911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news, posts in the blogs section are the responsibility of the poster, readers are encouraged to check the facts and form their own conclusions.
Before you hear what she has to say, you should know a little about Sibel Edmonds' background.
Edmonds is a former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required).
Some of Edmonds allegations' have been confirmed in the British press.
“In a Society Governed Passively by Free Markets and Free Elections, Organized Greed Always Defeats Disorganized Democracy”
In his excellent new essay arguing that "Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression", Matt Taibbi writes:
In a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.
This same thinking applies to the government's lies about Iraq, as more and more evidence proves that the American government knowingly lied when it claimed that Iraq had wmds, and when it claimed there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. The "organized greed" of those in government who wanted to invade Iraq defeated the "disorganized democracy" of everyone else.
If asked, Taibbi might even admit this parallel.
Many people have given talks, and written articles and books about how "conspiracies" are a well-recognized legal principal, about documented conspiracies throughout history, and about the overwhelming evidence that some recent events were conspiracies.
But it has just dawned on me that - much of the time - the opposite approach might be more effective.
First, let me summarize the suggested approach, and then I'll explain why it works.
CIA director Leon Panetta told the New Yorker:
When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point.
News commentator Ed Schultz said today that Cheney is wishing for a terrorist attack on the U.S.
What should we make of all this?
Well, everyone knows that Cheney is ruthless:
A reader named Patrick made a very insightful comment about the propaganda effort to link 9/11 truth activists with holocaust deniers (edited for readability):
Given the false claim being made that people who question 9/11 are terrorists (and see this), I encourage people to form groups that show how mainstream questioning the government's version of 9/11 really is.
For example, I encourage people to form groups such as:
I believe that anyone who promotes further murders like Dr. Tiller or the guard at the holocaust museum are guilty of terrorism. As a Muslim blogger wrote about the Tiller murder:
Two men commit murder with the goal of influencing government policy in the United States. The crimes occur one day apart. Both are religiously motivated. The Muslim is charged with terrorism. The Christian is not.
On the other hand, anyone who tries to label the maniacs who committed the murders as "right wingers" is painting with too wide a brush.
The murders - and the prevention of potential future attacks - are part of an important law enforcement issue. But just as it was insane to invade Iraq based upon a false linkage with 9/11, it would be insane to try to label millions of Americans as being dangerous just because they are republicans, or liberals or any other group.
Allowing Guilty Pleas and Death Penalties Without Trial for Alleged 9/11 Plotters Would Be the Ultimate Obstruction of Justice
The tin-pot dictator will not let the media talk to the American prisoner captured when his plane crashed.
The dictator says that the prisoner confessed to a horrible murder, and has pleaded guilty.
And so - the dictator announces - there will be no trial, just a death sentence. Indeed, the prisoner is Christian, and the dictator says that the prisoner has asked for martyrdom according to his religious beliefs.
Would the rest of the world believe this is fair?
Of course not. Moreover, world opinion would assume that the prisoner might very well be innocent of the murder charges, especially if it comes out that any confessions were made during extreme torture.
This is exactly the situation we have currently with the prisoners at Guantanamo.
As the New York Times reports:
An ancient philosopher discovered that his students learned more if he asked a series of questions than if he gave them the answers.
By asking questions which challenged his students' faulty beliefs, and allowing them to think through it themselves, Socrates moved them slowly - using a series of questions - from false thinking towards truth.
Indeed, law schools today primarily use this "Socratic Method" of teaching.
A 9/11 activist wrote a good example of the use of the Socratic Method for 9/11 truth in an email:
Jon Stewart does more truth-telling than any other mainstream reporter (Olbermann and some others are good, but not as popular as Stewart).
John Mitchell was the Attorney-General during the Nixon administration.
His wife - Martha Mitchell - told her psychologist that top White House officials were engaged in illegal activities. Her psychologist labeled these claims as caused by mental illness.
Ultimately, however, the relevant facts of the Watergate scandal vindicated her.
In fact, psychologists have now given a label - the "Martha Mitchell Effect" - to "the process by which a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health clinician mistakes the patient's perception of real events as delusional and misdiagnoses accordingly".
The authors of a paper on this phenomenon ( Bell, V., Halligan, P.W., Ellis, H.D. (2003) Beliefs About Delusions. The Psychologist, 6 (8), 418-422) conclude:
A new article in U.S. News & World Report quotes a couple of psychologists, one sociologist and one historian to argue that people who question the government's version of 9/11 are prone to false thinking.
Initially, remember that, while there are many honorable psychologists and psychiatrists, psychologists helped to create the U.S. torture program, and actively participated in it.
Because some people are too stubborn or too stuck in dysfunctional thinking patterns to hear the truth even when it hits them over the head, I suggest that we try a different approach: parody.
When a comic, like Stephen Colbert, does satire -- an exaggeration of what's being said -- it can wake us up, so that we can see the truth and laugh at how we've been acting. That can give us the freedom to stop doing the same dumb thing and to try something new.
So put satirical slogans on stickers, emails and freeway blogs to snap people out of their coma, like (by way of example only):
3 facts show that the government "fixed the facts" regarding 9/11 around a policy decision to exonerate the government from any blame whatsoever.
1. 9/11 Commission's Chief Counsel says Official Story "Almost Entirely Untrue . . . There Was an Agreement Not to Tell the Truth about What Happened"
As Daily Kos notes in a recent recommended story, the senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission - John Farmer - states in a new book that the official story of 9/11 "almost entirely untrue".
As I noted last month, he also says:
At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.
Alan Miller of Patriots Question 9/11 has a new roundup entitled:
"41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11: “Terribly Flawed,” “Laced with Contradictions,” “a Joke,” “a Cover-up”"
Click here to see the roundup.
The counterterrorism officials speaking out include, by way of example only:
* Terrell (Terry) E. Arnold, MA – Former Deputy Director, Office of Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Planning, U.S. State Department. Former Chairman, Department of International Studies, National War College. Graduate of the National War College. Retired Senior Foreign Service Officer of the U.S. Department of State.
* William Christison – Former National Intelligence Officer. Former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit responsible for political analysis of every country and region in the world. 29-year CIA veteran.
Here is a very brief summary of what the experts say about torture:
- Torture actually reduces our national security
- Prosecuting those who created the torture program will REDUCE attacks against the U.S. and against American troops
- Most of those tortured were innocent
- They were not tortured in order to prevent terrorist attacks, but to create a false justification for the war in Iraq (by creating a false linkage between Iraq and Al Qaeda) (and see this)
- The 9/11 Commission report was primarily based upon confessions from those who were tortured. However, none of the information from those who confessed is credible. For example, one of the main sources for the 9/11 Commission Report was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was not even allowed to read. See also this, this, this and this.
A Main Source for the 9/11 Commission Report was Tortured Until He Agreed to Sign a Confession He Was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ
A special report from NBC news states:
The NBC News analysis shows that more than one quarter of all footnotes in the 9/11 Report refer to CIA interrogations of al-Qaida operatives who were subjected to the now-controversial interrogation techniques. In fact, information derived from the interrogations is central to the Report’s most critical chapters, those on the planning and execution of the attacks. The analysis also shows - and agency and commission staffers concur - there was a separate, second round of interrogations in early 2004, done specifically to answer new questions from the Commission.
9/11 Mastermind: "During ... My Interrogation I Gave A Lot Of False Information In Order To Satisfy What I Believed..."
[Note: The title is too long for 911blogger. The full title is "9/11 Mastermind: "'During ... My Interrogation I Gave A Lot Of False Information In Order To Satisfy What I Believed The Interrogators Wished To Hear' ".
If I could have added the word "Alleged" at the beginning, I would have. But that didn't fit even on my own blog.]
The Red Cross is the organization charged with deciding what is torture and what isn't.
The International Committee of the Red Cross interviewed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - the alleged 9/11 mastermind - at Guantanamo Bay.
Here's what KSM told the Red Cross:
During the harshest period of my interrogation I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop. I later told the interrogators that their methods were stupid and counterproductive. I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent in order to make the ill-treatment stop wasted a lot of their time and led to several false red-alerts being placed in the U.S.
Straight from the horse's mouth:
- Torture doesn't work; and
One of the leading business schools in America - the Wharton School of Business - has written an essay on the psychological causes and solutions to the economic crisis. Wharton points out that restoring trust is the key to recovery, and that trust cannot be restored until wrongdoers are held accountable:
Am I excited that "US lawmakers voted Wednesday to create a 9/11-style commission of experts to probe the causes of last year’s devastating financial meltdown and to draw lessons to prevent its recurrence"?
The 9/11 Commission has - in retrospect - expressed confidence in the whole process:
( Initial posting at 911truth.org : http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20090506155958670 )
by Ken Jenkins
May 1, 2009
How many times has this happened to you? You are explaining to someone some of the rational, logical reasons why the official story of 9/11 can't be true, perhaps explaining how WTC 7 fell in the exact manner of a professionally planned controlled demolition -- a job which would typically take weeks to prepare -- when out comes a 'thought stopper' phrase like:
"That's just another conspiracy theory!" or ...
"Do you also believe in Big Foot and tin foil hats?"
Or perhaps the person gets angry and/or agitated. Facts no longer matter at that point, and you can tell the person does not want to hear any more. For example, the following response came from someone after they were given a 20-minute summary of 9/11 Truth information:
"I wouldn't believe that, even if it were true!"
That reaction defies all logic and reason. But it clearly illustrates just how irrational some peoples' defenses can be. Here are a few more honest responses/defenses:
Not Only Did The Bush Administration Adopt Communist Torture Techniques, It Also Adopted Communist Intimidation Tactics
The communist tyrant launches an "investigation" into a nuclear accident in his country.
But to make sure that nothing is said critical of the way the government operated the nuclear power plants or how it responded to the accident, the government places "minders" in every interview.
The minders loom over the witnesses in an intimidating fashion, tell the witnesses that everything they said will be reported to the central government, and they even jump in an answer some of the questions directed at the witnesses.
Would the Western nations accept the results of the investigation that the government "could not have known" of the dangers from the nuclear power plant, and that the government did everything it could to minimize the damage?
Of course not.
For example, 9/11 Commission chair Thomas Kean points out that if "minders" had been present during the Commission's investigation, that would have been intimidation, which would have stemmed the flow of testimony from witnesses:
I have previously pointed out that the self-confessed 9/11 "mastermind" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also falsely confessed to crimes he didn't commit.
However, a second witness - Abu Zubaida - fingered Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the 9/11 mastermind (Zubaida was subsequently severely tortured for many months. But he initially identified KSM even before being tortured).
So we have independent confirmation that KSM was the chief architect of 9/11, right?
Well, the New Yorker notes this week:
As the Washington Post writes of Guantanamo Bay detainee Abu Zubaida:
President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.
Okay, maybe they got that one wrong.
But certainly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession that he was the mastermind of 9/11 proves his guilt, right?
Well, as the Telegraph notes today:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11, was waterboarded 183 times in one month, and “confessed” to murdering the journalist Daniel Pearl, which he did not. There could hardly be more compelling evidence that such techniques are neither swift, nor efficient, nor reliable
If one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's major confessions (Pearl murder) was false, why should we believe his confession about 9/11?
After all, tough-as-nails Navy Seals usually become hysterical when waterboarded once in training sessions. After 183 waterboarding sessions in a month, I wouldn't be surprised if KSM also confessed to murdering Lincoln and Kennedy.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey: It Might Take "A Permanent 9/11 Commission" to End the Remaining Mysteries of September 11
Some of us have been writing for years (see this and this) that the 9/11 Commission Report was unreliable because most of the information was based on the statements of tortured detainees. As I wrote in March 2007:
Congressman Holt wants an anthrax investigation modeled on the 9/11 Commission.
Senators Leahy and White house want a torture investigation modeled on the 9/11 Commission.
But - according to the 9/11 Commission itself - the whole thing was a joke:
- The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations
Scott Horton - a professor at Columbia Law School and writer for Harper's - says of the Bush administration memos authorizing torture, spying, indefinite detention without charge, the use of the military within the U.S. and the suspension of free speech and press rights:
We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. The constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were suspended. That was thanks to secret memos crafted deep inside the Justice Department that effectively trashed the Constitution. What we know now is likely the least of it.
9/11 is mentioned at the end.
The Economics of Trust
A 2005 letter in premier scientific journal Nature reviews the research on trust and economics:
Trust ... plays a key role in economic exchange and politics. In the absence of trust among trading partners, market transactions break down. In the absence of trust in a country's institutions and leaders, political legitimacy breaks down. Much recent evidence indicates that trust contributes to economic, political and social success.
Forbes wrote an article in 2006 entitled "The Economics of Trust". The article summarizes the importance of trust in creating a healthy economy:
According to Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the Senate is launching a "truth commission" to investigate Bush-era torture.
Given that torture is ineffective and harms national security, and given that it is illegal and a war crime under international laws which the U.S. is a party to, many argue that there should be prosecutions, and not more investigations.
Indeed, government investigations are almost all whitewashes.