
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

[JamesB]

I have no doubt that he was waterboarded to get him to talk about future operations, but there is no evidence that they needed to do this to get him to confess about 9/11. He proudly bragged about his role in that before he was even captured.

[A W Smith]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/3/15/13351/2245

"A slip of the tongue by one of Osama bin Laden's top henchmen seems to have betrayed al-Qaeda's most potent secret: its charismatic leader is dead." "The blunder was made by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has confessed to being the operational mastermind behind the September 11 attacks. He made his mistake while disclosing many of the secrets behind the atrocities, which were plotted in Kandahar, the religious extremist Taleban movement's Afghan spiritual home."
"The target of the fourth, thwarted hijack attack in Washington was Congress, not the White House; the original plan was to crash aircraft into atomic power stations; and the plotters used simple codes to keep in touch by internet, he disclosed. Mr Mohammed was speaking in a propaganda exercise organised by al-Qaeda in time for the first anniversary of September 11."

"A television journalist from al-Jazeera, the Arabic satellite television station that has previously broadcast exclusive footage of bin Laden, was blindfolded and taken to meet two al-Qaeda chiefs. " "During two days of interviews, Mr Mohammed referred to bin Laden, who has not been seen since the fall of Afghanistan's Taleban regime, in the past tense. The reporter Yosri Fouda, London bureau chief for al-Jazeera, concluded that bin Laden is now likely to be dead."
"The journalist was taken to the Pakistan city of Karachi, driven five miles into the countryside, blindfolded, then brought to a clandestine rendezvous on the fourth floor of a sparsely furnished flat. He believes that it was in Karachi."
"There he met Mr Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a former flatmate of Mohamed Atta, the hijack ringleader. Mr bin al-Shibh is a suspect in the bombing of the USS Cole, when 17 sailors were killed in the port city of Aden in Yemen in October 2000. He described himself as head of al-Qaeda's military committee. "
"The two men spoke of September 11 as "Holy Tuesday". They described the attacks using the Arabic word ghazwah, which means a raid against enemies of the Prophet, Mr Fouda wrote in The Sunday Times."
"It had taken 2 years to plan the attacks, the men disclosed. Al-Qaeda's military committee had decided there must be a "martyrdom operation" inside America. Nuclear targets were the first choice, but they were ruled out for now, Mr Mohammed said. "
"The hijackers were recruited from al-Qaeda's "Department of Martyrs", which still has scores of volunteers for future suicide attacks, the men claimed."
"Atta, an al-Qaeda sleeper agent studying town planning in Hamburg since 1992, was chosen as a pilot and Nawaf al-Hazemi as his second-in-command. Mr bin al Shibh wanted to be the twentieth hijacker. He applied for a visa for flight training three times, but was turned down on security grounds. Questions are likely to be asked over whether alarm bells should have sounded in the United States over such a suspicious individual being so keen to go to America to learn to fly. "
"The leading hijackers were summoned to Kandahar for a shura or council meeting. Four advance reconnaissance units were sent to America. "
"The chosen pilots enrolled in US flight schools. Meanwhile, young Saudi volunteers were picked to act as "muscle" in the hijacking of the aircraft. "They knew it was a martyrdom operation, but did not know the details," Mr Mohammed said. "
"As investigators have long suspected, the plotters did use the internet to communicate, the men confirmed. Using a chatroom, Atta sent messages in German from America, posing as a student, to "Jenny", his fictitious girlfriend. The real recipient was Mr bin al-Shibh. "
"In al-Qaeda's code the World Trade Centre was "the faculty of town planning" (Atta hated skyscrapers, preferring traditional Islamic architecture), the Pentagon was "the faculty of fine arts" and Congress was the "faculty of law". In a final telephone call Atta told Mr bin al-Shibh the chosen date for the attacks. "
"Two sticks, a dash and a cake with a stick down", he said, meaning 11/9. The news reached bin Laden on September 6, giving him only five days' warning of the horrors. "
"Mr Mohammed's slip of the tongue about bin Laden's demise was a serious lapse. Throughout their discussions with the reporter, al-Qaeda operatives persistently sought to suggest that their leader was still alive, well and keenly following events. ........."


So what was it that promperd you to show so much sympathy for terrorists paul heinze? the puppy dog eyes being that beard? Or do you just love being the fifi bag for terrorists (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fifi%20bag)?

[paulheinze]

I have no doubt that he was waterboarded to get him to talk about future operations, but there is no evidence that they needed to do this to get him to confess about 9/11. He proudly bragged about his role in that before he was even captured.

Then why waterboard him if it was not necessary. Some kind of sadistic fun they like to enjoy?

[paulheinze]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/3/15/13351/2245



So what was it that promperd you to show so much sympathy for terrorists paul heinze? the puppy dog eyes being that beard? Or do you just love being the fifi bag for terrorists (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fifi%20bag)?

I show sympathy to human rights which every human being enjoys. Testimony under torture is useless under due process. The trial against him is merely a show trial.

[Pardalis]

It's really pathetic to see you use Jefferson to excuse an Islamic fundamentalist who would gladly use the Declaration of Independence as toilet paper.

[Sabrina]

Clearly you missed the "future operations" portion of James' statement; we knew he was one of the ones responsible for 9/11, so we didn't need to ASK about that portion of things.

[Lupie]

Then why waterboard him if it was not necessary. Some kind of sadistic fun they like to enjoy?

Paulheinze,

Have you ever seen the picture of KSM holding up Daniel Pearls severed head? Have you seen the pictures of Daniels head sitting on the back of his lifeless and headless body? The man you are defending proudly proclaimed that he personally beheaded Daniel Pearl. Do a Google search for Pearl Photos and take a look at the handiwork of this murderer you have chosen to defend. The pictures as well as the video are readily available from multiple sources. Go ahead and look, I dare you.

L.

[paulheinze]

It's really pathetic to see you use Jefferson to excuse an Islamic fundamentalist who would gladly use the Declaration of Independence as toilet paper.

You suggest Jefferson would approve torture as a legitimate means in a trial.

[Pardalis]

You suggest Jefferson would approve torture as a legitimate means in a trial.
I'm sure they had harsher means of interrogation in the late 18th century then today, far more inhumane by today's standards than waterboarding.

And you keep ignoring how KSM admitted to 9/11 before the waterboarding, why is that?

[paulheinze]

I'm sure they had harsher means of interrogation in the late 18th century then today, far more inhumane by today's standards than waterboarding.

And you keep ignoring how KSM admitted to 9/11 before the waterboarding, why is that?

I did not say that KSM is not guilty. But in the moment he is subjected to torture his testimony is worthless under due process. Blame the people who tortured him for this not me or the human rights.

Jefferson knew, and felt no hesitation in saying, that "millions of innocent men and women, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion" he asked; "to make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites?"
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewjeff.htm

[Lupie]

Paulheinze,

Have you looked at the photos of KSM holding up Daniel Pearls severed head yet?

L.

[paulheinze]

Paulheinze,

Have you looked at the photos of KSM holding up Daniel Pearls severed head yet?

L.

Do you think this would convert me to a torture approver? I can assure you you are wrong, I saw them already.

[Pardalis]

KSM is guilty, this thread isn't about torture.

[Lupie]

Do you think this would convert me to a torture approver? I can assure you you are wrong, I saw them already.

So you have seen this particularly brutal example of what this monster has done, and yet you still defend him? You are made of different stuff than I am then. There's no reason to talk to you or read your posts at this point. You are a Terrorist Sympathizer. Welcome to ignore.

[ktesibios]

What I've read (hunt around on Dispatches From the culture Wars (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/) for the sources) is that the most fruitful approach to interrogating KSM wasn't torture but rather a form of psychological jiu-jitsu involving playing to his overinflated ego.

The best information about the structure and practices of Al Qaeda was obtained by getting him into a "you guys don't know what you're talking about- this is how it works" mode and letting him deliver a lecture on AQ101.

If the cops beat a confession out of a suspect, that confession is inadmissible as evidence. However, if they've also got a firmly-woven net of real evidence, it's still possible to draw a properly-reasoned conclusion about the suspect's guilt or innocence.

After reading this thread, I'm reluctantly forced to affirm an opinion I first formed while reading the old "Don''t tase me, bro" thread:

The truthers have inadvertently got one thing correct- this forum is badly infested with classic authoritarian-follower personalities.

[BigAl]

What I've read (hunt around on Dispatches From the culture Wars (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/) for the sources) is that the most fruitful approach to interrogating KSM wasn't torture but rather a form of psychological jiu-jitsu involving playing to his overinflated ego.


I believe that the claims made that KSM gave up valuable information only after torture is unsupported by any time line that can be made from the information made public.

Mr. Alexander agrees with you. He wrote a book (recommened).

How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq

Here's his bio:

Matthew Alexander led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006. He is the author of "How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq." He is writing under a pseudonym for security reasons.

I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I
supervised more than 1,000. ...

[purplecharger]

I did not say that KSM is not guilty. But in the moment he is subjected to torture his testimony is worthless under due process. Blame the people who tortured him for this not me or the human rights.

Jefferson knew, and felt no hesitation in saying, that "millions of innocent men and women, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion" he asked; "to make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites?"
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewjeff.htm

I think your missing the point. He admitted to 9/11 and killing Daniel Pearl before he was captured so that testemony can be used because he was stupid enough to open his mouth freely. You know that "Anything you say or do will be used against you in a court of law" thing. That applies here.

The part I think your referring to is the once he's in custody part. In that case you may have a point but on the one you started this whole convo on you're way off.

[portlandatheist]

There are thousands of families today mourning the loss of their loved ones whose lives were taken by KSM. They want justice. My thoughts are with them today, not the well being of KSM.

[Jontg]

The man confessed before he was tortured, clammed up while he was tortured, and opened up again when they stopped torturing him and began talking to him like civilized human beings. And now that he knows we're not going to be doing that again, he's being much more cooperative. There's no information we got out of him that would be inadmissible--suspect, maybe, since he is al Qaeda, but perfectly legit testimony.

[Undesired Walrus]

The man confessed before he was tortured, clammed up while he was tortured, and opened up again when they stopped torturing him and began talking to him like civilized human beings.

Yes, and was sitting in the same room as Ramzi BinAlShibh, the co-ordinator of the 9/11 attacks and the hijacker's good friend. Not to mention the man who's Hamburg address was found on the back of a card of Ziad Jarrah in the rubble of 93.

But that will never convince the conspirators.

Time to let the truthers simply talk to themselves, and strave themselves to death. Let's talk amongst ourselves once more.

[knife fight colobus]

What are you doing to set him free jackass?
If human rights and the rule means something to you and to the judicial system, his confession would not be allowed. But not the principles of human rights are to blame but the ones who tortured him.


torture is the fastest way to get a lie stopping the torture.

What was the point of quoting his post if you were not going to answer his question?

And yes it does blow that our government sucks and waterboards people. What are you doing to help exonerate an innocent man?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It is pathetic and sad how you react to a person been subjected to torture. Any confession by him is worthless and should not be allowed as evidence.

I plan on celebrating his death when he is executed. Gonna have myself a big old rack of barbecued pork ribs.

Are you up for some of that, or are you just gonna want a hanky to dry your tears while your hero burns in hell?

[funk de fino]

Do you think this would convert me to a torture approver? I can assure you you are wrong, I saw them already.

So the US should have just cut KSM head off and that would be OK?

[Rika]

... You know, he has a point about torture, but you /could/ stop conflating it with support for Khalid.

Or you could continue to demonize him.

======================================

Anyway, wow. Khalid looks much different now.

[funk de fino]

... You know, he has a point about torture, but you /could/ stop conflating it with support for Khalid.

Or you could continue to demonize him.

======================================

Anyway, wow. Khalid looks much different now.

He does have a point about torture but what about the human rights of Daniel Pearl or the thousands killed on 911? He does not seem to care about them.

He does not have a point that the torture affects KSM confession for 911 in anyway however.

[Undesired Walrus]

Khalid looks a lot better these days.

[-hp-]

Can somebody please point me to the evidence the US holds against KSM in the 9/11 case? Is it just his confession or is there more to it?

[T.A.M.]

It is pathetic and sad how you react to a person been subjected to torture. Any confession by him is worthless and should not be allowed as evidence.

yes, too bad He confessed to his role in the attacks to a journalist BEFORE HIS CAPTURE.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/04/alqaida.terrorism

TAM:)

[parky76]

KSM should be hung and then buried face down, wrapped in pig skin. Muslims believe you cannot go to heaven if you are buried in such a manner.

[parky76]

Can somebody please point me to the evidence the US holds against KSM in the 9/11 case? Is it just his confession or is there more to it?

do you EVER do your own research, or as a truther did you just come here to be a troll?

[T.A.M.]

Can somebody please point me to the evidence the US holds against KSM in the 9/11 case? Is it just his confession or is there more to it?

I am guessing, that like in most criminal cases, the general public is not allowed access to most (if not all) of the evidence against a yet to be tried individual.

TAM:)

[-hp-]

do you EVER do your own research, or as a truther did you just come here to be a troll?
Yes I do, thank you very much. I just couldn't find info about possible further evidence against KSM. T.A.M. provided an (obvious :o) explanation for this.

[paulheinze]

KSM should be hung and then buried face down, wrapped in pig skin. Muslims believe you cannot go to heaven if you are buried in such a manner.

Well spoken for the beacon of democracy and freedom (and torture).

[Justin39640]

KSM should be hung and then buried face down, wrapped in pig skin.

hopefully you mean before hes executed

[paulheinze]

He does have a point about torture but what about the human rights of Daniel Pearl or the thousands killed on 911? He does not seem to care about them.

He does not have a point that the torture affects KSM confession for 911 in anyway however.

You should not mix the factual guilt of somebody with the legally proven guilt. An interview in a newspaper is hardly sufficient to convict somebody.
Any evidence gathered by toture is not admissible in court (in a state respecting the rule of law and adhering to democratic principles and human rights of course).
If KSM would be tried in a fair process and he would be not convicted because of being subjected to torture, not his lawyer or the court are to blame, but the people who violated his most fundamental rights. Of course this is not going to happen. It makes me suspicious that the administration needs secret trials. Maybe there is not that much evidence or they fear the defendants to reveal inconvenient details.

It is really shocking that people who want to be critical thinkers are not able to make the slightest criticism about the side they support. They appear like defending their religious beliefs.

I did not make fun about the victims of 9/11 or Daniel Pearl. Of course I care and I think the perpetrators must be prosecuted. But it has to be done adhering to the rule of law and human rights. Throwing these principles away is a sign of weakness.

Discussing about the WTC collapse, measuring collapse times,chemical analysis can be regarded as some intellectual game. But the whole thing of due process and patriot act is different. This is not fun anymore.

[paulheinze]

Khalid looks a lot better these days.

Maybe we should all be waterboarded from time to time in the Guantamo spa. We might look better,too.

[Justin39640]

Maybe we should all be waterboarded from time to time in the Guantamo spa. We might look better,too.

maybe you should understand
if any of those people got their hands on you or yours what they would do to you (that is unless you were joining their ranks, which it sounds like you wouldnt mind since they're upstanding people in what looks like to be your opinion)

[Childlike Empress]

Waterbearding?

[Justin39640]

Waterbearding?

thats what they were gonna do to them when the plan was to keep them in Alaska
lol

[Undesired Walrus]

Can somebody please point me to the evidence the US holds against KSM in the 9/11 case? Is it just his confession or is there more to it?

KSM was a well known operative of Al Qaeda, the organisation that carried out the attacks, so that's never going to get you off the hook.

Not to mention that in the Fouda interview, he was in the company of the 9/11 co-ordinator and member of the Hamburg cell, Ramzi Binalshibh.

There was also plenty of evidence that was allegedly seized from his hideout in Pakistan.

[BigAl]

KSM was a well known operative of Al Qaeda, the organisation that carried out the attacks, so that's never going to get you off the hook.

Not to mention that in the Fouda interview, he was in the company of the 9/11 co-ordinator and member of the Hamburg cell, Ramzi Binalshibh.

There was also plenty of evidence that was allegedly seized from his hideout in Pakistan.

He was the uncle of the guy convicted for the 1993 WTC bombing and who promised that they would try again.

That may not be evidence in court but it might impress a jury.

[Pardalis]

Khalid looks a lot better these days.

All that water didn't affect his pilosity. :D

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What does this have to do with torturing him?


Eh? Let's review...

A W Smith asked:

What are you doing to set him free jackass?


Your total non-answer to the above question was:

If human rights and the rule means something to you and to the judicial system, his confession would not be allowed. But not the principles of human rights are to blame but the ones who tortured him.


torture is the fastest way to get a lie stopping the torture.


Pardalis' interpretation of your non-answer to the above question:

Your answer is "nothing" then.


i.e. "Hello, A W Smith. I am doing absolutely nothing to set this innocent man free."

To which you mindboggingly wonder:

What does this have to do with torturing him?


Wow...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It is really shocking that people who want to be critical thinkers are not able to make the slightest criticism about the side they support. They appear like defending their religious beliefs.

It is really shocking to me that you are apparently incapable of clicking the two links that would take you to the politics forum.

You appear to like lumping everyone who doesn't think exactly the way you do into one group so you can heap scorn and derision and dehumanize us all.

Geobbels would be proud.

[Undesired Walrus]

The standard answer for truthers when asked what they are doing to set him free is: 'Well, we don't know how much he was involved'. It's a wimps answer, but also fairly illogical. He's being charged with the death of 3,000 people. If we are to believe the truthers, he's responsible for signifigantly less than that, given that the buildings crashed down due to super-explosives and not hijacked planes.

If Charlie Manson was being tried for the deaths of 3000 unsolved murders in the US, would we just shrug and go 'Oh well, we don't know how involved he was in them, no injustice here. Besides, he was a nasty guy'?

A better question for the truthers is what they are doing to set Ramzi Binalshibh free, considering this is his first conviction and hasn't done anything nasty prior to 9/11.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Today, at 1:56 am (according to the time stamps on my machine), Knife Fight Colubus wrote:
And yes it does blow that our government sucks and waterboards people.

Today, at 7:40 am, Paul Heinze wrote:

It is really shocking that people who want to be critical thinkers are not able to make the slightest criticism about the side they support.

You lied, Paul.

[T.A.M.]

You should not mix the factual guilt of somebody with the legally proven guilt. An interview in a newspaper is hardly sufficient to convict somebody.

Correct. I am guessing, unless the prosecutors are ****ING MORONS, that they will at least have little beyond said confession before they bring KSM to trial.


Any evidence gathered SOLELY by toture is not admissible in court (in a state respecting the rule of law and adhering to democratic principles and human rights of course).

I added the bolded word for you to make your statement more correct.


If KSM would be tried in a fair process and he would be not convicted because of being subjected to torture, not his lawyer or the court are to blame, but the people who violated his most fundamental rights. Of course this is not going to happen. It makes me suspicious that the administration needs secret trials. Maybe there is not that much evidence or they fear the defendants to reveal inconvenient details.

Being tortured does not make you immune to prosecution. Unless you have proof that they have no evidence to convict him except that gathered from Waterboarding or other methods deemed torture, then your statement is speculation only.


It is really shocking that people who want to be critical thinkers are not able to make the slightest criticism about the side they support. They appear like defending their religious beliefs.

Oh stop your "strawman"ing the entire forum. I would venture if not most, then at least half of the posters on this subforum despited the Bush/Cheney administration. Look around, go to the other parts of this forum (like politics) and see where post of us stand on the political issues.


I did not make fun about the victims of 9/11 or Daniel Pearl. Of course I care and I think the perpetrators must be prosecuted. But it has to be done adhering to the rule of law and human rights. Throwing these principles away is a sign of weakness.

I agree, and if the ONLY way they were able to get evidence to prosecute KSM was through torture, then he must be set free, but I am willing to bet a GREAT DEAL OF MONEY that they have evidence, a lot of it, that was gathered without using such methods.


Discussing about the WTC collapse, measuring collapse times,chemical analysis can be regarded as some intellectual game. But the whole thing of due process and patriot act is different. This is not fun anymore.

It has never been fun, or a game, at least not for me (although I have to admit I sometimes chuckle at the SHEER STUPIDITY of the posts of some truthers).

TAM:)

[portlandatheist]

I plan on celebrating his death when he is executed. Gonna have myself a big old rack of barbecued pork ribs.

Are you up for some of that, or are you just gonna want a hanky to dry your tears while your hero burns in hell?

I'll bring the champagne.

[portlandatheist]

Paulheinze,
You may consider contacting KSM's defense team. They would have much more information than any of us. Here you go. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4441370#post4441370)
If you have any evidence, any at all, that suggests that 9/11 was an inside job, then this would be valuable information for his defense and should be heard by the court if it has any merit.
I would suggest contacting KSM's defense and letting us know what you find out about the evidence against him and if they believe any of the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job has any merit or value to KSM's defense.

[funk de fino]

You should not mix the factual guilt of somebody with the legally proven guilt. An interview in a newspaper is hardly sufficient to convict somebody.
Any evidence gathered by toture is not admissible in court (in a state respecting the rule of law and adhering to democratic principles and human rights of course).
If KSM would be tried in a fair process and he would be not convicted because of being subjected to torture, not his lawyer or the court are to blame, but the people who violated his most fundamental rights. Of course this is not going to happen. It makes me suspicious that the administration needs secret trials. Maybe there is not that much evidence or they fear the defendants to reveal inconvenient details.

It is really shocking that people who want to be critical thinkers are not able to make the slightest criticism about the side they support. They appear like defending their religious beliefs.

I did not make fun about the victims of 9/11 or Daniel Pearl. Of course I care and I think the perpetrators must be prosecuted. But it has to be done adhering to the rule of law and human rights. Throwing these principles away is a sign of weakness.

Discussing about the WTC collapse, measuring collapse times,chemical analysis can be regarded as some intellectual game. But the whole thing of due process and patriot act is different. This is not fun anymore.

So he can cut innocents peoiple heads off but the kid gloves need to go on when he is captured and he gets the full priotection of the US law. The same country he has tried to destroy.

He admitted he did it. Before he was tortured. He admitted he beheaded Daniel Pearl. Before he was tortured. He was tortured to gather intelligence about future attacks. Completely irrelevant to the 911 attack he planned.

Do I believe in torture of prisoners, NO. You dont care about human rights or due process or Daniel Pearl, you just hate america, at least have the cohonies to admit it.

[paulheinze]

Being tortured does not make you immune to prosecution. Unless you have proof that they have no evidence to convict him except that gathered from Waterboarding or other methods deemed torture, then your statement is speculation only.
Torture eliminates any legitimacy of a judicial system. Even the Taliban convicted guilty murderers. But the judicial system had no legitimacy.

A defendant afraid of being subjected to torture is more likely to confess in order to avoid the pain. Systematic torture influences the defendants position even before being tortured. And the US tortures systematically. KSM was captured 2003 in Pakistan. I think we agree that Pakistan makes use of torture, too. And the US was doing its "enhanced interrogation" already.

The principle you cite does not apply to systematic torture. Brown v. Mississippi was about policemen misbehaving whereas the police in general did not torture defendants.

If they convict KSM based on his own confession it is unconstitutional.
So I hope for them that they have enough evidence without it. And I hope the defendants of KSM will get access to the evidence as it should be. Anyway a stain remains on the whole process.

If they are not able to prove his guilt in a legitimate way, they failed. Blame them.

[Justin39640]

Torture eliminates any legitimacy of a judicial system. Even the Taliban convicted guilty murderers. But the judicial system had no legitimacy.

A defendant afraid of being subjected to torture is more likely to confess in order to avoid the pain. Systematic torture influences the defendants position even before being tortured. And the US tortures systematically. KSM was captured 2003 in Pakistan. I think we agree that Pakistan makes use of torture, too. And the US was doing its "enhanced interrogation" already.

The principle you cite does not apply to systematic torture. Brown v. Mississippi was about policemen misbehaving whereas the police in general did not torture defendants.

If they convict KSM based on his own confession it is unconstitutional.
So I hope for them that they have enough evidence without it. And I hope the defendants of KSM will get access to the evidence as it should be. Anyway a stain remains on the whole process.

If they are not able to prove his guilt in a legitimate way, they failed. Blame them.
i really couldnt care if he confessed or not

i just hope it hurt... a lot

[paulheinze]

Do I believe in torture of prisoners, NO. You dont care about human rights or due process or Daniel Pearl, you just hate america, at least have the cohonies to admit it.


I love many legal principles developed by the US , the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrin, civil rights, the right to free speech. I thought these principles where an important part of the US. I thought the US were more than a flag and an anthem. But it seems to me the US administration hates these principles. You seem to hate them, too. It is like hating what the US stands for. It is like throwing the constitution away.

[Justin39640]

I love many legal principles developed by the US , the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrin, civil rights, the right to free speech. I thought these principles where an important part of the US. I thought the US were more than a flag and an anthem. But it seems to me the US administration hates these principles. You seem to hate them, too. It is like hating what the US stands for. It is like throwing the constitution away.

nick berg had rights

[Rika]

Just to point out that there's a separate position again:

Pointing out KSM was an immoral monster (true) does not make torturing him any better. It's Tu Queque.

(And yes, what he did is indefensible, but while I wouldn't at all be sad if he got the death penalty, I remain opposed to torture in principle.)

[Undesired Walrus]

If they convict KSM based on his own confession it is unconstitutional.
So I hope for them that they have enough evidence without it. And I hope the defendants of KSM will get access to the evidence as it should be. Anyway a stain remains on the whole process.


So we come back to the first question. What are you doing to get the trial stopped and KSM set free?

[paulheinze]

i really couldnt care if he confessed or not

i just hope it hurt... a lot

you would liked living under Hitler. They hurt a lot of people,too.

[paulheinze]

So we come back to the first question. What are you doing to get the trial stopped and KSM set free?

Nice try. Stop this childish rhethorical trick. You are not going to succeed with it.

So you hate the principles the United States are built on. Hopefully you will never be subjected to "enhanced interrogation". It is interesting to see that some people here want their children to rise under a violent and illegitimate legal system. I prefer to know that my children are safe and do not have to fear the state.

BTW. I did not lie. I did not say ALL the people. I read the other answers, too.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Are you going to apologize for lying about wether people here critisized torture, Paul?

[paulheinze]

Just to point out that there's a separate position again:

Pointing out KSM was an immoral monster (true) does not make torturing him any better. It's Tu Queque.

(And yes, what he did is indefensible, but while I wouldn't at all be sad if he got the death penalty, I remain opposed to torture in principle.)

Essentially we have the same position. I would have no problem if he would be convicted in a fair trial. What does it tell that the principles of a fair trial are violated? Isn't it a sign of weakness?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

BTW. I did not lie. I did not say ALL the people. I read the other answers, too.

Yes you did. Your statement was implicitly inclusive.

Are you going to apologize for lying to and about the users of this forum?

[dtugg]

you would liked living under Hitler. They hurt a lot of people,too.

Congratulations. According to Godwin's Law, you have lost the thread.

[Undesired Walrus]

Nice try. Stop this childish rhethorical trick. You are not going to succeed with it.

Why's this childish? You believe this trial to be unjust, with the main participant being held under what you regard as irrelevant evidence. What are you doing to get this trial disbanded?

So

No, that doesn't follow from anything.

you hate the principles the United States are built on. Hopefully you will never be subjected to "enhanced interrogation". It is interesting to see that some people here want their children to rise under a violent and illegitimate legal system. I prefer to know that my children are safe and do not have to fear the state.


Sorry, where did I say anything about approving torture/not approving torture?

[T.A.M.]

Torture eliminates any legitimacy of a judicial system. Even the Taliban convicted guilty murderers. But the judicial system had no legitimacy.

This is crap. The judicial system has nothing to do with the CIA using torture. Sure, there may have been incorrect or "stretching it" legal opinions that were given by DOJ lawyers, but this has nothing to do with the prosecution of 9/11 conspirators.

So long as evidence gained solely through torture is not used, they can be tried in American Courts fine. Your point is not only without logic, but without an ounce of proof to back it up.


A defendant afraid of being subjected to torture is more likely to confess in order to avoid the pain. Systematic torture influences the defendants position even before being tortured. And the US tortures systematically. KSM was captured 2003 in Pakistan. I think we agree that Pakistan makes use of torture, too. And the US was doing its "enhanced interrogation" already.


Why are you arguing this point? No one else here, that I can see, is arguing IN FAVOR of torture, or of USING information gained SOLELY from it.


The principle you cite does not apply to systematic torture. Brown v. Mississippi was about policemen misbehaving whereas the police in general did not torture defendants.

You will have to clarify.


If they convict KSM based on his own confession it is unconstitutional.
So I hope for them that they have enough evidence without it. And I hope the defendants of KSM will get access to the evidence as it should be. Anyway a stain remains on the whole process.

If they are not able to prove his guilt in a legitimate way, they failed. Blame them.

If they convict KSM SOLELY based on his confession there will be such an outcry from both sides of the aisle. Once again, who here is saying they should convict him based SOLELY on his confession.

You are arguing with yourself, so far as I can see.

TAM:)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Nice try. Stop this childish rhethorical trick. You are not going to succeed with it.


It's not childish, but we're not under any illusion that it will actually succeed. We're all well aware that you and others like you are doing nothing and will continue to do nothing to free a man whom you believe to be completely innocent.

You can go on and on about "the principles of the United States", but remember: if you're right about 9/11, you're the one not standing up for a man you believe to be innocent. If you're right about 9/11, you're the one letting "innocent until proven guilty" die a slow, horrible, tortured death.

Repeatedly asking the question merely points out your lack of conviction to others.

So, what are you doing to free Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

[triforcharity]

If human rights and the rule means something to you and to the judicial system, his confession would not be allowed. But not the principles of human rights are to blame but the ones who tortured him.


torture is the fastest way to get a lie stopping the torture.

I believe he is not covered by the Gueneva Convention. So, you know what I think we should have already done with him?? Showed the world his brain matter with the sand of the desert as the background.

IMHO.

[triforcharity]

I think you have to be human first to qualify for human rights.

[A W Smith]

Nice try. Stop this childish rhethorical trick. You are not going to succeed with it.
it's not a childish rhetorical trick. it's a question which apparently you refuse to answer.
So you hate the principles the United States are built on. Hopefully you will never be subjected to "enhanced interrogation". It is interesting to see that some people here want their children to rise under a violent and illegitimate legal system. I prefer to know that my children are safe and do not have to fear the state.

Danial Pearl would probably wish he was water boarded. at least he would be alive today. Instead of momentary discomfort which leaves no marks his head was removed from his body. But you can keep apologizing for your terrorist buddies Paul.

[funk de fino]

I love many legal principles developed by the US , the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrin, civil rights, the right to free speech. I thought these principles where an important part of the US. I thought the US were more than a flag and an anthem. But it seems to me the US administration hates these principles. You seem to hate them, too. It is like hating what the US stands for. It is like throwing the constitution away.


You are not being honest. You hate America and you think they carried out 911. You do not care about KSM or anyone else this is just another excuse to rant on about the US.

I love the USA.

If you happened to pay attention you will know they have actual hard evidence found when they arrested him.

[zorro99]

Troofers should be working overtime to ensure that KSM is not wrongfully convicted for the crimes that they claim he is innocent.

[Dave Rogers]

Torture eliminates any legitimacy of a judicial system. Even the Taliban convicted guilty murderers. But the judicial system had no legitimacy.

A defendant afraid of being subjected to torture is more likely to confess in order to avoid the pain. Systematic torture influences the defendants position even before being tortured. And the US tortures systematically. KSM was captured 2003 in Pakistan. I think we agree that Pakistan makes use of torture, too. And the US was doing its "enhanced interrogation" already.

Let's proceed on the assumption, then, that KSM was tortured. Clearly any information obtained from him as a result of such torture cannot be taken as evidence in a criminal trial. What is your view on the legitimacy of testimony obtained before the torture of a suspect who is then tortured? Does the subsequent torture invalidate evidence obtained before the torture, despite the absence of any causal link between the torture and the content of the testimony?

If they convict KSM based on his own confession it is unconstitutional.

If, and only if, there are reasonable grounds to believe the confession itself was obtained as a result of torture. That could certainly include a confession from someone who had been tortured previously, as it could be argued that he feared further torture. It cannot, however, include a confession obtained before the torture took place.

Any accounts claiming that KSM was tortured also make it clear that he was tortured after confessing, and that the aim of the torture was to persuade him to reveal details of future planned operations in order that those operations could be prevented. My personal feeling is that the entire operation was a waste of time, because information obtained under torture is so unreliable as to be useless; and also that torture is an abominable practice, even when used on a mass murderer. However, it also follows the laws of causality. Therefore, if the confession precedes the torture, the confession should be admissible.

And, of course, the people responsible for the torture should some day answer for their actions, which I think is unlikely. But that diminishes KSM's guilt not one jot.

Dave

[paulheinze]

Let's proceed on the assumption, then, that KSM was tortured. Clearly any information obtained from him as a result of such torture cannot be taken as evidence in a criminal trial. What is your view on the legitimacy of testimony obtained before the torture of a suspect who is then tortured? Does the subsequent torture invalidate evidence obtained before the torture, despite the absence of any causal link between the torture and the content of the testimony?


As said before, systematic torture invalidates the freedom of testimony of a suspect. If he knows he is likely to be tortured it influences his right to deny testimony. You cannot get around this. If you know that the state where you are questioned tortures systematically, it influences your decision to deny answering questions. You expect to be tortured, too. You will cooperate more likely.

@Mr. Rogers
Do you think if you would be questioned by a police of a torture state, that your testimony is not influenced by this danger?
Do you think that the legitimacy of any proceeding is affected by secret evidence, secret accusations, torture even if the defendant is guilty?
How many defendants might have confessed just because their will was broken?


Some of the first questions asked of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed upon his capture and during the time during which he was waterboarded were about possible connections between al Qaeda and Iraq, according to a review of several reports on U.S. intelligence operations.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/15/ksm-was-questioned-about_n_203898.html

In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html

As said before and before, I do not think that KSM is innocent, but a good cause is done a bad service.

[paulheinze]

You are not being honest. You hate America and you think they carried out 911. You do not care about KSM or anyone else this is just another excuse to rant on about the US.

I love the USA.

If you happened to pay attention you will know they have actual hard evidence found when they arrested him.
Do you love freedom of speech?
Do you the civil rights?
Do you love the constitution?

If you love the US then you should stand up against the people who destroy its fundaments. Or all the statements about "the beacon of freedom and democracy" appear to be merely hypocritical.

[paulheinze]

it's not a childish rhetorical trick. it's a question which apparently you refuse to answer.Danial Pearl would probably wish he was water boarded. at least he would be alive today. Instead of momentary discomfort which leaves no marks his head was removed from his body. But you can keep apologizing for your terrorist buddies Paul.

"Momentary discomfort" is euphemistic. You cannot justify one crime by another.
"terrorist buddies" is rather insulting.

If you support torture then you are not entitled to ask me what I do against it. You lack any moral authority to do so.
If you are against torture (like me), you should first ask yourself, what you do against it.
If you take action against it, then I would answer your question and even join in your efforts.

[Justin39640]

Do you love freedom of speech?
Do you the civil rights?
Do you love the constitution?

If you love the US then you should stand up against the people who destroy its fundaments. Or all the statements about "the beacon of freedom and democracy" appear to be merely hypocritical.

so whats your evidence to set him free?
whet evidence do you have that vindicates him

we knew he did it
he knows he did it (he admitted it prior to capture)
the entire world knows he did it

now paul
who should we arrest in place of KSM?
Bush? Silverstein? Nigro? Who?????

youre so sure he didnt do it
who do you think did

[paulheinze]

so whats your evidence to set him free?
whet evidence do you have that vindicates him

we knew he did it
he knows he did it (he admitted it prior to capture)
the entire world knows he did it

now paul
who should we arrest in place of KSM?
Bush? Silverstein? Nigro? Who?????

youre so sure he didnt do it
who do you think did
I did not write about his factual guilt. Edited for civility.

[Dave Rogers]

As said before, systematic torture invalidates the freedom of testimony of a suspect. If he knows he is likely to be tortured it influences his right to deny testimony. You cannot get around this.

Careful with your chains of causality there. The bolded bit has yet to be established. At the time KSM was captured, it was not widely known that suspects were likely to be waterboarded. A competent defense attorney would no doubt raise this point, but would have to demonstrate that KSM believed that he would be tortured, and that this belief had some basis in evidence. And whatever the ruling on that, it can hardly be taken to have influenced his statements prior to capture; he cannot honestly have thought that admitting responsibility to the attacks would make him less likely to be tortured on capture.

If you know that the state where you are questioned tortures systematically, it influences your decision to deny answering questions. You expect to be tortured, too. You will cooperate more likely.

Agreed, but this was not known at the time KSM was captured. Hindsight is not relevant here; what was known at the time is what matters.


@Mr. Rogers
Do you think if you would be questioned by a police of a torture state, that your testimony is not influenced by this danger?
Do you think that the legitimacy of any proceeding is affected by secret evidence, secret accusations, torture even if the defendant is guilty?
How many defendants might have confessed just because their will was broken?

Taking these in order: Of course it is, of course it is, and many both innocent and guilty ones. I wouldn't dream of defending torture, and personally I think the people who waterboarded KSM have royally stuffed up both the USA's moral position and the chances of a serious conviction - or would have, had KSM actually chosen at any point to deny his involvement. However, all this is after the fact, and has no bearing on whether KSM actually planned the attacks.

I note that your quotes do nothing to suggest that KSM was waterboarded to obtain a confession, and in fact support the generally accepted understanding that the aim of the waterboarding was to obtain strategic and tactical information to aid in operations against al-Qaeda going forwards. I suspect that they obtained little or nothing of value, because I don't believe torture ever obtains anything other than what the torturer already expects to hear. However, two claims are still completely unsupported: firstly, that there is any doubt of KSM's guilt; secondly, that he was tortured to obtain a confession.

As said before and before, I do not think that KSM is innocent, but a good cause is done a bad service.

If I honestly believed that was your entire point here, I would have nothing to fault with that statement. However, as you continue to look for evidence that the Twin Towers were demolished on other threads, it looks to me like you're simply trying to play truther bait-and-switch, flipping between legitimate and absurd criticisms of the Bush administration in an attempt to blur the distinctions between the two.

Dave

[Justin39640]

Edited for response to modded post.
Please do not engage in bickering. If you feel that someone has breached the Membership Agreement, report it. Do not respond to it.

[TruthersLie]

It is pathetic and sad how you react to a person been subjected to torture. Any confession by him is worthless and should not be allowed as evidence.

YOu mean the confessions he did BEFORE he was captured?

Or the confession to the Al Jazeeria station chief where he BRAGGED about it BEFORE he was tortured?

[paulheinze]

If I honestly believed that was your entire point here, I would have nothing to fault with that statement. However, as you continue to look for evidence that the Twin Towers were demolished on other threads, it looks to me like you're simply trying to play truther bait-and-switch, flipping between legitimate and absurd criticisms of the Bush administration in an attempt to blur the distinctions between the two.

Dave

I can assure you, the thoughts about 9/11 MIHOP, LIHIOP or whatever and my statements in this thread are two completely different things to me. If you read my posts, I did not write a single word about his factual guilt or not. I was making just statements about the legitimacy and how the treatment of him affects his legal guilt in my opinion.

I think that the unconstitutional treatment of defendants affects the credibility of any trial made against them.

I am upset about the horrible joy that some people here seem to feel about the treatment of defendants. This is really serious.
BTW.
I enjoy reading your posts and discussing with you.

[paulheinze]

nope, last time i checked - 46
yes i have
you seem to think hes innocent or you wouldnt be arguing nano-stupidity in other threads

do you have cross thread amnesia?
or is your count askew?

It is ok. You should learn something about the difference between factual guilt and legally proven guilt, civil rights, rule of law. Then we can continue to talk.

[Justin39640]

I can assure you, the thoughts about 9/11 MIHOP, LIHIOP or whatever and my statements in this thread are two completely different things to me. If you read my posts, I did not write a single word about his factual guilt or not. I was making just statements about the legitimacy and how the treatment of him affects his legal guilt in my opinion.

I think that the unconstitutional treatment of defendants affects the credibility of any trial made against them.

I am upset about the horrible joy that some people here seem to feel about the treatment of defendants. This is really serious.
BTW.
I enjoy reading your posts and discussing with you.

i didnt enjoy the way the defendant treated my friends and neighbors
then he goes on TV and brags about it

im quite upset he didnt receive 2 to the chest and 1 to the head when they found him

[Justin39640]

It is ok. You should learn something about the difference between factual guilt and legally proven guilt, civil rights, rule of law. Then we can continue to talk.

so you think hes guilty?
yes or no

(im asking for your opinion)

[Dave Rogers]

I can assure you, the thoughts about 9/11 MIHOP, LIHIOP or whatever and my statements in this thread are two completely different things to me. If you read my posts, I did not write a single word about his factual guilt or not.

Except "I do not think he was innocent". I think you need to reconsider your own beliefs on this, because there seems to be something of a disconnect. If the Twin Towers were demolished, this would imply that the US Government was not only aware, but in some way responsible for, the 9/11 attacks; there is simply no possible rational way to dissociate these two components in any hypothesis. If the US Government was responsible, then KSM's claim to be the prime mover cannot possibly be correct, and his entire testimony rests on this claim. Therefore, a belief that the Twin Towers were demolished is inseparable from a belief that KSM may have been entirely innocent.

I was making just statements about the legitimacy and how the treatment of him affects his legal guilt in my opinion.

I think that the unconstitutional treatment of defendants affects the credibility of any trial made against them.

With that I agree, and I think the waterboarding of KSM was a really, really stupid move, quite apart from its morality.

Dave

[paulheinze]

Except "I do not think he was innocent". I think you need to reconsider your own beliefs on this, because there seems to be something of a disconnect. If the Twin Towers were demolished, this would imply that the US Government was not only aware, but in some way responsible for, the 9/11 attacks; there is simply no possible rational way to dissociate these two components in any hypothesis. If the US Government was responsible, then KSM's claim to be the prime mover cannot possibly be correct, and his entire testimony rests on this claim. Therefore, a belief that the Twin Towers were demolished is inseparable from a belief that KSM may have been entirely innocent.


I think he was likely to be involved. If it was MIHOP (I am not sure about this), I think people from the Al Qaida (I prefer Arab Afghans) network are likely to be involved. As I said in a post, I think the Arab Afghans (or part of them) were run by people inside the US. They fought in several conflicts on the side the US supported (Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan).

I think a MIHOP scenario in which the whole attack was carried out from inside without foreign involvement is implausible.

[Childlike Empress]

there is simply no possible rational way to dissociate these two components in any hypothesis. If the US Government was responsible, then KSM's claim to be the prime mover cannot possibly be correct, and his entire testimony rests on this claim. Therefore, a belief that the Twin Towers were demolished is inseparable from a belief that KSM may have been entirely innocent.

Oh, that's simple. Hypothesis: "US Government" had them under surveillance and knew about their plans, let them operate and had a protective hand over them. At the same time "they" decided that for maximum Shock & Awe effect, the towers should come down and so they prepared the demolition of it - without letting KSM in on the plan, the meanies!

-> KSM is guilty, "US Government" is guilty.

[BigAl]

Oh, that's simple. Hypothesis: "US Government" had them under surveillance and knew about their plans, let them operate and had a protective hand over them. At the same time "they" decided that for maximum Shock & Awe effect, the towers should come down and so they prepared the demolition of it - without letting KSM in on the plan, the meanies!

-> KSM is guilty, "US Government" is guilty.

Never confuse conspiracy for bureaucratic incompetency when the latter will explain events.

The FBI is based on branch offices in cities. They see their job as catching bank robbers and kidnappers. There is no provision to send all suspicious activities to HQ where it can bee looked at in one place.

In the summer of 2001, branches knew of a couple dozen bits of suspicious activities that if all examined in HQ would have let us disrupt the plans of the hijackers. Agents complained to HQ about this but it HQ didn't respond.

See The Commission report (2004) and updated by Amy Zegert in
Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11 (2007)

[T.A.M.]

Hypothesis: Green Leprachauns, angry over the US involvement in the affairs of Ireland, plotted, and carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Now given this Hypothesis has about as much evidence for it as CE's, or any other produced by the truth movement, I wish it to be considered equally valid.

TAM:)

[Childlike Empress]

Folks, could you please pay attention? I was answering Dave's claim, it's not what i believe. Some critical thinkers you are.

[TruthersLie]

you would liked living under Hitler. They hurt a lot of people,too.

uncalled for and out of line.
goodwins law much twoof?

[Dave Rogers]

Oh, that's simple. Hypothesis: "US Government" had them under surveillance and knew about their plans, let them operate and had a protective hand over them. At the same time "they" decided that for maximum Shock & Awe effect, the towers should come down and so they prepared the demolition of it - without letting KSM in on the plan, the meanies!

So, faced with a situation where they could be assured of an attack in which they could not possibly be implicated, and which would certainly kill hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans in the heart of New York City and in front of the world's news cameras, and might even result in the collapse of the towers, they decided that their purpose - which they hadn't even taken any action themselves to achieve until they learned of al-Qaeda's plot - could not be achieved without the collapse of the buildings, and so provided the possibility to conspiracy theorists of analysing the collapse so as to prove their complicity in an attack that wan't even originally their idea? I'm sorry, but this is so far beyond my plausibility threshold that it doesn't fall within the envelope of rational hypotheses. The risk/reward balance of any MIHOP operation is implausibly great in the first place, but at least with MIHOP the demolition of the towers as an added extra can be argued on the basis of "in for a penny, in for a pound". The LIHOP-plus-demolition theory is based on the assumption that the conspirators, initially having their hands completely clean, chose to take on all the risk, when the reward was virtually assured without them doing so. Really, this one is just too far over the border into Insaneland.

Dave

[funk de fino]

Do you love freedom of speech?
Do you the civil rights?
Do you love the constitution?

If you love the US then you should stand up against the people who destroy its fundaments. Or all the statements about "the beacon of freedom and democracy" appear to be merely hypocritical.

I will answer your irrelevant questions

1. No, not in all cases
2. Do I what the civil rights?
3. No, I am not american.

Your next statement is another attempt to weasel out of saying

"I hate america and I think they did 911"

while ignoring the hard evidence that was found.

[funk de fino]

I am upset about the horrible joy that some people here seem to feel about the treatment of defendants.

I guess you will have evidence of this joy being expressed then eh?

[Childlike Empress]

[moving goalposts]

;)

[Dave Rogers]

;)

No, arguing that your hypothesis is not rational. I never said one couldn't be constructed. The goalposts are right where I first put them.

Dave

[stewieg]

New picture of KSM:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8248355.stm

He should have stuck with the Ron Jeremy look. :D

[paulheinze]

I guess you will have evidence of this joy being expressed then eh?
here are examples

Originally Posted by parky76 View Post
KSM should be hung and then buried face down, wrapped in pig skin. Muslims believe you cannot go to heaven if you are buried in such a manner.
by justin:
i really couldnt care if he confessed or not

i just hope it hurt... a lot

[funk de fino]

here are examples

One example does not mention torture. Try that one again.

One guys says he hopes it hurt.

Any expressions of joy yet? You do know what joy means dont you?

[T.A.M.]

Folks, could you please pay attention? I was answering Dave's claim, it's not what i believe. Some critical thinkers you are.

apologies. I saw your quote and reacted to it (note I clicked on your post to read this one).

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

here are examples

Don't mistake the only too human desire for justice, with joy.

That said, an expression of joy for reciprocation on someone who engineered the deaths of 3000 americans would not surprise me.

TAM:)

[Justin39640]

here are examples

that was an expression of anger not joy
nothing about 9/11 brings a smile to my face
and im a pretty happy guy

thank you for assuming and putting words in my mouth

[ImANiceGuy]

No important information was obtained from KSM through torture. If anyone has evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.

You all said it yourselves; he confessed to 9/11 before he was captured......so waterboarding him was only justified on the basis of preventing future attacks by obtaining intelligence. Around here it is justified on the basis that he decapitated Daniel Pearl, and masterminded the deaths of 3000 people; he's evil....that's plain to see.

But plenty of criminals have done horrible things, and we don't torture them. Would we torture a serial killer to determine the location of hidden victims?

Some of you make me shake my head....warmongers.

[Whiplash]

Wow, a beard can grown that much in 6 years?

I guess I really do have very slow hair growth on my chin.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No important information was obtained from KSM through torture.


How would you know?

You all said it yourselves; he confessed to 9/11 before he was captured......so waterboarding him was only justified on the basis of preventing future attacks by obtaining intelligence. [...]

But plenty of criminals have done horrible things, and we don't torture them. Would we torture a serial killer to determine the location of hidden victims?


That analogy doesn't work. Information needed to prevent future attacks is likely to be extremely time-sensitive, whereas, well... as callous as it sounds... the serial killer's victims are already dead.

Respect the dead; save the living. Again, only one of those is time-sensitive.

Not that I approve of torture, of course. The U.S. went a little crazy in that respect, in my opinion.

[Justin39640]

No important information was obtained from KSM through torture. If anyone has evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.

You all said it yourselves; he confessed to 9/11 before he was captured......so waterboarding him was only justified on the basis of preventing future attacks by obtaining intelligence. Around here it is justified on the basis that he decapitated Daniel Pearl, and masterminded the deaths of 3000 people; he's evil....that's plain to see.

But plenty of criminals have done horrible things, and we don't torture them. Would we torture a serial killer to determine the location of hidden victims?

Some of you make me shake my head....warmongers.

id like to have seen what the russians would have done with a still breathing hitler

please save your soapbox for someone who isnt a monster

[triforcharity]

I think that as enemy combatants, they are not protected under the Gueneva Convention, and anything that we have done to them is free game. NOW, does that mean we should gouge their eyes out?? No, absolutely not. Do I support waterboarding? Yes, I most certainly do. It is a Mind****.

I believe it was paul who presented the question that "If you thought a state would torture you, would that affect your decision while being questioned?" My answer is **** yes! It would make me confess, and tell the truth. I do not care, if I was guilty, I would be silent, and I certainly would not confess to anything. But, I guess that is just me, given my F You attitude. I will die if it means I am not convicted of something I did not commit.

[A W Smith]

Wow, a beard can grown that much in 6 years?

I guess I really do have very slow hair growth on my chin.

Hydroponics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics)

[Whiplash]

Hah, now that's funny!

[Justin39640]

Hydroponics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics)

lol
Win

[TruthersLie]

No important information was obtained from KSM through torture. If anyone has evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.

You all said it yourselves; he confessed to 9/11 before he was captured......so waterboarding him was only justified on the basis of preventing future attacks by obtaining intelligence. Around here it is justified on the basis that he decapitated Daniel Pearl, and masterminded the deaths of 3000 people; he's evil....that's plain to see.

But plenty of criminals have done horrible things, and we don't torture them. Would we torture a serial killer to determine the location of hidden victims?

Some of you make me shake my head....warmongers.

Ummm I'm sorry, but I believe that you MAY be incorrect.

He did confess prior to being captured and tortured.

We really do not know what he revealed about FUTURE plans, or Al Q organization/abilities or even if he revealed things like hiding spaces, weapons caches.

I do not believe he should have been tortured.