Advertisement
In November 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs regarding the events of 9/11 and asked this question:
How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?
32% "Very Likely"
30% "Somewhat Likely"
The Orwellian Mainstream Media and every elected office holder consistently ignore the many questions about 9/11. The questions remain, and 62% of the public believe that “some people” in the Federal Government ignored specific warnings of the impending terrorist attack. Obama did not receive 62% of votes in the last election, which was considered a landslide.
The majority of Americans who continue to ask questions based on the existing evidence and facts believe that “some people” would most definitely include former Vice President Dick Cheney.. Cheney directed the response to 9/11 while keeping George Bush well away from Washington. When the 9/11 commission interviewed the executive branch, Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, nor did they allow an official record of their “testimony”. Instead they insisted on meeting together which would allow them to keep their stories straight.
It has been reported that a Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agent, Saeed Sheikh, had wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers, at the instruction of ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad. Ahmad arrived in Washington DC on Sept 4th, 2001 and was scheduled to leave on 9/11, but extended his stay until Sept 16 due to the attacks. Ahmad was removed from his position after this information became public in October 2001. Thus, there is clear evidence that that the ISI was involved in the attack and since they work closely with the CIA it raises questions about that agency's role as well. What exactly was Ahmad's business in Washington DC for 12 days, and did it involve a meeting with Cheney?
Now, we fast forward to the past two weeks. Mr. “undisclosed location” Cheney resurfaces after his party was soundly defeated in the November election, in order to confess to and then defend his policy of torture. This man, who was the central figure in allowing the worst terrorist attack on American soil, is now allowed to claim proudly that his policies kept us safe. Tell that to the jumpers who fell from the World Trade Center to their deaths.
Now Darth Vader Cheney publicly confesses to his approval of enhanced interrogation, otherwise known as torture. His justification is simple, Cheney says “it works”. This while someone’s sons, someone’s daughters spend time in prison. Charles Graner is serving his ten year prison sentence for being one of the “bad apples” at Abu Ghraib. Cheney regularly invokes the “ticking time bomb” scenario but fails to provide evidence. He ignores the congressional testimony (Ali Soufan) indicating that other interrogation methods are quicker and more effective.
Cheney appears to have successfully convinced much of America that “it works” is a valid argument. Torture is and was illegal, according the the Geneva Convention and the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations Convention against Torture, which was ratified by Congress in October of 1998, making it the law of the land. Despite his appeals to verbal trickery...calling torture “enhanced interrogation”...he broke the law and is now admitting his crime openly, and proudly.
After WWII, the United States led the persecution of German and Japanese for war crimes. The Opening Statement of Chief Justice Robert L. Jackson at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials in 1945 states in part: "And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment." (emphasis added)
Nuremberg Principles here:
The current discussion in America has narrowed the conversation on illegality to waterboarding, but stress positions, forced nudity, exposure to hot and cold, and sexual humiliation are also considered torture. But the discussion needs to go beyond waterboarding. Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba said he saw "a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee", to cite just one example.
There is much evidence indicating that the purpose of torture was not to prevent another attack but instead to gain a false confession providing a link between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein. The false confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was used by Colin Powell in his speech to the United Nations, thus justifying the long planned war to steal or control Iraqi oil.
Jane Mayer's book “The Dark Side”, released well before Obama took office, documents not only the torture, the extraordinary renditions, but also the resistance within the Bush government to the change in torture policy. Opponents, including high ranking lawyers, were left out of the loop. Phillip Zelikow (of 9/11 commission fame) wrote a protest memo which was then ordered to be destroyed. Military JAG officers protested. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke out against torture.
Furthermore, the former VP ignores the sadistic nature of what he has done. The fawning Mainstream Media allow him to present his case but fail to ask him questions. I have some questions, Mr. Cheney:
1. Former SOS Powell's chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson and many others say that over 100 innocent people were killed as a result of your program of "enhanced interrogation". The Acadamy Award winning film, Taxi to the Dark Side, documents the killing and torture of innocents. What do you say to the charge that over 100 innocents were killed?
2. Mr. Cheney, while you were in office, 75% of the detainees were released. Now you claim without documentation that 14% went back to terrorist activities. Please provide evidence to this and explain why they were released if they were dangerous.
3. Did you specifically authorize rape of boys, cutting genitals with a razor blade, rape of female prisoners, or torturing children in front of their parents?
So lets recap: More than 30% (up to 60%) of Americans believe that Bush/Cheney administration either allowed the 9/11 attack to happen, or that they were actively complicit in it. The voices of serious researchers David Ray Griffin, Kevin Barret, and many others, have been ignored by the Fawning Mainstream Media. Physicists and Architects, Senior Military officials, Pilots and aviation professionals, as well as 9/11 survivors question the official version. Jesse Ventura, Ed Asner, Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen and others have been pilloried for questioning the official version. Our most progressive politicians routinely run for cover, but not all. Congressman Mike Gravel has courageously stated his views on 9/11, as has Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
The glaring question is, how does this speaking tour help Dick Cheney or the Republican Party?The answer may be that Cheney is counting on the public unwillingness to face the truth about 9/11, and counting on the next terrorist attack. We can only hope that he does not have the ability to orchestrate such an attack.
How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?
32% "Very Likely"
30% "Somewhat Likely"
The Orwellian Mainstream Media and every elected office holder consistently ignore the many questions about 9/11. The questions remain, and 62% of the public believe that “some people” in the Federal Government ignored specific warnings of the impending terrorist attack. Obama did not receive 62% of votes in the last election, which was considered a landslide.
The majority of Americans who continue to ask questions based on the existing evidence and facts believe that “some people” would most definitely include former Vice President Dick Cheney.. Cheney directed the response to 9/11 while keeping George Bush well away from Washington. When the 9/11 commission interviewed the executive branch, Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, nor did they allow an official record of their “testimony”. Instead they insisted on meeting together which would allow them to keep their stories straight.
It has been reported that a Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agent, Saeed Sheikh, had wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers, at the instruction of ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad. Ahmad arrived in Washington DC on Sept 4th, 2001 and was scheduled to leave on 9/11, but extended his stay until Sept 16 due to the attacks. Ahmad was removed from his position after this information became public in October 2001. Thus, there is clear evidence that that the ISI was involved in the attack and since they work closely with the CIA it raises questions about that agency's role as well. What exactly was Ahmad's business in Washington DC for 12 days, and did it involve a meeting with Cheney?
Now, we fast forward to the past two weeks. Mr. “undisclosed location” Cheney resurfaces after his party was soundly defeated in the November election, in order to confess to and then defend his policy of torture. This man, who was the central figure in allowing the worst terrorist attack on American soil, is now allowed to claim proudly that his policies kept us safe. Tell that to the jumpers who fell from the World Trade Center to their deaths.
Now Darth Vader Cheney publicly confesses to his approval of enhanced interrogation, otherwise known as torture. His justification is simple, Cheney says “it works”. This while someone’s sons, someone’s daughters spend time in prison. Charles Graner is serving his ten year prison sentence for being one of the “bad apples” at Abu Ghraib. Cheney regularly invokes the “ticking time bomb” scenario but fails to provide evidence. He ignores the congressional testimony (Ali Soufan) indicating that other interrogation methods are quicker and more effective.
Cheney appears to have successfully convinced much of America that “it works” is a valid argument. Torture is and was illegal, according the the Geneva Convention and the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations Convention against Torture, which was ratified by Congress in October of 1998, making it the law of the land. Despite his appeals to verbal trickery...calling torture “enhanced interrogation”...he broke the law and is now admitting his crime openly, and proudly.
After WWII, the United States led the persecution of German and Japanese for war crimes. The Opening Statement of Chief Justice Robert L. Jackson at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials in 1945 states in part: "And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment." (emphasis added)
Nuremberg Principles here:
The current discussion in America has narrowed the conversation on illegality to waterboarding, but stress positions, forced nudity, exposure to hot and cold, and sexual humiliation are also considered torture. But the discussion needs to go beyond waterboarding. Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba said he saw "a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee", to cite just one example.
There is much evidence indicating that the purpose of torture was not to prevent another attack but instead to gain a false confession providing a link between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein. The false confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi was used by Colin Powell in his speech to the United Nations, thus justifying the long planned war to steal or control Iraqi oil.
Jane Mayer's book “The Dark Side”, released well before Obama took office, documents not only the torture, the extraordinary renditions, but also the resistance within the Bush government to the change in torture policy. Opponents, including high ranking lawyers, were left out of the loop. Phillip Zelikow (of 9/11 commission fame) wrote a protest memo which was then ordered to be destroyed. Military JAG officers protested. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke out against torture.
Furthermore, the former VP ignores the sadistic nature of what he has done. The fawning Mainstream Media allow him to present his case but fail to ask him questions. I have some questions, Mr. Cheney:
1. Former SOS Powell's chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson and many others say that over 100 innocent people were killed as a result of your program of "enhanced interrogation". The Acadamy Award winning film, Taxi to the Dark Side, documents the killing and torture of innocents. What do you say to the charge that over 100 innocents were killed?
2. Mr. Cheney, while you were in office, 75% of the detainees were released. Now you claim without documentation that 14% went back to terrorist activities. Please provide evidence to this and explain why they were released if they were dangerous.
3. Did you specifically authorize rape of boys, cutting genitals with a razor blade, rape of female prisoners, or torturing children in front of their parents?
So lets recap: More than 30% (up to 60%) of Americans believe that Bush/Cheney administration either allowed the 9/11 attack to happen, or that they were actively complicit in it. The voices of serious researchers David Ray Griffin, Kevin Barret, and many others, have been ignored by the Fawning Mainstream Media. Physicists and Architects, Senior Military officials, Pilots and aviation professionals, as well as 9/11 survivors question the official version. Jesse Ventura, Ed Asner, Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen and others have been pilloried for questioning the official version. Our most progressive politicians routinely run for cover, but not all. Congressman Mike Gravel has courageously stated his views on 9/11, as has Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
The glaring question is, how does this speaking tour help Dick Cheney or the Republican Party?The answer may be that Cheney is counting on the public unwillingness to face the truth about 9/11, and counting on the next terrorist attack. We can only hope that he does not have the ability to orchestrate such an attack.