JEWS FOR TORTURE
Mukasey, Schumer and Feinstein
A brief exchange by Presswatch host Theresa Mitchell, of KBOO radio in Portland and military correspondent Captain May of The lone Star iconoclast.
From Theresa Mitchell
--a very useful article-- War with Iran? Be afraid. Be very afraid. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110107C.shtml
And by the way, Captain May, thanks again for a very engaging and informative interview on KBOO [11/1/07]. It was enthusiastically received, as usual. I ran into some difficulty with the recording, but should have it available as an mp! 3 in the usual location ( http://kboo.fm/presswatch ) early next week.
From Captain May
Yes, I agree with you that the article War with Iran? Be afraid. Be very afraid. contains solid and scary analysis. I think that the current actions of the Democrats make it pretty clear that the only party in Washington, DC. nowadays is the War Party, and I believe that the American power elites are pushing us toward war with Iran. The probable result will be World War III, the full implementation of the Homeland State, national economic mobilization and conscription. The longer America takes to wake up, the more horrifying it will find things when it does.
Thanks for having me on Presswatch. I know that at the end of the interview I introduced the ever-controversial topic of Zionism as an important factor in our national nightmare. Even more controversial, but equally relevant, is the fact of intense Jewish ethnic loyalty, which I'm coming to believe is the deeper matrix from which Zionism draws its strength. Lately, I've read fine analyses about Jews and Zionism from the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz. When I can read the same things in the Washington Post and the New York Times, I'll start writing and saying that the American mainstream media is becoming balanced.
Until we gain the ability to discuss these issues without fear in America, we will be neither the land of the free nor the home of the brave. At present we Americans exist within a poisonous media matrix. Accordingly, we think it the highest sin to discuss Jews as a collective political entity, or to apply a cutting term like Zionazis to the Jewish and Christian Zionists who are turning our America into their Amerika. On the other hand, we think it perfectly reasonable to discuss Muslims as a collective political entity, and to apply a cutting term like Islamofascists to the Arabs and Persians who are resisting our efforts to conquer the Middle East.
It's a pretty good trick, when you think about it: Americans soak up and spill out philo-Semitism toward Jews and anti-Semitism toward Muslims, and consider themselves good Christians for their balanced approach to the world! There needs to be a new Voltaire to unmask this latest variant of political insanity.
As for you or me -- or indeed anyone else who wants to think and speak freely -- we are offered three choices. We can parrot the propaganda, which is the surest route to success and acceptance by the mainstream. Or we can refuse to parrot the propaganda, and pat ourselves on the back as a new generation of "good Germans," who didn't help Hitler, although they didn't hinder him either. Finally, we can oppose the propaganda, and accept the consequence of becoming targets for propaganda ourselves as anti-Semites and neo-Nazis.
I think yesterday's decision by Democratic senators Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein to support Michael Mukasey as the next attorney general will be a most interesting test of media integrity. Mukasey refused to denounce torture as a means of persuading enemy combatants to comply, which means that it may well become a means of persuading American citizens to comply some day. Mukasey has been one of Bush's terror judges, helping the administration to prop up its policy against Islamofascism. Mukasey has loyally supported the undermining of civil liberties and constitutional restraints on the unitary executive. In short, Mukasey is a neocon thug.
Schumer and Feinstein represent New York and California Jewish Zionist power brokers, and Mukasey is a Jewish Zionist of the same sort as Joe Lieberman and Michael Chertoff. The Global War and the Homeland State are two sides of the same Anglo-Judeo Global Cabal, waged against Arabs and Persians for the greater glory of oil and Israel. Not to see this reality is to call blindness a virtue.
I suspect my insights will not be found in the mainstream media, which will forget about Schumer and Feinstein's Friday afternoon torture endorsement by the time Monday morning comes around. Further, I suspect my insights will earn me more propaganda attacks as an anti-Semite and neo-Nazi, of course, but I prefer to think of it as a kind of military intelligence that I spent decades doing for my country: speaking truth to power, even when it's inconvenient truth.
PS: Resources from Ha'aretz
Ha'aretz, 1/5/07 -- First thought on most Jewish Congress ever: Wow. Second thought: Oy
Ha'aretz, 5/18/07 -- Poll: 71% of Israelis want U.S. to strike Iran if talks fail
Jews in Government
DERSHOWITZ THE TORTUREHOLIC
Alan Dershowitz And
The Ticking Time-Bomb
By Kurt Nimmo
America, don't worry. Alan Dershowitz is on your side. He's back on the
idiot tube circuit talking about our options in this interminable war on
If Khalid Shaikh Mohammed won't talk, says the respected lawyer, our
guys need to violate the Geneva Accords and jam a "sterilized needle"
under his fingernails. Sterilized, of course, because we don't want him
to get an infection. Now that would be inhumane. As for the Geneva
Accords, "countries all over the world violate" them, so what's the big
This torture thing, Dershowitz told Wolf Blizter the other day, it
should be done "with accountability," it needs to be done "openly" so we
don't "adopt the way of the hypocrite." Maybe they can do it on
Blizter's show, on CNN's dime? Get Walter Isaacson to cut for the
needles and sterilization kits.
Imagine of the ratings. It'd put Joe Millionaire to shame.
As a lawyer, Dershowitz knows about this kind of stuff. For instance, he
proposes "a torture warrant, which puts a heavy burden on the government
to demonstrate by factual evidence the necessity to administer this
horrible, horrible technique of torture." So, I take it al-Qaeda
evildoers will be tortured after they get their day in court? Of course,
that may take years. If anybody knows how long the legal process takes,
it's Alan Dershowitz.
No, I imagine this "torture warrant" would need be based on
circumstantial evidence. Like that bin Laden tape the experts found to
be a fake. Or maybe Bush can base the evidence on the word of some poor
schmuck in an orange jumper and blacked out goggles at Gitmo. Some
people will say anything to get a good night's sleep.
Dersh's against "subcontracting" our torture work out -- to say Jordan,
the Philippines, or Egypt. If magnetos need to be attached to the
testicles of al-Qaeda operatives, it's best we do it ourselves lest we
become hypocrites. Apparently it is better to be a sadist than a
"Candor and accountability in a democracy is very important," asserts
the Harvard Law School professor and author of "Chutzpah," a book
determined to minimize the plight of Palestinian refugees, many who have
experienced torture personally.
If candor and accountability were important to the people who make such
decisions, there would have been an immediate and public investigation
into 911. Dick Cheney would have told us all about his Energy Task
Force. Bush wouldn't be locking away some 68,000 pages of discussions
between Reagan and his advisers. Ashcroft wouldn't be trashing the
Freedom of Information Act. If "candor and accountability in a
democracy" meant anything to our unelected president and his cabal of
co-conspirators he wouldn't be refusing to release the names of people
arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Department of
Justice. He wouldn't be talking about military tribunals for
"battlefield detainees" held at the naval base at Gitmo.
The problem with Dersh is he likes to be on TV too much.
We need to be more like Israel, says Dershowitz. "They were the only
country in the world ever directly to confront the issue, and it led to
a supreme court decision... outlawing torture, and yet Israel has been
criticized all over the world for confronting the issue directly."
In 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court ruled Shin Bet's use of "moderate
physical pressure" on suspects under interrogation to be illegal. These
"moderate" techniques included violently shaking prisoners, depriving
them of sleep, exposing them to loud music, tying them into painful
positions for long periods, and covering their heads in foul-smelling
Of course, this kind of torture is likely preferable to summary
execution. Shin Bet agent Danny Yatom knows all about summary execution.
He personally crushed the skulls of two Palestinian detainees with a
large rock after they were arrested for a failed attempt to hijack an
Israeli settler bus at the Deir El Balah Junction in the Gaza Strip.
Yatom did such a good job Sharon appointed him as "Head of Counter
The above mentioned torture methods became institutionalized in 1987
when the Landau commission justified the "ticking time-bomb" scenario --
if Shin Bet and the IDF had reason to believe a suspect held information
that may prevent a terrorist attack, "moderate physical pressure" could
be used. Obviously, large rocks are out of the question.
But the cops and military types in Israel had a Mack truck-sized back
door inserted in the Israeli Supreme Court ruling -- torture's
permissible if evidence of an impending threat to civilian lives is
discovered. Naturally, Shin Bet makes the call. "I am sure that GSS will
find new methods," commented Gideon Ezra, former Shin Bet official and
member of the Knessett. "Maybe they will find a chair that is a little
Obviously, Dershowitz looks to Israel for his cues.
The savage dust of 911 had hardly settled when the civil libertarian
Dershowitz went before a dense crowd at the Jewish Community Center in
Creve Coeur, Missouri, and told the gathered that terrorist acts should
make civil rights activists readjust their thinking on certain issues.
"Torture would only be used under court-issued warrants, which we
already use for searches and arrests," Dershowitz told the crowd.
"Society needs to be protected from immigrants and other undesirables."
On November 8 2001, in Los Angeles Times editorial ("Is There a
Torturous Road to Justice?") the Dersh said, "Any interrogation
technique, including the use of truth serum or even torture, is not
prohibited. All that is prohibited is the introduction into evidence of
the fruits of such techniques in a criminal trial against the person on
whom the techniques were used."
In other words, it's okay to shove needles under the fingernails of a
terror suspect if the confession extracted is not used against him.
So much for Dersh's badge as a civil libertarian.
So much for the Fourth Geneva Convention. So much for the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, treaties the US signed.
"If anybody had the ability to prevent the events of Sept. 11," Alan
Dershowitz told CBS' Mike Wallace last year, "they would have gone to
whatever lengthThe problem becomes, where do we draw that line?"
Maybe the esteemed lawyer should take counsel in the conclusions of the
Defense Science Board if he's sincerely interested where the line should
be drawn: :
"Historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in
international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against
the United States. In addition, the military asymmetry that denies
nation states the ability to engage in overt attacks against the United
States drives the use of transnational actors [that is, terrorists from
one country attacking in another]."
Or, as Chalmers Johnson explains:
"One man's terrorist is ... another man's freedom fighter, and what U.S.
officials denounce as unprovoked terrorist attacks on its innocent
citizens are often meant as retaliation for previous American imperial
actions. Terrorists attack innocent and undefended American targets
precisely because American soldiers and sailors firing cruise missiles
from ships at sea or sitting in B-52 bombers at extremely high altitudes
or supporting brutal and repressive regimes from Washington seem
In other words, if you don't want to be a victim of terrorism, don't
kill people. Don't use CIA, FBI, and Army Special Forces "take-down
teams" on detainees. Don't support governments that amputate limbs for
disobedience. Or those who torture and shoot children for throwing
Shoving "sterilized" needles under the fingernails of Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed will not put an end to terrorism. In fact, it will not prevent
one single terrorist act -- not in America or anywhere else.
Ask Israel if its Khiam torture prison in southern Lebanon put an end to
Hezbollah rocket attacks. Or if more than a few of the thousands of
prisoners tortured at the Ketziot prison in the Negev desert emerge to
become suicide bombers. Ask the Vietnamese if the Phoenix Program put an
end to their determination to fight and eventually defeat the US. Ask
the Iranians if the Shah's torture dungeons manned by SAVAK goons
prevented the revolution in 1979.
No, Dersh, torture will not end the war on terrorism. It will only
demoralize those who call for its implementation. It will put us on par
with Shin Bet and the paramilitary thugs in Latin America and Colombia.
But then, I suppose, terrorism is a good business for you. It sells
books and packs auditoriums.
It also keeps your face on CNN.
email@example.com Kurt Nimmo's Another Day in the Empire
None Dare Call It Chutzpah: Alan Dershowitiz Now Favors TortureBy Sam Francis
Most Americans don't know and probably don't want to hear about it, but the fact is that somewhere between the box cutters of Sept. 11 and the anthrax-in-the-envelopes of the last several weeks, civil liberties are slowly beginning to vanish.
Columnist Nat Hentoff, a lifelong civil libertarian, may exaggerate when he writes, as he does in a recent column, that the "new antiterrorism law, signed by the president, is the worst attack on the Bill of Rights since World War I," but what's even more worrisome is that virtually no one except Mr. Hentoff seems to give a hoot.
Not only are most opinion makers silent about or actually supportive of the contraction of freedom but some whom you'd expect to be moaning about it are demanding that the government go further. I recently noted a column in the Wall Street Journal by historian Jay Winik, who chirped happily over the trampling of civil liberties during various "emergencies" in the American past and gloated over the prospect of yet further trampling in the near future. Mr. Winik, however, is not alone.
The Washington Post reported last month ["Silence of 4 Terror Probe Suspects Poses Dilemma", Oct. 21, 2001] that the FBI and Justice Department are getting pretty fed up with the silence of several terrorist suspects they've been holding for some weeks. The louts just aren't squealing on their comrades, despite all the toys and candy canes the FBI has dangled—"lighter sentences, money, jobs, and a new identity and life in the United States for them and their family members." Amazingly, some people really don't want to be Americans.
And so, reports the Post, some in the federal law enforcement leviathan "are beginning to say that traditional civil liberties may have to be cast aside if they are to extract information about the Sept. 11 attacks and terrorist plans." The article quotes one FBI agent as saying "But it could get to that spot where we could go to pressure ... where we won't have a choice, and we are probably getting there." In other words, if you don't say what we want you to say, we have ways to make you talk.
The Post is pretty specific about what those ways might be. "Among the alternative strategies under discussion are using drugs or pressure tactics, such as those employed occasionally by Israeli interrogators, to extract information. Another idea is extraditing the suspects to allied countries where security services sometimes employ threats to family members or resort to torture." Indeed. If Americans don't have the stomach for tyranny, we have plenty of allies who do. But it's really not the FBI we need to worry about. It's Harvard professors.
Last week in St. Louis who should pop up to propose the outright legalization of torture but Harvard law professor and veteran left-winger Alan Dershowitz. Speaking at a book fair at the Jewish Community Center on his new book about the Supreme Court's ruling on last year's presidential election, Mr. Dershowitz managed to sound less like Louis Brandeis than Heinrich Himmler.
As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on Nov. 5, "Even torture may not be off the table as an information-gathering tool, Dershowitz said. But there must be a national debate about the circumstances in which torture is permissible and who should have the power to decide when to use it." We wouldn't want to just leap to extremes without thinking it through, would we?
Mr. Dershowitz as lawyer, teacher, and author has made a long and profitable career out of defending the indefensible, inventing "rights" that no one ever suspected existed, denouncing hate groups, crusading against oppression, repression and suppression and supporting just about every species of Do-Good known to the mind of Bolshevism. Now at last we discover just how "liberal" this fraud really is.
It would be fascinating to learn who exactly Mr. Dershowitz has in mind as his first candidate for the torture chamber and how he'd like to manage it. We can look forward to the "national debate" as to whether we should merely rely on cattle prods and rubber truncheons or go so far as to set up a rack and iron maiden in the basement of every police station.
"Necessity, the tyrant's plea," wrote poet John Milton. Every tyrant begins his career by claiming that infringements of liberty are "necessary" for something or other—survival, prosperity, security, even freedom itself. Then, the people who let the tyrant get away with it are always amazed when they find themselves the next guests in his torture chamber.
Having let phonies like Alan Dershowitz wreck the Constitution in the courts, why should we be surprised when they preach getting rid of it altogether, and why should we expect Americans who have already forgotten what constitutional government means to care whether he and his allies succeed?
COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
November 08, 2001