For decades, the CIA trained people all over the world in torture methods; however, The New York Times would have you believe the rubbish coming out of the CIA that shortly after 9/11, it didn't know how to torture people.
June 22, 2008
Inside a 9/11 Mastermind's Interrogation
By Scott Shane
If you believe them, you're extremely naive and gullible and part of the problem, not the solution.
Let's not forget that these people are professional liars. They are paid to study torture. They developed all sorts of experiments in the "best" methods for breaking people. They tried all the different drugs and in various combinations, strengths, and settings. They paid for so-called scientists to turn people into vegetables. They are paid to throw people off. They are paid to twist and spin. Are you going to buy the junk propaganda they have the corporate media (including The New York Times) pump out? If you do, you're being really dumb.
They put there own agents through waterboarding, but they didn't know how to torture people. What a stupid assertion. Anyone who can torture one of his or her fellow agents can certainly torture someone else. Of course, the agents know they aren't going to face endless waterboarding whether they like it or not. They know full well that they'll be let up and it won't be repeated beyond what they agree to endure. It isn't quite as panic creating, is it?
Anyway, the CIA waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 100 times in two weeks. After that, he'd tell them he's Napoleon if they asked him to. It went way beyond trying to extract information. It went into punishment and pleasure at inflicting pain and suffering. In other words, the people ordering it were getting a vicarious sadistic thrill right along with the ones doing it hands-on.
The torture sessions were video taped too. One wonders which officials in the government were doing S&M with the films going in the background. That's right. Torture like that is definitely associated with sexual perversion. Abuse is abuse. Such desire for control and power comes right out of sexual domination. It's lust run amok. There are people who are bent differently, but for the vast majority, it comes right out in sexual deviance. Why else do you think the Abu Ghraib videos and photos were loaded with disgusting sexual depravity on the part of the Americans?
Mohammed told the CIA what it wanted to hear and more. They took everything they wanted to hear and said that those were the facts. Of course, much of what they had wanted to hear was Mohammed just spewing stuff out in an attempt to please. The CIA wants you to think that Mohammed was just trying to be tricky. After 100 waterboardings in just 14 days, it was trying to please and confusion. He was sleep deprived, slapped around, defeated, a ball or jumble cracking up, being fractured.
The person who interrogated Mohammed the most now reportedly works for Mitchell & Jessen Associates. That's a private contractor calling itself a consulting firm. The military psychologists who helped the CIA break people started the company. There's plenty of tax-payer money being doled out to privatized torturers. Those sick psychologists are just the greedy at the bottom of the barrel. They should be ashamed of themselves. They better repent or they will face what they doled out.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)