Torture and 9/11 By John S. Hatch May 22, 2009 "Information Clearing House"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22684.htm

Torture and 9/11

By John S. Hatch

May 22, 2009 "Information Clearing House" --- It could be argued that of the panoply of evil of which human beings find themselves uniquely capable, nothing is as abominable as the deliberate infliction of mental or physical pain on a helpless captive person.

That a nation grandiosely referring to itself as the world’s lone ‘superpower’ would, on the basis of very thin manufactured evidence stoop to such behavior as using sodomy (even against innocent children), cramming people into coffin-like boxes, chaining them in stress positions, karate-kicking them (even to death), suffocating them, slamming their heads into walls, taking away their clothing, freezing them, using sensory deprivation and drowning, plus a hundred other cruel measures gives the lie to that assertion. An evil power, certainly. Hardly a ‘shining city on a hill’.

And now that we know that orders for torture came right from the very top of the unrepentant Bush Administration even before the twisted entitlement of the Yoo/Bybee memos, and even as it is revealed that torture was employed not to gain information but to bolster the false assertion that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaeda and thus justify the indefensible invasion of Iraq, we are treated to ad nauseam appearances by the previously mute and bunkered Dick Cheney defending his cretinous actions and calling for more of the same. It is unbelievable that a nation that calls itself Christian could even countenance a debate on torture, and, after killing perhaps a million innocent Iraqi citizens in an illegal war, call for more of the same in Afghanistan. Or to employ white phosphorous and other war crime weapons in either location. The combination of hypocrisy and self-serving delusion is stunning. These ‘Christians’ are statistically more likely to favor torture than non-believers.

One would think that such aberrant leaders would be held to task by an outraged public and by their political replacements. Instead, the American people are offered more of the same. Quantanamo will not close anytime soon, and contrary to Mr. Obama’s statements, the outrages there have not ceased, but if anything have become worse. He has upheld the Bush policy of denying all human rights to prisoners at Bagram and elsewhere. He has attempted every means to suppress details of American torture, such as the use of scalpels on genitals. Officials would rather keep innocent people imprisoned until they die, untried, rather than to admit to the embarrassment of having illegally imprisoned and tortured them. Bagram continues to be a hell-on-earth. We don’t know how many others even exist. In Iraq children as young as eight remain imprisoned. Children are mercilessly abused as a method to intimidate their parents. And this is to keep scared-rabbit America safe? How?

But Mr. Obama wants to ‘move forward’ even as remote control drones (they’re Obama drones now) kill around 140 innocent Afghanis, including 93 children, one of them 8 weeks old. As usual the military denies, lies, and then admits limited culpability while stressing how very much they value Afghan civilian lives. They even attempt to keep a straight face. Mr. Obama can’t move forward when he’s mired and sinking in innocent cold blood.

If Mr. Obama were to take a deep breath, look back and take a lesson from some of America’s darkest days, here’s what he would find:

The Iraq invasion was conceived long before 9/11 which was simply used as a pretext for achieving ‘full spectrum domination’ of land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace as outlined in The Project for a New American Century, of which Dick Cheney was a founding member, and President Bush a willing dupe. The goal was nothing short of attempted world domination, and Iraq and Afghanistan were pawns on a list which included Syria and Iran. PNAC spoke longingly of a ‘new Pearl Harbor event’ as a catalyst to galvanize fearful American opinion to allow the former to have its way, which is exactly what happened after 9/11 (and don’t forget that mailed weaponized Lawrence Livermore anthrax, that ‘bonus terror’ that hurried the Patriot Act unread through Congress and that was since so conveniently blamed on a dead guy).

An investigation would reveal (indeed we already know) that torture was employed to establish a false link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda in order to make a preconceived invasion more acceptable to the American people. (Lots of troops in Iraq still think that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and still exact bloody revenge against innocent people.)

Since everything the people were told turned out to be lies, questions would inevitably arise regarding the ‘catalyst’ itself, the new Pearl Harbor event so useful to PNAC and the Bush Administration.

This, I submit is what officials in the Obama Administration fear the most. An investigation of torture would inevitably lead to questions about what 9/11 was really about. We know with certainty that the official version of events is a pack of lies; what if America had to confront the fact that 9/11 really was an inside job? (The recent finding of nano-thermite in WTC dust is just one more compelling argument.) It’s even possible that Cheney has threatened to spill the beans if anyone comes after him for torture for which he has openly and brazenly taken credit. Would a torturer refuse to stoop to blackmail? If that seems farfetched wouldn’t torture itself have seemed so a relatively short time ago? Cheney et al have ‘enhanced interrogated’ at least a hundred people to death. To paraphrase the Bard, ‘Cheney crap by any other name would smell as foul’. Torture is torture, even by their twisted Bybee/Yoo definitions.

Such a finding would so undermine Americans’ core beliefs as to have profoundly unpredictable consequences. It would mean that no American is safe from its own terrorist government. It would mean that government is not only corrupt to its very foundations, but also that it is a force of malevolence toward its citizens. It would mean that there is nothing in which to place one’s political faith. It would mean that the same forces that killed 3000 Americans on that day (and many subsequently) still operate behind the scenes in Washington, and ‘change’ is only cosmetic. It would prove that over the last two terms, democracy was a cruel illusion in America (and some would say since November 22, 1963). It would mean that for the patriotic American citizen, at last there’s nothing left to lose.

That’s what they’re rightly afraid of.

That’s why they want to allow the Bush putsch to get away with murder.

And to look even further into the abyss.

Indefinite detention

With the current dust-up over continuing the practice of indefinite detention, it occurs to me that they want to keep these people locked up and without recourse to the courts not because they are afraid of what they would DO if they were released, but what they would SAY if they had any opportunity to be heard, whether in the court system or on the public square. I suspect that these are people who know some of the truth and that is what the powers fear.

Question

What you say here makes sense. I too have wondered about this very thing. What puzzles me is this: if some prisoners know some truth about 9/11, and this truth could implicate high level perpetrators (including those in the US), how do you deal with the interrogators themselves learning too much about all this? That is, you could end up with a bunch of interrogators suddenly realizing that US perpetrators or facilitators were involved.

I ask this with respect because I concur that your suggestion is plausible and important.

Just to add a couple speculative possibilities...

1) The prisoners who are believed to possess the most "sensitive" information could be dealt with by a very small number of interrogators who already know 9/11 was an inside job.

2) Much of the information that could implicate US officials is only indirectly connected to those US officials--that is, to foreign facilitators who were themselves connected financially with US officials. When information arises that includes such foreign facilitators, these prisoners would be considered to possess "sensitive" information and would thenceforth be handled by the small number of interrogators in the know.

I believe it is more likely

I believe it is more likely that the detainees are intended as patsies for the most part.

We now know that Dick Cheney pretty much gave the orders on who to torture and what information was to be elicited, to be used as a means to convince the public that the policies were correct after already being carried out.

I would think that those who committed 911 were quite careful and used a strict need to know convention. I doubt that any of these foreign detainees were in that loop.

However, these patsies could show they were being used as patsies, if they had their day in a real court, and that is likely to be the reason for indefinite detention and secret tribunals the way I see it.

"Dick Cheney pretty much

"Dick Cheney pretty much gave the orders on who to torture and what information was to be elicited, to be used as a means to convince the public that the policies were correct after already being carried out."

Question is WHO EXACTLY is giving Richard here HIS orders.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

911 was probably planned by a think tank

I have to believe that 911 was planned by a think tank and that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were the major government operations coordinating men for it. George W. Bush would only have been a feel good front man to take any suspicion away from an inside job possibility.

In my mind those who would have benefited were the major oil companies, energy traders like Enron, and major energy services companies like Halliburton. It is they who Cheney and Rumsfeld were working for in it all. Of course, some of these same people control a lot of money and financial interests also. For example, David Rockefeller and his ilk.

Thanks for the comment

Thanks for the comment Tony. I agree that finding and creating patsies, as well as "establishing" false links (which has of course been admitted), are two of the primary reasons for the torture, but have speculated on other possible reasons in addition to these two.

What you say provides a convincing reason as to why officials would want detentions to continue.