Tag Archives: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Dianne Feinstein, Friend of Terrorists

6a00d8341c730253ef01910260efff970cOriginally posted at American Thinker

If you close your eyes and listen, you’ll probably hear the sound of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), moral, upstanding person that she is, wringing her hands.  Thanks to Dianne and her insistence that a report exposing the CIA’s overseas handling of 119 terrorists be released, America is getting a good dose of absurd liberal reasoning.

Dianne Feinstein is among those who have the audacity to point the finger of accusation at CIA operatives for splashing water in the face of the confessed architect of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but have no problem with the paper-thin skin of an unborn baby being peeled away from its fragile bones while still in the womb.

Neither is she, nor many of her Executive Amnesty cohorts who are sympathetic to fiends like Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who helped plan the bombing of the USS Cole, killing 17 Americans and injuring 39, worried about the helpless infants and small children being exposed to deadly Third World diseases.

Instead, the woman who said it was “morally correct” to force pro-life taxpayers to fund abortion took to the Senate floor to bemoan CIA operatives causing discomfort to terrorists who view American and Jewish lives much like pro-abortion women view preborn humans: worthless.

Leaving aside Dianne’s personal gripe with the Central Intelligence Agency, isn’t it a tad hypocritical for a person who has no problem burning fetuses with saline, dismembering them with suction apparatus, and using a scalpel to remove the brain of a partially born human being to lecture anyone about the inhumanity of subjecting terrorists to sleep deprivation and loud music?

Suddenly, the woman who voted “No” on banning partial-birth abortion is concerned about the “fundamental principles of right and wrong?” What is Dianne, with her 100%-NARAL-rating, saying?  That if unborn babies were “tummy-slapped” or waterboarded to death she would oppose the “ugly, visceral” procedure called abortion?

Moreover, if exposing rogue government agencies is what Ms. Feinstein is so passionate about, maybe she should encourage her colleagues in the Democratic Party to investigate the political torture visited upon innocent US citizens by the government agency known as the IRS.

Or better yet, how about exploring Obama’s possible connection to supplying Mexican cartels with the guns that killed Border Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata?

In her pious comments pertaining to “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the senator from California lamented the treatment of high-ranking al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah at the hands of an agency that worked tirelessly to shield the American people from another 9/11.

According to the report, Abu Zubaydah was “stripped naked and diapered, physically struck, and put in various painful stress positions for long periods of time” which, by comparison, was probably an experience far less terrifying than choking on jet fuel while being burned alive.

The 6,700 page study on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program revealed that Mr. Zubaydah, as well as other fiendish terrorist types, was “deprived of sleep for days” and forced, the poor dears, to stand in “stress positions… with their hands tied together over their heads, chained to the ceiling.”

As uncomfortable and humiliating as that might be for an extremist used to having the upper hand in most situations, the sleepless-in-Guantanamo/chained-to-the-ceiling routine is probably a discomfort that murdered Americans would have happily endured if given a choice between that and being crushed by millions of pounds of concrete and steel.

Still, Dianne Feinstein is very distressed that interrogators and guards employed “rough takedowns,” where a terrorist was hooded, stripped naked, and “dragged up and down a dirt hallway while being slapped and punched.”

Maybe über-tenderhearted Feinstein should spend a couple of hours with a fetus born alive in a botched abortion when, in the name of the kind of choice she and President Obama support, a helpless newborn is forced to endure the anguish of being denied oxygen, hydration, and warmth.

Quite frankly, instead of the liberal belief that enhanced interrogation is sadistic, Feinstein’s sentiment about “fac[ing] an ugly truth and say[ing] ‘never again’” would serve humanity a whole lot better if she were exposing the sadistic procedure called abortion.

Mrs. Feinstein also seemed to be disgusted by the notion that several detainees were led to believe “they would …leave in a coffin-shaped box.” Maybe someone should remind the senator that most of those who died on 9/11 did not have the luxury of being laid to rest in a coffin.  Instead, of the 2,800 victims, fewer than 300 whole bodies were recovered.  The other 2,500 were blown apart, incinerated, or pulverized.

Attempting to head off the bloodshed that is sure to follow the release of a report former Vice President Dick Cheney said was “full of crap,” as well as making an effort to soften the impending blowback, Feinstein predicted terrorists will “try to use [the report] to justify evil actions or to incite more violence.”

Come what may, I hope that Dianne Feinstein feels better about herself after confessing to the world that the CIA placed mass murderers in confined spaces with scary caterpillars.

Whether the sanctimonious senator feels vindicated or not matters little, because despite getting a reprieve from “rectal rehydration,” radical Islamic terrorists will continue to search for ways to smuggle a dirty bomb into an American city where, when it goes off, hundreds of thousands of people will die excruciating deaths.

In the end, the best America can hope for is that ISIS will be impressed by America’s commitment to treating terrorists humanely.  Then, as a reciprocal gesture toward the Senate Intelligence Committee, the next time Jihadi John beheads an American maybe he’ll ditch the rusty kitchen knife and switch to an ax.

America’s Anti-Animus President

The past few months have been quite a season of hope and change for America’s gay community. Barack Obama has a new openly gay social secretary, Jeremy Bernard, marriage is no longer narrowly defined as being between a man and a woman, and in the Middle East, when not dodging mortar fire the troops on the battlefield will now be mandated to participate in gay sensitivity training sessions.

Couple that with Sundance Film Festival indie lesbian family/sperm donor-Dad favorite “The Kids are Alright” being nominated for four academy awards, and not since “Brokeback Mountain” has Queer Nation risen to such heights in America.

The President of the United States, who first opposed gay marriage, then prayerfully “grappled” with the concept, finally agreed with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science’s choice of a potential Oscar winner and reversed his puritanical view on same-sex nuptials.

Barack Obama, on an extended sabbatical from teaching constitutional law, sided with Massachusetts Federal District Judge Joseph Tauro that DOMA, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

In an effort to undermine the God-ordained one-man/one-woman institution and further deconstruct the fabric of American society, Obama felt inclined to cross the great divide and side with Carson Kressley. In doing so, Barack personally laid the axe to the root of traditional marriage and time-honored convention.

Speaking on behalf of the President, Attorney General Eric Holder said that between 2008 and 2011 America’s nouveau-centrist President has “concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.”  According to Holder, President Obama had an epiphany and realized:

[T]he congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act ‘contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution’s) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.

In the run-up to the 2012 election the decision to redefine marriage appears to be Barack’s attempt at buttressing the liberal base, a move some conservative pundits believe is an “inexplicable political error.” Yet, Barack has survived many such miscalculations. Does anyone remember the decision to have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried in a U.S. civilian court?

Thus, to reinforce a recent shift to the center, Barack Obama yielded to the romantic notions of 2% of the population, disregarded the consensus of the 98% who supply the societal glue that holds the nation together and, in the form of a policy change sent a belated wedding card to Mrs. and Mrs. Ellen and Portia DeGeneres.

A President who put his hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution now feels he has the authority to decide what is and what is not constitutional. This is a problem because now, any American who clings to the outmoded idea that marriage has distinct gender roles, or who disapproves of the gay/lesbian lifestyle based on moral or religious convictions is “guilty” of what the President calls “stereotype-based thinking and animus.”

Weakening the sanctity of marriage obviously wasn’t enough iconoclasm for Barack the Centrist. About the same time that Obama gave new Dads Anderson Cooper and Ben Maisani the go-ahead to tie the knot, he also issued an edict that Pentagon officials waste no time in launching an “extensive force-wide program to ease the process of integrating open homosexuals into the ranks, including into close-knit fighting units.”

In other words American combat forces in Afghanistan, in between fending off Taliban attackers “armed with AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and explosives vests,” must now spend time in a war zone learning how to agreeably share a foxhole with Nathan Lane.

Army Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill, the top enlisted man in Afghanistan and an outspoken proponent of ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, said that “the sessions on respecting gays’ rights will go right down to the forward operating bases, where troops fight Taliban militants.”  According to the Sgt. Major, the plan is to “execute that training right …on the battlefield.” No unit will be exempted.

Even though 37 US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan in less than two months and despite his enthusiasm about bisexual recruits Sgt. Hill seems unsure whether touchy-feely get-along-with-a-gay sessions will distract combat forces, which would put the lives of fighting men and women in danger. Referring to gay sensitivity sessions in a war zone, Hill said “We hope that it will have little impact on … combat and security operations.”

While “hope” continues to “spring eternal,” Elaine Donnelly, head of the Center for Military Readiness, said “it is ridiculous to train combat Army soldiers and Marines as they engage in daily combat with tenacious insurgents.”

Likely to be accused of animus-filled insubordination and lack of proper prioritization techniques, Ms. Donnelly said: “It’s absurd because the military has more important things to think about in that dangerous part of the world. For the administration to say this is more important …shows flawed priorities at best. It is ridiculous.”

Word to the wise, Ms. Donnelly – Sgt. Hill has issued a severe warning: “If there are people who cannot deal with the change, then they’re going to have to do what’s best for their troops and best for the organization and best for the military service and exit the military service, so that we can move forward – if that’s the way that we have to go.”

So there you have it.  Barack Obama’s idea of “Hope and change” rears its head again. On the military front, personnel on the battlefield hope that searching for IEDS with RuPaul has “little impact on their combat and security operations.” And change means that in the heat of battle, exhibiting sensitivity to gay soldiers takes precedence over staying alive, and determines whether a soldier will be forced to leave the military or not.

On the domestic front, Barry delivered hope to gay America by changing his mind on both traditional marriage and the sexual orientation of his social secretary. In Barack’s mind, he has brought true hope and lasting change by identifying the constitutional error in the “prejudicial, spiteful” and “malevolently ill-willed” thinking that traditionalists exhibit by rejecting same sex marriage.

Barack Obama’s revitalized pro-gay agenda, be it on the bloody battlefield of Afghanistan or in wedding chapels across the nation, introduces a new level of concern about a nation who puts gay politics before the security of combat troops and the time-honored institution of traditional marriage.  While gay America mistakenly believes “The Kids are Alright,” the remainder of the nation wonders whether the country will ever recover from the damage done by a misguided President’s progressive vision for America.

Raising the “White Towel” of Surrender

wtc-9-11

Torture is defined as “the infliction of intense pain from burning, crushing or wounding.” In what appears to be a political effort to criminalize Bush era policy the Obama Administration has sanctioned the declassification and release of top secret memos. The communiqués outline, in detail, enhanced interrogation techniques used on Abu Zubaydah “…high ranking member of al Qaeda” and terrorist operations chief, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  The controversy is based on the premise that enhanced interrogation is tantamount to torture and futile in obtaining vital information. The new administration contends that Bush coercion policy caused enemy combatants undue anguish and only served to morally diminish our ethical standing in a world.

Reflecting on the events of September 11th, 2001 reminds us that the victims who died or were injured at the hands of fanatical jihad warriors were the ones who were tortured, not the perpetrators. After the attack, captured al Qaeda leaders, Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, continued to arrogantly, “…celebrate the destruction of the World Trade Center” and sneer, along with Osama Bin Laden, at the grisly types of death and injury thousands suffered at the hands of the Mujahedin brotherhood.

Official documents show that while incarcerated both Zubaydah and Sheikh Mohammed lived comfortably and were always treated respectfully and humanely by their American captors. The kindness extended them did nothing to change their level of dedication to slaughter. Calm and unrepentant Zubaydah steadfastly remained, “…devoted to jihad…expressing unabated desire to kill Americans and Jews.”

The statistical data from 9-11 exposes how far both men went in dedication to furthering their cause.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah actively assisted in plotting the death of 2,819 innocent people, of whom only 289 maimed bodies were found intact, rejoicing together that 19,858 body parts were strewn throughout 1,506,124 pounds of debris.  American jihad resulted in the dead suffering the disrespect of having their “…body parts…torsos and chunks of flesh” strewn in the streets together with “…airplane landing gear and car fires.

Throughout the Bush years, policy attempted to prevent a similar devastating hit and took whatever measures necessary to protect the American people from having to suffer a catastrophe of such magnitude again.  Enhanced interrogation was one of tools in the security cache that mined information from high value prisoners who were known to have key information that could save American lives.

The Bush Administration, in conjunction with CIA officials, believed that both Zubaydah and Sheikh Mohammed, “…had additional information they refused to divulge…regarding terrorist networks in the United States.”  In an effort to ascertain critical intelligence the CIA decided “increased pressure” would successfully weaken the high value detainee’s “strong resolve” and provide the government with crucial information.  It wasn’t until being subjected to enhanced interrogation that Abu Zubaydah gave up key details, which led to high profile terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s eventual capture.

Like his cohort, Sheikh Mohammed refused to respond to inquiries about impending plots and sadistically warned his inquisitors that “Soon, they will know.”  Without enhancement interrogation methods the CIA would have been ineffective in convincing the obstinate Jihadist to confess to managing “a cell for the production of biological weapons, such as anthrax.” Mohammed’s stress induced collaboration disrupted the Padilla plan to detonate a “dirty bomb” on American soil and prevented a “second wave” plot to crash a hijacked airliner into Los Angeles.  Thanks to the forced cooperation of both Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, American lives were saved.

The types of enhanced interrogation declassified in the controversial memos include walling.  Walling pulls the detainee forward and then pushes them back so their shoulders bounce off a false, flexible wall creating a loud intimidating sound.  Unlike the explosion that shook the world when planes shattered through the World Trade Towers, walling is risk-free.

Through release of the memos mea culpas were offered for the use of confinement.  Cramped confinement subjects the suspect to a dark, restricted space with the suggestion of a buzzing insect that is really a harmless caterpillar.  Upon release, the captive is promptly attended to by a physician; a luxury those prematurely confined to their final resting place on 9-11 did not have the benefit of.

In comparison, terrorist detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s interrogation sessions were quite unlike the type of imprisonment Port Authority officers experienced when trapped thirty-feet beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center for twenty-two hours.  They were choked by dust and smoke and fire-balls tumbled into the hole that held their crushed bodies. Miraculously rescued from the fiery pile, one officer spent six-weeks in a medically induced coma, endured thirty surgeries and suffered extensive skin grafting to save his limbs.

Terrorists committed to Islam’s domination furthered their goal, on September 11th, by successfully torturing innocent victims who were dying of smoke inhalation, immolated or crushed under tons of cement. These sufferers endured so much pain that “…the skin on their bodies burnt off.”  If given the choice of being forcibly questioned or being singed to the bone by a huge meteor-like fireball flashing out from a freight elevator shaft, 9-11 victims would prefer enhanced interrogation over terror, for sure.

Any suggestion that induced muscle fatigue is either immoral or inhumane renders America impotent as compared to an enemy who casually decapitates innocent people in an attempt to portray potency and commitment to higher ideals. The President’s policy suggests that even if benign forms of intimidation have proven effective in preventing nuclear or biological weapons from being detonated in American cities, its use still remains criminal.

The most divisive of all techniques white towel, water boarding or simulated drowning, was used by our CIA because it worked, “…after just 35 seconds under water” Zubaydah submitted information, which aided our nation in the world-wide war on terror and subverted plots here in the United States.  The divisive memos stated that exposure to enhanced questioning worked to convince high value detainees to cooperate. “KSM and Zubaydah were pivotal sources because of their ability and willingness to provide … analysis and speculation about the capabilities, methodologies and mindsets of terrorists,” very possibly their aid was the primary reason Americans have not been attacked since September 11th.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Zubaydah reveled in Americans suffering.  They praised Allah when desperate people chose to leap hundreds of floors to their deaths.  The decision to declare war on Bush’s policies, and to publicly condemn effective coercion techniques, suggests to the world that al Qaeda warriors’ comfort levels take precedence over protecting American lives.

The President appears to be desperate for an opportunity to appease a befuddled sense of right and wrong. Rather than quelling the storm he is planning to extend the torture debate by releasing additional photos of non-sanctioned prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Obama’s torture policy makes him complicit in reaffirming antipathy toward America and jeopardizes eight years of successful national security.

Copyright 2009 Jeannieology. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

%d bloggers like this: