Thursday, October 12, 2006

Who killed WSJ reporter Daniel Pearl?

Remember him? He was the Wall Street Journal reporter who was kidnapped and executed by extremists back in 2002 and the video of his beheading was all over the Internet? Well, our government has now indicated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was his murderer and will be tried sometime next year for it. That sounds all well and good, because most Americans want to see some of these guys on trial, but as I was reading the above linked article, I wondered if we still have the wrong guy and it has left me confused. I wonder if the Bush Regime, who has proven to us over and over that they're incompetent and will resort to anything to create the illusion that they are on top of things, has again used unjustifiable means to get what they want.

First, here's what the Time reporter wrote:

One former U.S. national security official tells TIME there is no doubt that KSM personally wielded the knife that killed the Wall Street Journal reporter. This official says that Ahmad Omar Saed Sheik insisted under interrogation that taking Pearl's life was not at first part of the kidnap plot — though Sheik also told his questioners that Pearl's kidnappers could never have released him because he was Jewish. But as the scheme unfolded, someone senior to him in the al-Qaeda hierarchy, known as "the fat man," took control of the operation and beheade Pearl.


And then this:

Sheik never identified KSM as the actual killer, however. The FBI deduced KSM's role only after analyzing a video of the crime, in which only the perpetrator's hands are visible. That video was released by Islamic militants soon after Pearl's murder and then widely shown on Arab television and the Internet. Eventually, the FBI obtained its own version of the original video, as well as the camera used to photograph the murder.


Now, I don't like the idea of torturing anyone to get information out of a suspect, because the information obtained under this circumstance is almost always not usable, because the person being interrogated will admit to things that are not true just to stop the torture. According to the Bush Regime, KSM was waterboarded for 2 minutes (a huge amount of time and a length of time that our soldiers have a hard time reaching when the same technique is used in training!) and then gave our government "valuable information". (It's also been reported that KSM and others of his stature have been tortured so badly that they are not to be seen by the American public because of the backlash.) The FBI has also stated that the beheading video of Daniel Pearl offered a look at the killer's hands and it was this that connected KSM to Pearl's beheading. So....

Here's where I'm confused and pissed off about:

Once KSM was taken into custody in March 2003, a comparison of the hands shown in the video and KSM's own hands, along with other evidence, confirmed the FBI's suspicions. Then, under interrogation, KSM confessed, national security officials told TIME, admitting without remorse that he personally severed Pearl's head and telling interrogators he had to switch knives after the first one "got dull."


You mean to tell me that they looked at KSM's hands on the video, then in person, had other information connecting him, determined he was the guy who beheaded Danny Pearl and then proceeded to torture him to get a confession out him?????? Why the hell did they need to torture him when the video of the hands is clear to the FBI that KSM's hands are doing the beheading? I don't get that and I don't like that either!!

KSM is 'obviously' the guy who did this murder because his hands are in the video holding the knife, but what if....what if!...that isn't a true statement and our government actually tortured this man to get him to confess to a crime he didn't commit or what if he is the killer but was just tortured for fun at the hands of our government? Oh God. I don't know. Also, if he's the alleged mastermind of 9/11, why wasn't he interrogated for a confession since our government feels torturing is so effective? Again, I don't know!!! LOL

I'm tired of all of this. I want my mommy.

3 Comments:

Blogger Larry said...

Isn't that all Bush has done, torture someone until they say whatever the abuser wants to hear.

Many military experts, including Bush's lapdog McCain say torture doesn't work for that reason.

Thursday, 12 October, 2006  
Blogger WORFEUS THE SEER said...

I don't know, but if you look at the picture, those were some really nice new black hoods. In fact, they had an almost "factory made" look to them.

And those Al Quaida guys looked pretty muscular for a bunch of terrorists.

Thursday, 12 October, 2006  
Blogger KayInMaine said...

Makes you wonder how Bush would answer this question, "Sir, does it make sense if your intelligence agencies have enough physical evidence against a terrorist to convict him or her on...to THEN torture the person anyways? Huh?"?

I bet Bush would say, "Uh...er...yes, everything I do makes sense!". Spit.

This is a man who makes decisions by asking himself questions to his reflection in the mirror!!!!

As we've all witnessed in the last few weeks, John McCain suffered through 6 years of torture while in Vietnam, but McCain to this day thinks Bush's policies on torture are beautiful! McCain didn't learn a thing after being tortured!

See? Torture doesn't work and is only done by lunatic leaders to get their rocks off. The End.

Friday, 13 October, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home