KSM beheaded Pearl: A challenge for Truthers

[I Ratant]

It's a DATDK....
Don't Ask, They Don't Know.
Ugly raghead gets his.
Screw everything the United States of America has stood for.

 

[dtugg]

What? That's shocking news!

1) KSM was lured to and captured in an ISI safe house. The computer wasn't his computer.

Prove it.

2) and that's the shocking part: You say the NSA knew it? They monitored even the final approval? KSM gave it prior to 9/11, I guess?

Who permitted to monitor these communications since Able Danger was ended? What were the consequences of that NSA knowledge?

They didn't know what it was at the time.

 

[achimspok]

Prove it.

Just read the documents I linked earlier. ...and his complain about the computer during the enemy combatant hearing.

They didn't know what it was at the time.

Of course. They accidentally recorded some random persons and later found out... oops, the one guy is Al Qaeda #3 and the other one performed flight training in Florida. No clue who they are and what they are talking about at that time.

 

[dtugg]

Just read the documents I linked earlier. ...and his complain about the computer during the enemy combatant hearing.

Which document?

ETA: Apparently KSM claims that it didn't belong to him but rather another terrorist who was arrested with him. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that the two were together.

Of course. They accidentally recorded some random persons and later found out... oops, the one guy is Al Qaeda #3 and the other one performed flight training in Florida. No clue who they are and what they are talking about at that time.

I doubt they were monitoring Atta. And KSM wasn't just some random person. He was a known terrorist who had been indicted in the US for the Bojinka plot in 1996. You fail yet again.

 

[TruthersLie]

.
This old thing.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Can you tell me
1. where in the US constitution it guarantees rights for people who are NOT citizens of the US?
2. where in the 5th amendment it states that it is illegal for US citizens to use those ideas of "compelling in any criminal case for someone to be a witness against themselves, deprived of life, liberty or propety without due process of law" against noncitizens to whom the 5th amendment doesn't apply?

Or are you arguing that every person in the world is bound by the US laws as set forth by the US constitution for US citizens?

Does this mean as an american, I have to follow the laws of a foreign country... say germany? Or Japan?

Maybe I missed a part in the US constitution that extends the rights, priviledges and protections to NON citizens (who have different rights, priviledges and protections from THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS). I'm sure I must have missed that clause in the US constitution. Can you point it out to me?

 

[TruthersLie]

Here's something for ya...
Tear off and destroy when it's uncomfortable.....
.
And another quote from that old thing...
KSM -was- provided with counsel, right?
It is the LAW, after all...
.

"Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence"
.
Nothing about ugly ragheads not qualifying for this protection.

Nothing about noncitizens who are citizens of other countries being offered this protection in it...

I must have missed that part. Care to point it out to me?

Or are you saying that the US constitution extends to citizens of outer countries? That US laws apply to citizens of other countries. I'm sure that their embassys must love that.

 

[JihadJane]

Yeah...........That old thing that you hang onto and use as and when it suits your mood or situation but conveiniently ignore when asked to clarify if the lie detector or polygraph test come under the above old thing. One rule when it suits and another when it suits. Gotta love them founding fathers. Ever concidered that they interpreted those 'old things' in the 'old thing way'? How did those founding fathers words of wisdom see you through the pre/post civil rights era? Just one example of how your 'old thing' worked when it suited!

You earlier stated that it's 'OK' for KSM to behave the way he did because of Jihad............ ...

Where did I Ratant say that, Jackanory?

... cutting peoples heads off is 'OK', planning to slam aircraft into buildings and killing thousands is 'OK' in the name of Jihad but you're not happy with Americans using techniques that could prevent such things. You're not happy with Americans using there right, under your founding fathers, to protect yourself and country. Is that to be interpreted as and when suits too?

Please stick to reality.

Using techniques such as waterboarding, the way it was used on KSM, on innocent citizens going about there lawful lives is wrong.

As you have already clarified, KSM was on Jihad and not an innocent citizen. Using the waterboarding techinique on KSM would appear to be used in protecting your country.

The jury is out on that. A large consensus argues that it puts the country (and US soldiers) in greater danger, as well causing valuable intelligence to be lost.

It came too late for 9/11 but given my military knowledge, hands on experience with terrorists, both here and overseas, and an understanding of the techniques used 'I have no doubt' that KSM gave useful intelligence during his '183 pours'. Each piece of intel will have been thouroughly investigated. Each piece of intel will have been rigorously analysed. Those analysing his words would have been fully aware of his lies.......because they would check them.

It horrifies me that you have been in any position of power over anybody, assuming your claims aren't just another fantasy that you have no doubt is true.

Did he give up details of atrocities he has been involved in?

Did he give up names of his associates?

Did he give up locations of those associates?

Did he give up locations of terrorist training camps?

Did he give up information about the organisations he was tied too?

'I have no doubt' that he did some, if not, all of the above........and more.

He identified himself as being complicit in various acts against the infidels of the west long before he was captured. Not a smart move, yet he did and got caught.

The fact that he was waterboarded doesnt detract from the fact that he is a self confessed evil butcher and mass murderer who has sympathisers and apologists for his actions right here at JREF and in this very thread.

Are you one of them?

Your "no doubt" is worth diddly-squat (except, I acknowledge, to yourself).

It's a shame that the CIA illegally destroyed the recordings they made of the torture.

I also note that you haven't attempted to substantiate your previous claim that I have defended "KSM's comfort".

In my OPINION, no terrorist should be awarded the same rights as citizens of the United States of America. NONE.

The only thing he should be entitled to is the right to food, water, and the basic hygene supplies. Anything after that, he has to earn.

You want a blanket? Give me maps of AQ hideouts.
You want legal council? Tell me where OBL is hiding, or known to have hid in the past.
You want the rights that are given to the people you attacked? Plead guilty, and we'll talk.

That's it. Sorry, that I how I feel. Again, this is my vindictive side peaking through, but that is how I feel.

What have your feelings got to do with what rights anyone's entitled to?

So waterboarding doesn't involve pouring water on somebody's face?

It involves tying someone to a tilted board, putting a cloth over their face and pouring water on it to elicit a gag reflex.

In general, why do people use silly, belittling euphemisms? Does it make them feel big?

Maybe if you talked to some of those people more directly hit by the attacks you might then better understand my underlying anger. (human nature is an ugly thing at times and I won't pretend to have a "better than thou" attitude like you) Not saying everyone would agree with my (made up and admittedly absurd) idea, but I know for a FACT that I am far from alone.

Anger can be used positively. Other people, directly affected by the attacks, responded by wanting to end the cycle of violence rather than perpetuate it.

Oh, I'm sorry. You must point out where I said take an innocent man, trick him into a vehicle, beat him unconscious, urinate on him, drag him on a drunken hillbilly ride and dump his body unceremoniously in a cemetery just because he was different than I? No I didn't say that. Don't try to implicate that I did. IIRC public sentiment at the time was to do the same back to the criminals. Get going, you have a few million to lambaste. Also have fun picketing the horror DVD section at blockbuster for peoples "fantasies" of murder and gore.

I also noticed you quoted McCain a few times about Japanese being hung for waterboarding. Unfortunately for your argument, Japanese waterboarding was usually followed by swift execution and the hiding of remains (to conceal the torture). Did we: starve KSM? Did we put him on a forced death march? Did we have him build bridges and roads in a disease infested jungle with no medical care of any kind? Did we cut his head off with a katana in a victory ceremony (IOW, no trial)? Did we cannibalize him? Waterboarding was a very small part on a big list that got people executed for war crimes. Stop implying Japanese were executed solely for water torture.

Neither I nor McCain have implied that.

Waterboarding is banned in the US. Why do think that is?

Coming onto the internet and advertising one's violent fantasies about dragging someone around town behind a truck, guilty or not, for a parade, makes me wonder about the balance of their mind. It may also attract the attention of the FBI.

Wow, talk about a logical fallacy. Awesome!

Punishing someone for a crime that they committed, and dragging someone around by a truck because they were black, are NOT the same. Not at all.

But hey, good post.

What's the difference?

In which part of the world is tying someone to the back of a truck and dragging them round town for a parade (preferably along potholed roads) seen as an acceptable way to punish them for committing a crime?

Any "right thinking" individual of ANY faith will agree that the murder of 3000 innocent people could only be carried out by crazy people... especially if these people claim to be "practicing" any faith.

Would you call Paul Tibbets or Air Marshall Arthur 'Bomber' Harris insane?

 

[TruthersLie]

Would you call Paul Tibbets or Air Marshall Arthur 'Bomber' Harris insane?

ah yes... the move into total war. Simple question... when were those folks operating? What was the military and political stance on war?

Not only do I disagree with the actions underataken by the US (and other governments) who bombed civilian targets, I do claim that they were unjust, immoral and actual war crimes.

But you are trying to compare apples to oranges. YOu are doing a nice job of digging back in time to try to make your case.

Can you provide examples (in say the last 20 years) of civilian targets being considered allowable by any military in the world? Not where civilian casualties or deaths are a "regretable" incident which happened by "mistake," but where the military could just randomly kill mass groups of individuals and let god sort them out. (lets say 1,000 civilian deaths in an operation to make it easier for you).

The world has changed and moved on away from the idea of "total war" where you could bomb civilian targets. And that is a good thing.

But if you wish to persist we can (it is an entirely different discussion, but I'm happy to have it if you wish.)

ETA: And are you claiming that those generals were operating out of a "religious" reason? The reason they were bombing the germans/russians/martians because they believed that "god told them to"?

 

[dtugg]

It involves tying someone to a tilted board, putting a cloth over their face and pouring water on it to elicit a gag reflex.

In general, why do people use silly, belittling euphemisms? Does it make them feel big?

In other words, yes it involves pouring water on somebody's face. Glad we got that cleared up.

 

[JihadJane]

In other words, yes it involves pouring water on somebody's face.

Yes, and putting someone in stress positions is most accurately described as giving them advice on good posture.

Glad we got that cleared up.

It doesn't answer my question to you and other similarly-minded people who prefer to call waterboarding "pouring water on his face" or "his little wash". What is the purpose of using belittling euphemisms? What's wrong with calling waterboarding waterboarding?

Perhaps Jackanory , who believes that people object to torture because they are worried about the victims "comfort", could help you out. I have no doubt that he would also dismiss an objection to nuclear weapons because the objection would interfere with civilians' right to get a militarily-sponsored sun tan.

 

[TruthersLie]

.
This old thing.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Again you seemed to miss the claim you made and the requirement for proof.

Lets repeat.
Can you show me where legally it is forbidden for US citizens to torture NON citizens?

What you posted is from the US constitution which forbids the US GOVERNMENT from performing these acts on US citizens.

it does NOT state that US citizens cannot waterboard citizens of other countries.

So please show me the article # and section # which forbids that in the US constitution (or your other legal documents)

(You are using the wrong source to try to back up your claim. Find the right source)

This is like your argument about the 6th amendment (right to a speedy trial) against KSM (which does not apply as he isn't a US citizen and was apprehended as an enemy combatant).

 

[JihadJane]

ah yes... the move into total war. Simple question... when were those folks operating? What was the military and political stance on war?

Not only do I disagree with the actions underataken by the US (and other governments) who bombed civilian targets, I do claim that they were unjust, immoral and actual war crimes.

But you are trying to compare apples to oranges. YOu are doing a nice job of digging back in time to try to make your case.

Can you provide examples (in say the last 20 years) of civilian targets being considered allowable by any military in the world? Not where civilian casualties or deaths are a "regretable" incident which happened by "mistake," but where the military could just randomly kill mass groups of individuals and let god sort them out. (lets say 1,000 civilian deaths in an operation to make it easier for you).

The aerial bombardment of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

The world has changed and moved on away from the idea of "total war" where you could bomb civilian targets. And that is a good thing.

But if you wish to persist we can (it is an entirely different discussion, but I'm happy to have it if you wish.)

ETA: And are you claiming that those generals were operating out of a "religious" reason? The reason they were bombing the germans/russians/martians because they believed that "god told them to"?

They were following orders. Their faith was in their commanders and abstract notions of defending their country.

Would you call them insane?



Extract from interview with Paul Tippets (Terkel is referring to the 911 terrorists ("these people") in his question):

Studs Terkel: One last thing, when you hear people say, "Let's nuke 'em," "Let's nuke these people," what do you think?

Paul Tibbets: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the ****: "You've killed so many civilians." That's their tough luck for being there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/06/nuclear.japan

 

[TruthersLie]

The aerial bombardment of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

Then you can show me engagement reports where over 1000 civilians were killed in an action.

You can provide that right? Right now what I hear is an unsubstantiated claim.

They were following orders. Their faith was in their commanders and abstract notions of defending their country.

Would you call them insane?

Compared with religious fanatics who were murdering 3000 people because they were easy targets?

No.

I would say that they acted in an unjust, immoral and unethical manner. Differences between apples and oranges.

are you being thick on purpose? Or on accident?

Extract from interview with Paul Tippets (Terkel is referring to the 911 terrorists ("these people") in his question):

Studs Terkel: One last thing, when you hear people say, "Let's nuke 'em," "Let's nuke these people," what do you think?

Paul Tibbets: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the ****: "You've killed so many civilians." That's their tough luck for being there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/06/nuclear.japan

And that makes me very worried. I am against the purposeful targeting of civilians in military conflicts.

 

[JihadJane]

Lets repeat.
Can you show me where legally it is forbidden for US citizens to torture NON citizens?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States

 

[TruthersLie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States

And that is from the US constitution right?

(notice who I am replying to and what it is about.)

ETA: I fully know that torture is against the law. I also know WHICH laws it is against.

Unfortunately for IR, it isn't banned by the US constitution from having US citizens perform those actions on citizens of other countries. Nor does the US constitution prohibit torture from being done to non citizens.

I'm just pointing out his mistaken belief that the ban on torture comes from the Constitution (and the applicability of the US constitution in his argument).

particularly his mistaken belief that the 5th amendment of the US constitution applies against torture

Application of Fifth Amendment to overseas tortureIn 1999 a U.S. court found that the Fifth Amendment does not apply in the case of overseas torture of aliens. Jennifer Harbury, a U.S. national whose husband Efraín Bámaca Velásquez had been tortured and murdered by CIA officials in Guatemala, complained that these actions violated her husband's Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law. On December 12, 2000 the Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia rejected this claim, citing a lack of jurisdiction, since the events were planned and controlled in the United States, but the actual torture and murder occurred in Guatemala, a location where the U.S. did not exercise "de-facto political control".[44]

The citation there [44] is from "Application of Fifth Amendment to Overseas Torture of Alien". The American Journal of International Law 95 (3). July 2001.

 

[JihadJane]

Can you provide examples (in say the last 20 years) of civilian targets being considered allowable by any military in the world? Not where civilian casualties or deaths are a "regretable" incident which happened by "mistake," but where the military could just randomly kill mass groups of individuals and let god sort them out. (lets say 1,000 civilian deaths in an operation to make it easier for you).

Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operation Enduring Freedom

Then you can show me engagement reports where over 1000 civilians were killed in an action.

You can provide that right? Right now what I hear is an unsubstantiated claim.

1,000 dead civilians are dead whether you kill them all at once or one by one, "accidentally", but inevitably, or on purpose.

 

[Justin39640]

I also note that you haven't attempted to substantiate your previous claim that I have defended "KSM's comfort".

That wasn't Jackanory, it was me. Get your links straight.

Aside from that, every time you argue that torturing KSM was wrong... you pretty much are supporting a comfy time for him in captivity. Do you think he should be treated with respect? Should we leave a mint on his pillow?

Anger can be used positively. Other people, directly affected by the attacks, responded by wanting to end the cycle of violence rather than perpetuate it.

That's one groups opinion. I know plenty of people who joined the military "to give some back". We live in a sick, violent, twisted world. Holding a flower up to KSM and his like will still get you a 7.62mm to the forehead (best case).

Neither I nor McCain have implied that.

Yes, you have. See here (3rd quote down)

Waterboarding is banned in the US. Why do think that is?

Good thing it didn't happen in the U.S.

Coming onto the internet and advertising one's violent fantasies about dragging someone around town behind a truck, guilty or not, for a parade, makes me wonder about the balance of their mind. It may also attract the attention of the FBI.

One, that was a simile, not an actual parade. You likened it to James Byrd Jr's murder, not me. Do you wonder about Steven King's mental stability (well, maybe that's a bad example) or any other horror writer, director, producer? Here's an idea for your sign at blockbuster - "GOD HATES JASON VOORHEES".

The FBI would have their hands full with guys like 9/11 investigator and others here long before they got to me. Another thing is that while I had an absurd idea, I would never act on it.

EVERY one has crazy ideas (even you, little miss perfect), only the crazy act on those ideas.

 

[Justin39640]

Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operation Enduring Freedom



1,000 dead civilians are dead whether you kill them all at once or one by one, "accidentally", but inevitably, or on purpose.

Most civilians in Iraq were killed by insurgents and AQ intentionally targeting them......

 

[TruthersLie]

You didn't answer my question. YOu just did a handwave.

Here is my question

Can you provide examples (in say the last 20 years) of civilian targets being considered allowable by any military in the world? Not where civilian casualties or deaths are a "regretable" incident which happened by "mistake," but where the military could just randomly kill mass groups of individuals and let god sort them out. (lets say 1,000 civilian deaths in an operation to make it easier for you).

Here is your answer.

The aerial bombardment of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

You do notice that you did not answer my question, right? I noticed it.

Can you provide examples of military exercises in the last 20 years where massive civilian casualties are not only acceptable, but where they are a "too bad" attitdude? You can't.

The era of "total war" and massive civilian casualties/deaths is past (well until we hit the next "world war.") As such, you cannot find a single engagement/action in which a minimum of 1000 civilians were targeted.

That is what those 19 crazy terrorists did. That is why they were "crazy" by any logical definition. They murdered 3000 people in the name of their "faith," which is a perversion of Islam. Hence the use of the term "crazy."

Trying to then draw parallels to military engagements, where the MILITARY of a NATION is fighting another MILITARY of a NATION is comparing apples to oranges. These "crazy" terrorists are NOT soliders. They represent NO nation, and as such have NO protections guaranteed to soldiers in a battle zone. It is a VAST difference.

Pick up Just and Unjust wars and read it. It goes into very great depth about the ideas I am discussing here. Pay particular attention to the idea of fighting against terrorists. It is an excellent read and very thought provoking.

 

[TruthersLie]

Operation Iraqi Freedom
Operation Enduring Freedom

1,000 dead civilians are dead whether you kill them all at once or one by one, "accidentally", but inevitably, or on purpose.

Oh we are splitting hairs and parsing sentences. Goody.

by operation I meant a single action. A single event. A single operation. Not a collection of actions over many months.

There is a HUGE difference in an event which 1000 people die, and a series of events over months/years where 1000 people die. You know it, and so do I.

Trying to conflate those issues is rather embarassing and deceitful, don'tcha think?