Posts Tagged ‘al-Qaeda’

The New American

Elements of al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups were known to be key players in the NATO-backed uprising in Libyafrom the beginning, but now it appears that prominent Jihadists and terrorists are practically leading the revolution with Western support.

One terror leader in particular, Abdelhakim Belhaj, made headlines around the world over the weekend after it emerged that he was appointed the chief of Tripoli’s rebel Military Council. Prior to leading rebel forces against Gaddafi’s regime, Belhaj was the founder and leader of the notorious Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

Eventually the terror “Emir,” as he has been called, was arrested and tortured as an American prisoner in the terror war. In 2004, according to reports, he was transferred to the Gaddafi regime — then a U.S. terror-war ally.

By 2010, Belhaj was freed by Gaddafi under an amnesty agreement for “former” terrorists. And more recently, the terror leader and his men were trained by U.S. special forces to take on Gaddafi.

“We proudly announce the liberation of Libya and that Libya has become free and that the rule of the tyrant and the era of oppression is behind us,” Belhaj was quoted as saying by ABC after his forces sacked one of Gaddafi’s compounds. His leadership is now well established.

While most news reports about Belhaj acknowledged that the LIFG has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, many accounts inaccurately downplayed the group’s links to terror and al-Qaeda. But evidence suggests the two terrorist organizations actually merged several years ago.

According to a study by the U.S. military, the organization had an “increasingly cooperative relationship with al-Qa’ida, which culminated in the LIFG officially joining al-Qa’ida on November 3, 2007.” And even before that, former CIA boss George Tenet warned the U.S. Senate in 2004 that al-Qaeda-linked groups like the LIFG represented “one of the most immediate threats” to American security.

A few reporters, however, have highlighted the seriousness of the problem. Journalist Pepe Escobar, one of the first to report the news of Belhadj‘s rise to power in Tripoli, explained in the Asia Times: “Every intelligence agency in the US, Europe and the Arab world knows where he’s [Belhadj’s] coming from. He’s already made sure in Libya that himself and his militia will only settle for sharia law.”

Escobar also noted that the repercussions would be widespread. “The story of how an al-Qaeda asset turned out to be the top Libyan military commander in still war-torn Tripoli is bound to shatter — once again — that wilderness of mirrors that is the ‘war on terror,’” he noted. It will also compromise “the carefully constructed propaganda of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO’s) ‘humanitarian’ intervention in Libya.”

Israeli intelligence group Debka also drew attention to the situation in a recent analysis. “Belhadj is on record as rejecting any political form of coexistence with the Crusaders excepting jihad,” the organization noted in a piece entitled “Pro-Al Qaeda brigades control Qaddafi Tripoli strongholds seized by rebels.”

Belhadj, of course, is hardly the only al-Qaeda terrorist leading rebel forces in the NATO-backed takeover of Libya. Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, another key insurgent military commander, has also boasted of his links to terror groups and his battles against U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Countless other “former” terrorists, many of whom are well-known to American officials, are also deeply embedded in the new rebel regime. And according to CNN, hundreds of al-Qaeda-linked Islamic extremists have been set free from Libyan prisons in recent days and weeks by rebel forces.

“Nobody knows what these released prisoners are going to do next,” explained Noman Benotman, identified as a “former Libyan Jihadist” and senior LIFG leader. “Will they take part in the fighting and if they do will they join pre-existing rebel brigades or form a separate fighting force?”

On top of that, because the rebel government has already been recognized by Western governments, it will soon be receiving billions of dollars that were seized from the Gaddafi regime. Massive aid packages and overwhelming military support have been flowing to the rebels for months.

Al-Qaeda fighters and other Islamic extremists are also now in possession of huge stockpiles of advanced military weaponry including missiles and possibly even weapons of mass destruction. Concern about chemical agents falling into their hands is growing quickly.

NATO powers, which secretly armed the rebels before Western intervention became official, also flooded the nation with arms. And Gaddafi’s stockpiles have been thoroughly raided, adding even more fuel to the fire as the weapons begin to flow toward Jihadists around the world.

And the battle is indeed expanding. Al-Qaeda is now targeting regimes that did not back the Libyan rebellion. After an attack on an important Algerian military academy that left 18 dead, for example, a statement released by al-Qaeda said the strike was due to Algeria “continuing to support the Libyan dictator Gadaffi to fight against our brothers.”

As The New American reported in March, top al-Qaeda figures actually backed and praised the rebellion in Libya from the very beginning. Many key terrorist leaders were known to be intimately involved with the NATO-backed uprising.

Ironically perhaps, Gaddafi claimed from the start that the rebels were Western agents and al-Qaeda leaders. But despite U.S. Senators McCain and Lieberman having praised the regime several years earlier as an “ally” in the terror war deserving of American weapons, Gaddafi’s statements were dismissed by most analysts.

Eventually, however, even top U.S. officials confirmed that there were at least “flickers” of al-Qaeda among the rebel leadership. Now it is becoming increasingly apparent that they are firmly in control. And evidence of widespread war crimes by NATO and its extremist proxies on the ground is mounting by the day.

Congressman and GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the worst for Libyans may be yet to come. “We face a situation where a rebel element we have been assisting may very well be radical jihadists, bent on our destruction, and placed in positions of power in a new government,” he said in a statement released last week. “Worse still, Gadhafi’s successor is likely to be just as bad, or worse, than Gadhafi himself.”  

The aftermath of NATO’s Libya war will almost certainly be bloody and fraught with problems. And even though the truth is difficult to discern amid a web of lies emanating from both sides, what has been learned doesn’t paint a bright picture for the future.

Sharia law is enshrined in the draft Constitution, and the violence shows no signs of easing thus far. The rebel “Transitional Council” also announced early on that it had created a Western-style central bank to take over from Gaddafi’s state-owned monetary authority.

Even as Libya spirals deeper into chaos and Gaddafi vows to fight on for years, NATO may well be planning further “regime change” missions for other Middle Eastern nations. Islamic extremists, meanwhile, are arming and preparing themselves for more violence as they exploit the situation to gain more power. Analysts say the nightmare is only beginning.

Unbelievable, though not unexpected, departure from reality.

Tony Cartalucci
Prisonplanet.com
July 16, 2011

Associated Press reports that, “U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Obama administration has decided to formally recognize Libya’s main opposition group as the country’s legitimate government. The move gives foes of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi a major financial and credibility boost.”

In an act of utter desperation as the brutal, though entirely ineffective Libyan rebels flounder in their NATO-backed offensives against Libya’s ruling government in Tripoli, the US has now recognized the Libyan rebels as the country’s “legitimate government” allowing the US to directly fund, arm, and support with US troops, the Al-Qaeda tied war criminals operating out of Benghazi. The recent farcical move indicates that France’s Foreign Minister Alain Juppé has failed in his threats and posturing to get Libya’s Qaddafi to stand down, and that the NATO-backed war of aggression is about to reach new heights of brutality most likely including the involvement of US, UK, and French troops on the ground.

Libyan Rebels are Al-Qaeda – On Record

Operating out of the Libyan cities of Benghazi, Darna, and Tobruk, Libyan rebels themselves have admitted that many of their members are drawn from Al Qaeda. The London Telegraph has reported that Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi had admitted many of his fighters had just returned from fighting US forces in Iraq. The Telegraph also reported that Hasidi himself had “earlier fought against “the foreign invasion” in Afghanistan, before being captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan. He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.” A United States Army West Point report confirms indeed that fighters drawn from the Libyan cities of Benghazi, Darna, and Tobruk were second only to Saudi Arabia in contributing forces to fight US troops in Iraq.

US Recognizes Al Qaeda War Criminals As Libyas Official Government   PMofLibyanTNCPhoto: According to US-educated Mahmoud Jibril, “prime minister” of the contrived “Libyan Transitional National Council,” in a May 12, 2011 talk before the Brookings Institution, “what’s taking place is a natural product of the globalizational process that started in the mid-80′s.” He most recently confirmed allegations reported by HRW regarding rebel atrocities but claimed they represent only a “few incidents” and that those responsible would be “brought to justice.”

….

This illustrates the absurdity of both the “War on Terror” and the current NATO-backed operations unfolding in Libya, where the same known terrorists are used both as an excuse for global intervention and continued foreign occupation while concurrently provided arms, air cover, legitimacy, and now direct funding while participating in global intervention. On full display for the world to see is how the global corporatocracy manipulates and exploits all sides of any given conflict for their own nefarious self-serving ends. One must wonder what races through the minds of US and UK pilots as they provide air support for the very men they strafed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Libyan Rebels are Documented War Criminals

In an April 2011 New York Times article titled, “Inferior Arms Hobble Rebels in Libya War,” a weepy narrative is told of under-armed, outclassed rebels who have been compelled by their circumstances to commit horrific atrocities and war crimes. The New York Times describes a “tolerance for at least a small number of child soldiers,” and blamed a lack of command-and-control for “instances of abusive or outright brutal conduct” rather than a lack of ethical principles or their foreign-funded, illegitimate cause.

The New York Times article describes the rebels’ use of Grad rockets often described as indiscriminate war weapons and whose use by Qaddafi’s forces have been cited as a contributing factor for NATO’s intervention. The article also makes mention of the rebels’ use of landmines – also a contributing factor cited by the warmongering criminals of NATO for their intervention in North Africa.

More recently, the Soros-funded Human Rights Watch released a report indicating that civilians were being abused (including having their feet shot off by victorious rebels) and their property looted and destroyed by Libya’s rebels upon taking over towns from “suspected Qaddafi supporters.” While the report, and a torrent of corporate-owned media outlets attempt to play-down and spin the allegations confirmed by defacto rebel “prime minister” Mahmoud Jibril, they represent evidence indicating that Libya’s violence is not divided along political aspirations for “liberal democracy” and support for Qaddafi, but rather along predictable, long standing ethnic divisions. These confirmed reports of rebel war crimes also provide evidence that NATO’s involvement in Libya is justified by selective enforcement of an already illegitimate UN Security Council resolution for the sole purpose of removing Qaddafi – clearly not protecting Libyan civilians.

Libyan Intervention One of Imperialism, not Humanitarianism

Stated quite clearly in the corporate-funded, corporate-serving Brookings Institution’s piece titled, “Libya’s Test of the New International Order,” the intervention in Libya “is a test that the international community has to pass. Failure would shake further the faith of the people’s region in the emerging international order and the primacy of international law.” Indeed this intervention is about asserting international law above national sovereignty and upholding an “international order” described by globalist degenerate Robert Kagan, a chief proponent of the current war in Libya, as serving “the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it.”

This has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, human rights, or even the rule of law, international or otherwise. The same warmongering degenerate Robert Kagan who brazenly admits the “international order” serves American, not international interests, recently signed a letter to US House Republicans imploring them to disregard both the American people’s will as well as UN Security Council r.1973 in order to commit to full intervention in Libya on behalf of rebels admittedly members of Al-Qaeda who are committing a myriad of war crimes in support of this neo-imperial campaign. Kagan’s willingness to disregard even the contrived legalities authorizing NATO’s involvement in Libya in the first place illustrates the unchecked, arbitrary nature of this emerging “international order,” an order that feels it needs answer to no one.

It is imperative that people understand the true nature not only behind this intervention in Libya, but the “international order’s” involvement, meddling, and intervention throughout the world. Any thorough examination of the United States government, the unelected corporate-funded think tanks that produce its policy, the corporate-owned media outfits that promote their agendas, and the immense global network of foreign-funded NGOs, foundations, and organizations carrying the agenda out, reveals a self-serving oligarchy merely using attractive ideals to sell their otherwise unpalatable agenda. As the Romans and the British had foisted upon millions during the construction of their despotic world spanning empires, the United States and their global allies are now using the facade of “civil society,” “human rights,” “democracy,” and “freedom” to construct a new oligarchical global empire.

Alex Jones & Aaron Dykes
TheAlexJonesChannel
May 12, 2011

Alex Jones debunks the legacy of lies that fill the pages of the phony War on Terror narrative– killing bin Laden, 9/11, Iraq, all of it– in a special video address. This “war” which has consumed our society is nothing more than a dramatized narrative meant to frighten the simple, captive public into accepting greater societal control.

Bin Laden was a strawman-villain concocted by the Western intelligence apparatus to take the blame for the orchestrated terror that is scripted and carried out by the globalist-allied factions. The Phantom Osama bin Laden was a skeleton key opening the door to foreign intervention in the middle east or anywhere al Qaeda might be. The motive is simple– ever-expanding wars for the military industrial complex, and the often more lucrative periods of reconstruction (i.e. you break it, you buy it). The occupation continues here at home with the creation of a police state supposedly meant to combat terrorism.

So rotten is the “big lie” of the War on Terror, that the most iconic events of the period are the most contrived. The official story about the killing of bin Laden disintegrated in mere days, as no one could keep the story straight. But it’s just the latest episode of a fairy tale that’s been sold to the public for nearly a decade; this story, told with a straight face, is not simply riddled with lies, but wholly subsists of them.

Everything has been lie– cooked-evidence about WMDs in Iraq, bogus claims about mobile weapons labs & yellow cake, the Hollywood-scripted Jessica Lynch-incident, the shameful murder of Pat Tillman, the false-flag attacks on 9/11, sticking it to the victims’ families & first responders, manufacturing links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, false-flag scenarios in the Downing Street memos, planted flash mobs at the White House & Ground Zero cheering ‘We got him’ to boost appeal for Obama, phony bin Laden videos faked by assets at SITE and the Intel Center, Osama’s CIA identity Tim Osman, secret backing for the Taliban in 1979, fake terror alerts– all of it.

Alex appeals to the facts in the historical record and an instinctual rejection of the pure lies put out by the establishment. You don’t want to miss this video; hopefully you can use it to reach those who felt “renewed” by reports of bin Laden’s death and are accepting the big lies all over again for the thrill of celebrating “the kill.” It’s a shoddy hoax to bolster public support, but even that illusion is falling apart. The L.A. Times reports that Obama’s “bin Laden bump” has already fallen back to Earth with the rate of gravity.

After all, the system has no credibility, and cheap lies about bin Laden have minimal value. Such easily exposed lies can be dumped on Obama as political baggage just as easily as it can boost him in the polls. The persistence of the Left-Right paradigm allows Obama & Bush alike to be dumped on for the failures & frauds of the system, actually giving cover to the continuity of government agenda, which milks power from the perceived need for greater “safety” measures as well as failed leadership.

Washington’s Blog

Virtually all of the top interrogation experts – both conservatives and liberals (except for those trying to escape war crimes prosecution) – say that torture doesn’t work:

  • Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says:

    “Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

  • The C.I.A.’s 1963 interrogation manual stated:

Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex ‘admissions’ that take still longer to disprove.

  • According to the Washington Post, the CIA’s top spy – Michael Sulick, head of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service – said that the spy agency has seen no fall-off in intelligence since waterboarding was banned by the Obama administration. “I don’t think we’ve suffered at all from an intelligence standpoint.”
  • A 30-year veteran of CIA’s operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks (Milton Bearden) says (as quoted by senior CIA agent and Presidential briefer Ray McGovern):

    It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose.

    This is not just because the old hands overwhelmingly believe that torture doesn’t work — it doesn’t — but also because they know that torture creates more terrorists and fosters more acts of terror than it could possibly neutralize.

  • A former high-level CIA officer (Philip Giraldi) states:

Many governments that have routinely tortured to obtain information have abandoned the practice when they discovered that other approaches actually worked better for extracting information. Israel prohibited torturing Palestinian terrorist suspects in 1999. Even the German Gestapo stopped torturing French resistance captives when it determined that treating prisoners well actually produced more and better intelligence.

  • Another former high-level CIA official (Bob Baer) says:

    And torture — I just don’t think it really works … you don’t get the truth. What happens when you torture people is, they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you.

  • Michael Scheuer, formerly a senior CIA official in the Counter-Terrorism Center, says:

    “I personally think that any information gotten through extreme methods of torture would probably be pretty useless because it would be someone telling you what you wanted to hear.”

  • A retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002 (Glenn L. Carle) says:

    [Coercive techniques] didn’t provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information…Everyone was deeply concerned and most felt it was un-American and did not work.”

  • A former top Air Force interrogator who led the team that tracked down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has conducted hundreds of interrogations of high ranking Al Qaida members and supervising more than one thousand, and wrote a book called How to Break a Terrorist writes:

As the senior interrogator in Iraq for a task force charged with hunting down Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former Al Qaida leader and mass murderer, I listened time and time again to captured foreign fighters cite the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo as their main reason for coming to Iraq to fight. Consider that 90 percent of the suicide bombers in Iraq are these foreign fighters and you can easily conclude that we have lost hundreds, if not thousands, of American lives because of our policy of torture and abuse. But that’s only the past.
Somewhere in the world there are other young Muslims who have joined Al Qaida because we tortured and abused prisoners. These men will certainly carry out future attacks against Americans, either in Iraq, Afghanistan, or possibly even here. And that’s not to mention numerous other Muslims who support Al Qaida, either financially or in other ways, because they are outraged that the United States tortured and abused Muslim prisoners.

In addition, torture and abuse has made us less safe because detainees are less likely to cooperate during interrogations if they don’t trust us. I know from having conducted hundreds of interrogations of high ranking Al Qaida members and supervising more than one thousand, that when a captured Al Qaida member sees us live up to our stated principles they are more willing to negotiate and cooperate with us. When we torture or abuse them, it hardens their resolve and reaffirms why they picked up arms.

He also says:

[Torture is] extremely ineffective, and it’s counter-productive to what we’re trying to accomplish.

When we torture somebody, it hardens their resolve … The information that you get is unreliable. … And even if you do get reliable information, you’re able to stop a terrorist attack, al Qaeda’s then going to use the fact that we torture people to recruit new members.

And he repeats:

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

He said last week:

They don’t want to talk about the long term consequences that cost the lives of Americans…. The way the U.S. treated its prisoners “was al-Qaeda’s number-one recruiting tool and brought in thousands of foreign fighters who killed American soldiers.

  • The FBI interrogators who actually interviewed some of the 9/11 suspects say torture didn’t work
  • Another FBI interrogator of 9/11 suspects said:

I was in the middle of this, and it’s not true that these [aggressive] techniques were effective

  • The FBI warned military interrogators in 2003 that enhanced interrogation techniques are “of questionable effectiveness” and cited a “lack of evidence of [enhanced techniques’] success.
  • The Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously found that torture doesn’t work, stating:

    The administration’s policies concerning [torture] and the resulting controversies damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.

  • General Petraeus says that torture is unnecessary, hurts our national security and violates our American values
  • Retired 4-star General Barry McCaffrey – who Schwarzkopf called he hero of Desert Storm – agrees
  • Former Navy Judge Advocate General Admiral John Hutson says:

    Fundamentally, those kinds of techniques are ineffective. If the goal is to gain actionable intelligence, and it is, and if that’s important, and it is, then we have to use the techniques that are most effective. Torture is the technique of choice of the lazy, stupid and pseudo-tough.

    He also says:

    Another objection is that torture doesn’t work. All the literature and experts say that if we really want usable information, we should go exactly the opposite way and try to gain the trust and confidence of the prisoners.

  • Army Colonel Stuart Herrington – a military intelligence specialist who interrogated generals under the command of Saddam Hussein and evaluated US detention operations at Guantánamo – notes that the process of obtaining information is hampered, not helped, by practices such as “slapping someone in the face and stripping them naked”.Herrington and other former US military interrogators say:

    We know from experience that it is very difficult to elicit information from a detainee who has been abused. The abuse often only strengthens their resolve and makes it that much harder for an interrogator to find a way to elicit useful information.

  • Major General Thomas Romig, former Army JAG, said:

    If you torture somebody, they’ll tell you anything. I don’t know anybody that is good at interrogation, has done it a lot, that will say that that’s an effective means of getting information. … So I don’t think it’s effective.

  • The head of all U.S. intelligence said:

    The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world … The damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.

  • Former counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke says that America’s indefinite detention without trial and abuse of prisoners is a leading Al Qaeda recruiting tool.
  • The first head of the Department of Homeland Security – Tom Ridge – says we were wrong to torture.The former British intelligence chairman says that waterboarding didn’t stop terror plots.
  • A spokesman for the National Security Council (Tommy Vietor) says:

    The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003.

In researching this article, I spoke to numerous counterterrorist officials from agencies on both sides of the Atlantic. Their conclusion is unanimous: not only have coercive methods failed to generate significant and actionable intelligence, they have also caused the squandering of resources on a massive scale through false leads, chimerical plots, and unnecessary safety alerts…Here, they say, far from exposing a deadly plot, all torture did was lead to more torture of his supposed accomplices while also providing some misleading “information” that boosted the administration’s argument for invading Iraq.

  • Neuroscientists have found that torture physically and chemically interferes with the prisoner’s ability to tell the truth
  • An Army psychologist – Major Paul Burney, Army’s Behavior Science Consulting Team psychologist – said (page 78 & 83):

It was stressed to me time and time again that psychological investigations have proven that harsh interrogations do not work. At best it will get you information that a prisoner thinks you want to hear to make the interrogation stop, but that information is strongly likely to be false.

***

Interrogation techniques that rely on physical or adverse consequences are likely to garner inaccurate information and create an increased level of resistance…There is no evidence that the level of fear or discomfort evoked by a given technique has any consistent correlation to the volume or quality of information obtained.

  • An expert on resisting torture – Terrence Russell, JPRA’s manager for research and development and a SERE specialist – said (page 209):

History has shown us that physical pressures are not effective for compelling an individual to give information or to do something’ and are not effective for gaining accurate, actionable intelligence.

 

And – according to the experts – torture is unnecessary even to prevent “ticking time bombs” from exploding (see this, this and this). Indeed, a top expert says that torture would fail in a real ‘ticking time-bomb’ situation

Indeed, it has been known for hundreds of years that torture doesn’t work:

  • As a former CIA analyst notes:

During the Inquisition there were many confessed witches, and many others were named by those tortured as other witches. Unsurprisingly, when these new claimed witches were tortured, they also confessed. Confirmation of some statement made under torture, when that confirmation is extracted by another case of torture, is invalid information and cannot be trusted.

  • The head of Britain’s wartime interrogation center in London said:

“Violence is taboo. Not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information.”

  • The national security adviser to Vice President George H.W. Bush (Donald P. Gregg) wrote:

During wartime service with the CIA in Vietnam from 1970 to 1972, I was in charge of intelligence operations in the 10 provinces surrounding Saigon. One of my tasks was to prevent rocket attacks on Saigon’s port.Keeping Saigon safe required human intelligence, most often from captured prisoners. I had a running debate about how North Vietnamese prisoners should be treated with the South Vietnamese colonel who conducted interrogations. This colonel routinely tortured prisoners, producing a flood of information, much of it totally false. I argued for better treatment and pressed for key prisoners to be turned over to the CIA, where humane interrogation methods were the rule – and more accurate intelligence was the result.

The colonel finally relented and turned over a battered prisoner to me, saying, “This man knows a lot, but he will not talk to me.”

We treated the prisoner’s wounds, reunited him with his family, and allowed him to make his first visit to Saigon. Surprised by the city’s affluence, he said he would tell us anything we asked. The result was a flood of actionable intelligence that allowed us to disrupt planned operations, including rocket attacks against Saigon.

Admittedly, it would be hard to make a story from nearly 40 years ago into a definitive case study. But there is a useful reminder here. The key to successful interrogation is for the interrogator – even as he controls the situation – to recognize a prisoner’s humanity, to understand his culture, background and language. Torture makes this impossible.

There’s a sad twist here. Cheney forgets that the Bush administration followed this approach with some success. A high-value prisoner subjected to patient interrogation by an Arabic-speaking FBI agent yielded highly useful information, including the final word on Iraq’s weapons programs.

His name was Saddam Hussein.

  • Top interrogators got information from a high-level Al Qaeda suspects through building rapport, even if they hated the person they were interrogating by treating them as human

Postscript: Even if – despite the above – you still believe that torture produces helpful information, you should note that the U.S. government used Communist torture techniques specifically designed to produce FALSE Confessions.

Have you ever seen the movie Conspiracy Theory?  It’s a great movie to be certain – it’s one that I love – and in recent years my family and those around me have taken to calling me Jerry Fletcher.  Most people would probably take offense to this, but not me – it’s a compliment.

If you were to ask me “do you believe September 11, 2001 was done by the government?”, without a moment’s hesitation I would say, “Absolutely.”  The very real fact that a conspiracy theory such as this would even exist should be enough to give a person a moment’s pause.

Before the U.N. George W. Bush said: “Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories regarding the events of September 11, 2001.  Malicious lies meant to shift the blame from the guilty.”

And it seems that they haven’t.

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Wednesday, Jan 26th, 2011

UN Human Rights Official Under Fire For Describing 9/11 As A Cover Up 100408Sept11 An official working within the recently established UN Human Rights Council is under fire from an NGO closely affiliated with Israel for suggesting that the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks is a cover up.

Richard Falk, a former professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University, and an expert on human rights made the comments in a blog post last week, noting that the mainstream media is “unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials.”

Falk described this version of the 9/11 story as an “apparent cover up” containing “gaps and contradictions”.

The group UN Watch, which describes itself as “an independent Geneva-based watchdog organization”, pounced on the comments, in a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, calling for Falk to be removed from his post immediately. The group described Falk’s comments as an insult to the victims of the attacks and their families and loved ones.

Hilel Neuer, the group’s chief executive, described Falk as “a serial offender with zero credibility”.

Ban Ki-Moon responded Monday by publicly condemning Falk’s comments, but added that he was not in a position to fire Falk from the Human Rights Council.

The story has since found its way into the mainstream media, however there is one vital detail that you will not read in such articles.

The UN Watch group is closely affiliated with the American Jewish Committee and has been described as “a lobby group with strong ties to Israel”. The group has been after the head of Richard Falk and others like him for years, purely because he and other human rights experts alike continue to criticize and condemn the Israeli government’s treatment of the Palestinian people.

Falk’s appointment to the Human Rights Council, as a monitor on human rights issues relating to the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, hit headlines in 2008 owing to the fact that he has previously slammed the Israeli occupation of Palestine and compared the Zionist government’s treatment of Palestinian Arabs to the Nazi treatment of Jews in the holocaust.

As a result, the Israeli government has routinely denied Falk a visa to enter Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

This legitimate criticism of the Zionist Israeli government gets boiled down to “Richard Falk believes that Jews are Nazis” in pieces such as this op ed in last Friday’s New York Daily News. This disgusting piece of tabloid trash suggests that Falk and his contemporaries are “apologists for dictatorships”, ironically for criticizing the actions of a vehemently racist government regime.

Despite this and the now customary attacks from the Anti-Defamation League, Falk has stood by his criticisms, previously telling the BBC: “If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison.”

Falk’s position on 9/11 has remained constant. Just over two years ago he called for a fresh investigation into 9/11 in order to examine the possible role that neoconservatives may have played in the attacks.

Indeed, two days prior to his appointment to the UN Human Rights Council in March 2008, Falk appeared on former University of Wisconsin lecturer Kevin Barrett’s radio show and spoke of how he was keen to see a fresh investigation into 9/11 in order to address inconsistencies in the official account of what happened.

Mr. Falk told Barrett, “It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don’t think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess.”

Falk previously penned the preface to Professor David Ray Griffin’s groundbreaking 2004 book The New Pearl Harbor, in which the theologian catalogued scores of unexplained facets surrounding 9/11 and inconsistencies in the official government version of events.

Given that the majority of those who sat on the 9/11 Investigative Commission have themselves expressed doubts about the official findings and described their roles as participation in a cover up, it is perfectly legitimate for anyone else in the world to ask questions about 9/11. In fact it should be a priority of every official in Falk’s circle to ask the same questions and raise the same doubts.

Richard Falk has continually acted as a thorn in the side of the establishment. He has published a number of notable books and essays analyzing the legality of the Vietnam War and other military operations, including the Iraq invasion.

In 2007 he played a prominent role in a Citizens’ hearing on the legality of the Iraq War as a tribunal testifier. Of the Invasion he has previously written:

“inescapable that an objective observer would reach the conclusion that this Iraq war is a war of aggression, and as such, that it amounts to a Crime against Peace of the sort for which surviving German leaders were indicted, prosecuted and punished at the Nuremberg trials conducted shortly after the Second World War.”

The UN Human Rights Council has been afforded little opportunity to function in any meaningful way. It has met stiff opposition at every turn from the US Congress and was recently described by the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs as a “rogues’ gallery” for “pariah states”.

There is a clear worry within the establishment that like Falk, some of the officials within the Human Rights Council are legal experts that recognize war crimes and illegitimate attacks when they see them and are actually attempting to do something about it.

This is one instance where some are attempting to work within and through the establishment left arm of the global elite system to meter out some justice.

In a 2008 interview, Japanese member of Parliament Yukihisa Fujita told the Alex Jones Show that there are numerous individuals within the UN structure that are significantly interested in pursuing the coordination of a new 9/11 investigation in order to address unanswered questions.

However, it remains to be seen whether the Human Rights Council is composed of enough well meaning individuals to have a significant impact, or whether, like much of the rest of the UN, it will merely become a powerless part of the overall establishment control mechanism.

It’s not like the United States and Russia is locked in nuclear standoff, just waiting to see who has the bravery to fire the first missile.  It’s not like Russia once again is putting nuclear warheads ninety miles off of our southern coast.

In the event of a nuclear emergency, members of Congress and the President have a place to go, but the American people won’t.  When the nukes fly and the sirens wail, we will be watching the mushroom clouds, and whistling Dixie.

So why is Russia Today reporting that emergency bomb shelters to be built in Moscow before the end of 2012?  Well, their reason is that the ones from the Cold War are drastically outdated.  Makes sense.  But if we think of this logically, the Age of Nuclear Threat has never truly passed. 

The United States says that Iran is trying to obtain nuclear weapons.  We invaded Iraq based on the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Our forces are in Afghanistan are trying to establish a “tolerant” society, when in reality, we are just trying to create a puppet government.  Iran sells the Taliban weapons and Saudi Arabia gives them money.  The Taliban gets help from bases in Pakistan and to “buy” influence, the United States gives Pakistan money.

Did I mention that Pakistan has nuclear weapons?

In the 1980’s, the United States created, funded, and supported the Taliban and al-Qaeda in various ways.  Now look where we are, stuck in a quagmire.  Afghanistan’s government is frought with corruption, our forces don’t know who are their friends, so how do we think that doing the same thing that started all of this will somehow have a better outcome?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was right; we are fighting the situation that we caused.

List of United States Senators from South Carolina

Image via Wikipedia

Senator Lindsey Graham spoke the same fearmonger/warmonger propaganda recently, urging President Obama to strike Iran and cripple “their ability to wage war.”  He even said that we are probably past that point.  This speech of stopping their ability to “wage war” sounds a lot like the rhetoric that we’ve heard from then-President George W. Bush, when he urged the American people to support his backtrack of foreign policy and used the same excuse.

“Instead of a surgical strike on their nuclear infrastructure, I think we’re to the point now that you have to really neuter the regime’s ability to wage war against us and our allies. And that’s a different military scenario. It’s not a ground invasion but it certainly destroys the ability of the regime to strike back.”

As far as I know, Iran hasn’t lobbed one weapon towards the continental United States or Iraq, or Afghanistan.  It’s not a “ground invasion”, but an invasion just the same.  And for the President to order such an attack without a Declaration of War from Congress is illegal.

Speaking on terms of retaliation on Iran’s part, Graham said:

“You can expect that,” he said. “You can expect, for a period of time, all hell to break loose. You must have to almost plan for that. And weigh that against the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran and what that means to the future of the world.”

Well, it’s finally time that someone admittted the obvious.

Graham said the current sanctions on Iran are not “crippling”.  Now by what he means by “crippling”, he didn’t elaborate, and, furthermore, I don’t think that even he knows.  Sanctions are an act of war and aggression, and they don’t work.  Before WWII, sanctions created Hitler.  During the ’90s, sanctions killed more that 500,000 people in Iraq.

Iran has said that if we attack (and they have a right to) they will retaliate on our forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and most certainly Israel.  War begetts more war and brings no resemblance of peace.

Our current state in the Middle East is precarious at best.  Iraq and Afghanistan are complete failures, and we are told that bin Laden is in Pakistan; adding more fuel to the military industrial complex’s war machine.  In an attempt to “fight terrorism” the United States government is trying to buy Pakistan’s alliegance, which by most reports, isn’t working.

Broadening our war machine to Iran will invigorate al-Qaeda and we will be fighting a well-armed military.  Blood will be shed for a conflict that has no end in sight.  By the end, the American people will be asking the most obvious of questions, “why did we do this for?”  But this may come at a time when it is too late for the United States to realize the fact.