White House Aide And Former Fox Expert Mock McCain As Dying and A Traitor

225px-John_McCain_official_portrait_2009Most Americans rightfully view Sen. John McCain as a genuine war hero and American icon.  That view is not shared by President Donald Trump’s supporters, it would appear. Kelly Sadler, a special assistant to the presidend, is under fire for telling staff that they should laugh off McCain’s opposition to Gina Haspel as CIA director over her record of torture because his opinion “doesn’t matter” since “he’s dying anyway.”  On Fox Business, Thomas McInerney, a former Fox News military analyst, rebuked McCain by saying torture clearly “worked for John” and that is why is calling “Songbird John” for cracking under torture.

Sen. Lindsey Graham responded by saying that “no one is laughing in the Senate.”

McCain, 81, is suffering from incurable brain cancer. His wife issued a statement that was short and lethal for Sadler (who later called to apologize):

Cindy McCain

@cindymccain

@kellysadler45 May I remind you my husband has a family, 7 children and 5 grandchildren.

McInerney’s comments to Charles Payne has led him to be barred from any further appearances on Fox and Payne has apologized.

I have long shared McCain’s view of waterboarding and I do not support the Haspel nomination on that basis, including her destruction of tapes when investigations began into the torture program (To his credit, Trump at least is honest and refers to waterboarding as torture, but insists that he supports the use of torture).  However, this is a more fundamental problem of civility and decency.  The sheer hatred and anger often vented in our public debate is chilling.  People no longer listen to others or care about how their words can be hurtful or hateful.  We are losing not just our collective demeanor but our decency as a nation in these divisive political times.

377 thoughts on “White House Aide And Former Fox Expert Mock McCain As Dying and A Traitor

  1. @Allan May 16, 2018 at 4:08 PM

    “If you don’t know how his eye was lost, how can you know it wasn’t a result of his being waterboarded?”

    “Ken, I didn’t make that claim.”

    You didn’t?

    @Allan May 15, 2018 at 11:45 PM
    “Did he lose the eye from waterboarding? No.”

    Was that a different Allan?

    You’re no longer on the margins of credibility, Allan, you’re off the map.

    • Ken, use what little sense you have. Waterboarding doesn’t include the removal of an eye. Look up waterboarding anywhere. Your argument is turning on an eye that was lost and you don’t know where, but you are blaming waterboarding instead of what caused the eye to be removed.

      • @Allan May 16, 2018 at 9:48 PM
        “Ken, use what little sense you have. Waterboarding doesn’t include the removal of an eye. Look up waterboarding anywhere. Your argument is turning on an eye that was lost and you don’t know where, but you are blaming waterboarding instead of what caused the eye to be removed.”

        No, Allan, I am not blaming waterboarding for the loss of Zubaydah’s eye. Unlike you, I’ve said I don’t know how he lost it.

        You, on the other hand, claim to know that waterboarding him was not responsible for the eye’s loss. And when I asked you how you know that, you assert that you “didn’t make that claim.”

        Now, either you’re being self-evidently illogical, or you have two personalities, one of whom makes the claim that Zubayda did not lose his eye while being waterboarded, and one who denies making that claim.

        So, which is it: Illogicality or split personality?

        • “No, Allan, I am not blaming waterboarding for the loss of Zubaydah’s eye. ***Unlike you***, I’ve said I don’t know how he lost it.”

          It’s obvious you have a reading skill problem. “Unlike you” in the context written means that you don’t know how the eye was lost but contend that I do. That is pure BS. I never said I know how the eye was lost and you recognized that when you said: “If you don’t know how his eye was lost…”

          That is how you put all your facts together, error and mistruths. You don’t care about being accurate, only in satisfying your deep-seated biases. All you are doing is making yourself look like a kook.

          “You, on the other hand, claim to know that waterboarding him was not responsible for the eye’s loss.”

          Waterboarding is not supposed to remove eyes so if your complaint is that he lost an eye in CIA custody, argue a case against taking a person’s eye out instead of arguing the waterboard case and blaming waterboarding as a cause of eye loss which it is not. You are all over the place and you are not creating logical arguments despite your reported A in logic.

          • @Allan May 17, 2018 at 6:54 AM

            “Waterboarding is not supposed to remove eyes so if your complaint is that he lost an eye in CIA custody, argue a case against taking a person’s eye out instead of arguing the waterboard case and blaming waterboarding as a cause of eye loss which it is not.” [My emphasis]

            Really? Not ever? Not even accidentally? Don’t you remember, “They wouldn’t tell me when they were going to put the towel on. They would just smash it on my face and start pouring.”? Do you also remember that Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times, giving him 83 opportunities to experience eye injury? Have you forgotten, or didn’t you know, that waterboarding has a long and illustrious history? How is it that you know that in that long and illustrious history, no one ever lost an eye to it?

            “Republican presidential candidate John McCain reminded people Thursday that some Japanese were tried and hanged for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding. [Emphasis added]

            ” ‘There should be little doubt from American history that we consider that as torture otherwise we wouldn’t have tried and convicted Japanese for doing that same thing to Americans,’ McCain said during a news conference.

            “He said he forgot to mention that piece of history during Wednesday night’s Republican debate, during which he criticized former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney after Romney declined to publicly say what interrogation techniques he would rule out.

            ” ‘I would also hope that he would not want to be associated with a technique which was invented in the Spanish Inquisition, was used by Pol Pot in one of the great eras of genocide in history, and is being used on Burmese monks as we speak,’ the Arizona senator said. ‘America is a better nation than that.’ “ [Emphasis added]

            @Allan May 16, 2018 at 4:08 PM
            “If you don’t know how his eye was lost, how can you know it wasn’t a result of his being waterboarded?”
            “Ken, I didn’t make that claim.”
            You didn’t?
            @Allan May 15, 2018 at 11:45 PM
            “Did he lose the eye from waterboarding? No.”

            How is anyone supposed to have a meaningful discussion with you about waterboarding or anything else, when you can’t even recognize, let alone acknowledge it, when you openly and directly contradict yourself?

            • ” Not even accidentally?”

              You stretch points to such an extent that they make no sense. Accidents happen. Because there could have been the very unlikely accident where a man lost his eye during a waterboarding we should eliminate waterboarding. People have accidents all the time. For instance, they might trip or might accidentally be pushed so they fall down a flight of stairs. Your reasoning says that stairs are the cause and we should get rid of stairs. That is a bit on the looney side. If it makes you comfortable I’ll get a sign printed saying: ‘eyes are not to be removed during waterboarding’. That should solve your problems.

              “with techniques that included waterboarding. [Emphasis added]”

              The Japanese prisoners were not executed for waterboarding though you would like people to think that in the quote you chose. It seems you have a lot of difficulties expressing the truth. I know that was part of a John McCain quote but he hasn’t been the most honest Senator either.

  2. @Allan May 15, 2018 at 8:46 PM
    “Abstract: “Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. However, it remains to be determined whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit.
    The present analysis proves that they do not.”

    “The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 miles per hour or 223 m / s, or 803 km/ h on average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front.”

    Who wrote this? Professor Irwin Corey? You? Are you Professor Irwin Corey? 🙂 In order to credit this Corey-esque joke, one would have to ignore, among other things, the discovery of chips of military grade super-thermite in the Towers’ rubble, the eyewitness testimony of those who not only heard, but were blown off their feet by explosions before and after the planes hit the Towers, the horizontal ejection of steel beams for over 500 feet from the Towers, the later discovery of human bone fragments on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building, 250 feet from the South Tower, not to mention the fact that, “Of the 2,749 people who were killed in the trade center attack, the remains of 1,151 have never been identified, despite advanced DNA testing. To date, the chief medical examiner’s office has been unable to identify more than 9,000 fragments taken from the attack site.” Only the willfully gullible (or apologists with a vested interest) could attribute to gravity such bodily destruction and propulsion.

    By the way, when I studied Newtonian Physics in college, the speed of sound was ~761.2 miles/hour at sea level. Is changing this value another one of NIST’s scientific accomplishments?

    • Who wrote this? Professor Irwin Corey? You? Are you Professor Irwin Corey? 🙂 In order to credit this Corey-esque joke, one would have to ignore, among other things, the discovery of chips of military grade super-thermite in the Towers’ rubble, the eyewitness testimony of those who not only heard, but were blown off their feet by explosions before and after the planes hit the Towers,

      Such people do not exist.

      • @Insufferable May 16, 2018 at 5:36 PM
        ” ‘Who wrote this? Professor Irwin Corey? You? Are you Professor Irwin Corey? 🙂 In order to credit this Corey-esque joke, one would have to ignore, among other things, the discovery of chips of military grade super-thermite in the Towers’ rubble, the eyewitness testimony of those who not only heard, but were blown off their feet by explosions before and after the planes hit the Towers, ‘

        “Such people do not exist.”

        And you know this how, Insufferable? By your having interviewed all the people of the earth? By virtue of sheer declamatory arrogance? What you really mean is you don’t want such people to exist, because their experience doesn’t confirm your bias, that is, comport with your ignorantly biased narrative for 9/11. Here’s the testimony of one of your non-existent people:

        “When Bush shook hands with Rodriguez, he had no idea how damaging this WTC employee’s account of 9/11 would be.”

        “By Craig McKee

        “It’s something you won’t hear about in the mainstream media. A loud, devastating explosion in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center’s North Tower BEFORE the impact of an airplane that hit between the 93rd and 99th floors.

        “That was the account of William Rodriguez, who was a 20-year employee of the World Trade Center when the towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001. He was later hailed as a national hero for pulling people out of the buildings, saving a number of lives that morning. He was believed to be the last person to escape the North Tower before it fell. He was even photographed with President George W. Bush. Now, the government doesn’t want to hear anything he has to say.

        “No matter how well known he is within the 9/11 Truth movement (in fact he’s one of its best known figures), very few others have heard the things he has to say – things that make the purveyors of the official story very nervous.

        That’s because if what he reports is true, then the official story can’t be. That official version contends that airplane impacts and the resulting fires were solely responsible for the collapse of the twin towers. But if his account of explosions in the basement of the North Tower is true, then there must be a great deal more to the story.

        “In the documentary ‘9/11 Mysteries,’ Rodriguez describes what happened while he was in the building’s sub-basement, level B1: ‘All of the sudden, we heard a huge explosion. It was an explosion that came from under my feet, meaning that it came from the sub levels between B2 and B3.’ [Emphasis added]

        “Rodriguez adds that after the basement explosion, he heard the impact that has been reported to be Flight 11 hitting the North Tower. ‘And there was a huge explosion at the top of the building. You could hear the difference from the bottom and all the way to the top. The one from the top, which was actually seconds after, was very far away. The one in the basement was pretty loud and you felt your actual feet moving with the floor. There was a tremor through the walls, then the walls cracked and the false ceiling totally collapsed.’

        “Rodriguez says he then saw fellow WTC employee Felipe David who had been burned in the explosion. Clearly David’s injuries did not come from a crash near the top of the 110-story building. And this account has been substantiated by numerous other witnesses who were in the basements that day. Mr. David’s injuries have been documented; they certainly weren’t imaginary. [Emphasis added]

        I’ve already provided the link to this, up-thread.

        It’s becoming increasingly clear why you repeatedly trot out your accusation of confirmation bias: I’ve continued to build an evidence-based case against the Zelikow 9/11 conspiracy theory, and you’ve continued to provide your unsubstantiated personal opinions, many of which, in view of the evidence against them, are simply risible.

  3. “A scheme which has defrauded state funds in Minnesota may be netting the scammers up to $100 million a year. Based on existing evidence, at least some of that money is sent to terrorists overseas.

    Fox 9 uncovered the fraud through investigation of public records and interviews with government sources. The scheme involves the welfare system and publicly-funded daycare.”

    Watch a full report in this video: ( A lot of this money is supposed to go for child care.)

    https://clarionproject.org/govt-fraud-scheme-in-minnesota-may-be-funding-terror/

  4. If you are up for waterboarding read this.

    VIDEO: Green Beret Subjects Himself to Waterboarding to Support Trump CIA Nominee Gina Haspel

    by Katherine Rodriguez14 May 2018701

    Former Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) fighter and Green Beret Tim Kennedy posted a live-streamed video of himself being waterboarded on Saturday in support of President Trump’s nominee to lead the CIA, claiming that the controversial interrogation tactic is not torture.

    Kennedy said in the 41-minute video posted to Facebook that he pulled this stunt to show that CIA nominee Gina Haspel has been unfairly criticized for overseeing a CIA black site where “enhanced interrogation techniques” were used on terrorist detainees shortly after 9/11.

    The video showed the former UFC fighter’s towel-covered face being doused with water from a hose.

    After the experience, the Green Beret wrote a caption explaining his “waterboarding” experience.

    “We did this yesterday for almost 45 minutes. The average pour was anywhere from 10 to 60. They wouldn’t tell me when they were going to put the towel on. They would just smash it on my face and start pouring. You can’t hold your breath while they do it because the water runs down your sinuses,” Kennedy wrote. “The water runs through your eyes, down your nose and pools at the back of your throat. It was a baptism in freedom. It’s not torture! Hell we had elk tacos and wine afterwards. Wake up people.”

    Kennedy claimed waterboarding is uncomfortable but not torture.

    “If I can change one person’s mind about what torture is and what I would do to protect American freedom, I will do this for years,” he said.

    continued at:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/14/video-green-beret-subjects-himself-waterboarding-support-trump-cia-nominee-haspel/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20180514

    • @Allan May 14, 2018 at 8:33 PM

      Well, this explains Haspel’s destruction of the torture videotapes: she simply couldn’t bear the thought of showing other torture candidates in the world how innocuous waterboarding and its aftermath really are.

      “The water runs through your eyes, down your nose and pools at the back of your throat. It was a baptism in freedom. It’s not torture! Hell we had elk tacos and wine afterwards. Wake up people.”

      Yes, Kennedy’s little experiment has reproduced exactly what it’s like to be waterboarded by strangers who have kidnapped you, when you’re tied down and experiencing it against your will, when you have no idea if it will stop before you suffocate or have a heart attack, when you have no have idea how long and how repeatedly you’ll have to endure it, and whether you’ll be served afterward “elk tacos and wine” or only pizza and beer.

      Kennedy has pretty obviously taken at least one too many blows to the head as a UFC fighter.

      “Malcolm Nance
      “✔ @MalcolmNance
      “Wrong. That’s not how it’s done. You’re just holding your breath. As a former SERE instructor & #Waterboarding qual’d resistance team member I can tell you it’s about aggression, intent, tiedown, pour technique, rate of flow & other factors. It’s a Nazis/Commie torture. Deal w/it. ” https://twitter.com/timkennedymma/status/995309719412756480
      4:17 PM – May 12, 2018

      • Yes, Kennedy’s little experiment has reproduced exactly what it’s like to be waterboarded by strangers who have kidnapped you,

        If the chaps at Guantanamo wished to avoid being ‘kidnapped’, they should have stayed home and did wage work or opened a shop. Going into the armed insurgent business carries certain risks.

        • @Insufferable May 15, 2018 at 1:33 PM
          ” ‘Yes, Kennedy’s little experiment has reproduced exactly what it’s like to be waterboarded by strangers who have kidnapped you,’

          “If the chaps at Guantanamo wished to avoid being ‘kidnapped’, they should have stayed home and did [sic] wage work or opened a shop. Going into the armed insurgent business carries certain risks.”

          I’m glad you’ve brought up the “chaps at Guantanamo.” Their imprisonment and torture has done as much as anything else in the incredibly brilliant “War on Terrorism” to undermine the moral authority of the US and to recruit from around the world thousands more jihadis against it and its allies.

          By Tim Reid
          The Times
          April 9, 2010

          “George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times.

          “The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee. It is the first time that such allegations have been made by a senior member of the Bush Administration.

          “Colonel Wilkerson, who was General Powell’s chief of staff when he ran the State Department, was most critical of Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld. He claimed that the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent but believed that it was “politically impossible to release them.”

          “General Powell, who left the Bush Administration in 2005, angry about the misinformation that he unwittingly gave the world when he made the case for the invasion of Iraq at the UN, is understood to have backed Colonel Wilkerson’s declaration.

          “Colonel Wilkerson, a long-time critic of the Bush Administration’s approach to counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq, claimed that the majority of detainees – children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said – never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken.

          “He also claimed that one reason Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld did not want the innocent detainees released was because ‘the detention efforts would be revealed as the incredibly confused operation that they were.’ This was ‘not acceptable to the Administration and would have been severely detrimental to the leadership at DoD [Mr Rumsfeld at the Defence Department].’

          “Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: ‘He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent … If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.’

          “He alleged that for Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld ‘innocent people languishing in Guantánamo for years was justified by the broader War on Terror and the small number of terrorists [purportedly Saudis!] who were responsible for the September 11 attacks.’

          “He added: ‘I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell. I learnt that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision-making.’

          “Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld, Colonel Wilkerson said, deemed the incarceration of innocent men [and boys] acceptable, if some genuine militants were captured, leading to a better intelligence picture of Iraq at a time when the Bush Administration was desperate to find a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, ‘thus justifying the Administration’s plans for war with that country.’ ”
          https://www.globalpolicy.org/us-un-and-international-law-8-24/torture-and-prison-abuse/48931.html

      • Ken, the idea is to get information and prevent another 3,000 deaths. I am sure burning to death in the WTC bombing is a lot worse than waterboarding. Dying under the rubble after a few days isn’t fun either though to you the suffering of women, children, and men at the hands of terrorists is meaningless.

        No one is advocating sadism that differentiates this type of action from the torture most think about when contemplating such an action. No one subjected to waterboarding lost their arms, legs, tongue, eyes or lives from this action even though the ones waterboarded advocated torturing innocent woman and children and killing them without mercy. The three subjected to waterboarding walked away intact. No one gets pleasure out of this act though many might end up having the pleasure of not losing their families to the terrorists you support.

        Talking about torture I listened to a bit of Kamala Harris’ interrogation of Haspel. That was torture and I think the next time she opens her mouth in that fashion she should be gagged.

        • @Allan May 15, 2018 at 2:07 PM
          “Ken, the idea is to get information and prevent another 3,000 deaths. I am sure burning to death in the WTC bombing is a lot worse than waterboarding.”

          I’m glad to see you acknowledge the “WTC bombing.” If anyone ever challenges you on that, you can send them to these videos, among others, in which you can hear the explosions themselves, as well as hear the testimony from many WTC victims on 9/11 about other explosions in the Towers before the planes hit them:

          https://duckduckgo.com/?q=testimony+to+explosions+at+WTC+on+9%2F11&t=hh&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=_A9X_8flGeM

          https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/explosions-before-plane-impact-the-911-account-of-william-rodriguez/

          • “I’m glad to see you acknowledge the “WTC bombing.”

            Bombing by a plane hitting the building loaded with fuel and blowing up.

            I have looked at the evidence, been there, saw the rubble, and know that you like to fantasize. I would waterboard anyone that could provide such information to prevent such an attack. You can continue with your fantasy.

            • Oh, but there was that electrochemist at Brigham Young who supposedly proved something-or-other experimenting with something-or-other. And didn’t Larry Silverstein say ‘pull it’?

              I

              • @Allan May 15, 2018 at 6:05 PM
                “I’m glad to see you acknowledge the ‘WTC bombing.’ ”

                “Bombing by a plane hitting the building loaded with fuel and blowing up.
                I have looked at the evidence, been there, saw the rubble, and know that you like to fantasize. I would waterboard anyone that could provide such information to prevent such an attack. You can continue with your fantasy.”

                if you’ve seen the rubble, being the intelligent observer that you purportedly are, you must have wondered how a building disintegrating in a pyroclastic cloud of microscopic dust without the help of explosives could have produced it and all those little pieces of rubble. As one fireman said after working on “the pile” for several days, the largest piece of anything in the rubble he found, was a small piece of a telephone.

                What do you suppose happened to all the office furniture in two 110-story office buildings?

                Why do you prefer a priori fantasizing about the 9/11 event, rather than listening to the testimony of people who were actually there that day, including their testimony about the gigantic explosion in the Tower basement, before the plane ever got there?

                Are you afraid you might learn something that could give you a cognitive-dissonance headache?

                https://duckduckgo.com/?q=testimony+to+explosions+at+WTC+on+9%2F11&t=hh&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=_A9X_8flGeM

                https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/explosions-before-plane-impact-the-911-account-of-william-rodriguez/

                • Suddenly Ken has become a forensic engineer totally familiar with all the aspects of the case from his living room couch. There is nothing I can see that is inconsistent with what is believed by most experts.

                  Tomorrow Ken will be an expert on something else. That is the wonderful thing about these conspiracy neurotics or worse. They immediately become experts in whatever they are talking about.

                  Gosh, I forgot, he got an A in logic. Wow, that must make him an expert in everything and able to see through lead-lined walls.

                  • And the Conspiracy has bought off and intimidated every structural engineer in America except one guy in Fairbanks, Alaska.

                    • Abstract: “Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. However, it remains to be determined whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit.

                      The present analysis proves that they do not.

                      The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range 0.01– 0.1 mm of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust whereas, more than 150 t of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization. The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 miles per hour or 223 m / s, or 803 km/ h on average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust, and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are indeed found to be negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record.”

                      I expect a call any minute from a guy agreeing with the above.

                    • @Insufferable May 15, 2018 at 8:25 PM
                      “And the Conspiracy has bought off and intimidated every structural engineer in America except one guy in Fairbanks, Alaska.”

                      Whether this comment is stronger evidence of your dishonesty or your abysmal ignorance, I’ll leave to others to decide but it’s hardly esoteric knowledge that the organization, “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” has 2,994 members who are licensed architects or engineers with a collective professional work experience of 25,000 years.
                      https://www.ae911truth.org/

                      Get a glove and get in the game.

                • You mean Larry Silverstein, having bid for a 99 year lease on the WTC, immediately set to work having explosive charges set in all the buildings, hiring crews to place explosives on the structural features and the office furniture, crews which are never observed at work and no member of which is ever located later?

                  • @Insufferable May 15, 2018 at 8:24 PM
                    “You mean Larry Silverstein, having bid for a 99 year lease on the WTC, immediately set to work having explosive charges set in all the buildings, hiring crews to place explosives on the structural features and the office furniture, crews which are never observed at work and no member of which is ever located later?”
                    1) Silverstein made out like a bandit by virtue of the destruction of the three WTC buildings, 2 of which needed repairs and asbestos removal whose costs far exceeded the value of the buildings;
                    2) “Crews” had multiple, lengthy opportunities to undetectably plant explosives in the buildings;
                    3) Such “crews” would hardly allow themselves to be identified, let alone located, after they’d done their work;
                    4) It’s ridiculous to suggest that the office furniture itself would need to be wired with explosives in order for them to be completely destroyed by super-thermite.
                    https://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-could-they-plant-bombs-in-world.html

              • Insufferable May 15, 2018 at 6:18 PM
                “Oh, but there was that electrochemist at Brigham Young who supposedly proved something-or-other experimenting with something-or-other. And didn’t Larry Silverstein say ‘pull it’?
                “I” [sic]

                Yes, you must be thinking of the physicist, Dr. Steven Jones, who discovered chips of thermite, a military-grade explosive, in the dust of the WTC debris. Thanks for calling attention to his work:

                “One of the most significant events in the search for the truth of 9/11 was the publication in March 2009 of a peer-reviewed scientific paper, written by nine scientists, about the discovery of ‘active thermitic material’ in dust samples from the collapsed towers of the World Trade Center.

                “A twenty-five-page scientific paper entitled ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe’ presents physical evidence that an extremely powerful form of super-thermite was used to demolish the twin towers.

                “The research paper written by an international team of nine scientists led by Dr. Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University analyzes red-gray chips of a highly-explosive thermitic material ‘characterized as nano-thermite or super-thermite,’ which was found in dust samples from the collapsed towers.

                “The paper was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal and marks a historic breakthrough in the scientific investigation of the explosive collapses of the Twin Towers, although it has not been widely covered by the media outside of Salt Lake City.

                “If we had a truly free press in the United States this important discovery would be front page news and a subject of discussion on every news outlet in the nation.

                “Super-thermite is a highly energetic form of thermite (iron oxide and aluminum) in which at least one component is in the extremely fine or nano-size range with particles 100 nanometers (1 nm = 1 billionth of a meter) or smaller, often along with silicon and carbon. Super-thermite is an extremely powerful explosive that releases much more energy per gram than any other conventional explosive used in demolition. The chips found in the World Trade Center dust were an extremely powerful form of super-thermite.

                “The pyroclastic dust clouds of 9/11 were created by a sophisticated form of super-thermite that was combined with an organic compound to create explosive gas pressure.

                “Two of the chips tested released more energy by mass (kJ/g) than HMX, TNT, TATB explosives or normal thermite. These chips released between 50 to nearly 100 percent more energy than the four conventional explosives. One of the chips released twice as much energy per gram than Xerogel, a similar super-thermite nanocomposite, and the chips all ignited at 430 degrees C., 100 degrees lower than the ignition temperature for Xerogel.

                “The Jones paper proves that the official explanation for the explosive destruction of the Twin Towers is false. For 9/11 truth seekers, this paper is crucial because it means we can no longer be dismissed as ‘conspiracy theorists.’ We now have solid evidence of the advanced super-thermite that was used to demolish the twin towers. For the real terrorists of 9/11 and their supporters, the writing on the wall is clear. It says, ‘Game Over!’ ”
                http://bollyn.com/game-over-evidence-of-super-thermite-in-the-rubble/

                And yes, Larry Silverstein, who had leased and insured the Twin Towers and Building 7 shortly before they were blown up, did say, referring to Building 7, “Pull it.”, a demolition term of art for “detonate the set charges in the building.” Building 7 then imploded into its own footprint at nearly free-fall speed, as buildings wired for demolition tend to do:

                • @Ken Rogers May 16, 2018 at 12:38 AM

                  I don’t know how that additional YouTube video link in my last comment, with the text “Larry Silverstein admits WTC7…” appeared, because I intended to link to a video of Silverstein saying he gave the order to pull Building 7 and then showing Building 7 coming down in its own footprint. Please ignore the other video.

                • Yes, you must be thinking of the physicist, Dr. Steven Jones, who discovered chips of thermite, a military-grade explosive, in the dust of the WTC debris. Thanks for calling attention to his work:

                  Even if I trusted Prof. Jones work, the quantity of debris and corruption of samples and alternative explanations conceivable would make such a finding of no consequence.

                  • @DSS is Insufferable May 16, 2018 at 4:52 PM
                    “‘a demolition term of art for “detonate the set charges in the building.’

                    “In your imagination only, Ken.”

                    Much of the time, it’s hard to tell whether you’re being dishonest or are just willfully ignorant, but either way, your credilbilty continues to deteriorate. The following is a transcript of a conversation with Controlled Demolitions, Inc, one of the companies hired to remove rubble from the Twin Towers site, which, if it weren’t for your dishonesty or willful ignorance, you could have found in 2 minutes or less:

                    Jeff: Um, sorry, do I — is this Controlled Demolitions?
                    CDI: Yes it is.
                    Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly — just ask a question I had?
                    CDI: Well what kind of question?
                    Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
                    CDI: Ok, what type of term?
                    Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term “pull it,” I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
                    CDI: “Pull it”?
                    Jeff: Yeah.
                    CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.
                    Jeff: Thank you.
                    CDI: Sir?
                    Jeff: Yes?
                    CDI: “Pull it” is when they actually pull it down.
                    Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
                    CDI: Ok.
                    Jeff: Bye.
                    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-pull-it-down_30.html

                    You also had full access to the video I provided a link to above, in which Silverstein says, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.”

                  • Insufferable May 16, 2018 at 4:52 PM
                    ” ‘Yes, you must be thinking of the physicist, Dr. Steven Jones, who discovered chips of thermite, a military-grade explosive, in the dust of the WTC debris. Thanks for calling attention to his work:’

                    “Even if I trusted Prof. Jones [sic] work, the quantity of debris and corruption of samples and alternative explanations conceivable would make such a finding of no consequence.”

                    Alternative explanations for what?

                    So, instead of considering this evidence that’s consistent with the nature of the Towers’ pulverization, you dismiss it as of “no consequence” in any event. You’re a real objective researcher, Insufferable, a real evidence seeker.

                    Oh, my. You truly are the poster boy for confirmation bias, Insufferable. You don’t have to consider the evidence for military-grade explosive chips in the WTC rubble, because even if they’re there, they’re not going to disconfirm your unshakeable belief that only aluminum, kerosene, and gravity pulverized those Towers, so they’re of “no consequence.” And besides, you don’t trust Professor Jones’ work, anyhow, because he doesn’t work for the government.

                    What “alternative explanations” do you have in mind? I’m all ears.

                • a demolition term of art for “detonate the set charges in the building.”

                  In your imagination only, Ken.

                  • “In your imagination only, Ken.”

                    NII, Don’t forget Ken brags about his A in logic. Maybe the A was in his imagination as well.

                    • @Allan May 16, 2018 at 5:04 PM
                      “ ‘In your imagination only, Ken.”
                      “NII, Don’t forget Ken brags about his A in logic. Maybe the A was in his imagination as well.”

                      You already have my sympathy, Allan. Are you going for my pity?

                    • “You already have my sympathy, Allan. Are you going for my pity?”

                      No Ken, I am looking for common sense.

                    • You already have my sympathy, Allan. Are you going for my pity?

                      You’re sweating fantasy and confirmation bias from your pores, but you fancy you should ‘pity’ us.

                    • @Allan May 16, 2018 at 5:04 PM
                      “ ‘In your imagination only, Ken.’
                      “NII, Don’t forget Ken brags about his A in logic. Maybe the A was in his imagination as well.”

                      Someone once observed that it’s not enough to be stupid to succeed in the world, one must also be well-mannered.

                      Do you think it well-mannered of you to characterize as “bragging” my having mentioned once, in response to your accusing me of being illogical, that I majored in philosophy and received an “A” in logic?

                    • “Do you think it well-mannered of you to characterize as “bragging”… that I majored in philosophy and received an “A” in logic?”

                      I have listened to your fractured fictions of whole groups of people where your underlying biases have made the truth impenetrable. I have listened to you contradict yourself. Manners have little to do with this conversation though perhaps the A in logic was provided to you because of your manners rather than your logic.

                    • Nutty Uncle Fetzer is a philosophy professor. Perhaps a discipline that’s seen better days.

            • @Allan May 15, 2018 at 6:05 PM
              “I have looked at the evidence, been there, saw the rubble, and know that you like to fantasize. I would waterboard anyone that could provide such information to prevent such an attack.”

              Isn’t what you really mean to say here, if you were being honest, is that you would waterboard anyone you suspected of being able to provide such information, as long as he wasn’t an Israeli suspect?

              • “Isn’t what you really mean to say here, if you were being honest, is that you would waterboard anyone you suspected of being able to provide such information, as long as he wasn’t an Israeli suspect?”

                No Ken. I would waterboard any foreign terrorist on our shores where I have a reasonable chance of saving American lives from terrorist activities. I’m American and worry about America and its citizens. Israeli’s can worry about Israel. We already know that terrorism in that part of the world has extended to our shores and has pushed Christians (along with Jews) out of the Middle East except for Israel.

                Wasn’t Lebanon mostly Christian not that long ago? Do you think you can build a church in most places in the Middle East while mosques can be built over most of the world. No problem with peaceful Isalm, but where Islam has gained control many times other religions have been forced out. See what the Quran has to say about other religions. Tolerance should be a two-way street but it isn’t.

        • @Allan May 15, 2018 at 2:07 PM
          “No one subjected to waterboarding lost their arms, legs, tongue, eyes or lives from this action even though the ones waterboarded advocated torturing innocent woman and children and killing them without mercy.”

          Tell that to Abu Zubaydah, who lost an eye while in CIA custody and who had no connection to any terrorist group, including al-Qaeda:

          CIA Waterboards the Wrong Man 83 Times in One Month

          “The allegations against the man were serious indeed.
          • Donald Rumsfeld said he was ‘if not the number two, very close to the number two person’ in Al Qaeda.
          • The Central Intelligence Agency informed Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee that he “served as Usama Bin Laden’s senior lieutenant. In that capacity, he has managed a network of training camps…. He also acted as al-Qaeda’s coordinator of external contacts and foreign communications.”
          • CIA Director Michael Hayden would tell the press in 2008 that 25 percent of all the information his agency had gathered about Al Qaeda from human sources ‘originated’ with one other detainee and him.
          • George W. Bush would use his case to justify the CIA’s ‘enhanced interrogation program,’ claiming that ‘he had run a terrorist camp in Afghanistan where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained’ and that ‘he helped smuggle al-Qaeda leaders out of Afghanistan’ so they would not be captured by US military forces.

          None of it was true.

          “And even if it had been true, what the CIA did to Abu Zubaydah—with the knowledge and approval of the highest government officials—is a prime example of the kind of still-unpunished crimes that officials like Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld committed in the so-called Global War on Terror.

          CHARGES WITHDRAWN

          “In September 2009, the US government quietly withdrew its many allegations against Abu Zubaydah. His attorneys had filed a habeas corpus petition on his behalf; that is, a petition to exercise the constitutional right of anyone in government custody to know on what charges they are being held. In that context, they were asking the government to supply certain documents to help substantiate their claim that his continued detention in Guantánamo was illegal. The new Obama administration replied with a 109-page brief filed in the US District Court in the District of Columbia, which is legally designated to hear the habeas cases of Guantánamo detainees.

          “The bulk of that brief came down to a government argument that was curious indeed, given the years of bragging about Zubaydah’s central role in Al Qaeda’s activities. It claimed that there was no reason to turn over any ‘exculpatory’ documents’ demonstrating that he was not a member of Al Qaeda, or that he had no involvement in 9/11 or any other terrorist activity—because the government was no longer claiming that any of those things were true.

          “The government’s lawyers went on to claim, bizarrely enough, that the Bush administration had never ‘contended that [Zubaydah] had any personal involvement in planning or executing…the attacks of September 11, 2001.’ They added that “the Government also has not contended in this proceeding that, at the time of his capture, [Zubaydah] had knowledge of any specific impending terrorist operations”—an especially curious claim, since the prevention of such future attacks was how the CIA justified its torture of Zubaydah in the first place.

          “Far from believing that he was ‘if not the number two, very close to the number two person in’ Al Qaeda, as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had once claimed, ‘the Government has not contended in this proceeding that [Zubaydah] was a member of al-Qaida or otherwise formally identified with al-Qaida.’

          “And so, the case against the man who was waterboarded 83 times and contributed supposedly crucial information to the CIA on Al Qaeda plotting was oh-so-quietly withdrawn without either fuss or media attention. Exhibit one was now exhibit none.

          “Seven years after the initial filing of Zubaydah’s habeas petition, the DC District Court has yet to rule on it. Given the court’s average 751-day turnaround time on such petitions, this is an extraordinary length of time. Here, justice delayed is truly justice denied.

          “Perhaps we should not be surprised, however. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, CIA headquarters assured those who were interrogating Zubaydah that he would ‘never be placed in a situation where he has any significant contact with others and/or has the opportunity to be released.’ In fact, ‘all major players are in concurrence,’ stated the agency, that he ‘should remain incommunicado for the remainder of his life.’ And so far, that’s exactly what’s happened. [Emphasis added]

          The capture, torture, and propaganda use of Abu Zubaydah is the perfect example of the US government’s unique combination of willful law-breaking, ass-covering memo-writing, and what some Salvadorans I once worked with called ‘strategic incompetence.’ The fact that no one—not George Bush or Dick Cheney, not Jessen or Mitchell, nor multiple directors of the CIA—has been held accountable means that, unless we are very lucky, we will see more of the same in the future.
          https://www.thenation.com/article/the-cia-waterboarded-the-wrong-man-83-times-in-1-month/

          • “Tell that to Abu Zubaydah, who lost an eye while in CIA custody and who had no connection to any terrorist group, including al-Qaeda:”

            Did he lose the eye from waterboarding? No. Waterboarding is the issue.
            Was he involved in terrorism? Yes.

            If you play with matches you can be burned.

            • @Allan May 15, 2018 at 7:05 PM
              “Tell that to Abu Zubaydah, who lost an eye while in CIA custody and who had no connection to any terrorist group, including al-Qaeda:”

              “Was he involved in terrorism? Yes.”

              Are you willing to share your knowledge of this with the US Government? I ask because if you read the article I posted about the government’s dropping all charges against him and still think he “was involved with terrorism,” shouldn’t you share with government officials your inside information?

              “If you play with matches you can be burned.”

              Yes, and if you play as fast and loose with facts, as you continuously do, you’ll have become a joke.

              • “Are you willing to share your knowledge of this with the US Government?”

                The US government already knows that he is a terrorist.

                Any fact that I play ” fast and loose” with can be challenged, but I can back up my facts with credible people. You on the other hand deal with the lunatic fringe.

                • @Allan May 15, 2018 at 8:18 PM
                  “ ‘Are you willing to share your knowledge of this with the US Government?’

                  “The US government already knows that he is a terrorist.”

                  Oh? Then why did it drop all the charges against him?

                  • “Then why did it drop all the charges against him?”

                    You are going far afield from whether or not waterboarding should have been used on the three people it was used on post 9/11. That is the question at hand.

                    My understanding is that he is still incarcerated.

            • @Allan May 15, 2018 at 7:05 PM
              “Tell that to Abu Zubaydah, who lost an eye while in CIA custody and who had no connection to any terrorist group, including al-Qaeda:”

              “Did he lose the eye from waterboarding? No. Waterboarding is the issue.
              “Was he involved in terrorism? Yes.”

              Do you suppose he pulled out his eye in an act of terroristic defiance, or are you more inclined to think he was probably running with scissors in his suite at Guantanamo?

              Whatever happened, I’m sure you’ll agree that it had nothing to do with his being tortured in various and sundry ways by his caretakers, as in “Oops, my thumb slipped and stuck you in the eye as I was positioning the cucumber for your facial. Don’t worry, one of our corpsmen can take that all the way out for you, later.”

              You’re right, of course, that waterboarding is only one form of torture that was in the CIA toolkit, albeit a really good one:

              “In Chile, they called it submarino, a form of simulated drowning that has much the same effect as what we call waterboarding. During Augusto Pinochet’s 17-year-long dictatorship, thousands of Chileans were detained by the military and subjected to torture.

              “During the submarino, they were forcibly submerged in a tank of water, over and over again, until they were on the edge of drowning. (The Chilean military liked to foul the water with urine, feces or worse, something that—so far—hasn’t been known to be a part of U.S. waterboarding of terrorism suspects.)

              Submarino became a popular tool for military interrogators, in part because it left relatively few permanent physical marks.

              “But the impact on the torture victim’s mind was lasting. After Pinochet’s fall in 1990, the new civilian government in Chile investigated incidents of alleged torture, and found deep scars.

              “Years after they were tortured, submarine victims were still haunted. A 2007 study in the International Review of the Red Cross found that ‘the acute suffering produced during the immediate infliction of the submarine is superseded by the often unbearable fear of repeating the experience. In the aftermath, it may lead to horrific memories that persist in the form of recurrent ‘drowning nightmares.'”

              “As one Chilean who was tortured by submarino under Pinochet put it: ‘Even today I wake up because of having nightmares of dying from drowning.’ (Read Obama: No Prosecution for Waterboarding.’)

              “The news that the U.S. waterboarded one al-Qaeda prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, at least 83 times, and another, the confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 183 times, has given new energy to the debate over whether U.S. interrogation methods amounted to torture. Defenders of waterboarding say that the procedure, while awful for the prisoner, is relatively safe and has few long-term effects.

              “But doctors and psychologists who work with torture victims disagree strongly. They say that victims of American waterboarding—like the Chileans submitted to submarino under Pinochet—are likely to be psychologically damaged for life.

              “This is an utterly terrifying event,” says Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/New York University School of Medicine Program for Survivors of Torture. ‘Psychologically this can result in significant long-term post traumatic stress, and produce anxiety and depression.’ [Emphasis added]

              “Defenders of the procedure have pointed to the fact that American soldiers are put through a form of waterboarding during the military’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape [SERE] program, as training for the possibility of capture. But Keller points out that being waterboarded during training, as scary as it might be, bears little resemblance to what a detainee would endure.

              ” ‘The trainees know that they are not going to be hurt,’ he says. ‘When someone’s being tortured there are no such guarantees. There is no reason to believe they aren’t going to be drowned.’

              “If a prisoner is waterboarded repeatedly, as Zubaydah and Mohammed were, it’s tempting to believe that the effect would lessen over time; that the victim would no longer fear drowning, knowing that his interrogator would stop the process in time. But waterboarding can be so intense—and the fear of drowning so primal—that each time would be a fresh trauma.

              “Worse, being waterboarded repeatedly raises the possibility that something could go wrong and the detainee could, in fact, drown. (Read ‘Torture Memos Released.’)

              ” ‘Done 183 times on a single person, each flood of water, each subsequent near-death experience, increases the possibility of debilitating and irreparable harm,’ says Brad Olson, a research professor of psychology at Northwestern University. ‘The cumulative impact of waterboarding is tremendous. It’s going to produce permanent psychological damage even in the most resilient human.’

              “Keller, who treats victims at Bellevue, agrees that psychological effects of asphyxiation torture like waterboarding can be insidiously long-lived. One patient whose head was repeatedly submerged during torture has constant flashbacks. ‘Every time he has a shower, he panics,’ says Keller. One victim panics every time he becomes the least bit short of breath, even during exercise. And in most cases, it is the helplessness the victims endured under torture that renders the experience ineradicable. ‘They fear that loss of control,’ says Keller. ‘That’s what is so terrifying.’

              “It can take years for psychological scars to show, and to truly gauge the long-term psychological impact of torture, psychologists need to follow up with victims well after they are released. That may never happen with detainees like Zubaydah and Mohammed—meaning we may never know the final wages of what CIA agents did in dark rooms under our name.

              “But there should be no doubt now that we tortured. ‘That we would still be having a discussion about whether or not waterboarding is torture is so disingenuous,’ says Keller. ‘They should come out and say what it is.”
              https://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892721,00.html

              Well, as I’m sure you would point to them as you have to me, what it is, is a teachable moment for these so-called “torture victims” to not play with matches, whether they live in South America or the Middle East, because if they do, they could get burned by the fire they produce in their immediate environment, and right there where the nerve endings in their skin are.

              • “Do you suppose he pulled out his eye in an act of terroristic defiance, ”

                Did he lose the eye from waterboarding? No.

                Instead of the Dancing Israelis, we have Dancing Ken who can’t answer a question because his mind is so filled up with silly conspiracy theories. Ken provides paragraphs of rhetoric without an answer.

                The only question at issue is whether or not Abu Zubaydah lost that eye during waterboarding. The rest is cr-p since we are discussing waterboarding and not something else.

                • @Allan May 15, 2018 at 11:45 PM
                  “Did he lose the eye from waterboarding? No.”

                  How do you know that he didn’t lose his eye from being waterboarded? Are you psychic or did your source for knowing Zubaydah was a terrorist, after all, despite the government’s dropping all the charges against him, tell you that?

                  In one of your posts above, the UFC fighter is quoted as saying, “We did this yesterday for almost 45 minutes. The average pour was anywhere from 10 to 60. They wouldn’t tell me when they were going to put the towel on. They would just smash it on my face and start pouring.” Are you too imaginatively challenged to seriously consider the possibility that Zubaydah’s eye could have been injured in such a process, particularly when there were 83 opportunities for that to happen?

                  Just how self-limited are you?

                  • “How do you know that he didn’t lose his eye from being waterboarded?”

                    How do you know he didn’t tear his own eye out? Removing an eye out is not a part of waterboarding.

                    The question at hand is: “Did he lose the eye from waterboarding?” The answer is No. He could have lost his eye at any time unless you have a date and a time. We don’t know how his eye was lost. You demonstrate difficulty focusing in on the issue.

                    • @Allan May 16, 2018 at 8:33 AM
                      “ ‘How do you know that he didn’t lose his eye from being waterboarded?’

                      “How do you know he didn’t tear his own eye out? Removing an eye out is not a part of waterboarding.
                      The question at hand is: “Did he lose the eye from waterboarding?” The answer is No. [Emphasis added] He could have lost his eye at any time unless you have a date and a time. We don’t know how his eye was lost. [Emphasis added] You demonstrate difficulty focusing in on the issue.” 🙂

                      If you don’t know how his eye was lost, how can you know it wasn’t a result of his being waterboarded?

                      You don’t.

                      This is just the latest example of why I recommended to you a book on logic.

                    • “If you don’t know how his eye was lost, how can you know it wasn’t a result of his being waterboarded?”

                      Ken, I didn’t make that claim. You really need to take a refresher course in reading and logic. Removal of an eye is not part of waterboarding. Here you are fighting against waterboarding, but not fighting against the removal of an eye. How foolish you are. Not only that but you don’t even know how the eye was lost. Confirmation bias sounds like a malignant disease that you possess and it makes you say the weirdest things.

    • @Allan May 14, 2018 at 8:33 PM
      “If you are up for waterboarding read this.
      “VIDEO: Green Beret Subjects Himself to Waterboarding to Support Trump CIA Nominee Gina Haspel”

      And if you’re up for war with North Korea, read this:

      ‘North Korea’s denunciation of John Bolton has forced Donald Trump to decide whether to stick with his national security adviser and his hardline tactics, or push ahead with a summit with Kim Jong-un that will provide historic spectacle, but an uncertain outcome.

      “Trump: ‘ ‘We”ll see’ if the North Korea summit is on after Kim’s threat to cancel

      “Underlying the plans for the Singapore summit was a fundamental ambiguity over what ‘complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula’ means. For Pyongyang it is a fluid term that means a long-term process of disarmament, involving all major powers, in whose ranks North Korea would henceforward be counted a member.

      “The Trump administration thought it meant – or wanted it to mean – that Kim was ready to give up the arsenal he had declared complete and operational in January. For his part, the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, who was tasked by Trump to set up the Kim summit, was ready to live with the ambiguity, at least until 12 June, when the unprecedented encounter is due to take place. [Emphasis added]

      “In weekend television appearances, Pompeo seemed to blur the US negotiating position, suggesting the aim was to prevent North Korea threatening the US mainland with nuclear weapons, a lower bar that would theoretically permit Pyongyang to retain some warheads as long as they did not build intercontinental missiles.

      “Ambiguity is not Bolton’s style, however. In his own, competing, TV appearances, he was adamant that North Korea would have to take all its weapons apart and ship the fissile material to the US. It was this, coupled his earlier reference to the ‘Libya model’ – which for Pyongyang summons up the memory of Muammar Gaddafi’s brutalised body being paraded on a truck – that got the regime’s attention. [My emphasis]

      “ ‘It was quite deliberate. We all know how Gaddafi died,’ said Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia nonproliferation programme at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies of Monterey. ‘You don’t bring up a man’s grisly murder as an inducement.’ [Emphasis added]

      “Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said it was likely to be the bragging that Kim had been forced to the table by Trump’s successful use of ‘maximum pressure’ with sanctions and threats that had stung the Pyongyang regime most.

      “Kim has portrayed his diplomatic opening as a natural consequence of completing the decades-long project to build a nuclear arsenal.

      “ ‘The North Koreans were prepared to ignore a lot of what the administration said before the summit, but it was the victory lap before the race that has really set them off,’ Narang said.

      “Bolton has a track record with the North Koreans, who blame him for persuading the George W Bush administration to quit a 1994 nuclear deal, the Agreed Framework. In his memoir, ‘Surrender is Not an Option,’ Bolton boasts about his success in torpedoing state department efforts to keep talks with Pyongyang alive, deriding the diplomats as appeasers. [Emphasis added]

      “Trump approaches geopolitics like ‘The Apprentice’ – but this is not his show

      “At the time, the regime denounced him [Bolton] as ‘human scum’ and a ‘bloodsucker,’** banning him from any bilateral talks. On Wednesday, the first deputy prime minister, Kim Kye-gwan, made it clear that the regime’s antipathy had not mellowed with time, noting, ‘we do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards him.’

      “Earlier in the week, a western diplomat had predicted that the inevitable compromise at a Kim summit could force a parting of the ways between Trump and his third national security adviser. Trump, who has basked in suggestions he might be eligible for the Nobel peace prize, is clearly keen to keep his appointment in Singapore. The weekend row could now bring his looming dilemma forward.

      “The White House on Wednesday was hedging its bets, with its spokeswoman pointedly distancing Trump from Bolton’s ‘Libyan model.’

      “ ‘Sarah Sanders threw Bolton under a bus this morning,’ Lewis said.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/16/trump-north-korea-nuclear-summit-john-bolton

      As Trump is said “to live in the eternal now,” he’d have had no way of knowing about, before making him his National Security Adviser, Bolton’s history of unrelenting warmongering.
      https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-lives-eternal-now-gen-hayden-explains-dangers-trumps-ignorance-history

      **In Bolton’s defense against the North Koreans’ characterization of him as an implicitly effeminate “bloodsucker,” it would probably be more mete to characterize the unrepentant Iraq War cheerleader as a manly, two-fisted bloodchugger.

      • The situation is very clear. Kim is willing to disarm or he isn’t. All this BS is inconsequential. Neither you nor the one you quote has any understanding of how to manage problems of this nature. Your type brought us the Iran deal where we sent them $150 Billion so they could maintain their economy, enhance the production of nuclear weapons, create a delivery system and fund terrorists.

        • Your dishonesty is shocking, Allan.

          The billions you refer to were assets frozen through years of sanctions.

          So at least say something like, ‘We unfroze $150B of Iranian assets’, instead of, “we sent them $150 Billion . . .”

          Quite a difference for one so obsessed with semantics.

          • Lien, The money left its frozen status and was SENT to Iran (that money was entangled in a lot of suits as well). Whether you prefer to look at a hazy image of what I stated or not the results are the same so perhaps your statement about dishonesty is merely a reflection of your lack of understanding.

            SENT: If Iran already had access to the money it wouldn’t have had to be authorized and sent by our government.

            • More than $60B came from Iranian assets frozen in Japan, South Korea, and China.

              Nevertheless, semantics boy, the US did not “send” $150B to Iran. Sanctions were lifted. There is a huge difference between your statement and reality.

              Get a grip, hazy MF.

              • MF, what a mouth.

                Lien, I guess additional smarts are required to understand the situation. Did Japan or any of the others send the money? No. Obama sent it.

                  • Yes, Lien sanctions were listed which means the Obama administration permitted the sending of $150Billion to Iran with which they stabilized their economy, developed missiles, increased their ability to produce a nuclear weapon and armed terrorists.

                    • “Yes, Lien sanctions were listed [sic]…” — Allen

                      Very good, dim boy.

                      “… which means the Obama administration permitted the sending of $150Billion to Iran …” — Allen

                      It was the outcome of the sanctions being lifted after a 3.5 year process of negotiations with at least fourteen US allies who were abiding by the sanctions with the assets being held by a multitude of institutions.

                      Very different from your original statement of the US sending $150B to Iran, don’t you think, semantics boy.

                    • “It was the outcome of the sanctions being lifted after a 3.5 year process of negotiations with at least fourteen US allies”

                      It was all pretty stupid because all the negotiations ended up with was to send that $150Billion to Iran. They didn’t need to spend 3.5 years negotiating. They could have just sent the money. That is pretty much the result of this agreement that was never properly signed and wasn’t a treaty. It was a piece of paper signed by Obama, you know the one with a phone and a pen. It is now gone because Trump had an eraser.

            • “SENT: If Iran already had access to the money it wouldn’t have had to be authorized and sent by our government.” — Allan

              You’re so dim it is painful to respond, but:

              Iran didn’t have access to their frozen assets due to treaties amongst US allies in regards to sanctions. The sanctions were lifted, assets were rejoined.

              You make it sound like the US sent $150B to Iran.

              “Whether you prefer to look at a hazy image of what I stated or not the results are the same . . .” — Allan

              Your image is purposefully hazy, not my look at it.

              For one who mainly argues from a semantic perspective and chides others based on your perceived claims of their inconsistencies you do much worse.

              • My goodness Lien you will prostitute yourself for anything. The Iranians could not lift the sanctions and unfreeze the assets. Someone had to do it for them and press the SEND button. If you want to continue lying on your back wailing, go ahead.

                • “The Iranians could not lift the sanctions and unfreeze the assets.” — Allen

                  I didn’t say that, Allan MF.

                  Nice of you to argue a statement not made, though; keeps everyone on their toes and points out how erroneous your arguments are.

                  Sanctions were lifted by the states that imposed them — got that?

                  As to your send button, well you know where you can send it.

                  • “The Iranians could not lift the sanctions and unfreeze the assets.” — Allen

                    I didn’t say that, Allan MF.”

                    No one said you did. Those were my words to you, but I think you should leave your mother out of this. It’s not nice to include your mother using a four-letter curse word.

                    You have a problem understanding the written language, but then again that is to be expected when the way a person expresses himself using the initials MF.

                    “Sanctions were lifted by the states that imposed them — got that?”

                    That is right and that is how the money got sent to the Iranians.

                    “As to your send button, well you know where you can send it.”

                    To do so all I have to do is send the “send button” in your direction.

                    (Outside of the MF curse words by a child this back and forth use of the words “lifting sanctions” and “sent” almost sound like an Abbot and Costello routine)

        • @Allan May 17, 2018 at 5:23 PM
          “The situation is very clear. Kim is willing to disarm or he isn’t.”

          And if he isn’t willing to, Professor Corey, then what?

          • Then we use the severest of sanctions necessary to get the job done. In essence, he has already attacked us, Japan and Guam when he sent missiles our way and I don’t think the Korean War ever ended. I am not an advocate of war and oppose a lot of US intervention, but I believe that the enemy needs to know one’s strength and determination. Had that been done prior to WW2, WW2 might never have occurred. I think we had a discussion about that once before.

            • “… and I don’t think the Korean War ever ended.” — Allan

              All know it didn’t, it is merely an armistice, a cease-fire. Where have you been?

              You have gotten one thing correct in this semantic overflow thread of yours though:

              “It was a lesson that if you do what the US says you will end up dead.” — Allan

              https://jonathanturley.org/2018/05/11/white-house-aide-and-former-fox-expert-mock-mccain-as-dying-and-a-traitor/comment-page-3/#comment-1738527

              N.K. was a signatory to the NNPT, but withdrew during shrub’s (Bush II) admin.

              Gee, I wonder why?

              • “All know it didn’t, it is merely an armistice, a cease-fire. Where have you been?”

                Lien, your brain is so addled that you don’t recognize a bit of sarcasm. I think even Ken knows the Korean War was an armistice. I wouldn’t have thought you knew it, but sometimes small minds can surprise.

                “You have gotten one thing correct in this semantic overflow thread of yours though: “It was a lesson that if you do what the US says you will end up dead.” — Allan”

                That was the lesson taught by Hillary Clinton or are too near-sighted to have noticed? Maybe you had a brain freeze and pressed send before checking too carefully. There was an explanation at the HTTP you referred us to.

                What you call semantics is not semantics at all. Ken used the loss of an eye as evidence that waterboarding shouldn’t be used, But, the loss of an eye is not part of the waterboarding process. Ken doesn’t focus very well and maybe you don’t either.

                • @Allan May 17, 2018 at 8:53 PM
                  “Ken used the loss of an eye as evidence that waterboarding shouldn’t be used, But, the loss of an eye is not part of the waterboarding process.”

                  No, actually, I didn’t, but I can’t think of any additional way to explain that to you. No, as I said before, torture, of which waterboarding is one form, is grievously immoral, and here’s only one example of why that is, although al-Nashiri may very well have been the victim of other forms of CIA torture, as well:

                  US Navy Doctor on Gina Haspel Torture Victim: ‘One of the Most Severely Traumatized Individuals I Have Ever Seen’
                  By Jeremy Scahill, The Intercept
                  17 May 18

                  “An American doctor and Naval reserve officer who has done extensive medical evaluation of a high-profile prisoner who was tortured under the supervision of Gina Haspel privately urged Sen. Mark Warner, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to oppose Haspel’s confirmation as CIA director, according to an email obtained by The Intercept.

                  “ ‘I have evaluated Mr. Abdal Rahim al-Nashiri, as well as close to 20 other men who were tortured as part of the CIA’s RDI [Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation] program. I am one of the only health professionals he has ever talked to about his torture, its effects, and his ongoing suffering,’

                  “Dr. Sondra Crosby, a professor of public health at Boston University, wrote to Warner’s legislative director on Monday. ‘He is irreversibly damaged by torture that was unusually cruel and designed to break him. In my over 20 years of experience treating torture victims from around the world, including Syria, Iraq, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mr. al-Nashiri presents as one of the most severely traumatized individuals I have ever seen.’ [Emphasis added]

                  “Nashiri was snatched in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates in 2002 and ‘rendered’ to Afghanistan by the CIA and eventually taken to the Cat’s Eye prison in Thailand that was run by Haspel from October to December 2002. He was suspected [Emphasis added] of involvement in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen. He is currently being held at Guantánamo Bay prison.

                  “Despite Crosby’s pleas, Warner and five other Democratic senators have announced their support for Haspel. Warner backed Haspel after she sent him a carefully crafted letter designed to give the impression that she had changed her position on torture while simultaneously continuing to defend its efficacy.

                  “ ‘While I won’t condemn those that made these hard calls, and I have noted the valuable intelligence collected, the program ultimately did damage to our officers and our standing in the world,’ Haspel wrote. “With the benefit of hindsight and my experience as a senior agency leader, the enhanced interrogation program is not one the CIA should have undertaken.”

                  “Haspel stated that she ‘would refuse to undertake any proposed activity that was contrary to my moral and ethical values.’ [Yes, and we know how little avoidance of evil that means.]

                  “But Haspel has refused to renounce torture, her role in its use or to condemn the practice of waterboarding. In fact, under questioning from Sen. Kamala Harris during her confirmation hearing, Haspel explicitly refused to say that the ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ she oversaw at a secret CIA prison in Thailand were immoral. That fact renders her pledge to Warner meaningless. [Emphasis added]

                  “ ‘It took her 16 years and the eve of a vote on her confirmation to get even this modest statement, and again, she didn’t say she had any regrets other than it offended some people,’ said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Intelligence Committee.

                  • “No, actually, I didn’t,”

                    Ken, of course, you did. You brought the eye into the debate hoping to bolster your argument against waterboarding. Post after post we discussed this lost eye and you kept expanding the discussion even asking me how I knew he didn’t lose the eye while being waterboarded.

                    I got the point. You don’t like waterboarding and probably don’t like Guantanamo either. We could always go the way of Obama and simply send a drone out to kill the terrorists. That way we don’t have to deal with water boards and lost eyes.

    • @Allan May 14, 2018 at 8:33 PM
      “If you are up for waterboarding read this.
      :VIDEO: Green Beret Subjects Himself to Waterboarding to Support Trump CIA Nominee Gina Haspel”

      And if you’re up for war with North Korea, read this:

      Trump’s warning to Kim Jong-un: make a deal or suffer same fate as Gaddafi

      “Donald Trump has threatened Kim Jong-un with the same fate as Muammar Gaddafi if the North Korean leader ‘doesn’t make a deal on his nuclear weapons programme.”
      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/17/north-korea-trump-latest-warning-kim-jong-un-gaddafi

      Threatening Kim with the same fate as Gaddafi, in view of Gaddafi’s grisly death after having given up his nuclear program seems like a rather counter-productive tactic to induce Kim to give up his, but
      Kim’s one of those inscrutable Orientals, so maybe it will work with him.

      • @Ken Rogers May 17, 2018 at 5:12 PM
        I posted this comment because I didn’t see my one at 2:19 PM above, which showed up after I’d posted this one at 5:12 PM.

        It makes for a good update, however, as Trump seems to endorse what Bolton said on Sunday about the “Libya Model.”

      • “Trump’s warning to Kim Jong-un: make a deal or suffer same fate as Gaddafi”

        Actually, if you knew history and understood world politics you would immediately recognize how awful Hillary’s decision was to become involved in Lybia which led to Gaddafi’s murder. It was a lesson that if you do what the US says you will end up dead. Hillary took foreign policy back a decade or so. To Obama’s credit, my understanding is he initially didn’t agree with Hillary but eventually to his discredit he did what she advised.

        • I should have explained to you that “the same fate as Muammar Gaddafi ” means one ends up dead. It has little to do with Hillary’s stupid policy. Actually, I believe Kim will end up dead if no deal is made. I am not saying that the US will kill him, rather there will be a whole bunch of people including those surrounding him that might kill him as the N. Korean economy is strangled.

          • @Allan May 17, 2018 at 5:49 PM
            “Actually, if you knew history and understood world politics you would immediately recognize how awful Hillary’s decision was to become involved in Lybia [sic] which led to Gaddafi’s murder. It was a lesson that if you do what the US says you will end up dead.”

            “I should have explained to you that ‘the same fate as Muammar Gaddafi ‘ means one ends up dead.”

            Thanks for the explanation, Professor, but if Gaddafi’s death was “a lesson that if you do what the US says[,] you will end up dead.”, and Kim knows what happened to Gaddafi, then why would Kim want to “do what the US says” and disarm?

            Thanks for being patient with me as a somewhat inexperienced negotiator.

            • I explained that was a horrendous mistake of Hillary Clinton. You don’t kill those that are doing what you tell them to do. I also explained that “the same fate as Muammar Gaddafi ” means one ends up dead and not tying that into what he should or should not do. I believe if the deal is not made Kim will end up dead (see earlier posting) unless with time another Hillary Clinton comes to power and screws up foreign policy, royally. If a deal is made IMO Trump will provide benefits for Kim and try to keep him alive.

        • @Paul C Schulte May 17, 2018 at 9:59 PM
          “Ken Rogers – I find this post racist. You owe every Asian an apology.”

          That’s funny, you don’t look Asian, but if every Asian does end up demanding an apology, I’ll consider it.

          • Ken Rogers – my wife is Asian and she demands an apology. And I demand one on her behalf, as well.

  5. @Allan May 13, 2018 at 4:24 PM
    Allan, you’re wearing me out from having to explain so many things to you.

    I didn’t explicitly address the question of what I might or might not think brought down the Towers and Building 7, let alone offer any “proofs” of anything.

    What I did address was the fact that an Israeli van had, on 9/11, a painting of a plane crashing into one of the Towers, rather strongly suggesting foreknowledge of the attack. Or do you think the attack and the existence of the painting on the same day was just an amazing coincidence?

    I also called attention to the fact that one of the five celebrating Israelis who were arrested shortly after the Towers fell stated on TV that he and his fellow Israelis were there to “document the event.” Does this not also suggest prior knowledge of the attack?

    Did you watch the short documentary on the author of the 9/11 Commission Report, Philip Zelikow? If so, did you gain any insight? If not, why not? I should think you’d want to know as much as possible about the work of the man who conned you, er, I mean, created the 9/11 conspiracy theory to which you subscribe.

    • “Allan, you’re wearing me out from having to explain so many things to you.”

      Ken, perhaps you should read what you write. Conflicting data, irrational conspiracy theory and a lot of trite things. You come across loud and clear so no explanation is needed. You have provided an insight into you and not into anything else.

      “What I did address was the fact that an Israeli van had, on 9/11, a painting of a plane crashing into one of the Towers”

      You didn’t explain anything. What you did was post irrational conspiracy theories from sites. You didn’t bother to summarize your points. How do you know the painting of the plane was crashing into one of the towers? The answer is you don’t. Either someone told you that or your confirmation bias (perhaps a bit of anti-semitism) made you believe it was a plane crashing into one of the towers rather than somewhere else if that is what the picture displayed.

      Where is the picture?

      The not so much a coincidence is that you quote a lot of anti-Israeli literature so suddenly you don’t need evidence, only the assumption of guilt. What makes that picture a plane hitting the tower? Not only that, but it conflicts with your other evidence that stated it wasn’t a plane rather controlled demolition. What do you do, repeat anything that sticks to your shoe?

      If you go to anti-Israeli sites and irrational conspiracy theory sites you will find all the things you want to agree with your biases.

      ” Does this not also suggest prior knowledge of the attack?”

      What would suggest prior knowledge is evidence and an arrest along with a guilty verdict. What happened to those kids? You don’t have the slightest idea nor do you care. All you care about is if some nut publishes something on his website that agrees with your preconceived notions of what is happening in the world.

      • @Allan May 13, 2018 at 9:32 PM
        Allan, I’m sorry, but unless you can demonstrate considerably more ability to participate logically in a discussion, I don’t see any point in trying to interact with you here. Here’s a free book that you’ll no doubt benefit from studying, if you will:

        Fundamental Methods of Logic
        by Matthew Knachel
        Publisher: University of Wisconsin Milwaukee 2017
        ISBN-13: 9780996150224
        Number of pages: 249
        Description:
        Suitable for a one-semester introduction to logic/critical reasoning course. It covers a variety of topics at an introductory level. It introduces basic notions, such as arguments and explanations, validity and soundness, deductive and inductive reasoning, etc.
        http://www.e-booksdirectory.com/details.php?ebook=11482

        • “I don’t see any point in trying to interact with you here. Here’s a free book that you’ll no doubt benefit from studying, if you will:”

          It appears that you do not have the ability to debate so you refer people to a library of sources. I suggest that you don’t interact with me because I am not anxious to have a back and forth with one that only delves into the lunatic world of conspiracy especially when that conspiracy involves a specific religion or country. So, take your own advice and read your own book while having someone help you interpret it so you can actually know what the book said. I, however, will continue to comment on your vivid imagination that matches your confirmation bias whenever I desire.

          Goodbye.

          P.S. I am waiting for the picture that you so vividly described and never saw.

          • @Allan May 13, 2018 at 11:01 PM

            “It appears that you do not have the ability to debate so you refer people to a library of sources.”
            I didn’t refer “people to a library of sources,” I referred you to a book on logic.

            “I suggest that you don’t interact with me because I am not anxious to have a back and forth with one that only delves into the lunatic world of conspiracy especially when that conspiracy involves a specific religion or country.”
            Are you thinking here of the 9/11 Commission Report and its “lunatic world of conspiracy” involving Muslims?

            “So, take your own advice and read your own book while having someone help you interpret it so you can actually know what the book said.”
            I majored in philosophy as an undergraduate (receiving an “A” in logic) so I already have several books on the subject in my personal library.

            “I, however, will continue to comment on your vivid imagination that matches your confirmation bias whenever I desire.”
            Feel free.

            “Goodbye.”
            See you.

            “P.S. I am waiting for the picture that you so vividly described and never saw.”
            If you’re referring to the Israeli van with the painting of a plane crashing into one of the Twin Towers, I sent a link to you previously, but here it is again:
            https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Israeli+van+with+9%2f11+painting&view=detail&mid=D3F1A82A8F97022EC7DFD3F1A82A8F97022EC7DF&FORM=VIRE

            • Ken Rogers wrote: “I majored in philosophy as an undergraduate (receiving an “A” in logic)”

              I suggest that you sue and get your tuition money refunded.

            • Ken Rogers – so, no one has the alleged van and the suspects were never arrested and tried. Hmmmmmmmmmmm

              • @Paul C Schulte May 14, 2018 at 12:17 AM
                “Ken Rogers – so, no one has the alleged van and the suspects were never arrested and tried. “Hmmmmmmmmmmm”

                The terrorism suspects were indeed arrested and held for 71 days, in separate confinement, for interrogation. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your position regarding torture, these terrorism suspects were not waterboarded.

                Here are additional details regarding both the “alleged” van and the terrorism suspects:

                “A white, 2000 Chevrolet van with ‘Urban Moving Systems’ sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals.

                “At 3:56 p.m., twenty-five minutes after the issuance of the FBI BOLO, officers with the East Rutherford Police Department stopped the commercial moving van through a trace on the plates. According to the police report, Officer Scott DeCarlo and Sgt. Dennis Rivelli approached the stopped van, demanding that the driver exit the vehicle.

                “The driver, 23-year-old Sivan Kurzberg, refused and ‘was asked several more times [but] appeared to be fumbling with a black leather fanny pouch type of bag’. With guns drawn, the police then ‘physically removed’ Kurzberg, while four other men – two more men had apparently joined the group since the morning – were also removed from the van, handcuffed, placed on the grass median and read their Miranda rights.

                “They had not been told the reasons for their arrest. Yet, according to DeCarlo’s report, ‘this officer was told without question by the driver [Sivan Kurzberg],’We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.’

                “Another of the five Israelis, again without prompting, told Officer DeCarlo – falsely – that ‘we were on the West Side Highway in New York City during the incident.’ From inside the vehicle the officers, who were quickly joined by agents from the FBI, retrieved multiple passports and $4,700 in cash stuffed in a sock.

                “According to New Jersey’s Bergen Record, which on September 12 reported the arrest of the five Israelis, an investigator high up in the Bergen County law enforcement hierarchy stated that officers had also discovered in the vehicle ‘maps of the city with certain places highlighted. It looked like they’re hooked in with this,’ the source told the Record, referring to the 9/11 attacks. ‘It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park.’ [Emphasis added]

                “The five men were indeed Israeli citizens. They claimed to be in the country working as movers for Urban Moving Systems Inc., which maintained a warehouse and office in Weehawken, New Jersey. They were held for 71 days in a federal detention center in Brooklyn, New York, during which time they were repeatedly interrogated by FBI and CIA counterterrorism teams, who referred to the men as the ‘high-fivers’ for their celebratory behavior on the New Jersey waterfront.

                Some were placed in solitary confinement for at least forty days; some were given as many as seven lie detector tests. One of the Israelis, Paul Kurzberg, brother of Sivan, refused to take a lie-detector test for ten weeks. Then he failed it. [Emphasis added]

                “Meanwhile, two days after the men were picked up, the owner of Urban Moving Systems, Dominik Suter, a 31- year-old Israeli national, abandoned his business and fled the United States for Israel. Suter’s departure was abrupt, leaving behind coffee cups, sandwiches, cell phones and computers strewn on office tables and thousands of dollars of goods in storage.

                “Suter was later placed on the same FBI suspect list as 9/11 lead hijacker Mohammed Atta and other hijackers and suspected al Qaeda sympathizers, suggesting that U.S. authorities felt Suter may have known something about the attacks. The suspicion, as the investigation unfolded, was that the men working for Urban Moving Systems were spies. Who exactly was handling them, and who or what they were targeting, was as yet uncertain. [Emphasis added]

                “It was New York’s venerable Jewish weekly, The Forward that broke this story in the spring of 2002, after months of footwork. The Forward reported that the FBI had finally concluded that at least two of the men were agents working for the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, and that Urban Moving Systems, the ostensible employer of the five Israelis, was a front operation. Two former CIA officers confirmed this to me, noting that movers’ vans are a common intelligence cover.

                The Forward also noted that the Israeli government itself admitted that the men were spies. A ‘former high-ranking American intelligence official”, who said he was ‘regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials,’ told reporter Marc Perelman that after American authorities confronted Jerusalem at the end of 2001, the Israeli government ‘acknowledged the operation and apologized for not coordinating it with Washington.’ Today, Perelman stands by his reporting. I asked him if his sources in the Mossad denied the story. ‘Nobody stopped talking to me,’ he said. [Emphasis added]

                “In June 2002, ABC News’ 20/20 followed up with its own investigation into the matter, coming to the same conclusion as The Forward. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA, told 20/20 that some of the names of the five men appeared as hits in searches of an FBI national intelligence database.

                “Cannistraro told me that the question that most troubled FBI agents in the weeks and months after 9/11 was whether the Israelis had arrived at the site of their ‘celebration’ with foreknowledge of the attack to come. From the beginning, ‘the FBI investigation operated on the premise that the Israelis had foreknowledge,’ according to Cannistraro.

                “A second former CIA counterterrorism officer who closely followed the case, but who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me that investigators were pursuing two theories. ‘One story was that [the Israelis] appeared at Liberty State Park very quickly after the first plane hit. The other was that they were at the park location already.’ Either way, investigators wanted to know exactly what the men were expecting when they got there.

                “Before such issues had been fully explored, however, the investigation was shut down. Following what ABC News reported were ‘high-level negotiations between Israeli and U.S. government officials,’ a settlement was reached in the case of the five Urban Moving Systems suspects.

                “Intense political pressure apparently had been brought to bear. The reputable Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported that by the last week of October 2001, some six weeks after the men had been detained, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified ‘prominent New York congressmen’ were lobbying heavily for their release.

                “According to a source at ABC News close to the 20/20 report, high-profile criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also stepped in as a negotiator on behalf of the men to smooth out differences with the U.S. government. (Dershowitz declined to comment for this article.)

                “And so, at the end of November 2001, for reasons that only noted they had been working in the country illegally as movers, in violation of their visas, the men were flown home to Israel.”
                http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/israeli_spies_911.html

                  • @Paul C Schulte May 14, 2018 at 10:47 AM
                    “Ken Rogers – so we agree they are Mossad spies and not terrorists?”

                    I can certainly agree to their being spies, as the Israeli government itself finally admitted it, but there is additional evidence that suggests that they are also terrorists.

                    The van in which the five Israelis were traveling when arrested reportedly tested positive for residue of explosives, another white van blew up after it was stopped by authorities and its occupants fled, according to police radio traffic on 9/11, and a third (?) van “loaded with explosives” was stopped at a roadblock in front of the George Washington Bridge, and its occupants arrested.

                    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Israeli+vans+with+explosives+on+9%2f11&view=detail&mid=01A226CE11D3D0F0965901A226CE11D3D0F09659&FORM=VIRE

                    The police officer who said the stopped van “exploded” can be heard at the 5:50 mark:

                    https://www.metabunk.org/needs-debunking-nypd-transmission-9-11-exploding-mural-van.t3926/

                    • I have already looked through a lot of the data you urged us to read. A fiction writer took isolated facts and out of context changed their meaning by explaining what happened in his own warped mind. It was BS and many of the things said were proven wrong.

                      You say: “I can certainly agree to their being spies, as the Israeli government itself finally admitted it”

                      Quote what the Israeli government said. I think most of us that deal with data already recognize that unreliable tertiary sources are generally where you get your information from and those sources are almost always wrong.

                    • Ken Rogers – there is no evidence they were terrorists. The other vans were not connected to the “dancing Israeli” and one of them was supposed to be in front of the Twin Towers which was never found.

                    • Paul, Ken is hopeless and his mind affected by bias.

                      In the case of the Dancing Israeli’s that were not involved in any terrorism, Ken links things together that don’t exist in the same space and time to make the Israeli’s guilty when they were innocent.

                      However, when it comes to a known terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, Ken finds him innocent of all charges.

                      There is something wrong with Ken.

    • Ken Rogers – do you have a specific cite for the Israelis and their arrest? If so, please post it, including the TV interview.

        • Ken Rogers – they were never arrested for terrorism. And the comment “We were there to document the event” would include all news organizations in the area who sent out crews. It is fairly innocuous. I am sure there were thousands who were documenting the event.

          • Careful Paul, Ken Rogers says he got an A in logic. That makes him dangerous because the A makes him think he knows what he is talking about when he doesn’t. It’s like getting into a gunfight without realizing there are no bullets in the gun. Based on what I have read of his writings he wasted a lot of money and time on his education.

            That he has to brag about an A to show how smart he is instead of relying on his own words diminishes his academic standing.

          • @Paul C Schulte May 14, 2018 at 12:01 AM
            “Ken Rogers – they were never arrested for terrorism. And the comment “We were there to document the event” would include all news organizations in the area who sent out crews. It is fairly innocuous. I am sure there were thousands who were documenting the event.”
            https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-dancing-israelis/

            Wouldn’t it be a bit more accurate to say that they weren’t convicted of terrorism? They weren’t arrested and held for over two months for jaywalking.

            There weren’t “thousands” in the process of documenting the event at 8:00 AM. See the video below.

            This video has additional information about the five and their employer at Urban Moving, who abruptly returned to Israel very shortly after 9/11:

            https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-dancing-israelis/

            • Ken Rogers – if I remember correctly the van was there at 8, but the ‘dancing Israelis’ were not on top of the van. They were held, probably illegally for two months and released. I think you are reading too much into it.

              • Paul, Ken Rogers will link any Israeli to some conspiracy. That is his nature. A lot of people were arrested without proper working papers which appears to be the case with the “Dancing” Israelis. The polygraph administered did have a problem initially. Apparently, he was asked questions about the Israeli military, which as good soldiers do, he refused to answer. A second polygraph was apparently an improvement.

                They like more than a thousand others that were non-Israeli were arrested for working without proper working papers. That had nothing to do with 9/11, but a lot to do with our security forces playing catch up.

                Ken Rogers says: “Wouldn’t it be a bit more accurate to say that they weren’t convicted of terrorism? They weren’t arrested and held for over two months for jaywalking.

                It wasn’t jaywalking rather working without proper papers. This is Ken trying to twist facts because of his preconceived biases. The article he references actually provides much of the real data, but the writer for the site has a twisted mind and makes up all sorts of scenarios that are wrong and Ken adopted.

                “Charged with working without proper papers, some have been kept in detention by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for nearly a month.”

                • Allan – some people fail polygraphs when they are perfectly innocent, that is why they are not allowed in court. I, for one, cannot take polygraph tests because I automatically fail them. I am ADD and the polygraph requires that you stay focused on the one question, however, I can never do that. My mind will wander to a thousand places before the next question which screws up the test. 😉

                  • True, Paul, polygraphs are not admissible in court but what happens when the examiner asks for military information and that information isn’t released properly? One will fail the polygraph on that one issue but those things having to do with 9/11 were likely registered as truthful answers.

                    Were they Mossad? I doubt it. I think their story was truthful. We have somewhere between 10 and 20 million illegals many of which are working in the nation without appropriate papers. Ken likes to focus on Israelis combining fact with fiction while he forgets about the real terrorists and permits them to kill people in the US and all over the world.

              • Paul, Ken writes below: “The terrorism suspects were indeed arrested and held for 71 days, in separate confinement, for interrogation. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your position regarding torture, these terrorism suspects were not waterboarded.”

                He is twisting logic. No one desires enhanced interrogation techniques to be used at all times, only for those known leaders that had the vital information necessary for US security interests and the lives of US citizens. The Trade Center attack already ended with ~3,000 dead. The fact that they were working in the US without “proper working papers” didn’t meet the required need for waterboarding. Some people don’t have the intellectual capacity to differentiate between high information terrorists and normal people so they should be kept out of the decision-making process. Some people are also subject to hysteria which might be true in Ken’s case so just keep him away from anything important.

      • Paul, one can find anything they want on the net and Ken Rogers finds exactly what he wants. Here is one answer to the dancing Israeli’s. It is as much evidence as Ken Rogers has provided (Zero) in many replies and makes a lot more sense.

        “There were no “dancing Israelis” on 9/11. That’s just one of dozens of 9/11 related conspiracy myths that don’t go away because the facts of 9/11 just aren’t useful for some people while the 9/11 conspiracy myths are useful.

        This one, of course, is useful for antisemites.

        What happened is: while the twin towers were burning, a woman noticed 5 middle eastern men videoing the burning towers. Actually hundreds, perhaps thousands of people were at the time but what was suspicious about these men were they looked middle eastern. She called the police. They came, they investigated the individual and weeks later they were released as having no connection to terrorists or terrorism.

        This event is useful for antisemites because they were Israeli.

        They were never “dancing”. Think about it, if they were part of the plot, why bring attention to themselves? It makes no sense, but, 9/11 conspiracy myths “

  6. The only part of of your comments in your post that struck my nerve is your opposing Haspel’s nomination on the basis of your opposition to waterboarding.

    The time was post 9/11. Over 3,000 Americans and others were killed in the terrorist attacks. There was substantial concern that more would be coming.

    There was the highest sense of urgency and even desperation to want to stop them.

    The OCL then opined that waterboarding wasn’t torture.

    Haspel followed orders, did her job and acted lawfully for a righteous concern.

    Others higher up in the CIA than her at the material time have been confirmed by the Senate for executive positions. I’m thinking specifically of John Brennan. To be consistent you’d have to have opposed his confirmation. I assume you did.

    Haspel just said at the hearing that she doesn’t favor waterboarding now and notes that it’s illegal.

    It strikes me as sligtly exquisite and slightly precious to oppose Haspel’s nomination given the circumstances and the state of the law of just under 17 years ago.

    • on the contrary. any fool knows waterboarding is torture. it doesnt matter what stupid self serving memos were out there covering them.

      torture harms american strategic interests and it is illegal. illegal actions should not be rewarded with promotions.

      gina also destroyed evidence.

      some people might consider her perfect for promotion to CIA, notorious for its institutional deceptiveness.

      • any fool knows waterboarding is torture. i

        Waterboarding is not torture. And you’re not in a position to call others fools.

        • @Insufferable May 15, 2018 at 3:09 PM
          ” ‘any fool knows waterboarding is torture.’

          “Waterboarding is not torture. And you’re not in a position to call others fools.”

          I don’t what’s more remarkable, Insufferable, your callousness or your ignorance:

          “Is Waterboarding Torture?

          “Before deciding whether to call waterboarding ‘torture,’ it’s worth considering what the legal definition of ‘torture’ is. It is not necessary to create a new legal definition since there are already numerous formally ratified definitions already in place:

          “Part 1, Article 1 and the US Reservations of the UN Convention Against Torture:
          The term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

          “The US Reservations for the UN Convention Against Torture: In order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

          “Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

          “Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention: torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health

          “Article 7(2)(e) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

          “Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.

          “18 United States Code Title 18, §2340(2)
          ‘torture’ means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control
          (2)’severe mental pain or suffering’ means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
          (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
          (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; [as in “learned helplessness”]
          (C) the threat of imminent death; or
          (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
          [Emphasis added]

          “92 tapes were destroyed by the CIA in November 2005 after a report by Inspector General John L. Helgerson’s office determined that they depicted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as defined by the international Convention Against Torture.”

          http://www.waterboarding.org/torture_definition

  7. Sen. John McCain gets chased off Navajo Nation!

    There were Navajo, Hopi & Apache Indians waiting for John. But Sen. McCain slipped out the back door. They chased John all the way to the airport.

    • His real home was the Navy, then Washington. Not sure why Arizona voters ever accepted him. That he did not retire in 2010 is indicative of pathology.

    • @TJ May 12, 2018 at 3:55 PM

      “There were Navajo, Hopi & Apache Indians waiting for John. But Sen. McCain slipped out the back door. T”hey chased John all the way to the airport. ”

      What did they want to talk with him about? 🙂

  8. These insults directed at McCain distract dilute from history of corrupt governance, including as the most reprehensible of the Keating Five — something for which he was never suitably punished or otherwise held to account. If McCain was not viciously opposed to Trump the media would, of course, not be celebrating his heroism, nor would the men and women who lost everything as a result of him being in bed (in the tropics) with a savings and loan crook.

    • he most reprehensible of the Keating Five —

      I think you’ve confused him with Dennis DeConcini.

  9. “…@kellysadler45 May I remind you my husband has a family, 7 children and 5 grandchildren.”

    Trump also has a family, etc. And so does Melania, but that doesn’t stop the vile attacks on them.

    • Good point.

      One of our regulars here has now extended the attack to Trump’s father, his uncle, his brothers, and his paternal-side cousins.

    • It certainly demonstrates a vile hypocrisy among those on the left. Even relatives and the dead have been reviled by all too many on this blog.

      Good comment.

    • Exactly right. Being an elected public official who happens to be dying of brain cancer does not give you a pass from being criticized by any sane, rational, thinking person. Trump’s family takes a daily beating, why should McCain get a pass?

      The off-handed comment was leaked from a private meeting and yet over on MSNBC the talking heads were actually discussing why this staffer hasn’t been fired yet by the WH? Please.

  10. The comment by the staffer was insensitive but so much of the outrage is manufactured for effect. Sadler’s comments in a private meeting are different from a public attack on McCain’s character.

    The real question is why is John McCain still serving in the Senate? It is clear he cannot physically discharge his duties. What is it that drives these people to cling to their hold on power with litterally their dying breaths?

    Byrd, Kennedy, Thurmond, and now McCain. At some time the needs of their state should take precedence over their ego.

    • ti317:
      “At some time the needs of their state should take precedence.”
      **************
      Well, you’d think so. But you’ve made a bad assumption. The reasoning flaw is that they perceive the fulfillment of their egos as the driving purpose of the state. Don’t worry about it. It’s a common mistake among the emotionally stable.

      • There is a long standing tradition of incapacitated Congresspeople serving out their term. There is no need for a special election. I always thought that it was a traditional way to honor an ill or injured Senator or Representative. That’s why Gabbie Giffords kept her seat, even though she was gravely injured in an assassination attempt less than a month into her term. She had to relearn how to speak, write, and walk. Her seat was held for her, and she got a standing ovation when she returned. When someone does not recover, then they are honored with a funeral attended by their fellow colleagues.

        http://congressionalresearch.com/RS22556/document.php?study=Incapacity+of+a+Member+of+the+Senate

        “Under the general practice in the Senate (as well as in the House), a personal
        “incapacity” of a sitting Member has not generated proceedings to declare the seat
        vacant, and sitting Members of the Senate (and the House) who have become
        incapacitated, and who have not resigned, have generally served out their terms of
        office.”

        • Giffords was not a terminal patient.

          The question at hand is not whether the seat can or should be declared vacant, but why he has not vacated it.

  11. I don’t condone kicking a man when he’s down like I don’t condone taking shots at people from a sick bed. McCain was a spoiled brat who received special treatment as the son and grandson of admirals. By his own admission, he was both a bully and, at times, scurrilous with women. A victim of Small Man’s Disease, he once told a fellow officer that he hoped to be stationed in Rio rather than the Mideast as he had a better chance of “getting laid.” He made that statement as a husband and three times over father. That said, he fought for his country, endured capture and served as a Senator carefully crafting a well-publicized persona as a maverick to hide his self conceit. His lying during the Keating Five corruption scandal should have ruined him but, as throughout his life, “he got by with a little help from his friends.” He gets a pass for a lot but that makes him neither hero nor role model. His brain cancer is a sad if common malady and one would be foolish to insist it doesn’t affect his judgment and demeanor.

    Sorry for the lack of reverence and sympathy that JT seems required here. I plead guilty to being no respecter of persons. I’ve seen too many (including this one) in action.

    • Mespo:

      What bothered me about McCain was that when he returned to the US after his time as a POW, he discovered his wife, Carole, had been in a terrible car accident. Surgeons had to remove inches off of her legs in order to keep from amputating them completely. Her pelvis was crushed, and she’d been in the hospital for a long time. It was my understanding that they were both in physical rehab at the same time, even though her accident was 3 years ago. She was that injured. She still walks with a limp. He immediately began cheating on her, and later married a young, beautiful, wealthy girl. He was not loyal. When she was broken, he got a replacement and discarded her. This is a failing many men have, especially powerful ones. A wife should be able to trust her man through thick and thin. Loyalty and trust are part of honor.

    • George:
      Ever seen a lawyer profit more from representing a hooker or display more glee at attacking the person responsible for preserving all of our lives and fortunes? In a sane society, he’d be held up as an example of how lawyers shouldn’t behave. In our “last days of the empire” one, he’s celebrated by many. My favorite line about this phenomena is from Paul’s letter stating his observations of the Romans during their corrupt terminus. In pertinent part it reads;
      “ Professing to be wise, they became fools
      (…)
      And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.“

      You can substitute “ethics” for “God” if it fancies you but it reads just as well. Keen observer of society, that Saul of Tarsus.

    • This im-poster is engaged in identity theft.

      For the record, George did not post this “Hollywood” comment.

      • If McShame can’t stand the heat, McShame should get out of the kitchen.

        If McShame can’t take the criticism, McShame should not dish it out.

        McShame is not a respectable maverick, McShame is a fraud; a false construct.

        McShame – there is no there there.

  12. “We are LOST not just our collective demeanor but our decency as a nation in these divisive political times.”

    Fixed that for you. Past tense. We lost our collective demeanor and decency long ago.

    Electing Bill Clinton twice showed that. Electing Obama twice solidified that. Hillary as presidential candidate reminded us our nation has no soul. Trump as president is a reflection of our pathology.

    Likewise with JT writing bait/click pieces, e.g. Michael Avenatti and his despicable client

    church, charity, politics are all local. What transpires hundreds to thousands of miles from our locale, all are unhelpful to be following since we can not influence. Better to focus on our immediate milieu, with each of us contributing therein…a much better ROI

    JT, please stop with your sensational, web traffic driven blog and write about things more edifying. you are part of the problem with this blog

    the thing speaks for itself

    caveat emptor

  13. McCain, is a man of integrity.
    Wish, the same description, could be given for the present occupant, of the White House.

    • Guinness – even McCain admits he was not a man of integrity. Now, if he wants to spend his last days and months trashing those around him, so be it. However, if you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

    • McCain, is a man of integrity.

      McCain is an odd jumble of agreeable and disagreeable features. Politicians are seldom square shooters. See Jonah Goldberg on his contacts with members of Congress. House members are like the salesmen in Glengarry Glen Ross and Senators are like Stepford Wives.

  14. I fully concur with Mr. Hanna! McCain’s moral degeneracy is genetic. His traitorous father sold out the dead and maimed of the U.S.S. Liberty*. This McCain sold out the POWs and MIAs in Vietnam! His verbal abuse as a Senate hearing of the families of those he sold out was deserving of nothing less than a flogging of 39 stripes! His carcass should be left in the desert for the buzzards and scorpions. Even they may turn up their “noses” in disgust!
    *Just following orders from his Commander-in-Chief, another POS

  15. The professor professes, among other things, “His wife issued a statement that was short and lethal …”
    Cindy McCain
    @cindymccain

    @kellysadler45 May I remind you my husband has a family, 7 children and 5 grandchildren.

    According to the professor, Mrs. McCain’s words possess the power to cause death, which is the meaning of lethal.

    May I suggest that the professor, and any others of a similar mind set, read ( re-read ) the Nuremberg Principles, including the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.

    Mr. McCain was and is a war criminal who has committed countless war crimes, Vietnam, Iraq and Libya, to name only a few. He has advocated for the commission of numerous war crimes including, but not limited to, the bombing of Iran and North Korea.

    The idea, the thought and the mind set that the mere statement of a man’s sexual act(s) resulting in the production of offspring is a lethal comment to substantive and factual comments, although harsh and direct, is absurd.

    Unless, of course, one holds and acts on the idea and ideal that that there are the “Chosen Few!”
    Mr. McCain, the professor and “… most Americans ( again the professor ) consider “Sen. John McCain as a genuine American hero and icon…”

    The professor has mentioned he has children that he is raising in the Catholic and Jewish “moral traditions.”

    The professor also earns his daily bread teaching Constitional law.

    Thus, the question arises: How can such a human being as the professor write the words he did, and does, and hold the values he claims regarding John McCain?

    Is it perhaps, as a member of the oligarchy, the professor is an accomplice before and after the fact to murder, mass murder and wars of aggression?

    dennis hanna

  16. Demented comments about McCain. Absolutely beyond the pale of the bare minimum of human decency. I am so sorry for what his family is going through, compounded by vicious comments in public.

    I certainly agree that water boarding is a form of torture, albeit it is not supposed to cause physical damage. It sounds frightening. As an asthmatic, I’d probably just drown.

    I would say whole heartedly that the US should never engage in torture. People will say anything to make it stop. We must not succumb to the depravity of the Dark Ages. That said, imagine if anyone told me that there was impending nuclear doom unless we could stop it in the next 48 hours, millions of men, women, and children were going to die, and the man who knew how to prevent it would only give us his name, rank, and serial number. I think I would ignore my conscience and do anything and everything to save those people’s lives, as it would probably include my own family’s lives. I would pay dearly for that later.

    It is so easy to say it is immoral to engage in any sort of physical torture or pressure to interrogate anyone. However, what if we were all going to die and he absolutely would not talk, couldn’t wait to become a martyr, in fact? Those are the times that both test our character, and form the basis of those horrid philosophy questions in college. I would absolutely save my child’s life over keeping my integrity intact. For me, the stakes would have to be extremely high. I do not know what was going through the minds of those who ran that program. Perhaps, to them, the stakes were that high.

    I know that sounds callous. But I had that small voice saying, you know, there might actually be circumstances where many of us would sacrifice our ethics. Everyone has their key.

      • Explain how what either person said was ‘demented’. What Sadler said shouldn’t even be controversial. It’s cold, but true, and was said in private conversation.

        • Exactly. The WH aide/staffer who leaked this story to the media is the one who should be identified and fired.

    • The flaw here is that you assume that torture is effective. All torture does is extract whatever it is the torturer wants to hear; rarely is any of it ever true or beneficial.

      • “You’re not going to recall all the details, but you’re saying that there was most certainly useful and even actionable intelligence produced after the enhanced interrogation techniques were employed?

        Absolutely.

        No question?

        No question. And it’s not just me saying it. Subsequent investigations by the CIA inspector general and other independent bodies confirmed that there was valuable, actionable intelligence derived first from Abu Zubaydah and later by other high-value detainees that were subjected to the enhanced techniques. I don’t think there’s any dispute about that.”

        https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/john-rizzo-cias-enhanced-interrogation-necessary-and-effective/

        There is a difference between torture for cruelty’s sake and enhanced interrogation which was only used under the direst of circumstances (reportedly 3X leading to the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden). Placing a person in jail into solitary confinement can also be considered torture.

        We have waterboarded our own troops with their permission. We train people to be able to kill terrorists or those that harm innocent people. Waterboarding doesn’t kill and doesn’t maim. Terrorists that blow up buildings are the threat not enhanced interrogation that is infrequently used under very controlled circumstances.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s