Obama should call for the execution of the true 9/11 perps–not torture victim KSM
Obama says Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, who allegedly confessed under torture to masterminding 9/11 (as well as many other crimes he could not possibly have committed) will be tried, convicted, and executed.
If the President of the United States has abolished the presumption of innocence — the bedrock on which our system of justice rests — then he is the one who should be tried, convicted, and executed.
If the President of the United States has retroactively legitimized the denial of habeus corpus rights to a criminal suspect (and one who happens to be demonstrably innocent) then he is the one who should be tried, convicted, and executed.
If the President of the United States has retroactively legitimized torture, then he (and the rest of the political class guilty of legitimizing torture) should be tried, convicted, and executed.
If the President has approved the CIA’s destruction of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed torture tapes — which would undoubtedly show the torturers forcing Mohammed to falsely take the blame for the 9/11 inside job, as former key CIA operative Robert Baer suggests — than he should be tried, convicted, and executed.
All of these crimes against the Constitution of the United States of America are immeasurably more heinous than the crimes of which Khaled Sheikh Mohammed has been so preposterously accused. Blowing up three World Trade Center buildings with high-tech nanothermite explosives is a terrible crime — but blowing up the Constitution of the United States of America is immeasurably worse.
But it isn’t just the President, a mere puppet of the deep state, who should be brought to justice.
It is the CIA operatives who tortured Khaled Sheikh Mohammed into giving a demonstrably false confession to 9/11 and other crimes, including crimes committed while he was incarcerated, who should be tried, convicted, and executed.
It is the intelligence operatives, be they CIA, Mossad, or both, who blew up the World Trade Center with high-tech nanothermite explosives, then engineered a follow-up anthrax attack, who should be tried, convicted, and executed.
It is the rogue network operatives who lied us into war — including folks like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove, Libby, Bush, and many more — who should be tried, convicted, and executed.
I oppose capital punishment in principle. But the 9/11 coup d’etat against the Constitution, and the criminal wars of aggression that followed, taken together, are the worst crime ever committed on earth. Yes, Stalin and Hitler (not to mention Churchill and Roosevelt) murdered more people. But the Russian and German states they inherited were not all that great to begin with. Stalin and Hitler simply made bad situations worse.
The USA was once an anti-imperialist democratic republic — an imperfect one to be sure, but one with a Constitution that guaranteed basic rights, a tradition of avoiding foreign wars and entanglements, and a political system that did not completely overlook the interests of its ordinary citizens. The 9/11 coup d’etat, and the criminal wars of aggression that followed, murdered that America.
Those murderers, unlike the lesser murderers who have disgraced this planet since time immemorial, ought to be tried, convicted, and–yes–executed.
* * *
From the “it only hurts when I laugh” department:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confesses To Confessing Under Torture
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confesses: I Killed Jesus!
Muddled Definitions And Use Of Buzz-Words Just Cause Endless Confusion, Problems
(Apollonian, 19 Nov 09)
Kevin: everything about u is sooooo muddled, and one wonders what u're really about–u just did a blog, few days ago, on the gross lies of the holohoax, and now u say Hitler "murdered more people," for which putrid slander u have no proof whatsoever aside fm the text-book lies of the Jews who infest and corrupt our once vibrant Western culture.
I finally got to listen to ur 14 Nov 09 radio interview w. Geraldine Perry on "Two Faces Of Money"; Perry herself seems rather muddled I thought. But I note u made a remark about how u endorsed the Muslim system for not charging of interest on loans.
But neither u nor anyone else has a right to preclude or prevent such private contracts btwn parties, which is what "interest" entails. For if someone agrees to pay a fee for use of borrowed money, that's their right to so contract, and u have no right to prevent it, period.
It's amazing how u complain of fascism of others and then so breezily advocate ur own.
Further, observe charging of interest has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING whatsoever to do with the essential fraud of fractional-reserve money and banking which is the effective and literal COUNTERFEITING of money.
CONCLUSION: Problem is the word, "usury," is such a useful buzz-word, meaning of which is so easily confused fm original Biblic source which didn't have a word or phrase to denote what we most accurately call "fractional-reserve" nowadays. For the problem, once again, is the COUNTERFEIT fraud–NOT charging of interest which has no element of fraud about it whatever. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Hitler does bear much of the responsibility for launching WWII, which killed more than 50 million people. And his Reichstag fire served as a model for the neocon neo-nazis' 9/11. So sorry, I'm not a Hitler fan.
I think charging interest on money is a crime against God, nature, and humanity, and ought to be banned, prevented, and generally rooted out whenever it rears its ugly head. Its destructiveness may be shown mathematically; and God has railed against it in the Qur'an. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
Do you consent to rape if you have no choice? Is a contract between two parties right if it's the only contract available? Usury is real and may have more to do with the present Islamophobia scare op than most of us stop to think?