American military interrogators are no better than AlQueda

Americans apparently require more photographic evidence of war crimes. But the crimes are not committed overseas. The abuses are at home.

The videos exist. The recordings transcribed. Now intercepted.American citizens: How well are you preparing for your chat with JTTF?

There are a few interrogators out there that seem to have missed the clue. When you took your oath of office in the military or law enforcement, your oath was to the Constitution.

Part of taking an oath is your pledge that you take that oath without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

It's also presumed that you make your oath freely, without duress, and that you have done so after careful thought and full access to competent legal counsel.

As you will notice you have signed your oath of office. And at that oath you also stated that you were willing to support and defend the constitution.

Do you remember singing that? I presume that you were not under the influence of any drugs. Is that correct?

During your pre-oath-taking indoctrination, you were also read line by line the exact words and language of that oath. Do you remember having that review?

There are others who were in the room with you who can attest that they were there, they got the training, and they also were given the chance to ask questions. You took your oath. Freely. You also stated that you had no mental reservation.

Please explain how you were able to take that oath to the constitution, but have no comprehension of the Constitution. Namely, Article IV of the constitution specifically states that the treaties of the US are also the supreme law of the land.

How could you take an oath to 'preserve' that document, when the oath specifically incorporates by reference into only the Constitution, but specifically Article VI and the treaties.

Are we suggesting that despite the vast, mighty American legacy following WWII, that somehow the nation has forgotten what WWII is all about?

Indulge me while I share a few anecdotes. Let's talk specifically about the Geneva Convention and the prohibits against torture. Are you saying that you've never heard about the Nazis or torture? That you've never known or been told that inflicting bodily injury on another person after they've given up fighting is a little unusual?

Strange, how curious. Last time I checked, the military interrogators are the ones who are supposed to take information, assemble into, and put it into a format that the leadership can understand.

Let me restate that again. You use logic. You get information. You then assemble it.

One of the assumptions that I have about people that assemble information is that they understand the linkage between one action and another. In other words, when you took your oath, there was a presumed link between what you said, and what you did; what you understood, and what you were promising.

At the same time, the interrogators want us to believe that they're capable of public support, that they can get information, and logically assemble it.

Yet, let's look at the oath: It's to preserve the laws of the land, namely the constitution, and all treaties, namely the Geneva Convention barring torture.

Can anyone explain to me how one can both say they're defending the constitution by violating the laws of the land; and at the same time credibly argue that they can get information and logically put it together?

I'm not seeing a really convincing story here. Namely, if the interrogators are so foolish as to blindly take an oath without understanding it; then would it not seem reasonable to conclude that the same interrogators who aren't all that bright also have a slight problem putting information together and assembling it for commanders.

Wait. That would presume that the commanders, who are in charge of these interrogations first recognize the disconnect: That they've taken an oath, but are ignoring it; but at the same time giving me information that has gaps.

It's no wonder we have a problem. The same people who feign ignorance about the constitution, are also the one's who feign ignorance about their oath, whether they knew what they were doing was wrong.

Mind you, these troops were supposedly "trained." What's going t happen as the tempo increases, training is going to fall: There's going to be more OJT. That's why CIFA and JTTF were cycled through Guantanamo. Up and down the Atlantic Shore, land in Guantanamo. A few quick showers, boom you're actually doing some hands on training.

Yet, what did the US solicitor General do? Did he tell the truth about torture? Of course not. Your General at the time put the squeeze on CBS to delay the photo-release until after the case was heard.

That's your leadership. And your president's legal advisor said it was "OK" to commit torture.

One of the aspects of your oath is that you're supposed to only follow lawful orders of the President. That's correct, right?

Could you explain to the country what got into your head that, despite the Geneva Convention and prohibitions against torture, you suddenly thought it was a lawful order of the president that you hang people from chains, break their legs, and suffocate them . . . after they were deprived of food?

Frankly, I don't believe you're being all that truthful. Are you in some sort of trouble that would justify your not being all that truthful; have you been accused of some sort of crime?

Is there some sort of concern with your own safety? I would be somewhat concerned if I was working in a place, had to show up every day, and all the time, despite my oath of office, I had to keep quiet. Surely, nobody is threatening you.

Are they yelling at you? Convincing you that "the abuse" didn't happen? Strange, all these photos. Yet, someone wants us to think that this was isolated.

So, how does a memo and the personnel move from the Atlantic Seaboard, cycle through the JTTF-CIFA system, land in Guantanamo, sit there; then get on an aircraft with memos faxed and NSA documents; land in Afghanistan, do some other things; see the same commanders; then take off go to Abu Ghraib.

Could you talk about that flight. That chain of events. That might have been something for all of us to think about.

Who would think that behind al those doors at the interrogation center, there was someone slightly annoyed. On tape, and their voice got captured. That's yours. You're the one who is talking.

What's it like in that room. What's it like to lie, deny reality, get in the way of what someone is trying to say. Was that too much honey you smeared on them?

How does it feel to annoy others; do you want to see your boyfriend soon. Do you miss him? Or are you having problems; you sure how you feel about this?

Let's look at the tapes again. He's sleeping.

There's the room. The lights are on. Look at the video and the photos.

Do you like looking at the photos?

How do you keep track of all those images?

is the indexing system contract supported?

Who made the disks and sent the computers that set-up this photo archiving system?

According to this DFAS contract, the box parts arrived. You were the one who helped assemble them. Can you talk about that staple-remove kit. Did it break? How many times have you broken one of those?

Operation Falcon. You've been assigned to Guantanamo, JTTF and CIFA, then promoted, assigned to Abu Ghraib.

What was it like coming back to America, going into people's homes. Was it more relaxing, easier?

You didn't have to wear body army, just a vest and it wasn't that hot. Was it more enjoyable or less enjoyable than your interrogations?

How about freedom. What your view on democracy and freedom. Is the freedom better in Iraq or the US?

Happy with your high school girlfriend at the recruiters office?

There's a small cave at Guantanamo: Did you ever wonder what was inside that trash?

When you had your language training did you prefer translators or did you prefer English?

Do you like interrogating English speakers better?

How about monitor calls; or checking with informants -- d you move fast, or was it a couple of days.

Let's take a look at these photos. See that ice machine? How about those chains. Those are towel wraps.

Looks like a barbershop. When you run out of prisoners do you like to tie up your boyfriends? We have those photos. Remember?

Who's back is that? Army leather marks. Do they still hurt? Or is it good?

Chile got linked to terror drops. They used to fly people over the Atlantic. Oh wait, that was Argentina. Anyway, helicopters over the water. That must have been fun for you to tie a harness on with a Gulfstream V door open.

How many did you drop into the water?

What were your reason for being an interrogator?

Did you have a specific reason for doing it?

Are you sure about those reasons?

When you went to high school did you have doubts in the locker room; maybe you were in the wrong place. Not to worry, that's perfectly normal.

Let's take a look at your oath again. Did you read Article VI, which linked your conduct to treaties.

Some have suggested American should be out of the UN's ICC. There's a problem with "not having juries."

So what's this stuff I hear about the patriot act: Won't have juries or oversight of warrants. So why isn't the stuff about "not having juries as a reason not to endorse the ICC" not a good enough argument to justify "not supporting Patriot Act"?

Hmmm...so it's OK to subject American citizens to arbitrary arrest, without warrants; but it's not OK to do the same to those who are not trained and like to torture innocent civilians.

What's your view that? Do you think that juries should only be for military personnel, and that civilians should be denied juries and warrants?

Last time I checked, even though you signed an oath, you're also getting quite a bit: You get a jury trial. Civilians aren't going to get that. So why are you whining about being in the military? As far as I can see, last time


[ LOOK at me ]

. . . Do I have to get your attention every time? I said, "Why are you proposing that the American people be denied the right to have warrants; but you still use that "lack of warrants and juries" as the excuse not to submit to international treaties?

Oh, wait: That's the excuse to avoid Article VI linkage in your oath. That's very puzzling. I'm not clear that the public has the right to pick and choose. That low hanging fruit.

Surely, are you suggesting that juries should be lied to when serving a "higher good" like freedom, even if freedom for others means destroying the freedoms for your fellow citizens.

That's quite impressive. Quiet a contrast. Tell me, how did you reconcile that in your mind. I would be really interested to hear: Why is it OK to deny to the American citizen the right to warrants; but then given that right to the soldiers; then turn around and say, "We don't have to follow international law because there are no juries."

Aren't you essentially denying that right to your own citizens?

Maybe I'm missing something here. Patriot Act II specificity states that anyone can be subject of a foreign intelligence surveillance operation, simply out of innuendo.

You know. Suppose there was some disgruntled employee. Someone who is incompetent. Someone who really doesn't follow the rules. But they like to make everyone believe they're competent.

In fact, they have a special relationship with law enforcement. Let's suppose that this baboon who really likes to do whatever he likes, suddenly wakes up and realizes that he's under surveillance.

Do you think they're going to take that lying down? Of course, not. So they call up their law enforcement friends, make some accusations, and boom! The judge isn't involved.

Next think you know, must because you've got a scumbag, incompetent loser working for you, all of a sudden JTTF is breathing down your neck asking some questions. But you don't even know it. Because the person you're talking to that you think is your boss, is actually an undercover FBI informant who is paid to violate the law, and then they fire you because you "refuse to cooperate" with the criminal enterprise.

Why does this happen? Maybe it's because Americans are scumbags. They lie. They are cowards. They take oaths and have no intent on following them. Then again, maybe its because they're really incompetent and cant' stand the fact that the world knows they make crappy products that are overpriced.

So what's someone to do? Why you join the crusade. Join the FBI. Become one of the team in JTTF. Hay, couldn't make it on the NBA or NFL. Too much of a loser to get a real degree at an accredited institution.

So why not join the losers on law enforcement who lie, don't tell the truth, and tell each other how greater they are in defending America, while you fabricate evidence and interrogate victims.

Isn't that fun. And to think all this time, nobody even woke up.

Small problem. It's all on tape. Everything. Right here. [ROLL TAPE]

Let's go over this again. Did you enjoy your training?

Was it fun to learn how to manipulate people?

Did you enjoy that control/

What's it feel like to beat someone?

Do you like that feeling?


Article VI of the Constitution says, "Supreme Law of the land. Are there some laws that should be ignored?

If you were told to interrogate someone should that be ignored?

What if the person you were interrogating was actually innocent -- how would you know? Would you do a trial by ordeal, beat them, and if they were "innocent" would your God intervene, send you some sign, that they were innocent?

So as your beating them and ignoring Article VI, does it ever enter your mind that perhaps the information you're getting is simply "what they want you to believe"?

Then again, what happens if, despite all your beatings, chainings, and suffocations, they still don't say it.

Does this mean, as they are dying, that you suddenly realize, "They are innocent" so it "must have been for a just cause"?

Operation Falcon. Grand Falcon. Urgent Falcon Fury.

Can Congress pass a law that permits interrogators to search homes without warrants?

How about interrogation lying and testilying. Why should the public believe you?

Have you lied in reports about the reasons for death?

When you were trained to report serious injuries, who were you supposed to tell if you saw this kind of damage or bodily harm?

Did you tell them?

Why not?

Have you been told what types of memos who would be writing?

What types of memos did you write for the Ambassador?

Why have you waited this long to say something? According to your statutory requirements, when these conditions occur, which you say occurred, and we have the photos, you're responsible for filing information with the Senate and House Intelligence Oversight Committees.

yet, we see nothing to suggest that, despite these photos, and your knowledge, that those requirements were fulfilled. Can you explain that?

Could you share with us the specific documents that you might have seen? Not that you would have to get them, but could you talk about the virtual documents that you wrote on just after you saws this.

According to this rule, which you were trained on, you have a requirement to fill out this form. Does this form look familiar?

Yes, you're going to face bigger problems. It's going to get worse. Have you ever lied on the report about the cause of death?

According to this security entry log, you were present on this date. The prisoner was alive. You were also present on this date. Guess what? That's the same time that the prisoner was detained and is the same time recorded on the entry log.

You were there.

How did the prisoner die? Was it the act of God? Was this God's sign that you were correct?

Or did the prisoner pass the test, gave no information because they were innocent?

I see. Small problem. This is a dual-cipher code. One code for entry, one for exit.

The system had been installed, you checked it out, certified that the coding system was working properly. It's a dual-check system. Others also checked.

here's your signature on the access, entry, and checkout. Those are you initials. You approved the installation and certified the system was working properly.

Here's the review sheet. Each of the items is approved. Not anything missing.

Either you were lying on these documents and didn't do the checks, or you were in the room.

Which is it?

There's no code entered to mark our exit. You were still inside the room at the time that the prisoner expired. Are you disputing the time card?

Has this ever happened before. All these signatures saying things were working fine, but on this rare chance, the code incorrectly registers you as still being in the room, but you were not there; and surprise, the prisoner suddenly dies.

how do you explain that?

And how many times were you told that these intelligence reports went from JTTF-CIFA to the Ambassador?

So they knew what was going on, had the chance to ask questions. Did you ever see them.

Strange, on those dates, the Ambassador swears he wasn't there.

Curious. Here's a photo. Is that you standing next to the Ambassador.

Oh, the negatives. No problem. Got those as well. This is looking very bad.

In a democracy, is torture justified?

When advancing democracy must threats be used to get people to do what you want them to do?

Tell us about what you want these people to do. Tell all of us the types of things that would warrant someone torturing another human being to "justify' getting them to do something.

Is that "freedom"?

What's your favorite TV show?

Were you happy all the time?

The MI6 memo confirms you were lying. The Gulfstream V and the Rendition program. They were real.

Spike Bowman. Navy man. NSA. Is he a fictional character? Is he somehow not related to any of this?

GCHQ spying on the UN. Ms Gunn. Koza.

When you're inside the Gulfstreams, do contractors train you how to adjust the GPS coordinates?

Did it take a long time?

Do you prefer hand on or automated?

Have you read the Geneva convention.

Are you familiar with Rendition? If US interrogations violate laws of war, and others?

Are people who are cruel and barbaric be free?

Can free people be barbaric to bring freedom?

Are your actions what 'free people' do?

Ever been assigned somewhere and haven't heard from a relative? Would you want to know personally or be told by a public address system, "Uh, they're dead."

Red Cross gets the run around. Should Red Cross be slower with notifications?

What if the notice got lost? Should the Red Cross be tortured to make them move faster and get them to do "what you want them to do"?

Do you donate blood?. If you get hurt or cut during interrogations, could you get AIDS? Could someone in the US inject AIDS into the blood and donate?

Do you get regular checkups?

It's also a crime to give aid to the enemy. Is your enemy the Constitution?

Are you allowed to commit crimes on American civilians?

Would you commit torture on an American civilian?

Many people have committed crimes in war; isn't it OK to commit crimes in order to serve a higher good; there are times when crimes are justified by the FBI informants; the law enforcement lies on the stand to get people convicted.

We know they're doing it for the right reasons. So why isn't torture any different? Even when we have a memo from Gonzalez. He says its OK.

So, not to worry. Or should you worry? Waging war. Violating the US laws. Undermining morale.

The enemy's not doing that. you are. Undermining the domestic support for your cause.

Enemy's not doing that. You are. Got a copy of the Koran? I heard you were tearing those up. Even had a memo drafted about that. Told you to stop doing it.

Red Cross, those people who you said should be tortured, even told the Secretary. Did he listen?

Who's supporting lawlessness? Who is inspiring the enemy? Who is taking action would tend t inspire the enemy to fight?

When you commit war crimes to win a war, is that OK or is it bad? If you win, does that mean all the bad stuff goes away?

You can only change the present, so forget the past, don't remember the bad things; pretend it goes away?

Look who's inspiring torture. The ones we've "trained" to commit torture. Your lovely JTTF and CIFA sent to Guantananmo.

And you're one of them. Your actions inspire others to fight.

Article IV Section 2 of the US constitution says if you flee, the other stats will send you back. Are you hiding inside DoD?

If you go to another state, Article IV Section 4 says that the Federal Government will be there to protect the nation. From external invasion. 52 warnings though the FAA and nothing. What's your view on that?

Article V: This is the Hydrogen Option. Three quarters of the states can get together and vote. Make new rules.

Your commander in chief has no role. Has no say in that.

Look at the RNC abuses. Is your president with the DOJ and JTTF threatening to lock people up.

How about those attacks the RNC offices. Can you explain where those people are?

Strange, can't find AlQueda, can't find those who attacked your own offices.

Talk about the JTTF plans to intimidate state legislators to not have a constitutional convention.

Any attacks planned by JTTF on the states as a pretext to blame others, as was done with the RNC-office attacks?

What are the results of the reviews?

Strange, it all seems to go away. Kind of like bad lug. Out the side of the Gulfstream.

Article I and pretextual stops and the RNC Fabricated videos. Why so much pressure to stop people?

Why so supsicious?

Yet, look at your conduct. Look at the lies you've told. Abuses you've committed. It's beyond suspicion. You've admitted with these photos that you're willing to commit torture.

You're suspicious because you fear someone is going to find out more of what you've been doing.

Not to worry. It's all on GCHQ intercepts. Outside the American's control. In archives where NSA can't touch it. As Ms Gunn. Koza can't get access to all the files.

But why so much pressure on people to stop them?

What kind of merit promotion is getting you rewarded?

Did you get an incentive to lie in court; you get into trouble if you stopped someone without probable cause, but they were cooperative. You still lied to them. When does this stop? When you decide "it's time to end" . . . that's not reasonable, that's arbitrary.

Just like the Redcoats. Just like the British Redcoats. Just like those who run around with Red Coats. Big Red Coats.

Let's talk about the lawlessness in Lebanon. All that happened. But nothing that the US could do. Strange, US seems to be able to know everything to stop anyone anywhere, but when it came to a major operation like killing Hairari, suddenly the Americans are stupid.

Explain. Smart enough to know enough to apply criminal intent to innocent behavior, and harass your own civilian population, but ignorant to not say anything about something that would've been picked up.

History uncertain because you want it to go away; but the future is certain because you want an excuse to stop people, gather more intelligence, and then lock it away in the Bank of America bank account that's not secure. Someone sold that information. "Oh, nobody will find out."

It's on tape. That's your voice.

So why is there so much pressure to stop and question those who obey the law, deny them the right to warrants; while those who flaunt the law are rewarded with jury trials?

Amendment IV. No searches shall issue; but Article II Section 2 guarantees a trial by jury.

Which legislators are passing this/

How many peole do you plan to harass to keep silent about this?

How many homes do you plan to invade?

How many military personnel do you plan to train and place on these domestic raid lists?

Tell us about the asset seizures you plan and the home target list.

How were these lists drawn up; and how many more lists will be generated under Patriot Act 2?

Article II Section 2 says that all courts shall be by a jury. Why are you introducing evidence that violates the constitution?

Why will the Patriot Act 2 be considered within the bounds of Article III Section 2?

Looks to me a though some prosecutors have some explaining to do. How can a law which violates the bill of rights be enforced;

And how can a prosecutor, that refuses to exclude evidence from torture, credibly be argued to have any role in training?

You keep saying that the prosecutor is the one that tells people what the rule are; and know you want to say you're not sure.

Was the prosecutor there at the training talking about those requirements, or not; do you want to see a picture of the prosecutor?

I see little before me to suggest that the US intelligence community is populated by nothing more than a bunch of moronic baboons.

They do not respect the rule of law. They make up evidence. They accuse people.

I see no difference between the allegations attributed to AlQueda, and the actual conduct the American interrogators have committed upon those the were charged to liberate.

When people are subjected to torture, then those troops lose the protections of the Geneva conventions.

Congratulations America, your troops have violated the laws of war; and the enemy now will lawfully under those laws be able to violate the same things.

The President accuses others of being "barbaric," but who's the one who said it was OK to commit torture? Your man Gonzalez.

Let's put a stack of photographs side by side. One stack is the list of pictures that American interrogators took of the abuses they committed; and the other stack is the stack of pictures the detainees took of AlQueda abuses on American troops.

Curious. One stack is not like the other.

More photos of American torture.

America trained the interrogators. They did commit torture. Real deaths.

Is that any better than AlQueda? Has America simply found an excuse to continue with misconduct and abuses?

Those who ignore the laws of war subject themselves to lawful retribution.

You can thank America's failed interrogators. They are your AlQueda.

now you have two problems: AlQueda within your own ranks, protecting itself, hiding for the law; all the while this scourge hopes to convince you of two things:

that they are not to be subject to the ICC;

while at the same time deny the right to warrants for the American people.

America doesn't need AlQueda as an enemy. You've got your own AlQueda running your own government. Creating excuses for double standards.

But this time, the evidence is on tape, videos, stills, and locked away.

I'm not all that impressed. What's next?

"Good reason" for martial law?

We see no statutory language justifying the use of force or anything that will legalize "destroying the constitution" as an appropriate foundation.

Nor should the courts have to rule on this. The battle and decision has already been waged, fought, and won long ago. There need to be some meaningful sanctions on those who pass this legislation and waste the country's time refightin the battle day in and day out.

The document is there to be preserved, not there to remind the goverment where the watermark lies.

But, it has come into fashion that the government will "justify" whittling away that document, and then mandate that the victims stand up and assert their case, to correct the problem.

if the congress wants to do war on the Constitution, then we are all parties.

There should be no 'specific intent" or 'specific damages" shown; rather, those damages have already been shown pre-1776.

The "possible problems" are not speculative; this goverment, which is morphing back into the British Goverment, has already shown what it will do. There should be no requirement that there be 'specific" damages shown or likely; rather, history already shows up what is likely: More abuse.

"Constitutional" reasons to destroy the constitution?

You may not rely on the document to destroy it; you have to come up with another explanation. Thus, your argument fails.

There is no reason anyone should have to refaced this battle. Nor should anyone have to put up with the same abuses, intrusions, and misconduct which is no better than the British Monarchy.

No reason.

AlQueda has new recruits in the American Military. They work for military "intelligence." They are interrogators. The ones who joined DoJ on Operation Falcon. They are with JTTF.

They hope to destroy the constitution. So that all will blindly obey.

They are not to be trusted. The British Monarchy has already shown what can happen; and these interrogators have already killed.

What additional evidence is required?

They remain a clear and present danger to the Constitution. Will anyone dare come to the defense of the constitution, or will we require more evidence of more abuses committed against Americans?