::::::::
When the news broke last week that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had confessed to beheading Daniel Pearl and countless other terrorist activities against the U.S., I was skeptical. Before a closed U.S. military tribunal, he confessed to 9/11, Richard Reid's attempted shoe bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, etc., etc., etc. [Read transcript (PDF).] Why skeptical? For starters, under torture people will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear, just to make the pain stop. What they say is not necessarily the truth. This is well demonstrated by this anecdote from John McCain in Newsweek regarding his experience as a POW in Vietnam:"I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse."And an article in the March 26, 2007 issue of Newsweek describes KSM as an egomaniac. His over-the-top confessions would certainly seem to back up that assessment. Finally, doesn't such a big "victory" in the "war on terror" seem a little too convenient as the Bush administration is under fire from all directions? More reasons for skepticism can be found in this excellent article by Danny Schechter at MediaChannel.org: How True Are The True Confessions Of The Terror Mastermind? -----
