Detainees Say They Planned Sept. 11

[LARED]

The five detainees at Guantánamo Bay charged with planning the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have filed a document with the military commission at the United States naval base there expressing pride at their accomplishment and accepting full responsibility for the killing of nearly 3,000 people.

The document, which may be released publicly on Tuesday, uses the Arabic term for a consultative assembly in describing the five men as the “9/11 Shura Council,” and it says their actions were an offering to God, according to excerpts of the document that were read to a reporter by a government official who was not authorized to discuss it publicly.

The document is titled “The Islamic Response to the Government’s Nine Accusations,” the military judge at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp said in a separate filing, obtained by The New York Times, that describes the detainees’ document.

The document was filed on behalf of the five men, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has described himself as the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/10gitmo.html?_r=1

[KDLarsen]

1. Handwaving and excuses begin in 5.. 4.. 3..

The truthers have ignored everything else that contradicts their pet theory du jour so far, so my hope that it will change with this isn't exactly very high.

[eomer]

8. Hah! Now that you've seen the "confession" do you still think it is proof of the official story?

Since when does the government allow murder defendants to work together on a joint statement? They would never allow it for common murderers, much less for the most notorious murderers (allegedly) in our nation's history. And since when are murderers allowed to file a confession with virtually no details about their alleged crime, filling it instead with political invective? Rather, they would normally make each defendant state his confession independently and in detail so that the details could be used to corroborate or refute the truth of the statements.

This document release, far from proving the official story, actually demonstrates that there are elements in our government who are willing to go "rogue" and whose interests align with the terrorists'. The five prisoners found it to their advantage to claim responsibility in order to give their organization importance and score recruiting points. The government agent (pretending to be a judge in this case) found it politically advantageous to score virtually the same points that the terrorists wanted to score -- giving al Qaida prominence and instilling terror in the public.

After you've seen it do you still think it proves the official story? If so, specifically what are the details about this "confession" that make you think it is truthful?

[KDLarsen]

13. No, there is plenty of proof of the "official story"

It's not my problem that twoofers tend to ignore whatever doesn't suit their pet theory.

[JackRiddler]

16. Huh huh, you said "twoofers" Beavis, huh huh

[SDuderstadt]

17. I always knew you reminded me of someone, JR....

thanks for reminding me.

[BeFree]

26. Ignore?

Who ignores the facts that Bush sat their for 7 minutes?

That Cheney was in charge at the White House?

That Air Force planes were sent the wrong way?

That there were numerous warnings before hand?

That Bushco is a bunch of lying bastards that can never be trusted? Never.

Who's ignoring all that?

They have a name for such ignoring people: Ignorants. Those people ignore all that because it suits their pet theory, KDLarsen. The rest of us base our opinions on the very beginning and let that guide us... we're not the ignorants.

[Frank1]

42. Reason

What was said to Bush while he was reading a book with the kids? Was the message about a crash or an assault?
Perhaps he did not want to frighten anyone and sat for 1 min. actually.
What does Cheney have to do with it? He was not the president.
Air Force planes sent the wrong way? Is this a he said, she said?

I know you hate Bushco but reason should prevail first.

[BeFree]

44. Heh

Questions that have been answered so many times it makes my eyes bleed.

Bush sat there for 7 minutes (on tape) after Card told him America (Bush quote) was under attack. Not only that, he knew before he went into the school that an airplane had hit one of the towers. He said something like: "That musta been one bad pilot."

Cheney, you may, or may not know by now, was the puppet's master and he was in some kind of a situation room at the WH. Mineta overheard an aide tell him a plane was headed for DC and Cheney told the aide the orders stand. What orders, is the question never answered.

The 9/11 commission report stated that AF planes were sent in the wrong direction.

Now, Frank, be careful, when you start discovering the awful truth that we have been lied to, it will hurt. Be prepared.

[Old and In the Way]

109. "That musta been one bad pilot."

Of course, he might have thought that, had he not been briefed about OBL's plan to attack this country in the 8/6 PDB....along with many other warnings of an impending attack that were being conveyed by various foreign intel sources prior to 9/11. This statement is quite incriminating, IMHO. We know they fought to keep the 8/6 PDB from being released. Did George forget this and other warnings of impending terrorist attacks when he offered up this observation as an excuse for his inaction that morning? I find it hard to believe he was totally unaware that the 1st plane, UA11, was not understood to be a hijacking when Bush "saw" the 1st plane crash (of course, by "saw" I'm assuming he meant the aftermath of the crash as no broadcast recording "saw" the actual crash at that time).

[SDuderstadt]

110. Actually, CNN, NPR and others initially reported that...

a small plane had hit the WTC and implied it was an accident. As more information became available, it was revised.

[Old and In the Way]

112. So POTUS gets his information from CNN and NPR?

I can't believe you'd offer up that excuse for Bush.

[SDuderstadt]

113. Just pointing out the confusion that morning...

I'm making no excuses for Bush, but what if I was? Do you just have to hear the name Bush to draw conclusions?

[Old and In the Way]

114. "I'm making no excuses for Bush, but what if I was?"

:rofl:

[Kalun D]

118. The Bush Boy

said he saw the plane hit the building on TV, not that heard about it

CNN

Cia
News
Network

NPR

National
Petroleum
Radio

[ryan_cats]

137. He sat for 1 minute???

He sat for 1 minute??? I thought it was for 7 minutes? Link please.

[captainjack08]

108. Tortured people confess to all sorts of things

Haven't you been watching the news about how they tortured these guys? THEY WILL SAY ANYTHING. Utter rubbish and we all know it. If there is a 9/11 Mastermind planner he is problably in a NATO block country, in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

Calling people "truthers" as an insult? My god what a sad state of affairs here in the USA that the conspiracy debunkers call the guys they oppose "truthers." The disentegration of the American mind is pretty much complete.

[jakeXT]

2. So when will the document be released?

The five called themselves the '9/11 Shura Council' in the document, which the New York Times reported could be released today.

...

The reason for the new filing, which the report said reached the military court on March 5, was not clear. The brief court order describing the filing said the men sought no legal action.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1160905/They-badge-honour-9-11-masterminds-write-pride-attacks-New-York.html

[jakeXT]

3. WSJ has a copy online

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/foreign_policy/">Accused 9/11 Suspects Declare Themselves 'Terrorists to the Bone'



Signed: The 9/11 Shura Council
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Ramzi bin As-Shibh
Walid bin 'Attash
Mustafa Ahmed AI-Hawsawi
'Ali 'abd AI-'Aziz 'Ali

Sunday,3/1/1429h
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/gitmo20090310.pdf



Looks like Ramzi bin al-Shibh calls himself As-Shibh now.
And does anybody know how the Islamic calendar works, it seems 1429 is 2008 ?

[greyl]

4. 1429 is 2007 & 2008. Kind of.

Era
Its era begins with the migration from Mecca to Medina of Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam, an event known as the Hegira. The initials A.H. before a date mean “anno Hegirae” or “after Hegira.” The first day of the year is fixed in the Quran as the first day of the month of Muharram. In a.h. 17 ‘Umar I, the second caliph, established the beginning of the era of the Hegira (1 Muharram a.h. 1) as the date that is 16 July 622 ce in the Julian calendar. Origin of the era. (Astronomers, however, use an “astronomical Hegira epoch” that began on 15 July 622 (Julian calendar).)

Years
The years are lunar and consist of 12 lunar months. There is no intercalary period, since the Quran (Sura IX, verses 36–37) sets the calendar year at 12 months. Because the year in the Islamic calendar is shorter than a solar year, the months drift with respect to the seasons, in a cycle 32½ years long.

Months
A new month begins when the ulama first sight the lunar crescent after a new moon. If poor visibility makes it impossible to see the moon, the new month begins 30 days after the last one began. The result is that dates may differ from city to city. In modern times, the practice of sighting the moon is observed most strictly for Ramadan, the month of fasting.
http://www.sizes.com/time/cal_islam.htm

[jakeXT]

5. I found a converter and it seems that 3/1/1429 is 3/9/2008 a Sunday

and 3/1/2009 is 3/4/1430AH a Sunday

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/hijri.htm

I ask myself is this really one year old or not correct for whatever reason.




EDIT: correct link to the WSJ story

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123669703768883959.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

A military attorney appointed to represent one of the defendants questioned whether his client agreed to the statement.

"There is no evidence that Mr. al Hawsawi knew about, read or signed this document ," Maj. Jon Jackson said in an email. "It is a typed message in English with no signature. I object to this highly irregular document release." Maj. Jackson said he was unaware of the statement until the military judge ordered copies sent to attorneys Monday.

[jakeXT]

6. Main forum discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5224675

We are being spoon-fed stupid again...
http://www.atlargely.com/2009/03/we-are-being-spoonfed-stupid-again.html

[noise]

7. Another example of selective release of information

Like a Hollywood movie editor. IMO intent isn't in question. Capability is another story. Sadly, government officials seem to prefer fearmongering and propaganda to honesty.

It's also another example of how many people hold government officials and 9/11 skeptics to different standards. The conduct of government officials is treated with kid gloves. More authoritarianism.

Seven years plus and government officials are still hiding behind national security classification procedures and gag laws. Sometimes people acting such a manner do not have good intentions.

[CJCRANE]

9. Why is the US govt releasing al-Qaeda propaganda?

:shrug:

Seems to me the neocons are still in charge at Guantanamo.

[BeFree]

45. Yeah

If these people were so much martyrs for their cause, why didn't they just proclaim their heroics when they were first caught? You mean we had to torture them to get them to proclaim their faith? That doesn't make sense.

Too, so far, there are at least 30 known conspirators in the OCT and they operated overseas and the CIA/INTEL missed all 30 of them? And not one person in the US has been convicted in any court of law?

None of it makes any sense, leaving the door open to questions.

9/11???.... is a bunch of unanswered questions. That's what it is, and when anyone tries to tell you that they have the answers don't believe them.

[wildbilln864]

10. you guys will fall for any "official" bullshit won't you? nt

:shrug:

[seemslikeadream]

11. hey now wildb I found out that those "detainees" were able to read the typed confession

[wildbilln864]

12. yeppers!

:rofl:

[LARED]

14. Let's see I post a NY times article,

and you call it BS, but have no qualms about posting or believing something from a web site that is likely run out of Mom's basement in a place perhaps decorated with famous pictures of Aryans.

[wildbilln864]

15. you lost me with ...

the false assumptions you make, sorry dude! :shrug:

[frylock]

18. now post an nyt article about how saddam had wmds..

cuz if it's in the NYT, it's gotta be the truth.

[wildbilln864]

41. thank you !! nt

:eyes:

[Frank1]

43. Knee Jerk

Not really. I just want to try reason first. I'm not into knee jerk reaction.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bahadir]

19. q?

is there a chance that they go to gas chamber?

[spooked911]

20. yeah-- no surprise-- it's totally bogus

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

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

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

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

Et cetera...

http://www.atlargely.com/2009/03/we-are-being-spoonfed-stupid-again.html

Only goes to show how corrupt the media is that they unquestioningly propagated this propaganda. Bleagghh.

[JackRiddler]

21. "KSM" also "said" he beheaded Daniel Pearl.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Yes, it appears to me that this may be nothing more than an attempt

to gain their martyrdom as quickly as possible.

Oh, and for your "KSM" thing -- :rofl:

[BeFree]

22. My gawd...

What transparent bullshit. They actually think anyone is gonna fall for this?

They must think yall are a bunch of blubbering idiots to actually think 5 prisoners of bushco who are being held in isolation and being tortured, actually got together and agreed on this document.

C'mon, nobody is that stupid, right? Right?

[Bolo Boffin]

23. "being held in isolation" - not true anymore

"being tortured" also not true anymore.

"prisoners of bushco" also not true anymore.

Hey, have you heard about the election, BeFree?

[BeFree]

25. Tell them that

I'm sure they will be thrilled to hear that "being tortured" is not true anymore.

I mean, heck, here you are talking like they are free. As if, after all their captivity and they are still alive enough to simply breathe, that they willingly and freely signed their death papers handed to them by the same prison guards that held them all this time?

Wait, are you, Bolo, trying to say none of that is true anymore? That it is all over for them? They are free men? That their past is not "true anymore?"

And off the same computer you are telling me that I should believe the OCT? Get a grip. And go ask some of your friends if your words make any logic whatsoever. If they are truthful, they will follow us here and tell you the truth. But I don't expect they will.

[BeFree]

27. The more I think about your reply, Bolo

The less I think about your reason for being here. What could your agenda possibly be, I wonder, when you seem to actually want to just wave Obama's election around and say all is now fine? That the past is "not true anymore."

Just what reasoning is this that attempts to wash away the stain on this country, by denying the truth of what happened?

"It's not true anymore". Gawd, that sucks, bigtime.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. "denying the truth of what happened"?

Are you (ridiculously) accusing Bolo of denying torture? Or are you trying to make it impossible to tell what you are saying?

Just curious.

[BeFree]

29. Geez

Can't you read? He said all that is "not true anymore".

Tell those prisoners that, I dare you.

And wtf are you doing butting in? This was between Bolo and I. Butt here you are. Didn't you even read what Bolo wrote? And IF you did, can you find any redeeming value in it at all? "Not true anymore." Sickening.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. "not true anymore" in the normal universe implies that it was once true

It's just not true anymore that they are being tortured. I am in no way denying that they were tortured before now. "Now" is a time period, however, during which they are not being tortured.

This is English I'm speaking. Quit twisting my words.

And if you don't want people "butting in", then you shouldn't be posting on a public message board. So stow your outrage.

[BeFree]

32. Being

Yes, now is the key. Still, your attempt to wash away the reasons behind what this thread is all about is what sickens me. You can add or delete words at your whim, but the main truth behind your words is that their torture and imprisonment is "not true anymore", as if what happened in the past has no bearing on what transpires today!

Illogical and ill-founded reasoning to support a certain agenda the likes of which I've rarely seen.

What is your agenda that you are so willing to stand behind such words?

I dare you, go tell those prisoners that "it's not true anymore".

[Bolo Boffin]

39. I did no such thing. I whitewashed nothing. You are building a particularly odious straw man

and calling it by my name. It is highly offensive and I suggest you stop such uncivil actions immediately.

If the only way you have to deal with my actual words is blow them utterly out of proportion into this hideous thing, you are well advised to simply give up. I don't have to defend things I never did. Let me know when you're ready to quit your posture of outrage, your massive distracting from the point, and begin an actual discussion.

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. ever seen "Day of the Dove"?

Just saying, it will be a watershed when BeFree is ready to begin an actual discussion.

[reinvestigate911]

46. what would lead you to believe that these prisoners are being treated fairly?

the existence of http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/interrogation_exec_order.pdf">this document -- in light of http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/38969prs20090310.html?s_src=RSS">the clear defiance of a presidential executive order calling for a halt of military commissions -- does nothing to suggest that these prisoners are receiving fair or just treatment.

also, do you have any idea of the effects of sleep deprivation on an individual?
the fact that you make such uninformed statements indicates that you have little grasp of http://ccrjustice.org/get-involved/action/close-torture-loopholes-army-field-manual">what constitutes torture, if any at all.

what evidence suggests that the "http://www.alternet.org/rights/117807/how_the_u.s._army%27s_field_manual_codified_torture_--_and_still_does/?page=entire">policy of torture" has ceased? because you saw it on TV?

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Produce a quote in which I ever said these prisoners are being treated fairly.

Do it right the fuck now.

I am TIRED of posters here deciding what it is I have said and bashing me for their own fricking fantasies. I have never EVER said these prisoners are being treated fairly. YOU ARE MAKING THIS UP SO YOU CAN BASH ME.

If you or anyone else continues to ascribe these wholly offensive positions to me, especially without the slightest bit of documentation, I will consider it attacks and I will be notifying the moderators.

DEAL WITH MY WORDS OR DEAL WITH THE MODERATORS.

Over.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

49. fail

Would you actually espouse the view that anyone who is not being tortured is being treated fairly? Or do you only apply that standard to perceived political enemies?

When you argue this poorly at other people's expense, it becomes the problem of others in the forum. If you actually want to discuss the conditions of these detainees, by all means go ahead.

[reinvestigate911]

50. try reading for comprehension

you jump in to defend your friend and completely miss the point.
please note that hyperlinks are required to ascertain the full meaning of a post.

the executive order did not stop torture, it only limits interrogation practices to what's in the army field manual. the interrogation practices described in the AFM do indeed constitute torture:
http://ccrjustice.org/get-involved/action/close-torture-loopholes-army-field-manual

[Bolo Boffin]

51. Weren't you leaving here forever?

And now you're back and picking up where you left off. I'm too tempting a target for you, huh?

Torture is a word. It has a legal definition. The Army Field Manual doesn't rise to the legal definition of torture. It is very harsh treatment, though, and it may be unfair or undeserved. That's something for someone familiar with all the facts to determine and that's neither you or me.

Now perhaps you'd like to go to the Ryan Mackey thread and point out where his reasoning is wrong? Or are you just back to throw abuse my way?

[reinvestigate911]

52. i excused myself from a ridiculous thread that sought to smear 9/11 truth

i never said that i was leaving the forum.
wishful thinking, perhaps?

the mackey thread is unworthy of further comment because its premise is absurd; and for very the reason i stated (a point which you never responded to, by the way): why would a NASA physicist waste his time "debunking" a "theory" so easily disproved without science? this is akin to hunting for a mouse with a bazooka. please tell us that you're more intelligent than that. the only reasonable explanation is that he seeks to link 9/11 truth to a "nonsense theory" (no-planes) so ALL 9/11 alternate theories can be collectively dismissed. it's dishonest and a favorite technique of agents of disinformation... not that i'm accusing you of being an agent of disinformation.

anyway, back to your latest absurdity: providing that the executive order is being observed the army field manual leaves enough room for torture to occur that you cannot say with any degree of confidence that the detainees are no longer being tortured.

ps: you're too EASY of a target.

[William Seger]

56. No, YOUR premises are absurd

First, we've got several "truthers" right here on this board who claim that "aluminum airplanes can't penetrate steel columns." Yes, that's a "nonsense theory" but it isn't Mackey who has indelibly linked it to the "truth movement."

Second, if you had read the presentation, you may have understood that he intended simply to use that as just one example of how to investigate whether an hypothesis is possible or plausible by using a science-based mathematical model. The idea is to show how much more productive that approach is than hand-waving assertions of personal incredulity, so it can be applied to a lot of the "nonsense theories" coming from the "truth movement."

And third, I do believe he intends to add models for the collapses, which will investigate the much more frequent "truther" claim that the collapses were not possible without help from explosives. That's another "nonsense theory," but it's one that your heroes over at AE911truth spread around, apparently because they are completely incapable of investigating it with a science-based mathematical model. So, stay tuned -- you may learn something.

You were wise to abandon that thread, but not for the intellectually dishonest reasons you now give.

[reinvestigate911]

57. conflate more please...

you can probably find plenty more things to be indignant about from other threads... or whole other forums for that matter...
but the real question is: why would you bother when you're doing so swimmingly well with your see-no-evil dismissal of tortured detainees here?

these charades have become so tiresome and predictable.

[AZCat]

58. The only thing tiresome and predictable...

is the manufactured outrage of the so-called "truth movement".

[reinvestigate911]

59. do you have evidence that the detainees are no longer being tortured or not?

stop changing the subject. it's really weak.
you accuse others of "run, run, run", yet i can't get a sensible argument from the four of you combined.
provide the evidence or concede the point.

the truth is: no one here knows how these detainees are being treated. so stop with your collective bullshit.

[OnTheOtherHand]

60. "your friend"?

That's the sort of assumptive ad hominem handwaving I'm trying to ditch. If there's one participant in this thread I consider a friend, it's eomer.

Whether Appendix M permits torture is a matter of interpretation, whether torture is occurring under the Obama administration is -- as far as I can tell here -- a matter of conjecture, and what any of this has to do with the OP is yet another question. But if you seriously think that Obama's executive order "does nothing to suggest that these prisoners are receiving fair or just treatment," maybe you should slug it out with Anthony Romero, who stated, "Putting an end to Guantanamo, torture and secret prisons is a civil liberties trifecta, and President Obama should be highly commended for this bold and decisive action so early in his administration on an issue so critical to restoring an America we can be proud of again." So if Bolo got suckered, he is in pretty good company.

Do you want to argue that none of us knows how these detainees are being treated? OK. It might even be a good point, depending on whether you want to link it to some, y'know, reasoning.

[reinvestigate911]

61. thanks, but i made my argument... or rather you affirmed it.

but now that we can agree that none of us knows with any degree of certainty whether these detainees are still being tortured, isn't a pre-existing policy of torture -- combined with the defiance of an executive order to halt processing of the case AND the fact that the guantanamo gulag is still open -- enough to make one suspect that there's SOMETHING FUCKING HINKY with these sworn statements??

moreover, please stop waving this kangaroo court BULLSHIT case around as if it adds legitimacy to the official narrative of 9/11. it does not.
this is a grossly dehumanizing chapter in our collective history and an embarrassment to this country. it's disgusting to see this leveraged in ANY forum for ANY reason except to acknowledge how dark a place we've arrived at as a result of such policies and the conspiracies hatched to continue them. is there any shame at all?

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. well, if that was your argument, it stank

Pretty much derailed a derail. Nicely turned.

You can "suspect" anything you like. There's another member who suspects that at least one of these detainees is an actor. If you are interested in trying to assess these suspicions, I won't stop you.

moreover, please stop waving this kangaroo court BULLSHIT case around as if it adds legitimacy to the official narrative of 9/11

I haven't said a damn thing about how this case connects to any "official narrative." Or are you just addressing the world in general?

[BeFree]

67. Suckered In?

Its more like stepped in it, or, put own foot in own mouth.

In an attempt to take me to task for a very minor, possibly not even a mistake, the post claimed that what I wrote was not "true anymore", meaning, that the prisoners we're not being tortured anymore or being held in isolation.

Well, the differing claims may or may not be correct. My suggestion was that the prisoners be asked whether it was indeed true, (methinks we know what their answers would be) yet the poster declined to even examine that idea, much less re-examine its own words.

Given all that, it does make one wonder just what agenda drives a person to refuse to do those simple things, eh?

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. O RLY?

Help me out here. In which post did you suggest that the prisoners be asked anything?

[BeFree]

70. #25

In that reply I suggested that a certain someone go tell the prisoners that it was "not true anymore". Meaning, go ask them what they thought about their predicament.

-----------------------

What agenda is it that drives people to ignore elementary intelligence, causing such back-asswards meanderings to get around, deny, or obfuscate expressed ideas?

[OnTheOtherHand]

72. are you kidding?

Do I need to explain the difference between "tell" and "ask"?

Maybe I do. If you spent less time telling and more time asking, many discussions would go better.

:shrug:

[BeFree]

73. Heh, answer this:

Why are you so fixated on keystrokes? Meanwhile meandering away from ideas?

The expressed idea that "it's not true anymore" is the issue here. And whether their torture has any bearing on what these prisoners have allegedly agreed to. Yet you continue to be fixated on semantics and keystrokes, whilst ignoring the facts. Why is that?

[OnTheOtherHand]

74. and when did I stop beating my wife?

Dude, if you refuse to acknowledge distinctions as straightforward as "tell" versus "ask," then how are we supposed to communicate about anything whatsoever?

You did state as a fact that these prisoners "are being held in isolation and are being tortured." Do you believe that? If so, why? Go ahead, show your concern for facts. I'm all ears. Go ahead, BeFree. Go ahead. No one is stopping you.

Meanwhile, would you like me to speculate about whether the torture of these prisoners in the past (I understand that it is reported to have included waterboarding, so I won't cavil at "torture") has anything to do with this joint statement? How would I know? You're the one who apparently Just Knows stuff.

[BeFree]

75. Wow.

You won't speculate on the idea that torture had a bearing on what any of these men are alleged to have agreed to?

The idea that "its not true anymore" is ridiculous, yet you support that idea? Refusing to even speculate?

[OnTheOtherHand]

77. if you can't or won't understand my posts,

then I can't do anything for you.

[BeFree]

78. You'd best...

...stop beating your wife. See, I'm responding to what you wrote. Happy now?

[Grateful for Hope]

79. What I am surprised at

is that, even if torture has stopped, the after effects linger. A person who has been subjected to a long-term incarceration laced with torture is not the same person as he/she was prior to the incarceration. I am surprised that there seems to be little acknowledgement of this.

Any admissions made by these prisoners need to be viewed in this reality.

There is little reason to believe these admissions IMO.

[OnTheOtherHand]

80. FWIW, they aren't presented as "admissions"

I imagine that is Lared's consideration, but I don't know. It might still be possible to ask him, if the well hasn't been too thoroughly poisoned.

[Grateful for Hope]

82. Huh? n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

83. did you read the OP?

Further to quote the New York Times article:

In their filing, the men describe the planning of the Sept. 11 attacks and the killing of Americans as a model of Islamic action, and say the American government’s accusations cause them no shame, according to the excerpts read by the government official.

“To us,” the official continued reading, “they are not accusations. To us they are a badge of honor, which we carry with honor.”

So, to repeat myself, the statement under discussion wasn't presented as "admissions." Whether it is reliable is a separate question.

[Grateful for Hope]

91. Read the OP title

"Detainees say they planned 9/11".

So, did the original poster mischaracterize the article? If so, why did you not get on his case about his misleading OP title?

?

[AZCat]

92. That is the title of the article.

It might be that LARED was just following the LBN standard of using the article title as the title of the OP.

[Grateful for Hope]

94. Perhaps

But, if one is aware that the title of an article is misleading, then, I think that it should be followed by a disclaimer in the OP.

BTW, hope all is well with you, AZ.

[OnTheOtherHand]

93. misleading how?

I get the impression that you still don't see my point, and I'm not sure how to make it any plainer. The detainees did not characterize their taking responsibility for the 9/11 attacks as an "admission." Neither does the title of the article.

The point probably isn't very important, but it isn't all that complicated, either.

(Now, if you want to parse in what sense the detainees did or didn't "plan()" the attacks, that's a whole 'nother discussion -- but I think the title is somewhat consistent with the article, for whatever that is worth.)

[Grateful for Hope]

95. Planning is not the same as an admission of guilt

this is true. However, the admission of "planning" implies that there was some involvement in the final result. Parse away. The title is still misleading.

[OnTheOtherHand]

96. I repeat: misleading how?

It's not a rhetorical question; I'm lost. Are you saying that the story doesn't indicate that the detainees claimed some involvement in the final result? Or that you don't think they actually were involved? Or what?

[Grateful for Hope]

97. I suggest that you read the entire thread n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

98. I have n/t

[reinvestigate911]

54. "It's just not true anymore that they are being tortured." --Bolo Boffin

http://ccrjustice.org/get-involved/action/close-torture-loopholes-army-field-manual">the army field manual has loopholes which allow torture.
please produce evidence that they are not being tortured. an executive order is not sufficient.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. That is not a quote in which I claimed the prisoners were being treated fairly. You are factually

inaccurate.

I defy you to quote me as saying that these prisoners are being treated fairly. I never did it. You are telling gross factual inaccuracies about me in order to bash me. Produce the damn quote already or shut the fuck up.

[reinvestigate911]

63. you asserted that the detainees were no longer being tortured... and your assertion has zero merit.

i am calling you on it... can you deal with it? or will you continue to defend such a preposterous claim?

as to whether their treatment is "fair" or not, i defer to this quote:

"Freedom from torture is one of the most fundamental of all human rights principles ... We have made important advances in ridding the world of torture and degrading treatment, and we must be vigilant in continuing on this path, even in these challenging times."

--President Jimmy Carter, (Hilton Foundation press release, August 22, 2003)

clearly jimmy carter believes -- as many americans believe -- that it is the "freedom from torture" which is a core tenet in establishing whether prisoners are treated fairly or not. is this not the purpose of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture">UN convention against torture?

i will let the "disinterested reader" draw their own conclusions.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Regardless of your blather, will you admit to making up shit about me?

Will you do that? Because that is what you did. There is no reason for me to continue any kind of conversation with you until you admit to and apologize to me publicly for making up crap about me.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. So that is a no.

In your every interaction with me, you have proven that you are not here to have a civil discussion. You constantly make up crap about me and what I have said. It seems to be more important to you what I do here than trying to advance what you claim is your cause: 9/11 Truth. In fact, from your first posts here, you seemed to have a special fixation on interacting with me and reframing my posts with factual inaccuracies.

I will seek every remedy possible. I suggest you lose this fixation on me.

[reinvestigate911]

76. please consider the difference between a statement and a question

having individual posts deleted from this thread does not change the positions you have expressed throughout this discussion and you know it.
the insane notion that the detainees' allegedly "sworn statements" were unaffected by torture will remain... i am interested in seeing you defend this. it seems that in fact, you cannot defend it and so you try to turn this into some personal attack against you. ps: it's not about you, it's about the idea which you expressed.

to quote, you said "It's just not true anymore that they are being tortured." do you have evidence to support this?

does it look anything like:
2 + 2 = 5

hmmm?

[OnTheOtherHand]

81. there you go again

the insane notion that the detainees' allegedly "sworn statements" were unaffected by torture will remain... i am interested in seeing you defend this.

He never said it, so why should he defend it?

This thread doesn't have to be this stupid. But it will probably be about as stupid as you want to make it.

[reinvestigate911]

84. then why don't you summarize his statements for us

i doubt you have the courage to try.

[OnTheOtherHand]

85. why don't you stop distorting them for us?

I suppose you're creating the kind of discussion you want, but the question is why you want this kind of discussion.

[BeFree]

86. Discussion?

You aren't discussing anything. Disgusting, is more like it, just look at your trash talk, it means jack shit! All trash. Disgusting. Have you any sense of intellectual integrity, professor?

[OnTheOtherHand]

88. my trash talk?

I'm not trying to compete with you in that department.

[reinvestigate911]

87. did you have something to contribute to this discussion

or were you simply in the mood to snipe from the sidelines, as is your standard tack for engagement?

if you want to have a constructive argument, then please "interpret" what the poster meant when he insisted that the detainees are no longer being tortured. please also bear in mind that his statement is unfounded as there is no evidence as to what their current treatment or living conditions are because they are at this moment being held in a US government-sanctioned GULAG.

so what did he mean by his statements?
can you answer?

no?
then kindly go away.

[BeFree]

89. Glad to hook-up with you

reinvestigate, sorry to see so many of your posts get deleted, too.

It is frustrating that the posters aligned with the OCT are so evasive, it would be nice to have a real discussion with them from time to time.

Understand, tho, that they are on a side of this issue that surely must make them uneasy, considering who wrote the book they work from.

But damn, acting as if torture had nothing to do with the statement is a bit far reaching even for these guys. You'd think they'd just apologize, claim they don't really feel that way and move on?

[OnTheOtherHand]

90. who defines the "sidelines"?

I've made substantive points to which you haven't responded, and you've hectored me as to positions that I don't hold. At the same time, I appear to be the only person who has actually engaged the argument you restate in this post. So your complaints about me seem misdirected.

Subjectively, you may be concerned with the conditions of U.S. detainees -- and that would be an admirable concern. However, what you've conveyed in this thread was admirably summarized by AZCat as "manufactured outrage." Maybe it's us, but maybe it has something to do with your posts.

While I have no way of knowing what Bolo subjectively meant, he did say that these detainees are no longer being tortured. None of us has access to the detainees, so none of us can confirm this. Does he have any reason to believe it? I think he has several obvious reasons to believe it -- including an executive order that reverses the expansive interpretations of the Bush administration, the character of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's statements, and the absence of a clear motivation for torturing the detainees during their trial -- none of which is conclusive. So far, you have offered no reason to believe that the detainees are being tortured, only arguments as to why it is possible. It is not clear to me, at least, whether you actually care whether the detainees are being tortured, but I will try to keep an open mind.

As far as I can tell, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured, and played an important role (which he may actually overdramatize) in planning the September 11 attacks. If you have reasons to believe otherwise, you have only yourself to blame for not having made a better case so far. But it's never too late.

[Kalun D]

122. Fair Treatment

I have never EVER said these prisoners are being treated fairly.

So then why would ANYONE think that a statement that they signed while in captivity is credible?

From the vids I've seen of waterboarding (drowning torture), you could get anyone to sign anything

[Kalun D]

121. What's the timeline?

It's just not true anymore that they are being tortured. I am in no way denying that they were tortured before now. "Now" is a time period, however, during which they are not being tortured.

so what day did the torture officially end? How can you prove it did indeed end on that day? Are they allowing press into all of Gitmo?

When did the torture stop? When was this statement written? Who wrote it? Do any of these detainees speak and write English?

Could someone who had been tortured in the past merely be threatened with torture and intimidated into signing a statement that they couldn't even read?

If their lawyers weren't even present, how does anyone know what really happened?

[OnTheOtherHand]

31. welcome to DU

This is a public discussion board. But you knew that already. Right?

[BeFree]

33. Butt out.

In the meantime, I will take your attack on me as verifying support for the "it's not true anymore". As if the torture had nothing to do with what we are talking about in this thread.

Is that really your position? Publicly?

[OnTheOtherHand]

34. LOL

Dude, I've seen all your moves. You aren't confusing anyone except yourself.

[BeFree]

35. So

You do support the idea that since these men are not being tortured today, their alleged statement should be regarded as something that these men agreed to, and are willing to tell the world?

It's as if they agreed to do this once their captors told them "We will stop torturing you if you sign this statement."

Is that your spin?

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. nope

You're doing more than enough spinning for everyone on the thread. But, again, I assume you know this already.

[MrMickeysMom]

99. That was a lame attack

... Can we have some discussion here, instead of limp attacks?

[OnTheOtherHand]

100. what did you want to discuss?

I think it's reprehensible that two people distorted Bolo's position to such an extent, but we've covered that topic. Was there something else?

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

102. don't be silly

If BeFree had a third explanation, he could have offered it. It's not as if we heartlessly deprived him of the opportunity to clarify that he wasn't accusing Bolo of denying torture.

If you haven't seen BeFree play the "What could your agenda possibly be" card before, you haven't been around very long. If my comment offends you more than his, then you and I probably won't get along very well.

[MrMickeysMom]

104. Tell me this...

Why do you think the deleted message above got "deleted", hmmm?

It certainly didn't fall outside the rules here.

Just because you don't see me posting here often, don't misunderstand my length on DU.

Don't be silly.

[BeFree]

105. Eh? Befree here

What third explanation? Bolo skittered away without answering me. And you've done nothing but cover for him so he could, AFAICT. Actually you got so boring I just decided to ignore you and let you have the final post. I see Mom has come to my rescue and unlike others, I am back to see what's up.

Mom, mr. Hand here is a newbie to all this, so there is a very good chance he may see the light, so go easy on him, for now anyway. Just don't ever let him guide the discussion because if you do he will tie it up in a knot.

Thanks, Mom.

[MrMickeysMom]

106. Ahhhh, well one good hand deserves ...

a break, so I'll go easy on him.... for now... :evilgrin:

[reinvestigate911]

107. "being tortured" also not true anymore.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/guantanamo-prisoners-still-being.html">Guantanamo Prisoners STILL Being Tortured Under Obama

[reinvestigate911]

133. re: "being tortured" also not true anymore.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/26/petraeus-close-gitmo/">Petraeus agrees with Obama: It’s time to close Guantanamo and end torture.

[OnTheOtherHand]

134. are you suggesting

that Petraeus stated that the United States presently is torturing people and should stop?

Because I looked at the excerpt, and then I looked at the entire interview, and I couldn't find any warrant for that assertion. I don't think Petraeus addresses that question either way, apart from stating his policy "as a division commander in Iraq in the early days."

[reinvestigate911]

136. i'm suggesting that

it's beyond naive to assume -- just because some presidential directive was signed -- that what happens in the GULAG isn't anything other than "business as usual" for as long as the GULAG remains open.

arguing the contrary is http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=conditions+worse+guantanamo+obama">fucking silly... unless of course you can prove it with evidence.... that is, evidence that disproves http://www.truthout.org/051609Y">scahill's reporting.

but you seem to enjoy arguing out of your depth -- so go for it, big boy.

[rollingrock]

36. Torture works wonders, doesn't it? /nt

[BeFree]

37. Obviously it does

I must apologize... my outrage over the idea that anyone could so casually dismiss illegal imprisonment and torture on DU, did get me going a bit.

But in the long run it did much to expose a hidden agenda, methinks.

[rollingrock]

53. It's amazing the things a man will say

...with a scalpel applied to his genitals.

[aldo]

55. Ha, ha ha -- is this before or after torture?

Or are these paid govt. patsies like Moussaoui who actually believed Bush would pardon him if he plead guilty? His stating this was only taken as proof of his craziness.

Why don't they create a fake Bin Laden video backing them up? (Please note that Bin Laden only issues audio tapes now -- ha, ha ha.)

[wildbilln864]

65. exactly! thank you. nt

[goforit]

103. Yep, total Coersion.

[ATH]

111. I'd say it just to thumb my nose at them.

Teach them not to illegally detain me forever.

[Kalun D]

123. That's BEEECUZZZ

only the audio comes through when you're coming from beyond the grave

[Old and In the Way]

115. A link to Mark Levey's post today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5690068&mesg_id=5690068

Perhaps the acts of torture on the 9/11 captives had more to do with burying the truth than exposing it.

[able1]

116. Maybe those captives knew too much and had to be silenced. EOM

[wildbilln864]

117. Hey LARED!

I think if you were waterboarded over 100 times in a month, not to mention what ever else was done to him, you'd say you did it too! :eyes:

[Kalun D]

119. Gitmo Bay

Says it all. They were tortured, anybody with half a brain knows you torture people to get them to say what you want to hear.

And the Gov shills are desperate for some "evidence" that 911 was as they say it is.

[captainjack08]

124. You'd confess to planning 9/11 too if you were being tortured

Get real please. The Catholic Church was doing this in the inquisition hundreds of years ago for the same reason. You torture people to elicit a desired confession. That is what most of this is about. Why can't the CT deniers recognize something the whole world has known for hundreds of years?

This confession is almost certainly bullshit just like the frameups surrounding the Toronto 18, the Miami 7, the Tim McVeigh Did it Essentially Alone bombing, the WMD hoax, yellowcake hoax. Look at the evidence. The United States government under a fascist Republican leadership with invertebrate Democrat help lied its people into a war and then blamed the wrong people for 9/11 and attacked those people in Iraq. That is a goddamn grievous crime and we really, really should stop looking at all of these fucking patsies and get to those MASTERMINDS.

[SDuderstadt]

125. "Democrat help"

Gid you know that referring to our party as the "Democrat party" rather than the "Democratic Party" is a GOP slur? Same thing applies to referring to it as "Democrat help" rather than "Democratic help".

[captainjack08]

126. REREAD WHAT I WROTE.. Are you confused about what the word Democrat means?

Always trying to derail legitimate subjects with nonsense or maybe you are genuinely confused.

Since you can't honestly quote what I said, here it is again:

"The United States government under a fascist Republican leadership with invertebrate Democrat help"

I was specifically speaking of weasles like Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats who are spineless and did things like voted for the Iraq war and torture.

Democrat is a word... means member of the Democratic Party. Simple concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat

If I had been speaking of invertebrate Republicans, the phrase would have been "invertebrate Republican help" not "invertebrate Republican Party help."

Are you sure you are up to the challenge of logically debunking all of these conspiracies you pound on every day? You seem to be having problems logically parsing very simple sentences.

Read more Kneejerk less.

[SDuderstadt]

127. do you know the difference between a noun and an adjective?

the word ''democrat'' is a noun, as in ''i am a democrat''. we are not the ''democrat party'', we are the 'democratic party''. similarly, if you are going to apply a modifier to the word ''help'', it would be ''democratic help'' not ''democrat help''. the gop have taken to intentionally referring to us as the ''democrat'' party, because they seek to deny people perceiving us as the small d democratic party, hoping they can paint us as anti-democratic. you're helping them by being stubborn. why do you think this website calls itself ''democraticunderground'' and not ''democratunderground''? i dare you to go to your ward or precinct meeting and refer to us as the ''democrat party'' and see what happens.

[Old and In the Way]

129. I'm a Democrat and I understood his point.

Why can't you? Why derail his thesis by something that is not pertinent to his point? Nowhere did he say "Democrat Party", simply noted that Democrat(s) were sledgehammered by Republicans on this issue...you do remember how this went down, right?

"the United States government under a fascist Republican leadership with invertebrate Democrat help lied its people into a war and then blamed the wrong people for 9/11 and attacked those people in Iraq." The only problem I see here is that he used a singular reference rather than plural. Instead of a tangential response that totally obscures his point...why not refute his core point? Oh yeah...you despise Republicans, but in this case..you probably need to defend them. :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

130. Jesus fucking christ....

Guys, using "democrat" as a modifier rather than "democratic" is a GOP rhetorical trick. Why are you aiding and abetting them? I believe it came from either Frank Luntz or Newt Gingrich. Why you think it is trivial is beyond me.

[Ghost in the Machine]

135. Would you say someone was a 'spineless Democrat' or 'spineless Democratic"

How you come off with some of this goofiness is beyond me, duder... but it's great that you consistantly show off your huge lack of comprehension and critical thinking skills that you so blather on about to others.

The corner is thataway ~~~~>>> :dunce:

[Subdivisions]

128. AH - HAHAHAHAHA - *deep breath* Ah - HAHAHAHAHA! Oh, what?

This is a real confession? A real honest-to-God water induced confession?

Excuse me but...

[spooked911]

131. yeah, after being tortured and abused, the detainees all got together

around the campfire, sang Kumbayah, then decided to 'fess up.

[spooked911]

132. There is also this, again

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

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

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

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

Et cetera...

from here:
http://www.atlargely.com/2009/03/we-are-being-spoonfed-stupid-again.html

though the link is busted now.