Tuesday, December 18, 2007
9/11 "Confession" Falls Apart

An article in the Washington Post quotes "FBI officials, including agents who questioned [alleged Al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaida] after his capture or reviewed documents seized from his home" as concluding that he was:

[L]argely a loudmouthed and mentally troubled hotelier whose credibility dropped as the CIA subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding and to other "enhanced interrogation" measures.

***
even though he knew some al-Qaeda players, he provided interrogators with increasingly dubious information as the CIA's harsh treatment intensified in late 2002."

For example:

Retired FBI agent Daniel Coleman, who led an examination of documents after Abu Zubaida's capture in early 2002 and worked on the case, said the CIA's harsh tactics cast doubt on the credibility of Abu Zubaida's information.

"I don't have confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road, everything you say is tainted," Coleman said, referring to the harsh measures. "He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn't believe him. The problem is they didn't realize he didn't know all that much."

***

"They said, 'You've got to be kidding me,' " said Coleman, recalling accounts from FBI employees who were there. " 'This guy's a Muslim. That's not going to win his confidence. Are you trying to get information out of him or just belittle him?'" Coleman helped lead the bureau's efforts against Osama bin Laden for a decade, ending in 2004.

Coleman goes on to say:

Abu Zubaida ... was a "safehouse keeper" with mental problems who claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did.

***
Looking at other evidence, including a serious head injury that Abu Zubaida had suffered years earlier, Coleman and others at the FBI believed that he had severe mental problems that called his credibility into question. "They all knew he was crazy, and they knew he was always on the ###### phone," Coleman said, referring to al-Qaeda operatives. "You think they're going to tell him anything?"

The article also says that Abu Zubaida might have been tortured for months.

Bottom line: According to the FBI, the information which formed the basis for the 9/11 Commission Report was based on the ramblings of a literally crazy guy after he had been tortured for many, many weeks in a manner that was guaranteed to destroy his trust in his interrogators and which was contrary to effective interrogation techniques.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/...alls-apart.html

Hey there ustraitor.
I see you're off your meds again. Get that 'scrip refilled IMMEDIATELY before you harm yourself or others near your insane azz.

Beck Complains Of Threats, Yet Wanted To "Kill Michael Moore"
Uses part of Ron Paul interview to suggest his supporters are dangerous

Steve Watson & Paul Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, December 19, 2007


Ron Paul appeared on Glenn Beck's CNN show last night for a full hour in what was, it has to be said, a fair interview, rare as that concept has been in the past where Beck is concerned. However, Beck couldn't resist straying away from Ron Paul's campaign issues towards the end of the interview in order to complain that he has received several death threats from people who claim to support Paul.

The thinly veiled attack was clearly designed to suggest that Ron Paul's supporters are dangerous and that this reflects on his policies, a smear tactic Beck has previously used, and one that most likely landed him with said threats in the first instance.

A bemused Ron Paul was of course cornered into condemning any threat of violence, despite not having any knowledge of what Beck was referring to. However it is quite impossible to have any sympathy for Beck given the fact that not only does he regularly regurgitate the "kill those darn Islamists before they kill us" mantra, but has also personally threatened to kill people whose views he condemns, namely those of film maker Michael Moore.

Credit goes to blogspot Real Truth Online for pointing out that on May 17, 2005, Glenn Beck, on his radio show, said the following:

“Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure”.

Listen to the audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwqnkWdCJg

No explanation of Beck's incredible hypocrisy is required, instead here is Ron Paul's elegant response which Beck should maybe take more careful consideration of in the future:

"All I can do is address the subject of violence, I am committed to non violence, no initiation of aggression, these are my political viewpoints, I believe in political change coming about through the mode of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, through non-violence. I happen to believe that we should practice these principles both domestically against individuals as well as other countries, this is the reason I don't want to use aggression against other countries to bring about change. I don't ever want to initiate aggression, this is what is in our constitution and so I reject anybody who would use violence."

We support this view 100% and have always urged a commitment to non violence and peaceful political activism, sadly Mr Beck, you cannot say the same.


http://prisonplanet.com/articles/december2...1207Threats.htm