Suggested Answers to Short Quiz

[johnkarls]

.
SHORT QUIZ

Background Questions From Our Previous Studies


Question 1

Like the ancient Mayans and Aztecs, does the Mainstream American Media regularly advocate Human Sacrifice? Are these Human Sacrifices of American citizens?

Answer 1

Yes and yes (please see the following Q&A’s).

Question 2

Since public opinion polls in Arab and other Islamic countries, both before and after 9/11, have regularly shown that the United States is virtually-universally despised (and that following 9/11, Osama bin Laden has been lionized), is the Mainstream American Media’s regular advocacy of Human Sacrifice of American citizens based on the eternal and omnipresent human philosophy that “my shit doesn’t stink” (please pardon my French!!!)???

Answer 2

Of course (please see the following Q&A’s).

Question 3

Was water-boarding whenever considered necessary to save American lives, the official policy of the Clinton Administration per Tim Russert when he moderated the first 2008-cycle Presidential Debate at Dartmouth College on 9/28/2007?

Answer 3

Yes.

Question 4

Did the Obama Administration water-board the terrorist Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame when he was held for two months on an American naval vessel in international waters according to the NY Times Lead Editorial on 6/16/2011?

Answer 4

The NY Times Lead Editorial was delicately silent about what was done to Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame while he was held aboard the American naval vessel in international waters.

However, if you believe that he was not subjected to “enhanced interrogation techniques” including, if necessary, water-boarding, then you probably also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy!!!

Question 5

Did the Obama Administration risk the acquittal of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani on all 285 charges because of its refusal to let an American court consider for the first time whether water-boarding constitutes “torture”?

Answer 5

Yes, acquittal on all 285 charges was at risk. But as explained in Q&A-6 that follows, acquittal was meaningless.

Question 6

When on 10/6/2010, U.S. District Court (SDNY) Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, in Ghailani’s trial excluded all evidence obtained by water-boarding A DIFFERENT TERRORIST because the Obama Administration refused to let the Court consider whether water-boarding constituted “torture” as a threshold question in deciding whether Ghailani had the right to exclude evidence from water-boarding SOMEONE ELSE, was there really no risk that Ghailani would be acquitted of all 285 charges (he was in fact acquitted of 284 of the 285 charges) because the U.S. Department of Justice had already had to admit to Judge Kaplan that the Obama Administration would not have released Ghailani even if he were acquitted of all 285 charges?

Answer 6

There was no risk associated with acquittal of all 285 charges because Ghailani was not going to be released no matter what happened.

Question 7

Did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s confirmation on Meet The Press on 11/21/2010 that the trial of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was meaningless because he would have continued to be imprisoned for life as an “enemy combatant” even if acquitted of all 285 criminal charges, signify that it was a “Show Trial” in the tradition of the old Soviet Union?

Answer 7

Yes, it was a “Show Trial” in the tradition of the old Soviet Union.

Question 8

Does the Obama Administration’s assassination-by-drone program constitute “torture” when it only succeeds in maiming the target for life?

Answer 8

Obviously.

Question 9

Has the Obama Administration’s assassination-by-drone program constituted an Unconstitutional Deprivation of Life “Without Due Process of Law” when American citizens were the targets? When non-citizens were the targets?

Answer 9

Obviously vis-à-vis American citizens.

It is not clear vis-à-vis non-citizens because the rules of war may apply if there really is a War on Terror (as President Obama resists admitting) and the non-citizen is assassinated by drone on a “battlefield” of that War on Terror.

The conundrum is obvious, because if American citizens are given any special treatment in such situations, then terrorist groups will focus on recruiting American citizens for use in such situations.

Question 10

Since the Obama Administration’s assassination-by-drone program constitutes Capital Punishment, does it constitute Unconstitutional “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”?

Answer 10

The answer is unclear.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gregg v. Georgia (1976) that capital punishment is not per se unconstitutional.

However, since 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued more than 30 decisions regarding whether capital punishment is unconstitutional depending on the method of execution, the nature of the crime, or the type of defendant (e.g., age, mental capacity, etc.). But none of them cover the situation at hand.

Question 11

Has the Obama Administration’s assassination-by-drone program been severely criticized for its failure to obtain intelligence from the targets by interrogating them and capturing their computers and other files, rather than summarily killing them?

Answer 11

Of course.

Question 12

Was water-boarding declared NOT to be “torture” in the 1/18/1978 Decision of the European Court of Human Rights (which has jurisdiction over 47 signatory European nations) in litigation between The Irish Republican Army and the United Kingdom?

Answer 12

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in The IRA vs. The UK that the following “enhanced interrogation techniques” did NOT constitute “torture” --

Wall Standing = The prisoner stands spread eagle against the wall, with fingers high above his head, and feet back so that he is standing on his toes such that all of his weight falls on his fingers.

Hooding = black or navy hood is placed over the prisoner's head and kept there except during the interrogation.

Subjection to Noise = Pending interrogation, the prisoner is kept in a room with a loud and continuous hissing noise.

Sleep Deprivation = Prisoners are deprived of sleep pending interrogation.

Deprivation of Food and Drink = Prisoners receive a reduced diet during detention and pending interrogation.

*****
The European Court of Human Rights also ruled that the use of these five methods IN COMBINATION (including all five simultaneously) did NOT constitute “torture.”

The I.R.A. vs. The U.K. did NOT involve water-boarding so the European Court of Human Rights did NOT have occasion to opine on whether water-boarding comprised “torture.”


Question 13

Did Sen. Ted Kennedy, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, “try to have it both ways” with respect to water-boarding by (A) not taking responsibility for banning water-boarding by defining it as “torture” in the legislation that emanated from his committee, but then (B) asking during Senate confirmation hearings of every Bush appointee in whose prospective bailiwick the issue could conceivably be germane whether water-boarding was “torture”?

Answer 13

Yes.

Question 14

Was Sen. Kennedy’s reluctance to take responsibility for banning water-boarding obviously motivated by not wanting to take responsibility if one of Osama bin Laden’s followers implemented his famous fatwā to nuke 10 million Americans (about which the Founding Dean of Harvard U’s Kennedy School of Government, Graham Allison, wrote a famous book)?

Answer 14

So it would seem, though Sen. Kennedy was never forced to testify regarding his motivation.

Question 15

Did Sen. Ted Kennedy’s attempt to “have it both ways” fail because all Bush appointees refused to say that water-boarding constituted “torture” and when Sen. Kennedy threatened a filibuster against the last of these appointees, Judge Michael Mukasy for Attorney General, President Bush simply said that if Sen. Kennedy did filibuster, the position would be left vacant for the remainder of the Bush Administration?

Answer 15

Yes.

Question 16

Since water-boarding has never been declared to be “torture” by any court in the U.S. or abroad or in any U.S. statute or treaty, doesn’t the constant claim of the Mainstream American Media that water-boarding is torture comprise old-fashioned Soviet-style “brain washing”?

Answer 16

Yes.

Though President Obama, shortly after assuming office, did issue an Executive Order banning the use of water-boarding.

However, this merely opens a murky area of the law!!!

Although only two Executive Orders were ever invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court (President Truman’s nationalization of the nation’s steel mills and a relatively-obscure Executive Order issued by President Clinton), there are no rules other than not violating the Constitution or existing law!!!

Indeed, although The American Presidency Project has more than 3,600 on-line Executive Orders that are searchable, there is no requirement that an Executive Order even be published (vs. communicated merely to the individuals who will be executing it).

And there is currently quite a bit of criticism from the ACLU, among others, that President Obama’s Executive Orders governing the assassination-by-drone program are Top Secret.

So the ultimate obvious question vis-à-vis water-boarding = what if President Obama issues a top-secret Executive Order that contradicts (or comprises an exception to) a published Executive Order??? Such as, for example, a top-secret Executive Order to the C.I.A. to water-board specific terrorists even though there is a published Executive Order that bans water-boarding generally???

Question 17

Do we know from the 1998 negotiations between the U.K. and Iran over re-establishing diplomatic relations that had been broken by the British when Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued his famous fatwā in 1989 calling for the assassination of Salmon Rushdie, that it is impossible to revoke such a fatwā after the death of the Islamic Cleric who issued it?

Answer 17

Yes.

The Brits wanted Ruhollah Khomeini’s successor, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, to revoke the fatwā. When it was pointed out to the Brits that this was not possible under Islamic law, the Brits contented themselves with an announcement by the Iranian Government that it no longer endorsed the fatwā.

Question 18

Does this mean that Osama bin Laden’s famous fatwā to nuke 10 million Americans can NOT be revoked?

Answer 18

Of course.

Question 19

Accordingly, why does the Mainstream American Media continue to advocate putting the lives of 10 million Americans at risk? Particularly when the Islamic World believes America’s “shit does stink” -- and is not impressed by meaningless Show Trials or by America’s willingness to risk the Human Sacrifice of 10 million of its citizens?

Answer 19

God only knows!!!


New Questions For Consideration In Conjunction With Our New Foci = “Hard Measures” by Jose Rodriquez Jr. and the movie “Zero Dark Thirty”


Question 1

With respect to the movie “Zero Dark Thirty” wasn’t it silly for the US Justice Department to announce an investigation of how the CIA permitted leaks that Osama bin Laden’s assassination would not have been possible in the absence of water boarding (and for Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Diane Feinstein and Sen. John McCain to send letters to the acting CIA director demanding to know how this leak occurred)? After all, doesn’t “Hard Measures” make this claim at the beginning of the book? And doesn’t “Hard Measures” recite that, as required by law, it was reviewed and approved by the CIA?

Answer 1

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Question 2

Do we receive confirmation in “Hard Measures” for the first time that President Clinton’s disastrous Executive Order NOT to recruit spies who had committed crimes (which may be effective against the old Soviet Union, particularly after its demise, but is ineffective against terrorist organizations because they require recruits to commit crimes before they are trusted), was revoked following 9/11?

Answer 2

Yes.

Question 3

Which is more important -- criminal prosecutions of terrorists or obtaining information from them to prevent future attacks?

Answer 3

What do you think???

Question 4

Do we believe in the potential Human Sacrifice of 10 million Americans in order to impress the Islamic World which has always despised us and will continue to do so anyway?

Answer 4

Does this depend on whether we have been “brain washed” by the Mainstream American Media???

Besides, Yours Truly has never seen any polling in the Islamic World whether America is disrespected because it fails to employ such tactics as worldwide telecasts of public beheadings by scimitar of Western hostages such as Daniel Pearl. After all, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were lionized in the Islamic World following 9/11 despite their frequent beheadings of Americans on worldwide television. Such beheadings were only discontinued after Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda became convinced that they were counter-productive PR-wise in the Western world.

It is interesting that the Roman Catholic Church has agonized for centuries over the creation of its “Just War Doctrine” -- and refraining from “torture” in a War on Terrorists has interesting parallels to Conscientious-Objector status in a war context.

Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church has engaged in torture over the centuries whether or not it has developed a “Just Torture Doctrine” -- and the torture perpetrated by the RCC was NOT limited to the Crusades, all of which were organized by the RCC, or the Spanish Inquisition!!! Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church did not revoke until 1961 its centuries-old "Blood Guilt" Doctrine that decreed that all Jews including those currently living, were responsible for the Death of Christ -- and it is considered politically incorrect to notice that the most severe anti-Jewish pograms over the centuries occurred in Roman Catholic countries or to notice that the "Blood Guilt" Doctrine was not revoked until 16 years after the end of The Holocaust.

Question 5

Did the interrogation of Abu Zubahdah (the first important terrorist interrogated after 9/11) elicit for the first time the knowledge that Muslims believe that Allah realizes that they are only human and each of them has a point beyond which s/he cannot resist divulging information, after which there is no shame in doing so?

Answer 5

Yes.

Question 6

Does the need for the recent French intervention in Mali and the terrorist hostage-taking in Algeria demonstrate once more what has been known since 9/11, that Al Qaeda is a loose-knit confederation rather than a command-and-control-from-the-top organization?

Answer 6

Yes.

Question 7

Were we correct in recognizing before the recent NATO performance as the close-support air force of the rebels opposing Muammar El Qaddafi that the conflict was essentially tribal? And that deposing Qaddafi would result in at least 12 major tribes each retaining their own arms (what the Mainstream American Media likes to call “militias”) for their own protection against the other tribes? And that the Libyan oil fields would mostly continue to reside on the territory of the Qaddafi tribe?

Answer 7

Yes -- please see the Original Proposal for our 2/8/2012 meeting on Real Politik which was dated 3/21/2011 and entitled “Patrolman Obama - Policeman of the World.”

Indeed, the Original Proposal voiced incredulity that our CIA did not seem to appreciate the tribal nature of Libya and, in the interests of helping the cause, we provided the CIA with a list of 24 of the major tribes in the geographical area called “Libya” by its former colonial masters.

Although we predicted that deposing Qaddafi would result in the fragmentation of Libya into at least 12 major-tribal areas, there is little information on how many fragments there are because of the Obama Administration’s denial that the fragmentation has occurred with many of the fragments importing Al Qaeda mercenaries to protect themselves from the other tribes.

Yes, the Libyan oil fields mostly continue to reside on the territory of the Qaddafi tribe. But do not be surprised in the future to discover that the Qaddafi tribe is being forced to leave their ancestral areas to be replaced by tribes more to the liking of NATO.

Question 8

Is it any wonder, then, that many of the 12 major tribes within the area that NATO continues to think of in such colonial terms as “Libya” which has probably ceased to exist in reality and may never be re-constituted, have imported mercenaries (aka Al Qaeda fighters) to help protect themselves from the other tribes?

Answer 8

Of course not.

Question 9

Since we have created a failed state in Libya and Al Qaeda has seized control of northern Mali (from which the French will not dislodge it since they have announced their intention to withdraw in a few weeks after stabilizing the front lines between Islamic northern Mali and non-Islamic southern Mali), was there much point in fighting the war in Afghanistan?

Answer 9

It would seem not.

Question 10

Didn’t we already recognize the futility of denying Al Qaeda a “safe haven” in Afghanistan and the Tribal Areas of Pakistan if Al Qaeda enjoys a “safe haven” in failed states such as Somalia?

Answer 10

Yes.

Question 11

How effective is an assassination-by-drone program against a command-and-control-from-the-top organization? Against a loose-knit confederation?

Answer 11

Its effectiveness against a command-and-control-from-the-top organization depends on the ability of such an organization to replace the assassinated leaders.

Its effectiveness against a loose-knit confederation would seem to depend on ideas -- whether the underlying causes for the nearly-universal loathing of America in the Islamic world are waxing or waning. [In this regard it is interesting to recall the favorite saying of Sir Winston Churchill that ideas create organizations and movements, and ideas blow them away.]

Question 12

Does the Obama Administration, in reversing its first Afghanistan surge of 21,000 troops in President Obama’s first month in office (which was famously dubbed “Obama’s Vietnam” on the cover of Newsweek) and its second Afghanistan surge of another 33,000 troops announced in December 2009, now plan to leave behind an American military base from which to mount attacks against Al Qaeda in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan?

Answer 12

The American media are full of un-confirmed reports that this is President Obama’s plan.

Question 13

Isn’t this anti-terrorist bastion in Afghanistan what was proposed by Vice President Biden in 2009 when he opposed both of President Obama’s troop surges in Afghanistan?

Answer 13

So it would seem.

Question 14

Does Vice President Biden appear to have ever heard of Dien Bien Phu?

Answer 14

For younger Reading Liberally members, Dien Bien Phu is located in Vietnam.

In brief, following World War II, the French had no way to return to French Indochina (their colony which later fragmented into Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) because Churchill had famously sunk the French fleet at the beginning of World War II when the French refused to sail it to England to avoid its capture and use by the Nazis. Accordingly, President Truman ordered the American Navy to transport the French colonialists back to Indochina. By 1953, the French called off a long and bloody war against the Communists as a result of their defeat in the final battle at Dien Bien Phu.

Also in brief, President Eisenhower picked up the pieces following the withdrawal of the French by threatening a resumption of hostilities if the Communists did not accept a division of Vietnam into North and South accompanied by a promise to hold free elections in the South, upon which President Eisenhower promptly reneged. The hostilities resumed with America now assuming the position of the French colonial masters, and the rest is history.

[As we have studied many times in the past, if President Kennedy had realized that the Sino-Soviet split in 1959 was real because the unification of Russian Turkestan and Chinese Turkestan under a popular Turkish leader (as both sides discovered the other was attempting) would render the loser A NON-NUCLEAR POWER OVERNIGHT (!!!), President Kennedy would have realized that there was no reason for America to fight the Vietnam War.]

So what is the lesson of Dien Bien Phu???

If an outside power tries to establish a military base deep inside a hostile area, it is only a matter of time until the base and most of its personnel are destroyed. Dien Bien Phu was defended by 26,800 troops (including reinforcements). There were only 11,721 French prisoners of whom 4,436 were wounded.

Vice President Biden and his military advisers may think that they can defend in Afghanistan a military bastion such as Dien Bien Phu (it would appear that our Bagram Airforce Base would be the most logical candidate), presumably by bombing the hell (please pardon my French) out of any Afghans who attack the bastion.

But on what are they basing this supposition???

It would appear that one of the most instructive models would be the thousands of rockets that have rained on Israel from Gaza since Israel permanently withdrew from Gaza on 9/1/2005. Israel has been forced on several occasions to conduct massive bombardments of Gaza to achieve temporary halts in the rain of rockets from Gaza, and Israel has been severely criticized because (1) they involve massive civilian casualties, and (2) are wildly disproportionate to the damage caused by the rain of rockets.

It would also appear that the vast mountainous areas of Afghanistan that would be within rocket range of Bagram Airforce Base (as contrasted with the relatively-infinitesimal and urbanized plot of land called Gaza) would make it virtually impossible to ascertain the source of the rockets raining on Americans at Bagram. And even if it were possible to pinpoint the source, we see on the video reports of the mainstream media in our living rooms almost every evening Islamic fighters launching rockets and other ordnance from vehicles that can change location before they can be pinpointed.

So if this is a new and untested military strategy being proposed by Vice President Biden and his military advisers, doesn’t Congress have an obligation to ask questions before the seeds of yet another military disaster are sown???

Question 15

Isn’t it true that if our 10/10/2012 Six-Degrees-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign to develop thorium nuclear reactors ASAP could render oil & gas irrelevant in a decade or so, America and the West could withdraw from the Islamic World and cease worrying about them nuking 10 million Americans?

Answer 15

Yes.

Though it would be impossible for Israel to withdraw from the Islamic World at the same time.

Question 16

Despite all our “arm-chair quarterbacking,” don’t we owe President Obama and his nominee to lead the CIA, John Brennan, a debt of gratitude for preventing Osama bin Laden’s fatwā to nuke 10 million Americans from being executed?

Answer 16

What do you think -- let’s discuss.

Question 17

At least so far?

Answer 17

The reason for this caveat is that America has been incredibly lucky that we have not already been nuked in accordance with Osama bin Laden’s fatwā.

After all, there have been quite a few attacks on America that were NOT thwarted, but failed only because the weapons employed by Al Qaeda failed. Such as the famous underwear bomber whose underwear failed to explode. Or the Times Square bomber whose bombs failed to explode.

And, after all, it has always been assumed by the intelligence community that the 178 suitcase-size atomic bombs missing from the old Soviet Union have long since found their way into the hands of terrorists.

Though, full disclosure, Yours Truly may be overly sensitive on this issue. After all, for 45 minutes he was on a stalled subway train without electricity 300 yards from the World Trade Center’s North Tower when it collapsed (our position was well inside the WTC-restrictive fence afterwards). And after all, he was attending the Metropolitan Opera on 5/1/2010 from which his return to his room at the Harvard Club was always the Old 104 Bus which went down Broadway to Times Square and then turned left on 42nd street -- so if the opera had let out an hour or so earlier and the Times Square bomber had been competent, all of you would have been spared these Short Quizzes, at least for the last three years.