CIA vs Italy

[kutulu]

Since there is no thread on it I thought I'd bring it up. I assume everyone knows what this is about. If not, here is a quick recap:

There was a suspected Al Quieda member living as an Italian citizen. The CIA picked him up and took him to Egypt where he was tortured. Italy is pissed saying we kidnapped him and has issued arrest warrants for all 13 agents involved as well as the guy the CIA took. INTERPOL has issued a global APB for the CIA agents as well.

This brings up a lot of questions:

1. Is it kidnapping? If someone we want is in another country shouldn't we follow extradition laws to get this guy? If this is our policy that we will take anyone anywhere, regardless of local laws how can we expect other countries to abide by our extradition laws when we have someone they want?

2. Do you support taking people to 3rd countries that allow torture? How can we claim moral superiority that we don't torture people if we have no problem placing someone in a 3rd party's custody to do our dirty work?

3. Should the agents be handed over? Are the charges valid?

I agree that it is kidnapping but I don't necessarily have a problem with it under the right circumstances. If it is a country we are friendly with, try to go through a formal legal process. If not, we will do what we must. However, those involved should have the understanding that if they are made then they may have to face the consequences for their involvement.

I do not agree with sending people to other countries where they can be tortured and we stay 'clean'. Either we openly say "Yes we will torture people and if you don't like it, fuck off" or we do not torture anyone for any reason. If sick of this acting superior and being evil in the shadows act. It's transparant and everyone sees right through it.

I don't think we should just hand these agents over but we shouldn't do anything to hamper the investigation and their capture. I compare them to Jack Bauer at the end of this season's 24. He engaged in an illegal operation, got caught, and was able to try to start over somewhere with the knowledge that if he gets caught we won't help him.

[j8ear]

1. Yes it is kidnapping.
2. I do support taking people to a third country for torture purposes. I think we need to re-evaluate our definations of torture, and I think we should outline publically what we do to extract information, hopefully it will frighten people, and if some one else calls it torture...who gives a fuck. Let them whine. But for christ sake we must be consistent and apply or policies consistently. Always keeping in mind the eye for an eye factor.
3. Yes I think the charges are valid and the CIA agents involved should be forced to answer for the laws they violated in soveriegn italy.

I was just set to read an article on this. I doubt it will change my points of view...but who knows.

-bear

[guy44]

The Stain of Torture

By Burton J. Lee III

Friday, July 1, 2005; Page A25

Having served as a doctor in the Army Medical Corps early in my career and as presidential physician to George H.W. Bush for four years, I might be expected to bring a skeptical and partisan perspective to allegations of torture and abuse by U.S. forces. I might even be expected to join those who, on the one hand, deny that U.S. personnel have engaged in systematic use of torture while, on the other, claiming that such abuse is justified. But I cannot do so.

It's precisely because of my devotion to country, respect for our military and commitment to the ethics of the medical profession that I speak out against systematic, government-sanctioned torture and excessive abuse of prisoners during our war on terrorism. I am also deeply disturbed by the reported complicity in these abuses of military medical personnel. This extraordinary shift in policy and values is alien to my concept of modern-day America and of my government and profession.


The military prides itself, as do physicians, on being professional in every sense of the word. It fosters leadership and discipline. When I served as White House physician, my entire professional staff was drawn from the military, and they were among the best and most competent people I have met, without qualification.

The military ethics that I know absolutely prohibit anything resembling torture. There are several good reasons for this. Prisoners should be treated as we would expect our prisoners to be treated. Discipline and order in the military ranks depend to a large extent on compliance with the prohibition of torture -- indeed, weak or damaged psyches inclined toward torture or abuse have generally been weeded out of the military, or at the very least given less responsibility. In addition, military leaders have long been aware that torture inflicts lasting damage on both the victim and the torturer. The systematic infliction of torture engenders deep hatred and hostility that transcends generations. And it perverts the role of medical personnel from healers to instruments of abuse.

Today, however, it seems as though our government and the military have slipped into Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." The widespread reports of torture and ill-treatment -- frequently based on military and government documents -- defy the claim that this abusive behavior is limited to a few noncommissioned officers at Abu Ghraib or isolated incidents at Guantanamo Bay. When it comes to torture, the military's traditional leadership and discipline have been severely compromised up and down the chain of command. Why? I fear it is because the military has bowed to errant civilian leadership.

Our medical code of ethics requires us to oppose torture wherever it is inflicted, for any reason. Guided by this ethic, I served as a volunteer with the international group MEDICO in 1963, taking care of people who had been tortured by the French during Algeria's civil war. I remain deeply affected by that experience today -- by the people I tried to help and could not, and by their families, which suffered the most terrible grief. I heard the victims' stories, examined their permanently broken bodies and looked into faces that could not see me because of the irreparable damage done not only to their senses but also to their brains. As I have studied reports of torture throughout our troubled world since then, I have always found comfort in knowing that at least it did not occur here, not among Americans.

Now that comfort is shattered. Reports of torture by U.S. forces have been accompanied by evidence that military medical personnel have played a role in this abuse and by new military ethical guidelines that in effect authorize complicity by health professionals in ill-treatment of detainees. These new guidelines distort traditional ethical rules beyond recognition to serve the interests of interrogators, not doctors and detainees.

I urge my fellow health professionals to join me and many others in reaffirming our ethical commitment to prevent torture; to clearly state that systematic torture, sanctioned by the government and aided and abetted by our own profession, is not acceptable. As health professionals, we should support the growing calls for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, and demand restoration of ethical standards that protect physicians, nurses, medics and psychologists from becoming facilitators of abuse.

America cannot continue down this road. Torture demonstrates weakness, not strength. It does not show understanding, power or magnanimity. It is not leadership. It is a reaction of government officials overwhelmed by fear who succumb to conduct unworthy of them and of the citizens of the United States.

The writer is a former physician to the president to George H.W. Bush and a board member of Physicians for Human Rights.

I know I'm supposed to add something, but I think this pretty much sums up my views on torture. Which is, you know, torture, and utterly unacceptable.

[Ustwo]

I'll put a fiver on the CIA.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by j8ear

1. Yes it is kidnapping.
2. I do support taking people to a third country for torture purposes. I think we need to re-evaluate our definations of torture, and I think we should outline publically what we do to extract information, hopefully it will frighten people, and if some one else calls it torture...who gives a fuck. Let them whine. But for christ sake we must be consistent and apply or policies consistently. Always keeping in mind the eye for an eye factor.
3. Yes I think the charges are valid and the CIA agents involved should be forced to answer for the laws they violated in soveriegn italy.

I was just set to read an article on this. I doubt it will change my points of view...but who knows.

-bear

I have to admit I'm surprised to hear such a position stated by j8ear. I actually agree with him! :-)

Apart from the bit about supporting torture. That I don't like.

Mr Mephisto

[Paq]

yeah, 1 and 3 from j8ear are plausible..2 is just out there...

i'm sorry, i just don't think torture is a good method for getting information. Seriously, you may get a TON of info, but 10% may be valid if you're lucky. I firmly believe there are other methods than torture.

Now, i will admit that a part of me would love to allow torture, but i just know it's wrong.

[Pacifier]

Originally Posted by Paq

i'm sorry, i just don't think torture is a good method for getting information. Seriously, you may get a TON of info, but 10% may be valid if you're lucky. I firmly believe there are other methods than torture.

exactly, I can grab a random guy from the street and when I'm finished with him he will happily admit that he is the AlKaida member who planned 9/11.

Perhaps some of you should read "Cautio criminalis" a book that was published in Europe in 1631

[stevo]

Originally Posted by kutulu

I agree that it is kidnapping but I don't necessarily have a problem with it under the right circumstances. If it is a country we are friendly with, try to go through a formal legal process. If not, we will do what we must. However, those involved should have the understanding that if they are made then they may have to face the consequences for their involvement.

*snip*

I don't think we should just hand these agents over but we shouldn't do anything to hamper the investigation and their capture. I compare them to Jack Bauer at the end of this season's 24. He engaged in an illegal operation, got caught, and was able to try to start over somewhere with the knowledge that if he gets caught we won't help him.

Agree. but I think there are many things to be gained by third party interrogation tecniques. Its a war and the people we are fighiting are ruthless. Sending an alqaida member to egypt can get a lot of useful information.

Originally Posted by Paq

yeah, 1 and 3 from j8ear are plausible..2 is just out there...

i'm sorry, i just don't think torture is a good method for getting information. Seriously, you may get a TON of info, but 10% may be valid if you're lucky. I firmly believe there are other methods than torture.

Now, i will admit that a part of me would love to allow torture, but i just know it's wrong.

The info gained must be analyzed and evaluated. everything is not taken at face value.

[Paq]

i'm not saying they would take everythign at face value, but let's say the guy spouts out little stuff at first that turns out to be true, then, begrudgingly more stuff..then a bit more...then the info accuracy drops considerably until you honestly can't trust anything out of that person's mouth..then it's even worse when HE starts believing the lies, 2+2=5 and shit like that...

torture is effective at gaining info, just not that effective at gaining accurate info, imho.

[Willravel]

The CIA should have been shut down years ago. The US does not need a secret police force.

From CIA.gov

Vision

We will provide knowledge and take action to ensure the national security of the United States and the preservation of American life and ideals.

Mission

We are the eyes and ears of the nation and at times its hidden hand. We accomplish this mission by:

Collecting intelligence that matters.

Providing relevant, timely, and objective all-source analysis.

Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve United States policy objectives.

Values

In pursuit of our country's interests, we put Nation before Agency, Agency before unit, and all before self. What we do matters.

Our success depends on our ability to act with total discretion and an ability to protect sources and methods.

We provide objective, unbiased information and analysis.

Our mission requires complete personal integrity and personal courage, physical and intellectual.

We accomplish things others cannot, often at great risk. When the stakes are highest and the dangers greatest, we are there and there first.

We stand by one another and behind one another. Service, sacrifice, flexibility, teamwork, and quiet patriotism are our hallmarks.

Where does it say that an American agency can travel to other countries and kidnap their citizens for torture?! That is highly illegal, highly immoral, and not in our countries best interest.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by willravel

The CIA should have been shut down years ago. The US does not need a secret police force.

From CIA.gov

Where does it say that an American agency can travel to other countries and kidnap their citizens for torture?! That is highly illegal, highly immoral, and not in our countries best interest.

Where does it say they can't?

Spying is illegal, 'covert operations' are illegal, bribery is illegal, and guess what the CIA does?

Part of the criticism of Clinton was he tried to run the CIA like you would a law enforcement agency, which crippled our intelligence gathering ability.

God help us if the CIA starts obeying foreign law, we might as well close shop.

Now just because someone says the CIA did this, doesn't mean I believe them, but if the story is 100% true, the only fault I have with it is that they got caught. CIA shouldn't be that sloppy.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Where does it say they can't?

Spying is illegal, 'covert operations' are illegal, bribery is illegal, and guess what the CIA does?

Part of the criticism of Clinton was he tried to run the CIA like you would a law enforcement agency, which crippled our intelligence gathering ability.

God help us if the CIA starts obeying foreign law, we might as well close shop.

Now just because someone says the CIA did this, doesn't mean I believe them, but if the story is 100% true, the only fault I have with it is that they got caught. CIA shouldn't be that sloppy.

Ah yes, who the fuck do all these other countries think they are? We are the Goddamned United States by God and we'll do what we want where we want in any country we want and fuck international law and other countries for questioning our God blessed destiny of liberating the world and making sure if we can't torture someone in a country we'll kidnap them and take them to where we can.

[dlish]

no country person or entity is above the law. kidnapping is illegal, no doubts about it. the CIA has been doing this for years, its baout time someone raised their voice about it.

the way i see it, the CIA is just a legalised thug agency...my closest analogy would be the Mafia. The sole purpose is to wreak havoc and destabalise countries, governments and economies. how the fuck does that work? isnt that what Al Qaeda did to the US on 911? (to wreak havoc, destabalise the goverment and economy?) and what would the US do if one of its citizens was kidnapped by another foreign country? (apart from kidnapping their own citizens aka jose padilla)

The way i see it, Al Qaeda was a legitimate entity in afghanistan, endorsed by the then current afghan leadership. the CIA is a legitimate entity in the US endorsed by the current US leadership.

There is no difference. They are both terror organisations.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

The way i see it, Al Qaeda was a legitimate entity in afghanistan, endorsed by the then current afghan leadership. the CIA is a legitimate entity in the US endorsed by the current US leadership.

There is no difference. They are both terror organisations.

Yes there is no difference, the CIA broke the law by kidnapping a Al Qaeda and the Al Qaeda broke the law by doing this.



There is no difference.

[Mephisto2]

To equate the CIA and al-Queda is offensive in the extreme.

It's comments like this that give the "left/liberals/Democrats/anti-war lobby" (take your pick) a bad name.


Mr Mephisto

[Seaver]

Ah yes, who the fuck do all these other countries think they are? We are the Goddamned United States by God and we'll do what we want where we want in any country we want and fuck international law and other countries for questioning our God blessed destiny of liberating the world and making sure if we can't torture someone in a country we'll kidnap them and take them to where we can.

Because we are the only ones who break international espionage laws? Please every country with more than a $50 yearly budget has one.

And yeah... the CIA exists to run planes into buildings... /ignored

[jorgelito]

To add to Seaver, recent examples include S. Korea, Israel, and France - And they're our allies too!

[jorgelito]

Wait, I read the post wrong - The aforementioned (as far as I know) did not kidnap anyone (except for Israel). I was referring to regular espionage. And don't forget corporate too.

[dlish]

and you think that kidnapping is all that the CIA does? the CIA has been destabilising governments,at the whims of whatever adminstration has been in power.

as for what al qaeda did, there is no justification..but what the CIA has done is kill a lot more than 3000 people.

heres a book for you all to read..

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II.

by William Blum

Table of Contents

Introduction
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ... and 500,000 others
East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution," said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present
Notes
Appendix I: This is How the Money Goes Round
Appendix II: Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1945
Appendix III: U. S. Government Assassination Plots
Index

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Where does it say they can't?

Italian law. Kidnapping is illegal, and the CIA obviously didn't have permission from the Italian government to take these people. Italian law is where it says they can't. Italy is our ally, for God's sake.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Spying is illegal, 'covert operations' are illegal, bribery is illegal, and guess what the CIA does?

They break laws. If the CIA would have gone to the Italian government with some sort of evidence and a promise that we wouldn't illegally torture their citizens, they might have said okay. The CIA didn't do that, they broke the law.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Part of the criticism of Clinton was he tried to run the CIA like you would a law enforcement agency, which crippled our intelligence gathering ability.

Yes, those terror attacks on American soil during the Clinton administration were terrible....

Originally Posted by Ustwo

God help us if the CIA starts obeying foreign law, we might as well close shop.

The ends do not justify the means. Even breaking the law and spying, 9/11 happened. What does that tell you about the effectiveness of breaking the law?

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Now just because someone says the CIA did this, doesn't mean I believe them, but if the story is 100% true, the only fault I have with it is that they got caught. CIA shouldn't be that sloppy.

The CIA does not have the authority to work outside the law - espically in other countries, and no one should. Laws are in place for a reason.

[Seaver]

The CIA does not have the authority to work outside the law - espically in other countries, and no one should. Laws are in place for a reason.

Are you sure? What the CIA is designed to do is illegal. Intelligence gathering IS illegal.

Some terrorist who we know is planning to kill Americans... grab and bag him as far as I care. It'd be a good idea to go to their government first with the justification, but you'd be screaming murder if say, he had connections and got let off. The mafia exists today because of this, what if he had connections which kept him sheltered and immunity to kill us? I'm not saying this is the case, but how agered would you be if that occured? You'd be screaming for Bush's resignation.

The 'ends-justify-the-means' argument is the same one used by the terrorists.

Please try and be self consistant - or - simply wrap yourself in your flag and don't try to make intelligent justifications for breaking foreign laws - there are none.

What would be justified would be to state that you are a proud citizen of the United States of America, and will back anything that your government does in order to further its interests.

Using your own arguments, it is perfectly reasonable for a citizen of a foreign government to break the laws in the US, as long as it is in the interests of their own nation...

[Seaver]

The 'ends-justify-the-means' argument is the same one used by the terrorists.

Please try and be self consistant - or - simply wrap yourself in your flag and don't try to make intelligent justifications for breaking foreign laws - there are none.

What would be justified would be to state that you are a proud citizen of the United States of America, and will back anything that your government does in order to further its interests.

Using your own arguments, it is perfectly reasonable for a citizen of a foreign government to break the laws in the US, as long as it is in the interests of their own nation..

I'm not wrapping myself in the flag, and yes, there are intelligent justifications for breaking foreign laws. Just because you dont agree with them does not take away the justification.

I dont back anything the government does, if you read any of my posts I have many disagreements with our government and our current administration. However, if grabbing some guy in Italy saves dozens/hundreds/thousands of innocent lives.. then so be it.

As for the breaking of international intelligence laws... show me ONE country that doesnt do this. Even Switzerland has an intelligence agency.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just pointing out that you either are on the side of moral absolutism, or national absolutism.

"Just because you dont agree with them does not take away the justification."

You are right about there being justifications for breaking foreign laws - but then you have to agree that foreigners are equally justified in taking action against the US when it is in their percieved interest.

It is practical to have an intelligence agency - however, it is impractical to have that agency perform acts that blow its own cover. It makes collecting future intelligence much more difficult, and in the long run is liable to put thousands more lives in jeopardy.

A good intelligence operation should be invisible.

[martinguerre]

Originally Posted by Seaver

Are you sure? What the CIA is designed to do is illegal. Intelligence gathering IS illegal.

Now that's just not right. Reading the newspaper is intelligence gathering. Watching TV, observing demonstrations, attending political gatherings, etc, etc...

Much of the work the CIA does is gathering and compiling for meaningful analysis of public information. MOre work is done from air survailance, and other more clandestine sources. Only a portion of their intel comes from black bag sources...and certainly only a small fraction comes from kidnap and torture operations. The fact that the intelligence community is still short on arabic translators really sort of gives me the idea that they aren't using the non-international incident causing intel sources to the best of their abilities.

[host]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes there is no difference, the CIA broke the law by kidnapping a Al Qaeda and the Al Qaeda broke the law by doing this.

[IMG][/IMG]

There is no difference.

Do we know that "Al Qaeda broke the law by doing this"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in322092.shtml
CBS - Bin Laden Names Hijackers On Tape Dec. 20, 2001
He would identify only three: Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Wail Alshehri. Alshehri was on American Airlines flight 11, one of the planes that hit the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center in New York; Alhamzi and Alhamzi were on American Airlines flight 77, which hit the Pentagon.

Bin Laden's "smoking gun" video names living, uninvolved people? This makes no sense!
This is just the beginning, this "confession" video is full of abnormalities.
http://welfarestate.com/wtc/faketape/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in521223.shtml
CBS - Hijackers Lived With FBI Informant - Sept. 9, 2002
Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers who lived in San Diego in 2000 rented a room from a man who reportedly worked as an undercover FBI informant....the FBI informant prayed with them and even helped one open a bank account.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm

Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI
Commonwealth Club of California
San Francisco, CA
April 19, 2002
..............The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection...............

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5224036/
..........Contrary to popular understanding, Bin Ladin did not fund al Qaeda through a personal fortune and a network of businesses. Instead, al Qaeda relied primarily on a fundraising network developed over time. Bin Ladin never received a $300 million inheritance..........

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00295.htm
........Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission’s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23). .........

The FBI still says these are the terrorists. But when they are found alive,
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm
U.S. Department of Justice

the FBI says their identity was stolen, and its not the terrorist
Federal Bueau of Investigation - Hijackers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1553754.stm
BBC - FBI probes hijackers' identities 9/21/01

# If they stole identities, how did the FBI identify those passengers as terrorists?
Not by flight calls, which contradict the FBI information!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1556096.stm
BBC- The last moments of Flight 11
The FBI has named five hijackers on board Flight 11, whereas Ms Sweeney spotted only four. Also, the seat numbers she gave were different from those registered in the hijackers' names.

# These aren't the first mistakes. FBI quickly had amended the original list,
as the original "suicide hijackers" came forward!
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/inv...ism/index.html
CNN - FBI: Early probe results show 18 hijackers took part 9/13/01
Based on information from multiple law enforcement sources, CNN reported that Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari of Vero Beach Florida, were suspected to be two of the pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center. CNN later learned that Adnan Bukhari is still in Florida, where he was questioned by the FBI. We are sorry for the misinformation. A federal law enforcement source now tells CNN that Bukhari passed an FBI polygraph and is not considered a suspect. Through his attorney, Bukhari says that he is helping authorities. Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crash last year.

Some of those involved in the plot left suicide notes, but they are not believed to have been the hijackers, a government source told The Associated Press. It was unclear whether those who left the notes actually killed themselves.
Source =http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

Disclaimer: In view of the ongoing disclosure of deception and incompetence practiced by the Bush administration, including intentionally misleading statements made to the American people by the president himself, it is more important than ever for all of us to question everything this government has told us, especially to examine the inconsistancies that they have reported via the press, and directly to us. There are enough inconsistancies surrounding the answers given to us concerning who attacked us on 9/11, to keep an open mind as to what actually happened and who was responsible.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010916-2.html
...........Never did anybody's thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious U.S. targets - never.............

Only later did we find this to call the president's remarks into question:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A16

While planning a high-level training exercise months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, U.S. military officials considered a scenario in which a hijacked foreign commercial airliner flew into the Pentagon, defense officials said yesterday.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center...................

I am sorry if you read this and take it as an "intrusion". It is time to separate the "shit from the shinola" in the core arguments advanced by some posters that repeat official statments that are, although official, lack credibility or contradict previous statements.

[Willravel]

Well played, host. It needed to be said. Perhaps this can be the alpha of people around here opening their eyes about the matter, instead of refering back to something as fact despite it's never being substantiated. I know the way ustwo will respond to this (more 9/11 conspiracy bs), but others will not be so quick to ignore what is as plain as the nose on their faces.

[powerclown]

Originally Posted by host

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm

Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI

You forgot to quote this part of your source link:


"The investigation was enormously helpful in figuring out who and what to look for as we worked to prevent attacks. It allowed us to see where we as a nation needed to close gaps in our security.

And it gave us clear and definitive proof that al Qaeda was behind the strikes."

[host]

Originally Posted by powerclown

You forgot to quote this part of your source link:


"The investigation was enormously helpful in figuring out who and what to look for as we worked to prevent attacks. It allowed us to see where we as a nation needed to close gaps in our security.

And it gave us clear and definitive proof that al Qaeda was behind the strikes."

Yeah, Mueller, Bush, et al, have said quite a lot of things that are conflicting, misleading, and inaccurate that I didn't include. In view of their astoundingly inept and inaccurate track record, coupled with their avoidance of accountability and unprecedented obsession for secrecy, I'm urging everyone to keep an open mind accept nothing that they have said, at face value. They have to earn that trust, and they obviously haven't. Have you noticed that the DHS has not changed the "terror color code" warning since shortly before the election last November? With Bush's new "mandate", there was no longer any need to pump the apparatus of fear up a notch to alarm or to distract the sheeple......

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t.../update13.html
April 19, 2002: FBI Director Mueller states: "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot." He also claims that the attackers used "extraordinary secrecy" and "investigators have found no computers, laptops, hard drives or other storage media that may have been used by the hijackers, who hid their communications by using hundreds of pay phones and cell phones, coupled with hard-to-trace prepaid calling cards." [FBI speech transcript, 4/19/02, Los Angeles Times, 4/22/02, he repeats the quote the next month, Senate Judiciary Statement, 5/8/02] However, before 9/11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate that al-Qaeda is "embracing the opportunities offered by recent leaps in information technology," [CIA, 03/21/00], the FBI broke the al-Qaeda computer encryption before February 2001 (see February 13, 2001) [UPI, 2/13/01], witnesses report seeing the hijackers use computers for e-mail at public libraries in Florida and Maine [Sun-Sentinel, 9/16/01, Boston Herald, 10/5/01], in October 2001 there were many reports that hundreds of e-mails discussing the 9/11 plot had been found (see October 2001 (B)), Moussaoui's laptop was found to contain important information, etc... Look also at an MSNBC article about al-Qaeda using computers. [MSNBC, 4/19/02]

May 20-24, 2002: The Bush administration issues a remarkable series of terror warnings that many believe are politically motivated. Vice President Cheney warns it is "not a matter of if, but when" al-Qaeda will next attack the US. [CNN, 5/20/02] Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge says the same thing. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says terrorists will "inevitably" obtain weapons of mass destruction. FBI Director Mueller says more suicide bombings are "inevitable." [Washington Post, 5/22/02] Authorities also issue separate warnings that al-Qaeda terrorists might target apartment buildings nationwide, banks, rail and transit systems, the Statue of Liberty, and the Brooklyn Bridge. USA Today titles an article, "Some Question Motives Behind Series of Alerts." [USA Today, 5/24/02] David Martin, CBS's national security correspondent, says, "Right now they're putting out all these warnings to change the subject from what was known prior to September 11 to what is known now." [Washington Post, 5/27/02] Remarkably, even White House spokesman Ari Fleischer says the alerts were issued "as a result of all the controversy that took place last week" (see May 15, 2002 and May 21, 2002). [Washington Times, 5/22/02] Time notes, "Though uncorroborated and vague, the terror alerts were a political godsend for an Administration trying to fend off a bruising bipartisan inquiry into its handling of the terrorist chatter last summer. After the wave of warnings, the Democratic clamor for an investigation into the government's mistakes subsided." [Time, 5/27/02]

June 18, 2002: FBI Director Mueller testifies before the Congressional 9/11 inquiry; his testimony is made public in September 2002. [AP, 9/26/02] He claims that with the possible exception of Zacarias Moussaoui, "To this day we have found no one in the United States except the actual hijackers who knew of the plot and we have found nothing they did while in the United States that triggered a specific response about them." [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/26/02] The Congressional 9/11 inquiry will later conclude near the end of 2002 that some hijackers had contact inside the US with individuals known to the FBI, and the hijackers "were not as isolated during their time in the United States as has been previously suggested." [Los Angeles Times, 12/12/02] Mueller also claims, "There were no slip-ups. Discipline never broke down. They gave no hint to those around them what they were about." [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/26/02] This statement overlooks some facts, such as the FAA's investigation into Hani Hanjour (see January 2001), Atta's strange visit to the Department of Agriculture (see Late April-Mid-May 2000), or what should have been an FAA investigation into Atta (see December 26, 2000).

Mueller appears to contradict quite a few news reports that appeared before
his April, 19, 2002 speech.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t.../update13.html
October 2001 (B): Reports this month indicate that many hijacker e-mails have been recovered. USA Today reports many unencrypted e-mails coordinating the 9/11 plans written by the hijackers in internet cafes have been recovered by investigators. [USA Today, 10/1/01] FBI sources say "hundreds of e-mails linked to the hijackers in English, Arabic and Urdu" have been recovered, with some messages including "operational details" of the attack. [Washington Post, 10/4/01] "A senior FBI official says investigators have obtained hundreds of e-mails in English and Arabic, reflecting discussions of the planned Sept. 11 hijackings." [Wall Street Journal, 10/16/01] However, in April 2002, FBI Director Mueller says no documentation of the 9/11 plot has been found (see April 19, 2002). By September 2002, the Chicago Tribune reports, "Of the hundreds, maybe thousands, of e-mails sent and received by the hijackers from public Internet terminals, none is known to have been recovered." [Chicago Tribune, 9/5/02]

July 11, 2002: It is reported that the FBI believes there are approximately 5,000 al-Qaeda agents inside the US. In early 2003, FBI Director Mueller reduces the estimate to "several hundred." The New York Times then says that even suggesting over 100 is probably an exaggeration made for political reasons. [New York Times, 2/16/03]

Consider that the following information is not that widely known by the American sheeple. Why would you not resist accepting anything that they tell you?

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1016-06.htm
Published on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
Killing the Political Animal:
CIA Psychological Operations and Us
by Heather Wokusch

........But what mechanisms could have been used to facilitate the rollback? How can an unwilling population be trained to blindly accept a new, repressive social order?

A CIA instruction manual entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare" provides some clues. Written in the early 1980s (coincidentally, soon after Bush Sr. headed the Agency) the document was part of the US government's crusade to bring down Nicaragua's leftist government, by providing training and weapons to the Contra rebels. Detailing how to gain a community's support through propaganda and selective violence, the manual begins "In effect, the human being should be considered the priority objective in a political war ... Once his mind has been reached, the 'political animal' has been defeated, without necessarily receiving bullets."

The following are quotes from the original psyop textbook, along with contemporary examples-

PSYOP quote: "It is appropriate ... to guide the discussion of a group to cover a number of points and to reach a correct conclusion." The people "should feel it was their free and own decision."

Interesting to note that up until early 2000, military personnel from the Fourth Psychological Operations Group based in Fort Bragg, North Carolina were active at CNN's Atlanta-based headquarters - and left only after public outcry when CNN admitted to employing them. Their presence was perhaps not surprising given former CIA director William Colby's boast that "the Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any major significance in the major media."

So much for a democratic free flow of information........

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1748
Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working On News At CNN?

3/27/00

Reports in the Dutch newspaper Trouw (2/21/00, 2/25/00) and France's Intelligence Newsletter (2/17/00) have revealed that several officers from the US Army's 4th Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) Group at Ft. Bragg worked in the news division at CNN's Atlanta headquarters last year, starting in the final days of the Kosovo War.

‘CIA. America’s Secret Government.’ Bill Moyers documents U.S. support of terrorist regimes and the brutality of America’s foreign policy. Watch the video right now:
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle3281.htm

Carl Bernstein, "The CIA and the Media -- How America's Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up", Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977.
The main source is the Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities (April, 1976).The report does not name the journalists concerned. However, in an article in the Rolling Stone Magazine (20th October, 1977) Carl Bernstein named several journalists and newspaper owners who were under the control of the CIA.

Bernstein claims that over “400 journalists had secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters”. This list included Joseph Alsop, William Paley, Henry Luce, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, Barry Bingham Sr. and James Copley. Organizations mentioned included CBS, Time, New York Times, Louisville Courier-Journal, Copley News Service. the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald, Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune.