The thing that amazes me is that certain people seem to not understand that torture of any discription is illegal no matter how effective it is. Just as it would be to use a gun to holdup a bank, effective as hell but illegal. There should be no delay, OBAMA has proved that he has a yellow streak a mile wide, he must be removed (effectively) and the rest need to be arraigned detained and tried. Until that time the USA is just a junk pile of wasted dreams!

Ah now it makes sense. Cheyney and the neocons wanted to get back into Iraq and really do it right this time - not some half-finished job like Papa Doc Bush did, but real empire expansion, but they knew the American sheep would not go along with it unless there was something that really fired them up. Thank God for 9-11 which lit the fire. The only thing missing was the link between 9.11 and Iraq, so they tortured people and made them admit that there was a link, even though there wasn't. Torture is not about getting to the truth, it is about getting people to say things that are not true, but are what you want to hear. It is all making sense now. Wake up America! The chickens have come home to roost. All of those years of exporting torture and dirty tricks were not for nothing. These guys would not think twice about turning their tricks on us.

let's also not forget that, as pointed out on CD the other day, the main narrative in the official version of 9/11, from the 9/11 Commission Report, for the financing and planning of the 9/11 attacks was obtained by....torture.

i've been hesitant to buy into the "9/11 conspiracies" (it was mossad, or the cia, or bldg 7 was detonated, etc.), but when i read crap like that....

so the whole "al quaeda did 9/11" thing may be a myth, which means that the pretext for the afghan invasion is false, as certainly the pretext for the iraq war was.

but someone like thomas more is going to say the US is not as bad as hitler's germany? and ezeflyer is still defending obama?

if your gov't is willing to go to such lengths to fabricate a lie to justify the illegal invasion of iraq, my question is: what WON'T they do? makes the "9/11 conspiracies" at least plausible....

That photo really is worth a thousand words. Cheney is insane. The fantasy world he lived in while in office is gone. He is afraid.

Everybody knows the truth now and it has nothing to do with the make-believe, made up senario which he has been insisting is reality.

That photo really is worth a thousand words. Cheney is insane. The fantasy world he lived in while in office is gone. He is afraid.

Everybody knows the truth now and it has nothing to do with the make-believe, made up senario which he has been insisting is reality.

Jim Glover ,

Poor grammar, ..., but I agree with what you are saying.

Quote: "... so this new proof that they even did torture to add to their War Propaganda is sensational for the press ..."

Definitely, and it's rather very obvious; by now anyway.

Quote: "Well, it is a big story and Violence sells and war makes people scared to stand up to the War Machine."

I believe that, but as far as this being "a big story", well, it is, only what occurred during Feb.-March 2003 was and remains a far "bigger story"; if only people would put some real [heart] into recognising this. If they need to, in order to be reminded, then they can go back in time, to read about the related aspects of those months; read Scott Ritter's articles from 2002 and, if any, 2003 leading up to the war on Iraq, or even until a while after the launching; view videos, if any can be found easily enough, of news footage regarding the UN weapons inspections; etcetera. They could also view the video footage, if it's available, of when Bush said that he had been holding private discussions or conversations with God and that He told Bush to attack Iraq; and, so, Bush, the obedient little "Christian" he wanted everyone to be fooled into believing he was, would do as God told him to do, certainly having made this implication very obvious anyway. I think it was in January 2003 that he said this totally absurd, psychotically "gone", ... nonsense.

Quote: "... blaming everyone or most Americans distracts from the crime bosses ..."

Yes it does distract as you say. It's true that the majority of Americans un-Constitutionally supported the war on Iraq, but they didn't devise and launch it, and it's likely enough that the war would've been launched one way or another, on one basis or another. Cheney, f.e., has been hard-set determined to go after Iraq's oil reserves for the U.S. to gain control of them for nearly 20 years or more now, if not even longer. Rumsfeld was much a part of this. There's a lot of definitely related history about these two assh*les and this history, parts of it, has threads that began in the 1970's. I forget what those earlier-begun aspects were or are about, but recall having read about them being related, somehow, to the GWoT wars of today; perhaps not so much Afghanistan and the Capsian region, but certainly the Middle East and most probably Iraq.

It was the USA that saw to Saddam Hussein coming to power, replacing the good leader Iraq had when Saddam first became leader there. Britain's been after Iraq since the early part of the 20th century and the U.S. definitely was going after the Middle East at least as of around 1950. In putting Saddam into the leadership of Iraq, the U.S. elites expect him to de-nationalise, to therefore privatise, Iraq's oil reserves, but he played a dual-role with them, allowing them to believe they'd get what they wanted, all while he really wasn't going to do this and only wanted to become president of Iraq. That's hypothetical, for I don't know if he at first really agreed to privatise, or not, but once he became president he certainly made sure to keep the reserves nationalised, which really "ticked off" the elites of the U.S.

Later, they worked on instigating the war between Iraq and Iran; having read that the Iraq part was done overtly, considerably anyway, while the Iran part was covert. Both oil-rich countries and the U.S. elites feverishly wanted control of these resources.

We didn't need that history in order to have enough proof to be able to indict, convict and sentence the Bush administration in March 2003 for its war of aggression, but the above history could probably have been added to strengthen the case against them or the U.S.A.'s political leadership and elites.

The sheeple were at fault for supporting the war on Iraq, but at least a good number of these persons came to realise that they had been mistaken and then switched to opposing the continuation of the war; and no reasonable person can complain about that change in position. Like you say, the average American is not in a position to lead or direct the actions of the government; it's the leadership, and I'd include Congress and the Senate in this, that need to be legally addressed for their crimes and disrespect for the Constitution and what it says about international laws, etcetera. They could all be treated, legally, as traitors, or something as ugly as that, those who agreed to authorise the war on Iraq could, anyway; while the Bush administration is where "the buck stops" and definitely should be prosecuted ... and convicted.

Perhaps reminding people of some critically relevant history can help some to wake up to the fact that we don't need these investigations about torture being used for obtaining false confessions in order to be able to indict, etcetera, for these wars of aggression; while also reminding that it's these wars themselves, not the torture, that constitute the [supreme] crimes in all of this damn hellbent criminality. People will again say, "but the torture was for false confessions that were used to justify war on Iraq", to which I'll repeat that we never needed this information in order to be able to indict, etcetera, for the launching of these wars of aggression. We didn't have the information in March 2003, but we could, at that time, indict, etcetera, for wars of aggression; only, the legal "experts" stayed on their couches, ... whatever.

"kennybro May 16th, 2009 7:18 am

MikeC .... your obsessed, but I understand. Hopefully, if your successful at prosecuting Bush/Cheney for their war crimes we can get a chance to go after Truman and Roosevelt (Teddy) for their uncivilized war crimes."

NOT as obsessed as everyone is with not acting promptly when adequate proof is available, all of this dilly-dallying with prosecutions for war crimes supposedly not being do-able without first proving that the Bush-Cheney administration used false confessions, one anyway, to try to justify war on Iraq, but while the Congressional authorisation wasn't about that falsehood, for it was focused on the WMD myth, which wasn't derived from torture, at all, and which the UN weapons inspections proved to be bogus.

When millions of other and innocent peoples' lives are at stake, U.S. soldiers are sent to carry out criminal wars at the risks of losing their own lives or becoming several PTSD'd or seriously injured, vast amounts of more U.S. taxpayer dollars continue to be used to keep the criminal GWoT wars going, etcetera, then a little obsession to get people to understand that they already have and have had enough proof to be able to indict, etcetera, which'd bring an end to these wars; well, then a little obsession is aka passion, and that's a [good] thing. If John Pilger, world renowned investigator and documentary maker, was not a person of great, needed passion, then we would not have all of the excellent work he's done; not that I'm comparing myself to him, for I've done no comparable work, but as an example of being passionate in a healthy way [for] humanity.

But you so-called legal experts pretend that we don't already have enough proof to be able to indict, etcetera, and you therefore take your sweet leisurely time to achieve what could have been achieved years ago, if only enough people had serious conscience, alertness and will to [act]. It seems too or awfully typical of U.S. or western imperialist, ... conduct, I fear. Be the criminal aggressors and then pretend that it's these powers and their populations who should investigate themselves, while taking their sweet f*cking time about it; always coming up with (unstated or unacknowledged, to oneself anyway) excuses for not acting promptly to indict, ..., the war-criminal leaders. Maybe this characteristic is due to a feeling of guilt and this driving the psychological insecurity of thinking that adequate proof to indict, etcetera, is lacking, so their reasoning is that more investigations supposedly are still required, first.

As for TR and HT, there is [no] practical comparison between the Bush administration and Roosevelt and Truman, for we all know they're both dead, while no member of the Bush admin. has died, yet. If you think it's wise to spend U.S. taxpayer dollars on indicting and convicting Harry Truman and Ted Roosevelt, then you take on trying to persuade Americans that you're right. Meanwhile, I'm concerned about the [present], aka today. And if I was to support indictments and convictions for all of the ghosts of U.S. leadership history deserving of indictments and convictions today, then I'd support the whole f*cking lot of them; [all]. Their crimes differ, but they all have at least one in common and it's that NONE of them ever honoured the treaties, which are legally binding, with the indigenous American Indians. They're all guilty of other serious crimes, but some committed additional crimes, too.

Even FDR, who did some good things, also committed some criminal leadership that, technically, merits being treated as criminal.

The establishment of the U.S. Constitution according to today's laws, etcetera, would be a criminal act in and of itself!

"Don_Alejandro May 16th, 2009 8:27 am

Cheney was greasing the wheels for torture well in advance of having any prisoners precisely because torture was a reliable way of producing what Cheney refers to as "actionable intelligence." "

"Cheney was greasing the wheels for" war on Iraq far earlier, because he "was greasing the wheels for" having the U.S. achieve control of, dominance over Iraq's oil reserves long before he started working on his torture-for-false-confessions scheme.

In any case, this is not needed to be able to indict, convict and sentence him for war of aggression on Iraq, because he was as much and sometimes even more part of commanding this war before the public than Bush was. Bush spoke publicly for this more often, but every time Bush started to soften up, take back-steps, ... about the war, Cheney came rushing forward to [cement] the continuation of the war being necessary, "cementing" this into the public's minds, the gullible members of the public, that is.

But I guess the fact that they could have all been indicted, convicted and sentenced as of the day the war was launched, or even as of the day they criminally forced an end to the successful (for) Iraq UN weapons inspections remains, today, of no concern to most Americans. After all, it has clearly not been a concern to them over all of these years, so why would they start being concerned about this now(?). Instead, they psychologically try to escape through the pretense of being able to fool everyone into believing that we must absolutely prove that they had torture-for-false-confessions, to obtain invalid, false justifications for war on Iraq, in order to be able to indict, ... them, before we can move on and start where this all should have started as of the very day the war was launched; that is, the fact I've been repeating, that there could, in a world of real and mature law, have been indictments, etcetera, back in March 2003.

Are all of these people trying to psychologically escape from feelings of guilt? Possibly. Or is it that they're [blind] to the fact the indictments, ... could and should have been applied immediately, back in March 2003, and that there was certainly enough proof for being able to do this back then? It sure seems that they are of such blindness.

When we have enough proof to indict, convict and sentence and we don't promptly act, then we are doing what? Either sleeping, or "playing" dumb, or taking our leisurely sweet f*cking time with millions of other peoples' lives, for we then certainly aren't acting as we should and could be, if we had a real will and it was alert and ready to act.

People seem to prefer to love war; like it giving them plenty to spend years writing about, getting their names known among the public, thereby obtaining "name recognition", i.e., "fame", etcetera.

After all, the Bush administration certainly could have been indicted, etcetera, back in March 2003. What date are we now? Let's see. Ooops, a little over six years later; it's now May 16, 200[9].

Cheney was greasing the wheels for torture well in advance of having any prisoners precisely because torture was a reliable way of producing what Cheney refers to as "actionable intelligence."

Of course, "actionable intelligence" need not have been true or even remotely accurate as long as it was useful for Cheney’s purposes. Torture (especially repetitive torture) was uniquely suited to fabricating "actionable intelligence" as Cheney’s victims eventually learned to create whatever sort of details the Torturer in Chief sought (such as a link between 9/11 and Iraq).

MikeC .... your obsessed, but I understand. Hopefully, if your successful at prosecuting Bush/Cheney for their war crimes we can get a chance to go after Truman and Roosevelt (Teddy) for their uncivilized war crimes. Then I think we should go after the Clinton's....you know the Vincent Foster "Case" has not been solved. He definitely was not the type to commit suicide, rich, handsome, Bill's best friend. Next, Bill Clinton's China connections...what a coincidence that his close association with so many Chinese businessmen and questionable contributions from same resulted in "William Jefferson Clinton" pressuring Congressional Democrats who previously had been vehemently against NAFTA (you know they were protectionists, they thought if NAFTA passed Americans would lose our industrial base and we would lose a lot of jobs, gee is that what happened?) all of a sudden they all changed their minds. Now it appears that everything we touch is made in "CHINA". Maybe, you should put some of your mental efforts at addressing the crimes being committed here today under our very noses. The clear and present dangers. But, you go ahead Mike and gather your forces...someday we'll get that s.o.b. GW Bush guy. That sure will fix everything.

MikeC .... your obsessed, but I understand. Hopefully, if your successful at prosecuting Bush/Cheney for their war crimes we can get a chance to go after Truman and Roosevelt (Teddy) for their uncivilized war crimes. Then I think we should go after the Clinton's....you know the Vincent Foster "Case" has not been solved. He definitely was not the type to commit suicide, rich, handsome, Bill's best friend. Next, Bill Clinton's China connections...what a coincidence that his close association with so many Chinese businessmen and questionable contributions from same resulted in "William Jefferson Clinton" pressuring Congressional Democrats who previously had been vehemently against NAFTA (you know they were protectionists, they thought if NAFTA passed Americans would lose our industrial base and we would lose a lot of jobs, gee is that what happened?) all of a sudden they all changed their minds. Now it appears that everything we touch is made in "CHINA". Maybe, you should put some of your mental efforts at addressing the crimes being committed here today under our very noses. The clear and present dangers. But, you go ahead Mike and gather your forces...someday we'll get that s.o.b. GW Bush guy. That sure will fix everything.

Have not seen anybody commenting on the ridiculous and untestable claim that these barbarous methods have even protected anybody from anything, let alone stop any further attacks on the US. It is illogical to claim that.

There had never been a foreign attack on US soil until the alternative government/Mossad/ISI etc pulled it off. If the Neocons had not wanted "another Pearl Harbour", 9/11 would not have happened.

Having just read the account by Jeremy Scahill, re the continuing abuses by special teams of thugs (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/15-9) I fear that nothing has been learned, nothing will change and one day survivors in the US will weep and moan "What did we ever do to them??"
Wake up America.. Obama is not the cure..
God, how sad I am to type those words..

Cheney could've saved himself a lot of time if he had only believed the facts presented to him by Scott Ritter and Hans Blix.

However, he wouldn't have made as much money for his MIC buddies if he had.

All of this talk is useless, the "WAR CRIMINALS and COWARDS" are not paying any attention. So while they are looking elsewhere lets arrest them and stand them for trial. If they resist, shoot them as per our "CONSTITUTION" all this is at least within the law!

The false confessions did not constitute the basis for war of aggression on Iraq.

The Congressional authorisation granted in Oct. 2002 was the official legal basis and was, mainly anyway, about Saddam Hussein possessing WMD; plus the claim that he could or would strike the USA or west within 45 minutes with WMD. And the latter was a lie that was exposed by former weapons inspector David Kelly. There was also the false claim that Saddam Hussein was or had been trying to obtain uranium from (I think) Nigeria, but this was exposed to be a lie by ... Joseph Wilson of the U.S. I think that is the right name, anyway.

NOTE that NONE of those claims were based on anything related to torture!

There was the false story about Saddam Hussein and Al Qa'ida working together, a claim that was used to make the WMD scaremongering stronger in the minds of Americans. BUT the Congressional authorisation nevertheless became nullified with the successful UN weapons inspections, which the U.S., on several occasions or more, deliberately tried to corrupt or curb by acting in criminal ways that'd certainly cause Saddam Hussein to resist against the inspections.

That meddling, alone, was obvious criminality on the part of the Bush admin. It was undeniably and publicly obvious that they criminally worked to make Saddam Hussein resist!

Threatening to launch the war within days when the weapons inspections required by the U.S. were proving the Bush-Cheney admin. extremely wrong clearly was an act of criminal obstruction, interference, ... and agression. So the war was therefore and obviously all the more unjustifiable and definitely of aggression; inarguably so!

The claim they said was provided by Ahmad Chalabi on the WMD "myth" was now proven to be extremely or wholly false by or with the wholly successful (for Iraq) weapons inspections; and Chalabi was not tortured for this and the Bush admin. [knew] it was a lie.

This alone already meant that the (criminal, to begin with!) Congressional authorisation could no longer be used, and ignoring this fact again made the war one that obviously was of aggression. And the Bush admin. made it obvious that they never really had any intention to honourably allow and work [with] the inspections; else, they wouldn't have criminally interfered, etcetera! They never intended to respect the fact that the Congressional authorisation would only be applicable, though still criminally so, if Saddam didn't allow the inspections!

This is all that's really needed in a society or world of real and critically objective law, instead of a world of sick farce, weak, hegemonious, ... law; it's all that's needed to indict and convict the Bush admin. and the complicit high ranking officers.

This is all that's needed and if this was promptly acted upon for prosecutions, then investigations and prosecutions for the related crimes of torture and the thereby derived false confessions could be added; for [additional] (only) crimes to prosecute the Bush admin. for. We do not literally or really need the latter to be able to indict and convict the Bush admin. for commanding this war of aggression, and spending time pursuing based on the opposite argument or view only contributes to the war and related occupation continuing, many more Iraqis being killed, murdered, etcetera.

It also contributes to the criminal war on Afghanistan (and Pakistan) continuing, for if the Bush admin. was prosecuted for the criminal war against Iraq, then it'd be easy to include investigations and prosecutions for the war on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Scott Ritter protested in strong terms in enough articles in 2002 about Iraq possessing NO WMD; saying nothing about crimes of torture for obtaining falsehoods for so-called further justifying the war on Iraq, but, instead, condemning the false claims that said that Saddam Hussein had WMD, for it's these claims that the war was criminally launched with or based upon. Scott Ritter was trying to stop the war before it started and it's the WMD lie that he focused on!

Once there's enough to indict and prosecute, then it is time to [promptly] act, [immediately]; instead of dilly-dallying with activites regarding crimes that are only [related] and for which the full investigations, etcetera, can be pursued [after] the indictments and prosecutions for the main crimes, the launchings of [the] supreme international crimes, in all of this are applied and commence, respectively.

Most Americans supported launching the war on Iraq when it was already obvious that this would be aggression and many still have trouble understanding today that aggression was obvious as of the very moment that the Bush admin. criminally forced an end to the inspections. That alone was an international crime! Launching of the war made this a supreme international crime. These two facts alone would, in a real society or world of just and competent law, make it easy to indict and convict! Well, except for the fact that the U.S.A. is the world's military superpower, "of course".

But you all prefer to take your leisurely time with the "theoretical" notion that we need to prove that the crimes of torture were for the purpose of obtaining false confessions for supposedly justifying the war on Iraq. Huh!

Torture Helped Build (Manufacture) Iraq War Case

America is a lie based catastrophy!

the cover up will be worst than the crime. george tenet could be the whistle blower to settle this once and for all.

Okay we are supposed to believe the neocons in the previous administration, dude get fu*kin real, I mean really! Oh yes, the sky is green, sheep are stripped and whales can fly. Lies, lies, lies. Why are those people telling the truth now? What do they have to gain? Why did they finally get a conscious?

CNN isn't even a news service since it was stolen from Ted Turner.

The primary purpose of the torture was to solicit FALSE confessions NOT to find ACTUAL TRUTH. False confessions that would justify the invasion of Iraq, massive assault on the US Constitution and serve as part of the effort to cover up 9/11.

CNN and other "news" services are an even larger part of the effort at pouring out disinformation and covering up 9/11, the greatest crime in US history.

Re-investigate 9/11 and put them all in prison...meanwhile, read this.....

http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Collateral_Damage

_911.pdf

This is why we must continue increasing the pressure on Obama to direct AG Holder to begin criminal investigations of the Bush cabal for war crimes. While this most likely will not happen, Wilkerson's admissions give Judge Garzon even more evidence to build his case.

So now we know...
The "Ticking bomb justification" is the PR machine feeding the ticking stopwatch on 60 Minutes.

"Finding a "smoking gun" linking Iraq and al Qaeda became the main purpose of the abusive interrogation program the Bush administration authorized in 2002, ..."

That was the initial purpose, but not the continuous one. After all, it's been known for many enough years now that by far most detainees who were renditioned to Guantanamo Bay prison were innocent, that the U.S. had absolutely nothing to charge these people with or for.

The "smoking gun" that they were looking for a false confession for was a perhaps not totally but nevertheless very pre-determined matter. It already was wholly and firmly decided that the Bush administration was going to command war (of aggression) on Iraq, so the administration only wanted to try to boost its support among the population of the U.S. by using false confessions they'd claim to be truthful, for this extra public propaganda, but only extra.

After all, it's been known long enough that torture mostly, nearly always, if not simply always, produces [false] confessions. The Bush administration knew this. Even if GW Bush himself didn't know this, then others in the administration most certainly did, had to. They had been in high offices of the U.S. federal government for decades, not constantly, but nonetheless en masse, and Cheney had been high up in the GHW Bush administration. Both he and Rumsfeld are known to have been working for aiming to eventually get the U.S. in a position such that it'd be in control over the Middle East's oil reserves.

This was all pre-determined. They only used the false confessions for trying to additionally cover up the fact they were to conduct this war of aggression on Iraq.

Remember, the Congressional authorisation signed in Oct. 2002 was contingent upon Saddam Hussein allowing the UN weapons inspections, that if he didn't allow these, then the U.S. was definitely going to launch war on Iraq. They had no need of false confessions; what they needed was for Saddam Hussein to refuse to comply with the inspections, but he did. So they did a lot to cause him to be hesitant towards allowing the inspections and it's very, very easy to prove that they criminally did this. But he still allowed the inspections to continue, a little interrupted with some hesitations, rebuttals at times, but nonetheless continued. And those proved that in around 700 locations that the Bush-Cheney administration had claimed contained WMD, there were NONE.

Well, that just would not do, because the war was definitely going to be launched, no matter how obvious that it was of aggression. They simply warned that the war was being launched within a matter of days, which caused the weapons inspectors to scram out of Iraq, which, in turn, was followed by the launch of the war.

That is all the "smoking gun" that's needed to prove that the Bush-Cheney administration launched a totally criminal war of aggression for which there were absolutely [no] possible justifications whatsoever!

We don't need all of this torture bla bla bla propaganda that distracts from the fact that this is a war of aggression and that it's very, very simple to prove this; as argued above, the blatant refusal to accept that no WMD were being found and that Saddam Hussein therefore did not have any that could be used to justify the war, leaving it totally unjustifiable.

Congress' authorisation was based on the WMD and the inspections found NONE after verifying 700 or more sites the Bush-Cheney administration claimed contained WMD. There were NONE!

This was obvious in March 2003, the second that the inspections were criminally cut off by the Bush-Cheney administration, and we didn't know about the false confessions at that time and we could have immediately then condemned the war as one of aggression. We didn't need the false confessions information then, and we don't need it now, to be able to condemn this war as one that's totally of aggression!

Repetitive I am, but I prefer getting down to the critical points, instead of contributing to the torture bla bla bla propaganda that's distracting people from the critical points that certainly suffice for condemning this war as one of aggression and therefore a supreme international crime.

It's as if people just want to write and talk, instead of prosecuting the criminals responsible for this war of aggression, which was provably that as of the very moment that it was launched.

As more details come out regarding the conduct of the Bush error's Tomas de Torquemada (Cheney), a lot of it straight from the horse's mouth, one wonders at what point will it be when he finally hangs himself with his own narcissism.
Conversely, those of us who said from the start the case for the Iraq war presented by Dubya, Cheney, & Co. was complete hogwash now have the bittersweet satisfaction of having been right.

No justice, no peace, which is just fine with military and weapon contractors, I'm sure. If Cheney and Bush aren't locked up for this, they will never be locked up. No suprises in this article or the outcome. Obama will have a "blot" on his record as well if he doesn't step up.

Johnny J-Rock