The Associated Press is reporting that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to being the mastermind behind 9/11.
WASHINGTON - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, confessed to that attack and a chilling string of other terror plots during a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a transcript released Wednesday by the Pentagon.
"I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z," Mohammed said in a statement read during the session, which was held last Saturday.
Of course that confession wouldn't be complete without the obvious overture that it was coerced by the CIA who tortured the poor terrorist while vacationing at Guantanamo Bay's seaside resort.
The transcripts also refer to a claim by Mohammed that he was tortured by the CIA, although he said he was not under duress at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo when he confessed to his role in the attacks.
In a section of the statement that was blacked out, he confessed to the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, The Associated Press has learned. Pearl was abducted in January 2002 in Pakistan while researching a story on Islamic militancy. Mohammed has long been a suspect in the killing.
Using his own words, the extraordinary transcript connects Mohammed to dozens of the worst terror plots attempted or carried out in the last 15 years — and to others that have not occurred. All told, thousands have died in operations he directed.
That's quite a resume; spectacular in the fact that it pretty much eviscerates the left's claims that the Bush administration's focus on terrorism was a self made political strategy designed for the sole purpose of scaring people into voting republican.
But I am waiting for the spin. How long will it be before the the story about the details of the confession are overshadowed by the implication that the CIA tortured this information out of him? I'm guessing not long. In fact the Associated Press, having all but written that possibility off in the first sentence above actually revisited the topic for a second time in the same article.
Mohammed also claimed he was tortured by the CIA after his capture in 2003, according to an exchange he had with the unidentified military colonel who heads the three-member panel that heard his case.
"Is any statement that you made, was it because of this treatment, to use your word, you claim torture," the colonel asked. "Do you make any statements because of that?"
Portions of Mohammed's response were deleted from the transcript, and his immediate answer was unclear. He later said his confession read at the hearing to the long list of attacks was given without any pressure, threats or duress.
Well there you have it. For those of you who were placing bets I hope you considered that it was a foregone conclusion. The multiple mention along with the "unclear" qualifier took about 0 nanoseconds from cut to paste. Seed sown.
The New York Times is chiming in as well and the implication didn't really get past the headline: Suspected Leader of Attacks on 9/11 Is Said to Confess.
"Is said?", hmmm, sounds like someone over at the lefts' favorite source of bloviation is doubting the account. They of course were counted on to add the same CIA torture implication as the Associated Press but actually carried it one step further:
Mr. Mohammed, 41, is an ethnic Pakistani who grew up in Kuwait and graduated from North Carolina State Agricultural and Technical State University in 1986. He was captured on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, and was held in the secret C.I.A. prison system, where he is believed to have been subjected to harsh interrogation.
For the life of me I can't understand why those who "report" the news feel the need to undermine it concurrently while they report it. Perhaps it is the nature of the beast. They are a reflection of their audience and we can see those sentiments first hand thanks to dynamic content management systems such as blogs.
For instance, the Huffington Post is usually the first out of the gate with commentators who are easy to count on when rooting for the bad guys and this story is no different. They currently have 7 pages of the following::
Comments ( Page 1 of 7 > » ): If you individually pulled the hairs out of my ass and nailed me with a frozen cactus, I'd admit to inventing the magnolia tree too.
By: afraidtoland on March 14, 2007 at 08:10pm Flag: [abusive] they tortured him......
It is wrong.
By: ghostsofAmerica on March 14, 2007 at 08:11pm Flag: [abusive]
Execute the son of a bitch. Gitmo's too good for him.
But first, torture him by playing Rush and Sean endlessly in his little cell and making him watch 24 with his eyes held open by toothpicks.
http://www.newsprism.com...
By: dictatortot on March 14, 2007 at 08:13pm Flag: [abusive] Wow, this guy was a tough nut to crack. It took them 3+ years to torture a confession out of him. Did he confess to sinking the Titanic? Wearing women's underwear? Dealing coke to Bush in the 70's?
This is pathetic. We're the laughingstock of the world!
By: revoltnow on March 14, 2007 at 08:13pm Flag: [abusive] so do they try him in a court of law (the pre-9/11 mindset) or in the kangaroo court in Cuba (the apparent post-9/11 mindset)? My guess, the latter because while he would have bragged about it anyway, too much 24 caused his 'interrogators' to beat it out of him.
By: po on March 14, 2007 at 08:15pm Flag: [abusive] they tortured him......
It is wrong. we should never torture anybody.
and they probably had him confess under torture years ago....and brought it out now to distract from the Attorney Generallisimo problem.
Confessions under torture are not admitting to doing something. Maybe he did mastermind, but they shouldn't torture anybody.
It is wrong. Morally wrong. Get it, Fascists?
By: ghostsofAmerica on March 14, 2007 at 08:16pm Flag: [abusive] Sorry folks.
Even if the confession is true, it's inadmissable because of the circumstances of the interrogation. This is sad because Bush's policies have made the treatment of enemy combatants a laughing stock in front of the whole world.
What a perfect segue from earlier comments that rooted for terrorists to blow up the Vice President of the United States. It's a never ending sea of anti-American sentiment over there. They are often fueled by mainstream media reports that are written by reporters that I suspect may actually make their way into places like the HuffPo when not officially "writing for the man".
It's sad when the mainstream media can't seem to get past their activist ways and simply report the news. It's even worse that we have come to expect it.
Terry Trippany is the editor at Webloggin.
