Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is being held at Guantanamo as an enemy combatant, has admitted to planning the 9/11 attack and planning or assisting a total of over 30 attacks.
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.
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.
His words draw al-Qaida closer to plots of the early 1990s than the group has previously been connected to, including the 1993 World Trade Center truck bombing. Six people with links to global terror networks were convicted in federal court and sentenced to life in prison.
It also makes clear that al-Qaida wanted to down a second trans- Atlantic aircraft during would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid's operation.
Mohammed said he was involved in planning the 2002 bombing of a Kenya beach resort frequented by Israelis and the failed missile attack on an Israeli passenger jet after it took off from Mombasa, Kenya. He also said he was responsible for the bombing of a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia. In 2002, 202 were killed when two Bali nightclubs were bombed.
Other plots he said he was responsible for included planned attacks against the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State Building and New York Stock Exchange, the Panama Canal and Big Ben and Heathrow Airport in London—none of which happened.
He said he was involved in planning assassination attempts against former Presidents Carter and Clinton, attacks on U.S. nuclear power plants and suspension bridges in New York, the destruction of American and Israeli embassies in Asia and Australia, attacks on American naval vessels and oil tankers around the world, and an attempt to "destroy" an oil company he said was owned by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on Sumatra, Indonesia.
He also claimed he shared responsibility for assassination attempts against Pope John Paul II and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.
In all, Mohammed said he was responsible for planning 28 attacks and assisting in three others. The comments were included in a 26-page transcript released by the Pentagon, which blacked out some of his remarks.
More details are at the Washington Post.
By the way, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is often referred to as the "mastermind" of the September 11 attacks, but there's something that rubs me the wrong way about calling any terrorist a "mastermind."
Moral idiot would be a better description.
Homicidal narcissist might be even better.
A "moral idiot" is someone who can't or won't make basic moral distinctions such as recognizing the difference between intentional murder of innocent humans, accidental "collateral damage" in wartime, and legitimate self-defense.
Such moral distinctions are fundamental to the criminal law of every decent, civilized nation on earth. No decent nation treats an accidental death in a car accident the same way that it treats intentional, premeditated murder. Yet there are plenty of moral idiots in this world who equate every military act of self-defense and every accidental death in wartime with premeditated terrorist attacks on innocent civilians. It's all one big "cycle of violence" in their book -- and they are either morally neutral between good and evil, or their anger is directed primarily at nations acting in their own self-defense rather than at terrorists who intentionally take innocent civilian lives.
Why is it that morally neutral terms of intellectual praise like "mastermind" are being used by the media to describe enemies of America and the West, anyway?
Is anyone in the America's military, the Department of Defense or the White House ever described, without sarcasm or malice, as a "mastermind"?
No -- quite the contrary. On a daily basis, intelligent men and women in positions of leadership in America's military, Department of Defense and the White House are either completely ignored or -- more often -- scorned, shunned, torn down and attacked by the mainstream media.
Do we have any brilliant leaders? Any savvy military commanders?
How is it that our nation of 300 million people has managed to defeat one terrorist and tyrant after another and free over 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq since September 11 without a single military "mastermind," while Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups seem to have an endless supply of "masterminds"?
The term "mastermind" seems to be liberally applied to every terrorist capable of doing more than breathing and detonating an explosive, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Osama Bin Laden, the blind sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, Abu Musab Zarqawi, Abu Abbas ("mastermind" of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking), Taliban military commander Mullah Dadullah and many others.
The truth is that America and the West do have many genuine military masterminds -- and they are good and decent people, too, unlike murderous moral idiots such as Osama Bin Laden and every other terrorist "mastermind." America's military masterminds do not willingly apply their intelligence to plotting surprise attacks on innocent civilians.
The masterminds of America and the West are both brilliant and morally decent. They stand between us and the barbarians.
It's time that we give our own their due and begin to make clear moral distinctions between those who apply their intelligence to murdering innocent human beings and those in America and other civilized nations who courageously stand in their way.
Update: If you need another example of moral idiocy that equates intentional murder to accidental deaths in wartime, Little Green Footballs has found a doozie from a Daily Kos diarist who thinks Kalil Sheikh Mohammed has made some "eloquent" statements justifying his terrorism by comparing it to America's military response. "KIlling is killing," right?
Yes, to a moral idiot, there is absolutely no moral distinction between self-defense or accidental "killing" in wartime and deliberating targeting and slaughtering 3,000 unsuspecting office workers and airplane passengers on a clear September morning, or sawing the head off a Wall Street Journal reporter for the crime of being Jewish. If you're a moral idiot, it's all too confusing to grasp that these things are entirely different. Of course, even a dog is smart enough to know the difference between being tripped over and being kicked. But the moral distinction is way, way to complex for Islamic terrorists and Daily Kos kids to grasp.
Gina, always remember. The hatred for Bush by the MSM and the Left precludes any praise for the military. Heck, they hate and loathe the military, anyway.
Posted by: Domenic | March 15, 2007 at 12:59 PM