President Bush: Honest Head of State, Who Observes/Upholds International Treaties,Or? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 09-07-2006, 11:34 AM

IMO, it is important to discuss the admission by president Bush, in his speech yesterday, that the CIA did run "secret prisons", just as Dana Priest of the WaPo reported, last november, and the implications of this admission and the overall, secret Bush administration, "policy", that, as the second quote box here supports, seems to make a case for the accusation that the Bush admin. "program", is itself, a domestic and an international crime, in fact several felonies and an attack on international human rights treaty provisions that the US has long signed off on, upheld, and respected....until 2001:

News Report that broke this "story", last year:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101644_pf.html
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 2, 2005; A01

The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement......

Quote:

http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/257559.htm
Civil Liberties
From Tom Head,
Your Guide to Civil Liberties.

What the President Didn't Say
Category: War on Terror

.......Let's examine relevant portions of <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html">the speech</a> carefully. First:<blockquote class=yes>One reason the terrorists have not succeeded is because of the hard work of thousands of dedicated men and women in our government, who have toiled day and night, along with our allies, to stop the enemy from carrying out their plans. And we are grateful for these hardworking citizens of ours. 

Another reason the terrorists have not succeeded is because our government has changed its policies -- and given our military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel the tools they need to fight this enemy and protect our people and preserve our freedoms.</blockquote>Note that what President Bush is saying here is very clearly that there is a connection between the amount of power given to his administration and the absence of post-9/11 terrorist attacks. He is arguing, in effect, that you can't have one without the other--that a more libertarian government would not be able to effectively fight terrorism. He provides no tangible evidence to back up this assertion, but he doesn't really have to. The overwhelming memory of 9/11 hovers over his speech; he has delivered it less than a week before the fifth anniversary of the attacks, and even gone to the trouble of stocking the audience with the families of 9/11 victims, as he noted at the beginning of his speech:<blockquote class=yes>Thank you. Thanks for the warm welcome. Welcome to the White House. Mr. Vice President, Secretary Rice, Attorney General Gonzales, Ambassador Negroponte, General Hayden, members of the United States Congress, families who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks on our nation, and my fellow citizens: Thanks for coming.</blockquote>So the message here is undeniable: "When you hear me talk about these complex civil liberties issues, think of 9/11. Think of how much danger you're in, and how badly you want to be safe." 

Politicians typically make that kind of blatant appeal to fear when they're asking for more power, or attempting to justify power that they already have. 

After reminding us that we're safe because his administration has been granted a controversial amount of power, President Bush goes on to say:<blockquote class=yes>The terrorists who declared war on America represent no nation, they defend no territory, and they wear no uniform. They do not mass armies on borders, or flotillas of warships on the high seas. They operate in the shadows of society; they send small teams of operatives to infiltrate free nations; they live quietly among their victims; they conspire in secret, and then they strike without warning.</blockquote>This is important because it is the same reasoning the Bush administration used in <a href="http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/hamdan.htm">Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</a> (2006) to justify treatment of accused terrorists in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's argument and ruled that the Geneva Conventions do in fact apply to accused terrorists, but President Bush's statement here is a subtle reminder that he still regards terrorists as a class of enemy separate from enemy soldiers. In other words, there are things that we wouldn't do to a soldier that we might do to a terrorist. Things that he alludes to in his very next sentence:<blockquote class=yes>In this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists, themselves. Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate. They have knowledge of where their operatives are deployed, and knowledge about what plots are underway. This intelligence -- this is intelligence that cannot be found any other place. And our security depends on getting this kind of information.</blockquote>If President Bush is talking about ordinary interrogations, then this statement is meaningless pap. After all, what would be the alternative? Arresting accused terrorists and then not interrogating them? But President Bush is not talking about ordinary interrogations. Although he makes mention of military arrests in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the long-debated prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the real topic of his speech is a little more controversial.........

.....President Bush follows up this statement with a description of the arrest of Abu Zubaydah, and the most explicit concession yet that the CIA has used "torture-lite" as an interrogation method:<blockquote class=yes>We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.</blockquote>And they gave us information we wouldn't have otherwise had, right? Well...not necessarily:<blockquote class=yes>Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.</blockquote>So we used controversial and secret interrogation techniques in secret CIA prisons, denied due process, violated the Geneva Conventions and very probably the War Crimes Act as well (see below), and we got information that...well, helped. 

Note that with Abu Zubaydah, President Bush states very clearly that the CIA tried conventional interrogation techniques, that they didn't work, and that the newer, more controversial techniques yielded information that was helpful but may or may not have been crucial. Fair enough. The information obtained from Khalid Sheikh Muhammad using these methods was crucial, right? That's how it sounds on a first reading, but let's look at what the president didn't say:<blockquote class=yes>Once in our custody, KSM was questioned by the CIA using these procedures, and he soon provided information that helped us stop another planned attack on the United States. During questioning, KSM told us about another al Qaeda operative he knew was in CIA custody -- a terrorist named Majid Khan. KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a suspected terrorist leader named Hambali, the leader of al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate known as "J-I". CIA officers confronted Khan with this information. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair, and provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative.</blockquote>Please note that this is the paragraph that immediately follows the discussion of Abu Zubaydah. See a difference in the way these two interrogations are described? Zubaydah was interrogated in the normal way, didn't yield the necessary information, was subjected to "torture-lite," and yielded information that may or may not have been crucial to counterterrorism efforts. But Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was simply captured and questioned using "these procedures"--if we're to read this literally, he went straight from handcuffs to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(torture)">sweat box</a>. That doesn't make much sense...unless by "these procedures" President Bush is referring collectively to all interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, without making it clear how much information was obtained through ordinary interrogation, or how successful or unsuccessful the CIA's use of more controversial techniques might have been. President Bush does give an example of one instance where Khalid Sheikh Muhammad gave specific information about a terrorist attack:<blockquote class=yes>KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent -- and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazid. KSM apparently believed we already had this information, because Yazid had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM's arrest.</blockquote>...and the information was obtained through good old fashioned misdirection, something any good police detective could have used without violating the Bill of Rights, much less the Geneva Conventions or the War Crimes Act. 

Note that, despite the numerous examples President Bush has given, he fails to name a single specific instance where the controversial interrogation techniques yielded any useful information that we didn't already have. The information invariably "helped" in some non-specific way:<blockquote class=yes>Terrorists held in CIA custody have also provided information that helped stop a planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti -- they were going to use an explosive laden water tanker. They helped stop a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi using car bombs and motorcycle bombs, and they helped stop a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow or the Canary Wharf in London.</blockquote>These nightmare scenarios are supposed to make us more receptive to the idea of secret CIA prisons and controversial interrogation techniques, as are the consistent references to the 9/11 attacks. The phrase "9/11" or "September 11th" is used 14 times in this short speech, which is actually about later attacks, if one wants to get technical, and not 9/11 itself. It is the specter of 9/11 that is supposed to make us amenable to...to...well, what, exactly? President Bush mentions a proposal to ask Congress to approve military commissions to try suspected terrorists, but he has asked for that before--there's nothing new or controversial about this legislation, which has already been discussed and is expected to easily pass Congress. No, he's asking for something a little more controversial:<blockquote class=yes>So today, I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I'm asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act -- so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts -- in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs. 

The need for this legislation is urgent. We need to ensure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives. My administration will continue to work with the Congress to get this legislation enacted -- but time is of the essence. Congress is in session just for a few more weeks, and passing this legislation ought to be the top priority.</blockquote>Okay, so here's the pitch: "I've been running a secret program for five years that may be in violation of the War Crimes Act, I can give you no evidence that it ever accomplished any useful goals, and I want you to pass legislation that will, sight unseen, exempt that program from prosecution. Oh, and by the way--you have three weeks." The fact that this lines up with the election season might not be coincidental; portraying Democrats as soft on terrorism, due to their civil liberties concerns, is central to the Republican Party's 2006 strategy. But if we take President Bush at his word and assume that politics plays no role in his decision, the implications are even more frightening. President Bush offers us a reassurance that is much less reassuring than silence would have been:<blockquote class=yes>I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it. Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain, and I signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act, which established the legal standard for treatment of detainees wherever they are held. I support this act. And as we implement this law, our government will continue to use every lawful method to obtain intelligence that can protect innocent people, and stop another attack like the one we experienced on September the 11th, 2001.</blockquote>Why would President Bush make a point of saying this if the CIA secret interrogation program did not include techniques that the international human rights community would describe as torture? 

The Bush administration has long been accused of using <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1066041,00.html">"torture lite"</a>--interrogation methods that constitute torture as far as most of the civilized world is concerned, but technically avoid violation of U.S. codes regarding torture. Except for the War Crimes Act, which--drafted, as it was, with international war crimes regulations in mind--uses a more widely accepted definition of torture. 

So President Bush's message to the international community is simple: The CIA secret prisons, their existence long suspected by conspiracy buffs, really do exist. "Torture-lite" techniques, which the Bush administration has been long accused of using, really have been put to use. And, in an ultimate display of chutzpah, President Bush has asked Congress to pass legislation that would essentially legitimize both. 

This is a very big deal, and the international human rights community <a href="http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/09/06/usdom14139.htm">recognizes it as such</a>. Here's hoping the mainstream U.S. media will follow suit.

Quote:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=36597
09.07.06

BUSH LIES ABOUT RAMZI BIN AL SHIBH, ABU ZUBAYDAH AND TORTURE:

Not that it should surprise anyone anymore, but yesterday's <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html">stomach-churning Bush speech</a> defending torture contains this little number:

We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used--I think you understand why--if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.

Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks--a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

First, <a href="http://www.ronsuskind.com/theonepercentdoctrine/">according to Ron Suskind</a>, Abu Zubaydah didn't clam up because he was "trained to resist interrogation," but because he has the mental capacity of a retarded child. Second, the idea that Abu Zubaydah's interrogation tipped off the U.S. to the existence of Ramzi bin Al Shibh is just an outright lie. A Nexis search for "Ramzi Binalshibh" between September 11, 2001 and March 1, 2002--the U.S. captured Abu Zubaydah in March 2002--turns up 26 hits for The Washington Post alone. Everyone involved in counterterrorism knew who bin Al Shibh was. Now-retired FBI Al Qaeda hunter Dennis Lormel <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/06/attack/main511244.shtml">told Congress who Ramzi bin Al Shibh was in February 2002.</a> Abu Zubaydah getting waterboarded and spouting bin Al Shibh's name did not tell us anything we did not already know.

Of course, most Americans don't have access to Nexis. And most Americans don't remember--and can't be expected to remember--newspaper coverage of Al Qaeda for a seven-month stretch between the attacks and Abu Zubaydah's capture. Bush is exploiting that ignorance to tell the American people an outright lie in order to convince them that we need to torture people. As Bush once said in another context, if this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
--Spencer Ackerman

Does the preceding quote box support the idea that Bush told deliberate untruths in his speech, yesterday ? It's no surprise that I think the answer is yes? How do you defend what president Bush has authorized?

stevo · 09-07-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

How do you defend what president Bush has authorized?

Its football season. Politics takes a back seat. Had bush came out and said this in the summer duldrums maybe we'd take notice. But Florida State just beat Miami, The dolphins are playing the steelers tonight and Ohio State is playing Texas saturday. I've got more important things to worry about than whether our president is a liar.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-07-2006, 12:51 PM

How do I defend his actions?

As the acting arm of the National government his most basic function is to provide for the common defence of America. In war you serve no master but your ambition, however the American political climate doesn't allow for that. If people had their way we would no doubt need lawyers embedded with our troops for all circumstances of engagement and action lest the big bad America commit some "grievous" war crimes.

Why is it that the executive is vested with the power and command of the armed forces? Because if it was in the hands of congress it would be entirely to political, which is exactly what is going on in Iraq, or the broader "war on terra". It is arguable in many instances whether Bush violated international law, but in instances where he did, I could really give two shits because I have yet to see any violation of sovereign American rights, and that's all I am concerned with.

Rekna · 09-07-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

How do I defend his actions?

As the acting arm of the National government his most basic function is to provide for the common defence of America. In war you serve no master but your ambition, however the American political climate doesn't allow for that. If people had their way we would no doubt need lawyers embedded with our troops for all circumstances of engagement and action lest the big bad America commit some "grievous" war crimes.

Why is it that the executive is vested with the power and command of the armed forces? Because if it was in the hands of congress it would be entirely to political, which is exactly what is going on in Iraq, or the broader "war on terra". It is arguable in many instances whether Bush violated international law, but in instances where he did, I could really give two shits because I have yet to see any violation of sovereign American rights, and that's all I am concerned with.

Under this logic it is ok for Iran and North Korea to persue nuclear weapons despite signing treaties saying they wouldn't. Because they have not violated their citizens right in doing so.

Willravel · 09-07-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

Its football season. Politics takes a back seat. Had bush came out and said this in the summer duldrums maybe we'd take notice. But Florida State just beat Miami, The dolphins are playing the steelers tonight and Ohio State is playing Texas saturday. I've got more important things to worry about than whether our president is a liar.

I'm sorry, I've read this about 12 times now and I honestly don't know if you'rebeing serious, or if you're sarcasticlly spoofing the typical bush supporter who doesn't want to pay attention to politics because football is on. I swerar I can't tell. If it's the former, then you might have hit the back button as a sign of respect to host. If it's the latter, then "hehehe".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

How do I defend his actions?

As the acting arm of the National government his most basic function is to provide for the common defence of America. In war you serve no master but your ambition, however the American political climate doesn't allow for that. If people had their way we would no doubt need lawyers embedded with our troops for all circumstances of engagement and action lest the big bad America commit some "grievous" war crimes.

The president isn't just the Commander in Cheif of the Armed Forces, he's also Cheif Diplomat, Cheif Executive, and Head Legislator, offices that he has not been very successful in. Our allies hate us, Washington is more corrupt today than it was 10 years ago, and he's never vetoed.

In war you serve those you protect and protect those you serve. Ambition has nothing to do with National Defence. Do you feel more or less safe after 9/11?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Why is it that the executive is vested with the power and command of the armed forces? Because if it was in the hands of congress it would be entirely to political, which is exactly what is going on in Iraq, or the broader "war on terra". It is arguable in many instances whether Bush violated international law, but in instances where he did, I could really give two shits because I have yet to see any violation of sovereign American rights, and that's all I am concerned with.

Too political, you say? So you don't think that Bush is politically motivated? That's a rather odd statement. Would you care to back that up?

The_Jazz · 09-07-2006, 01:12 PM

Does anyone have any idea of what the ramifications of these treaty violations are?

Ustwo · 09-07-2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Does anyone have any idea of what the ramifications of these treaty violations are?

They will cut off the heads of US soliders they capture twice?

Seaver · 09-07-2006, 01:19 PM

They will declare America to be the Evil Satan?

Ustwo · 09-07-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

I would be SO disapointed if we weren't torturing. I don't get my panties in a bunch over what our enemies do routinely and remains uncommented on by the left except in the most bland terms.

The_Jazz · 09-07-2006, 01:50 PM

I should have expected smartass answers from you fuckers. I'm actually serious. As a signatory to the Geneva Convention, what are the reprecussions when we don't follow it? Are there monetary penalties, are we kicked out, trade restrictions, etc.? The Iraqi insurrgents are going to do whatever they're going to do regardless of a treaty that they aren't a signatory to, but I'm wondering more about the rest of the world and what it means in the long term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I would be SO disapointed if we weren't torturing. I don't get my panties in a bunch over what our enemies do routinely and remains uncommented on by the left except in the most bland terms.

Again a serious question - is that because you believe that it's possible to get authentic information out of torture or because you see it as payback?

Willravel · 09-07-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Again a serious question - is that because you believe that it's possible to get authentic information out of torture or because you see it as payback?

An excellent question...
...and before anyone answers, they should know that torture her never been a reliable method of extracting information. Precedent set since the beginning of nationstates support the conclusion that torture is a scare tactic, nothing more. Any psychologist, sociologist, or experienced military officer worth his or her salt will confirm that information extracted under duress is essentially useless. What that suggests is that torture (you know, the stuff we refuse to make illegal) is a part of our ongoing terrorist - using the term terrorist in it's original meaning: to control through fear - tactics.

Oh and to this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I should have expected smartass answers from you fuckers.

HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!

Ch'i · 09-07-2006, 02:59 PM

I don't understand the point in the Geneva Convention or the U.N. I understand why they were created, but what's the point if anyone can break, or violate their terms without any repercussions. If the U.N and Geneva Convention cannot enforce the rules they created, then how do they expect anyone to seriously abide by them? You might as well say, "Don't drink and drive! We don't do anything if you do, but its against the law!" And don't answer with anything like "honor" or "giving their word they will." Those two have been dead for quite some time. The U.N. is the League of Nations older brother; both just as effective.

Rekna · 09-07-2006, 03:23 PM

Stevo, Ustwo, Mojo, and Seaver if the treaties we have signed are out the window when it suits us then why should Iran in North Korea have to abide by their treaties that say they won't develop nuclear weapons?

Ch'i · 09-07-2006, 03:28 PM

Uh, Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons...

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-07-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The president isn't just the Commander in Cheif of the Armed Forces, he's also Cheif Diplomat, Cheif Executive, and Head Legislator, offices that he has not been very successful in. Our allies hate us, Washington is more corrupt today than it was 10 years ago, and he's never vetoed.

It is inconsequential the sentiments held by our allies, Bush's only duty is to this country, no one else. As such any decision he makes should be for our benefit and our behalf. Choices made by the President aren't always easy, nor are they ideal, but the easy way isn't always the right way to get something done. Corruption and everything else isn't a monopoly held by Bush, it's a natural part of politics.

Quote:

In war you serve those you protect and protect those you serve. Ambition has nothing to do with National Defence. Do you feel more or less safe after 9/11?

Ambition has everything to do with our National defence, you fight a war (such as military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, the broader war on terror) to win it, completely and utterly. My only complaints about Bush in this conflicts is that he and the military brass have been too easy on our enemies.

I can't say I feel anymore safe since 9/11, but that's just my nature, I in no way shape or form feel any less safe. I've never felt threatened as a result of 9/11 or terrorism. But noting all the arrests and plots being disrupted, it would seem that something is working, don't know if the credit should go to Bush and his methods, but it's clear that shit was going to happen and now it is not.

Quote:

Too political, you say? So you don't think that Bush is politically motivated? That's a rather odd statement. Would you care to back that up?

Bush is obviously politically motivated, that's innate to politics. I however have more respect for Bush and his methods then say the democrats such as John Kerry and Howard Dean who are politicking with the war; it disgusts me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i

Uh, Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons...

Right

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Stevo, Ustwo, Mojo, and Seaver if the treaties we have signed are out the window when it suits us then why should Iran in North Korea have to abide by their treaties that say they won't develop nuclear weapons?

It's on them whether or not they want to abide by the treaties they have signed, you'll get no arguement from me. At the same time they should be prepared for the consequences of their actions.

Willravel · 09-07-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

It is inconsequential the sentiments held by our allies, Bush's only duty is to this country, no one else. As such any decision he makes should be for our benefit and our behalf. Choices made by the President aren't always easy, nor are they ideal, but the easy way isn't always the right way to get something done. Corruption and everything else isn't a monopoly held by Bush, it's a natural part of politics.

Bull. Our allies are what allow us to function in the international community. To ignore what the rest of the world is saying is the pretend like we don't exist in a symbiotic relationship with the rest of the world. Because some of the decisions he has made benifit us in the long run and are detrimental to our allies, THOSE DECISIONS WILL ULTIMATELY BE DETRIMENTAL TO US. I cannot stress this enough. This idea that we can treat everyone like shit and take everything for ourselves simply doesn't work long term. In our lifetime we will see the blowback from the Iraqi war. Shoot, Blair is resigning! Corruption and monopolies aren't a part of democratic politics, they are a part of selfish dictatorships and have no place in my country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Ambition has everything to do with our National defence, you fight a war (such as military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, the broader war on terror) to win it, completely and utterly. My only complaints about Bush in this conflicts is that he and the military brass have been too easy on our enemies.

You fight a war to prevent war in the future, too. Well at least you're supposed to. What we're doing now is multiplying our enemies, AND we're losing! Sounds like a great strategy to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I can't say I feel anymore safe since 9/11, but that's just my nature, I in no way shape or form feel any less safe. I've never felt threatened as a result of 9/11 or terrorism. But noting all the arrests and plots being disrupted, it would seem that something is working, don't know if the credit should go to Bush and his methods, but it's clear that shit was going to happen and now it is not.

Really? So you believe that shit was going to happen? And who told you that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Bush is obviously politically motivated, that's innate to politics. I however have more respect for Bush and his methods then say the democrats such as John Kerry and Howard Dean who are politicking with the war; it disgusts me.

No, being a selfish prick who can't listen to anything but the party line is NOT inate to politics. It's inate to bad politics. What I would hope for is someone who can actually end a war instead of starting one. With Bush there is no end of a war. There are more wars around the corner. It's childish, it's overly confrontational, and it's stupid. Yes, George W. Bush is stupid. Don't believe me? Try talking to him. My two year old daughter has more iltelligable speach.

Mojo_PeiPei · 09-07-2006, 04:21 PM

Therefore your daughter is apart of the axis of evil. WIll we will continue this later, it's thursday and I have a vendetta against my liver.

roachboy · 09-07-2006, 04:22 PM

Quote:

I would be SO disapointed if we weren't torturing. I don't get my panties in a bunch over what our enemies do routinely and remains uncommented on by the left except in the most bland terms.

i was going to respond but the sound of the moral vacuum in this statement was so loud that i lost my train of thought.

Willravel · 09-07-2006, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i was going to respond but the sound of the moral vacuum in this statement was so loud that i lost my train of thought.

Seaver · 09-07-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Uh, Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons...

Really? They admit they are developing them. They claim the right to develop them. They refuse any nuclear scientists to inspect the sites. They spend billions in developing the site below ground bomb-proof bunkers and more billions in air defense systems around said sites. The president vowes to whipe Israel off the map.

Yet they're not developing nuclear weapons.

rofgilead · 09-07-2006, 05:45 PM

I just am sad that our current leaders don't believe in justice or freedom for all. That's what is supposed to be so great about our country and part of our identity. When you can have no rights, be jailed indefinitely without a lawyer or ability to communicate to your family, can be tried based on hearsay without access to evidence against you in a kangaroo court, be tortured in secret prisons across the world, when your financial records and phone records are no longer protected from the government by due process what do you get? GW Bush America. I hate this president's administration.

Willravel · 09-07-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Really? They admit they are developing them. They claim the right to develop them. They refuse any nuclear scientists to inspect the sites. They spend billions in developing the site below ground bomb-proof bunkers and more billions in air defense systems around said sites. The president vowes to whipe Israel off the map.

Yet they're not developing nuclear weapons.

See this is what I've been talking about. We hear someone on the news say "Iran might be developing nuclear weapons", and people hear "Iran has admitted to developing nuclear weapons". There's a big difference. The first quote is called a 'rumor'. A rumor is a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts. The second quote is a misunderstanding based on massive polarization and misinformation.

Seaver, Iran has not gone on record admitting that they are developing nuclear weapons. They have gone on record saying they are developing nuclear power. Do you understand the difference between weapons and power?

Weapon: An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword

Power: A particular form of mechanical or physical energy

Quote:

Iran states the purpose of its nuclear programme is the generation of power and that any other use would be a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory (but has threatened to withdraw from), as well as being against Iranian religious principles. Iran claims that nuclear power is necessary for a booming population and rapidly industrialising nation. It points to the fact that Iran's population has more than doubled in 20 years, the country regularly imports gasoline and electricity, and that burning fossil fuel in large amounts harms Iran's environment drastically. Additionally, Iran questions why it shouldn't be allowed to diversify its sources of energy, especially when there are fears of its oil fields eventually being depleted. It continues to argue that its valuable oil should be used for high value products, not simple electricity generation. Iran also raises financial questions, claiming that developing the excess capacity in its oil industry would cost it $40 billion, let alone pay for the power plants. Harnessing nuclear power costs a fraction of this, considering Iran has abundant supplies of accessible uranium ore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_an...Iranian_stance

Ch'i · 09-07-2006, 06:02 PM

They didn't admit to developing neclear weapons, they admited to aquiring information on how to build them.

Quote:

November 18, 2005, Global Security Newswire
By Marina Malenic
For the first time, Iran has conceded receiving documents on nuclear weapon production from the black-market nuclear network operated by former top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report issued today. Papers obtained by Iran from the Khan network beginning in the late 1980s provided detailed instructions on shaping "enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms," according to the agency report.

Iranian officials have denied seeking the uranium sphere designs, which they said were provided unilaterally by members of the nuclear network. Meanwhile, President George W. Bush today expressed support for a Russian proposal that would allow Iran to enrich uranium in Russia as part of a joint venture.
The documents are a "cookbook" for producing a nuclear weapon’s uranium core, one European diplomat told Reuters. One nonproliferation expert disagreed with that assessment, however. "It's not a cookbook, it’s not specific instructions" to make a nuclear weapon, said Corey Hinderstein, deputy director of the Institute of Science and International Security. "The information is general, it explains the process, but it does not give instructions on the process."

They do have the right to develop them. When the U.S. stops developing nuclear weapons I'll agree with you.

I don't blame them for refusing an inspection; look what they found in Iraq.

Quote:

Report concludes no WMD in Iraq

Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/ TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

He said it "should" be wiped off the map, not, "I vow to wipe Israel off the map", which is perfectly understandable. You can keep manipulating the words they say to your liking.
Nuclear power isn't cheap. And, located where they are, it makes sense to protect their nuclear power. Should an enemy gain access to it they could do quite a bit of damage. Unless you think it would be better to just leave it out in the open?
Listening correctly may be adventagous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver
Yet they're not developing nuclear weapons.

Seaver · 09-07-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

They have gone on record saying they are developing nuclear power. Do you understand the difference between weapons and power?

Do you understand that it is much easier to develop a weapon than it is to develope a reactor? Reactors require a great deal of complexity in the cooling and reaction controls. Bombs just blow up. Even if it only sort-of blows up it is still effective.

I'm sorry if I dont believe that a country that sits on a pool of oil needs nuclear power for development.

Ch'i · 09-07-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

I'm sorry if I dont believe that a country that sits on a pool of oil needs nuclear power for development.

They understand that oil supply is not everlasting.

Willravel · 09-07-2006, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Do you understand that it is much easier to develop a weapon than it is to develope a reactor? Reactors require a great deal of complexity in the cooling and reaction controls. Bombs just blow up. Even if it only sort-of blows up it is still effective.

I'm sorry if I dont believe that a country that sits on a pool of oil needs nuclear power for development.

I'm sorry you don't understand high school economics and I'm sorry you think the ability to develop nuclear weapons is the same as actualy developing nuclear weapons.

1) Not understanding economics: Opportunity cost is a term used in economics to mean the cost of something in terms of an opportunity forgone (and the benefits that could be received from that opportunity), or the most valuable forgone alternative. For example, if a city decides to build a hospital on vacant land that it owns, the opportunity cost is some other thing that might have been done with the land and construction funds instead. In building the hospital, the city has forgone the opportunity to build a sporting center on that land, or a parking lot, or the ability to sell the land to reduce the city's debt, and so on.

Iran has a massive opportunity cost in the form of their oil. In order for them to profit from the oil, they need to find a way to use up as little of their product as possible. How would they do this? They want to develop nuclear power! You see nuclear power uses almost no oil, and is now relatively safe. Iran recognises the opportunity, and is now taking steps to utilize their opportunity to profit. Utilizing opportunity cost is called efficency.

2) Your inability to understand how what you say is different than reality:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

They admit they are developing them. They claim the right to develop them.

Psst, I proved you wrong. Then Ch'i proved you wrong. Iran has not claimed to be developing nuclear weapons. Iran has not claimed to be developing nuclear weapons. How did you respond? With more bizzare information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Reactors require a great deal of complexity in the cooling and reaction controls. Bombs just blow up.

Are you are actally suggesting that creating a nuclear bomb is simple? Can you please think about that for a second? .

Another interesting article pertaining to the actual thread topic:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Democracy Now!

On Wednesday, President Bush acknowledged for the first time that the CIA has been operating a secret network of overseas prisons. President Bush made the admission as he ordered 14 prisoners previously held by the CIA to be transferred to Guantanamo Bay where they could be tried by a military tribunal. The prisoners include alleged 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheik Muhammad. Bush said the CIA is no longer holding any detainees but that the secret prisons may be re-opened.

He denied the U.S. ever uses torture but he admitted the CIA had used what he described as alternative procedures to force some prisoners to talk. Bush also urged Congress to authorize the use of military tribunals and to amend the War Crimes Act. The president said new laws were needed because of the Supreme Court's ruling in June in the Hamdan case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Many specifics of this program, including where these detainees have been held and the details of their confinement, cannot be divulged. Doing so would provide our enemies with information they could use to take retribution against our allies and harm our country. I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us information that has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks.

The court determined that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as Common Article 3 applies to our war with al-Qaeda. This article includes provisions that prohibit outrages upon personal dignity and humiliating and degrading treatment. The problem is that these and other provisions of Common Article 3 are vague and undefined, and each could be interpreted in different ways by an American or foreign judges. And some believe our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act, simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way.

Judging by the vague, political language, we can ascert that the CIA is guilty of torture and the President is seeking a way to circumvent the Geneva Conventions. Also, bear in mind that the President uses a different definition of torture than the rest of us. According to our President, torture only occurs when someone is at the risk of immediate full organ failure or death. That's not the international definition of torture, and I seriously doubt that's the American people's definition of torture.

Ustwo · 09-07-2006, 08:32 PM

Oh christ, are we arguing if Iran is trying to become a nuclear power again?

Might as well argue that the sun doesn't set in the west. This sort of blindness is what really disgusts me about tfp politics. Its not arguing philosphy or point of view, its arguing if Bush is involved in human sacrafice (thanks host), if 9/11 was some vast conspiracy (thanks will) or if Iran is trying to develope nuclear weapons (thanks many).

If the issue is does the US use torture on prisoners, my answer is I dont know, but I don't care, and I hope we do. That is my point of view on the subject, I have my reasons I'd be more than willing to share.

As for Iran, all I can say is go Israel! We have been handcuffed by those who wish to thwart the war on terror any way they can to the point we are unable to act.

roachboy · 09-07-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

If the issue is does the US use torture on prisoners, my answer is I dont know, but I don't care, and I hope we do. That is my point of view on the subject, I have my reasons I'd be more than willing to share.

please do ustwo...

Willravel · 09-07-2006, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

/snip
If the issue is does the US use torture on prisoners, my answer is I dont know, but I don't care, and I hope we do. That is my point of view on the subject, I have my reasons I'd be more than willing to share.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

An excellent question...
...and before anyone answers, they should know that torture her never been a reliable method of extracting information. Precedent set since the beginning of nationstates support the conclusion that torture is a scare tactic, nothing more. Any psychologist, sociologist, or experienced military officer worth his or her salt will confirm that information extracted under duress is essentially useless. What that suggests is that torture (you know, the stuff we refuse to make illegal) is a part of our ongoing terrorist - using the term terrorist in it's original meaning: to control through fear - tactics.

Torture isn't usefull was a method of extracting information, therefore you must support it because...why? Do you hate Arabs for some reason? Are you anti-muslim? I honestly don't get it. Is this a vengence thing (i.e. how dare you fight us when we invade your country!)? Is it a power thing? Please, elighten me.

rofgilead · 09-07-2006, 08:47 PM

Iran is likely developing nuclear weapons at the same time that it is developing nuclear power. But this is a threadjack - what does it have to do with our President being honest/upholding international treaties?

Anywas, what can America/UN do about Iran that would stop this nuclear weapon development? Nothing. The US has lost all international support and the president lost a 20% domestic support from approval ratings. Our military can barely handle the situation in Iraq right now. China, Russia have ties with Iran as does Japan and will not support sanctions. So - it appears that Iran will develop nuclear weapons 5-10 years from now without anything the US can do to stop this from occurring.

Ch'i · 09-07-2006, 08:49 PM

UsTwo, you speak of blindness while you yourself are subject to the same definition.

Quote:

This sort of blindness is what really disgusts me about tfp politics. Its not arguing philosphy or point of view, its arguing if Bush is involved in human sacrafice (thanks host), if 9/11 was some vast conspiracy (thanks will) or if Iran is trying to develope nuclear weapons (thanks many).

Those aren't point of views?

Well, if they torture you I'll continue arguing against it. Some of us can rise above our bias for the sake of discussion, and maybe helping other people.

Anyway, Bush certainly doesn't uphold national treaties, but insists on enforcing them with non-U.S countries. Asking a country to disarm should be mutual, otherwise its hypocracy plain and simple.

host · 09-08-2006, 12:53 AM

What I would like to find out is how the supporters of Mr. Bush, "know what they know".....how they come by the "knowledge" that gives them the confidence to trust what he says and to support what he and his administraion "do"....vs. what they say they do....and the criteria and the methods that supporters employ to discern and evaluate, the "results", of the Bush admin. GWOT policies......if there actually are any positive ones. Also, if supporting Mr. Bush is not about any of the above....I'd like to read about that, too.

Is the Bush administration "doing a good job", i.e., making progress in the GWOT,
while prudently overseeing the spending and budgeting of funds that this entails? What are the signs that they are doing anything that you approve of? Tout them for us, please!

All I see is bad news and the refusal, on the part of the Bush admin. to study or learn.....the regional political history, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, before plunging into military conflict in both former British colonial regions....in each instance, for the stated goal of taking or removing, one objectionable individual, (Usama & Saddam) from each country:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0500312_2.html
Bush Warns Of Enduring Terror Threat
Words of Bin Laden, Allies Show Their Goals, He Says

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; A01

......In his speech, Bush said terrorist leaders' statements have made plain their goals, which he called the present-day equivalent of the "evil" aims of Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler.

"Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?" Bush said, adding that "we're taking the words of the enemy seriously."

Meanwhile, the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies issued a report saying that although the Bush administration has deprived al-Qaeda of sanctuary in Afghanistan and has prevented more attacks on U.S. soil in the past five years, it has not tracked down bin Laden or created "enduring security in Afghanistan." Moreover, the report said, the administration's attempts at public diplomacy are "undermined by perceived U.S. unilateralism."

"What is missing from the . . . public discussion of all of this is some explanation of the phenomenon of radicalized Islam," said Daniel Benjamin, a senior fellow at CSIS and former Clinton administration official. "Why are there so many people out there who want to kill Americans and so many Westerners? Why is this such a durable phenomenon?"

As Bush spoke in Washington, Pakistan <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090501249.html">signed a peace accord</a> with pro-Taliban forces in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, agreeing to withdraw its troops from the region in return for the fighters' pledge to stop attacks inside Pakistan. The pact prompted concern that it could allow Islamic extremist groups to operate more freely in the area........

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13990130/site/newsweek/
Border Backlash
Musharraf's attempt to police the tribal areas with the Army has bred a new generation of extremists.
By Ron Moreau and Zahid Hussain
Newsweek International

July 31, 2006 issue - Just over three years ago, under pressure from Washington to stop Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from crossing the porous border into Afghanistan, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf began dispatching tens of thousands of Pakistani troops to the country's tribal regions. The goal: to beat back the Islamic radicals in and around the seven tribal agencies bordering on eastern and southern Afghanistan. Today some 80,000 Pakistani troops are stationed in outposts and garrisons along the rugged frontier.

But, ironically, instead of quelling extremism, the military occupation has fueled it. Radical Islamic clerics throughout Pakistan's semiautonomous tribal belt now preach the hard-line gospel, day and night. Their fiery jihadist sermons exhort people to live by the harsh code of Islamic Sharia—or else. In Wana, the capital of the South Waziristan tribal agency, extremists recently used dynamite to blow up a radio station for playing music. If these radicals sound like Pakistan's equivalent of Mullah Mohammed Omar's ousted Taliban regime, they are. The tribal militants call themselves "Pakistani Taliban," or members of a newly coined and loosely knit entity, the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. They openly recruit young men to fight with the Taliban in Afghanistan and run their own Islamic kangaroo courts that, on occasion, stage public executions. The local police simply stay out of the way. "Fearing for their lives, no one dares to challenge them," says Afrasiab Khattak, former chairman of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

The Pakistani Army has had some success. It's killed 180 foreign fighters and captured some 300 foreign-born militants, including Qaeda operatives, in periodic fighting, according to military spokesman Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan. He says some 370 local militants have also been killed. But the Pakistani Army has also paid a high price, losing 350 of its troops. And on balance, the Army has little to show for all the carnage. "There has been some success in hunting down Al Qaeda," says retired Pakistani Army Lt. Gen. Talat Masood. "But there has only been failure in terms of controlling the local Taliban."

Not only are the Pakistani militants now stronger than ever, the links between the pro-Taliban, ethnic Pashtun tribes in Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban across the border, who are also Pashtuns, have been strengthened. The resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, who last week briefly captured two district towns in southern Afghanistan, has only increased the morale and muscle of their Pakistani brethren. "What was a containable problem has spun out of control," says Ayaz Amir, a political columnist for the Dawn daily newspaper. The invigorated Pakistani militants have boosted their recruiting of Afghan and local youths studying in madrassas along the mountainous border, and are sending them into Afghanistan to fight. "There is now a greater cross-border traffic between Waziristan and Afghanistan than before the Army moved in," adds Amir. And both Waziristan and the border areas of neighboring Baluchistan have become even more hospitable rear bases and havens for Taliban commanders and fighters.

Before the military moved into the tribal areas, the militants had been sympathetic with, but not actively committed to, the Afghan Taliban's cause. Now that has changed. "The military's presence has brought no plus for the tribals," says General Masood. "It has made them more angry, dissatisfied, antigovernment and actively pro-Taliban." Perhaps more important, the Army's occupation upset the traditional governing balance in the tribal areas, which has changed little from the days of British colonial rule. The tribal agencies are not governed by Pakistan's Constitution or legal codes. Rather, government-appointed political agents hold sway by offering patronage (chiefly large amounts of money) to maliks, or tribal elders, who are charged with maintaining law and order according to custom. But as an occupying force, the Army took control over everything from security to development. "It marginalized the maliks and the entire administrative system, and didn't replace it with anything other than military rule," says General Masood. "That was a huge mistake. It created a vacuum that was quickly filled by the militants."

This Pakistani neo-Taliban force has fought aggressively. Nowadays, no Army convoy can move through Waziristan without an escort of helicopter gunships. Over the past year the local Taliban has killed more than 100 pro-government maliks, and many more have fled the tribal areas in terror. Scores of so-called military collaborators have been murdered. General Sultan strongly denies that the Taliban is running the show. "To say that these people are in control is too much of an exaggeration," he insists. In a nationally televised address to the nation late last week, Musharraf acknowledged the "wave of Talibanization in tribal areas" but vowed "not to tolerate this regressive trend."

But the president seems to be in a bind. He's already tried military force, and there are political considerations besides. He doesn't want to alienate Pakistan's pro-Taliban and pro-militant religious parties, the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, or MMA, which he may need in next year's parliamentary elections. To that end, the government employed MMA leader Fazlur Rehman to negotiate a monthlong ceasefire with the militants, which expires at the end of this month....

Quote:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...rnational/home
‘We must do something about Pakistan'

GRAEME SMITH

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

MAYWAND, AFGHANISTAN — Under a waning moon, with no electricity for light, the headquarters of Afghan forces in the Maywand district of southern Afghanistan was cloaked in heavy darkness.

Despite the late hour, district leader Haji Safullah remained awake in his concrete bunker, sitting cross-legged on ragged carpets, talking with police commanders about how to defeat the Taliban.

“Pakistan,” the former mujahedeen warrior said, his voice a growl in the dark. “We must do something about Pakistan.”

As the Taliban insurgency grows in southern Afghanistan, so do suspicions about Pakistan's role in the war. Afghans tend to blame their old nemesis for everything wrong in their country, but their accusations about the Taliban finding money, shelter, weapons and fighters on the other side of the border are getting more specific these days. Mr. Safullah rhymed off the names of Taliban leaders living in neighbourhoods and compounds around Quetta, in west-central Pakistan, and complained bitterly that his men can't hunt insurgents in those havens.

The frustration of such front-line commanders has been percolating upward in recent months, through the ranks of foreign soldiers, NATO officials, and Western diplomats. During a visit to Islamabad yesterday, Canada's Defence Minister praised Pakistan's assistance but pressed for more. “In my ideal world, they could do even better because that way our troops will be safe,” said Gordon O'Connor, who was on a tour this week through Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And diplomats say that each NATO soldier killed by a Taliban bomb or ambush adds weight to an emerging consensus among Western allies, roughly mirroring the conclusion of the battle-scarred Afghan commander: Something must change inside Pakistan, quickly.

On a leafy patio in Kabul, a senior Western diplomat took a long sip of sparkling water when asked whether foreign troops are really fighting a local uprising in the country's south. What about the argument, he was asked, that the NATO forces have been drawn into a proxy war, a struggle against fighters whose instructions come from a neighbouring country?

“It's a bit of both,” the official said, with an uncertain shrug.

The answer wasn't vague for the sake of diplomacy. Nobody has a clear picture of the connections between elements in Pakistan and the Taliban, or how the insurgents draw support from inside the country without, apparently, any meaningful interference from Pakistani authorities. Analysts often point to the deep historical ties between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which helped nurture the Taliban in the early 1990s, giving them support that helped the movement grow from a religious backlash against corrupt warlords into a theocracy that dominated most of the country.

Some published reports, such as one about Taliban leaders travelling in cars with official ISI licence plates, suggest that Pakistan intelligence retains its links with the insurgents. But does the military regime in Islamabad know about, or control, its ISI agents in the borderlands?

“We don't have evidence of that. But we know Pakistan could, and should, be doing more to stop the Taliban,” a senior Western diplomat in Islamabad said.

Canadian diplomats interviewed in Pakistan last month suggested that Canada must push Islamabad more vigorously for co-operation.

“We're not as aggressive as we could be,” one diplomat said.

Mr. O'Connor's visit this week is the 18th known delegation from Ottawa to Islamabad since the beginning of 2005. That means the Canadian High Commission in Pakistan is busier than most of Canada's missions abroad, but the diplomatic traffic is slower than the bustle among other Western countries. Britain's High Commission in Islamabad says it welcomed 40 official visits, not including military delegations, in the same time period. The U.S. embassy reported “30 to 35,” also excluding military guests.

The Western allies have similar goals in Pakistan, analysts say, but Canada's aims grew more distinct since it took responsibility for security in the troubled Afghan province of Kandahar this year. Kandahar shares a mountainous border with Balochistan, the vast swath of Pakistan's tribal regions. Balochistan has a reputation as a Taliban recruiting ground, a haven for insurgent training camps and home to many of the movement's leaders.

Canada wants Pakistan to crack down on the insurgents coming from Balochistan, but diplomats say it's difficult to reverse the habitual neglect with which counterterrorism officials inside and outside Pakistan have treated the southern tribal belt.

Within Pakistan, the biggest obstacle to a crackdown is the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), a staunchly anti-imperialist party that promotes a rigid enforcement of Islamic law. A political summary prepared for Canadian diplomats in Islamabad says the JUI “is still believed to be supporting the uprising of the ‘local' Taliban from the tribal areas, and Balochistan.”

The document adds: “Taliban fighters are apparently recruited and trained in these areas.”

Despite the JUI's unsavory connections, President Pervez Musharraf has relied on the party's strong regional voting base in previous elections.

“Part of the quid pro quo with the JUI was, ‘If you want to go after al-Qaeda because of the American pressure, fine, but we will differentiate between al-Qaeda and the Taliban, because we the JUI support the Taliban,'” said Ahmed Rashid, a prominent writer on Afghan issues.

Sitting in the elegant study of his home in Lahore, Pakistan, Mr. Rashid leaned forward in his chair to emphasize his next point: The United States focused on hunting al-Qaeda after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, at the expense of fighting the Taliban.

“What happened after the war ended was simply that the Americans were insisting on a wrap-up of al-Qaeda,” he said. “That was translated by the Americans, very conveniently, as meaning Arabs; not Afghans, not Pakistanis. The focus was on the NWFP,” he said, referring to the North West Frontier Province on the northern side of Pakistan's tribal areas where Osama bin Laden was believed to be hiding.

“Because the focus was there, that very conveniently left the Taliban, who were based essentially in Balochistan, completely alone,” he continued. “Which is why they were able to revive and resurge.”

For the United States, this strategy in Pakistan has achieved significant goals. Since 2001, Pakistan has arrested more than 600 al-Qaeda operatives, including major terrorism suspects such as Ramzi bin Al-Shibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, alleged organizers of the 9/11 attacks.

But the U.S. strategy left NATO with an unpleasant surprise when the international force assumed responsibility for Afghanistan this year: U.S. intelligence agencies had little useful information about the Taliban revival in the south.

Foreign militaries have misunderstood their enemy, said Mohammad Ziauddin, resident editor at the Dawn newspaper group in Islamabad.

Western officials often refer to Mullah Mohammed Omar, the one-eyed former leader of the Taliban government, and his sadistic field marshal, Mullah Dadullah, as key leaders of the insurgency.

But those two leaders are merely “foot soldiers,” Mr. Ziauddin said.

“They take orders from the JUI,” he said. “It's not a Taliban uprising. It's a section of the Pashtuns who are pissed off, and they're organized by the JUI to take back Kabul.”

Some diplomats and analysts disagree with Mr. Ziauddin, saying it's not clear whether the JUI has such control over the militants. But there's broad agreement with his two main points: That the JUI feeds the insurgency with its support, whether material, or merely ideological, as the party claims; and that the Pashtun tribe feels marginalized in the new Kabul government.

The Pashtuns have dominated Afghanistan for centuries. As the main ethnic group of southern Afghanistan, Pashtuns led the Durrani Empire in the 18th and 19th centuries, and they formed the core of the Taliban movement that conquered Kabul in 1996.

Pashtun resentment may slowly decline, analysts say, as the northern tribes that overthrew the Taliban in 2001 are increasingly balanced with representation from elsewhere in the country.

But the JUI's influence in Pakistan seems poised to grow. The leader of the JUI's largest faction, Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman, was appointed as the leader of the opposition in 2004, and his party now dominates the provincial governments in Balochistan and the NWFP. Among the JUI's ardent followers, Taliban victories in Afghanistan only increase the Islamic party's prestige inside Pakistan.

And while General Musharraf is a moderate politician, analysts say, recent defections from his governing coalition will force him to rely even more heavily on the JUI's support during the election next year.

This leaves Canadian diplomats with an exceptionally difficult task in Pakistan, Mr. Rashid said: “We are heading for an even bigger catastrophe.”

The following link is to a page that contained information that gave me a headache to read....
http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/oct/31rajeev.htm
but it illustrated the folly of "invading" Afghanistan to "capture" Bin Laden, and of "enlisting" Pakistan as an "ally" in the GWOT. I am convinced that until the simplistic "thinking" that pervades some of the posts on this thread, and comes from "Bush's base".....the dwindling source of his legitimacy....if that is even what it is that still allows him to make these "speeches", and "fight this war".....morphs into something akin to rational thought, if it even holds that potential; we're all fucked....to a much graver extent than if we endeavored to "stand down" and bring our troops and intelligence assets, home from "the Stans", and from the M.E. IMO, as a nation, we would be wiser to "go to war" against the party ruling the federal government and it's supporters, than to continue the US military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our current government obviously knows not, what it is fucking with, or where it will lead.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durand_Line
The Durand Line is a term for the poorly marked 2,640 kilometer (1,610 mile) border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.....

......The border was drawn intentionally to cut through the Afghan tribes whom the British feared and may have tried to disunite.

Afghanistan's loya jirga of 1949 declared the Durand Line invalid as they saw it as ex parte on their side (since British India ceased to exist in 1947 with the independence of Pakistan. This had no tangible effect as there has never been a move to enforce such a declaration. Additionally, world courts have universally upheld uti possidetis juris, i.e, binding bilateral agreements with or between colonial powers are "passed down" to successor independent states, as with most of Africa. A unilateral declaration by one party has no effect; boundary changes must be made bilaterally. Thus, the Durand Line boundary remains in effect today as the international boundary and is recognized as such by nearly all nations. Despite pervasive internet rumors to the contrary, U.S. Dept. of State and the British Foreign Commonwealth Office documents and spokespersons have recently confirmed that the Durand Line, like virtually all international boundaries, has no expiration date, nor is there any mention of such in any Durand Line documents. (The 1921 treaty expiration refers only to the 1921 agreements.)

Today, the line is often referred to as one drawn on water, symbolizing the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Nevertheless, excluding the desert portion southwest of 66 degrees 15 minutes east longitude, 84% of the line follows clear physical features (rivers or watershed divides). The precise route of the remaining 16% straight line segments is also quite clearly demarcated from the 1894-95 demarcation reports and subsequent mapping, so the legal location of the line is not in doubt and is quite accurate on readily available mapping such as the detailed (1:50,000 scale) Russian maps of the 1980s.

The line has come under special attention of late, as the area has become notorious for Taliban fighters freely traveling back and forth, finding safety and shelter in the autonomous Pashtun regions of northwestern Pakistan.

The September 2005 statements by the Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf calling for the building of a fence delineating the Afghanistan/Pakistan border have been met with opposition from Pashtuns political groups and Afghanis who view the border as illegitimate.

The Durand Line continues to be a source of tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan due to the Afghan belief that the people of the Pakistani provinces of NWFP, Balochistan and FATA want to separate from Pakistan and are the property of Afghans. This belief is viewed as good result from Pakhtuns and Baloch living in Pakistani provincies who view themselves as Afghan nationals and who view the land as afghanistan.

The fact that I have a stepson on active military duty who is about to be sent to risk his life, in one or the other of these Bush debacles, in view of the "blowback" now so evident in both places, as a direct result of Bush admin. policies, is even more disconcerting.

Rudel73 · 09-08-2006, 03:08 AM

using wikipedia as a source will get you laughed at in any formal academic setting.

stevo · 09-08-2006, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm sorry, I've read this about 12 times now and I honestly don't know if you'rebeing serious, or if you're sarcasticlly spoofing the typical bush supporter who doesn't want to pay attention to politics because football is on. I swerar I can't tell. If it's the former, then you might have hit the back button as a sign of respect to host. If it's the latter, then "hehehe".

Yes. I'm serious, but at the same time satiracle. You are very astute

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

What I would like to find out is how the supporters of Mr. Bush, "know what they know".....how they come by the "knowledge" that gives them the confidence to trust what he says and to support what he and his administraion "do"....

I can't speak for the rest of the "neocons" but this one was born with it. The knowledge was bestowed upon me by God at my birth.

Ustwo · 09-08-2006, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I can't speak for the rest of the "neocons" but this one was born with it. The knowledge was bestowed upon me by God at my birth.

You mean yours didn't come from a blind old man at the county fair?

Dude we gotta talk!

roachboy · 09-08-2006, 06:02 AM

it is almost kinda vaguely fascinating how you gentlemen can mix primitive sarcasm and avoidance.
sort of.
nice way of advancing a discussion.
o wait, you aren't trying to advance a discussion: you want the thread to go away.
isn't that what we would call trolling?

Willravel · 09-08-2006, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudel73

using wikipedia as a source will get you laughed at in any formal academic setting.

I think that if you could actually prove the linked wikipedia article wrong, you would have. This suggests that you can't prove it wrong, which makes your post kinda useless. It's like sayng, "You're wrong!" without actually explaining why, and frankly most of my professors - espically my poli sci teachers - would have looked down on that. They wouldn't have laughed, mind you, but I doubt you would have passed the classes with that attitude.

Also, TFPolitics is a community bursting at the seams with academics. Some of us are quite sharp.

stevo · 09-08-2006, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

o wait, you aren't trying to advance a discussion: you want the thread to go away.
isn't that what we would call trolling?

Not quite, I don't want the thread to go away. I like it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You mean yours didn't come from a blind old man at the county fair?

Dude we gotta talk!

You mean the blind old man at the county fair isn't God? uh-oh.

roachboy · 09-08-2006, 08:00 AM

glad you like it, stevo: i wonder if you'd be less---um---as you are being if this thread were not started by host.

just saying.

host · 09-08-2006, 09:55 AM

The NY Times is two days late, but IMO, they finally "came through" with something to post as a "bookend" to this thread's OP:
(I'm going to post it and then add footnotes that point to article excerpts from my research....please check back later if your are interested.) We are witnessing a series of speeches from the mouth of a lying POTUS who appears to be attempting to terrorize us, "his own people", in a desperate attempt to influence his political party's performance in the elections, less than 60 days from now, and to lift his own job approval and credibility polling numbers, out of the shitter!

So what I think that we've got going on is.....a POTUS who is a liar about the very circumstances that he is describing in order to legitimize the human rights and the constituional crimes that he has already authorized, and scare the shit out of us to persuade us to cede more power, at the expense of our own constitutionally guaranteed protections against abuses by governments, such as....his ! He has bolstered the case for trying him and his "underlings" for crimes against humanity and against the constitution of the United States[5].....and he's committed these crimes, IMO, without increasing our national security....quite the contrary, actually:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/wa...n/08intel.html
September 8, 2006
The Intelligence Agency
Questions Raised About Bush’s Primary Claims in Defense of Secret Detention System
By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — In defending the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret network of prisons on Wednesday, President Bush said the detention system had used lawful interrogation techniques, was fully described to select members of Congress and led directly to the capture of a string of terrorists over the past four years.

A review of public documents and interviews with American officials raises questions about Mr. Bush’s claims on all three fronts.

Mr. Bush described the interrogation techniques used on the C.I.A. prisoners as having been “safe, lawful and effective,” and he asserted that torture had not been used. But the Bush administration has yet to make public the legal papers prepared by government lawyers that served as the basis for its determination that those procedures did not violate American or international law.

The president said the Department of Justice approved a set of aggressive interrogation practices for C.I.A. detainees in 2002 after milder ones proved ineffective on Abu Zubaydah, the first of the Qaeda leaders taken into custody.

Current and former government officials said that specific interrogation methods were addressed in a series of documents, including an August 2002 memorandum by the Justice Department that authorized the C.I.A.’s use of 20 interrogation practices.

The August 2002 document, which was leaked to reporters in 2004, said interrogation methods just short of those that might cause pain comparable to “organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death” could be allowable without being considered torture.

The memorandum was repudiated in another Justice Department document at the end of 2004, and Congressional officials said on Thursday that they had not received documents from the administration explaining the legal underpinnings of the program.

One prisoner is known to have died in Afghanistan after interrogation by a C.I.A. contract employee, but the agency has distanced itself from that episode, and the former employee was convicted on assault charges last month in federal court in North Carolina.

Some lawmakers questioned Mr. Bush’s claims that his administration fully briefed some members of Congress on details of the secret detention program.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on Wednesday that the Bush administration had “withheld details of the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program from the Congressional intelligence committees.”

Congressional officials said on Thursday that the Senate Intelligence Committee was briefed about the existence of the C.I.A. detention program but was not informed about the locations of the secret prisons.

Public documents show that some of the information that led to the arrests of senior terrorism plotters like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh was known before the C.I.A. detained its first prisoner, Mr. Zubaydah, in the spring of 2002.[3]

Mr. Bush said it was Mr. Zubaydah who disclosed to C.I.A. interrogators that Mr. Mohammed was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and often used the alias Mukhtar, sometimes spelled Muktar.

“This was a vital piece of intelligence that helped our intelligence community pursue K.S.M.,” Mr. Bush said, referring to the terror suspect by his initials.

The report of the Sept. 11 commission said that the C.I.A. knew of the moniker for Mr. Mohammed months before the capture of Mr. Zubaydah.

According to the report, the C.I.A. unit given the task of tracking Osama bin Laden had intercepted a cable on Aug. 28, 2001, that revealed the alias of Mr. Mohammed.

Mr. Bush also said it was the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah that identified Mr. bin al-Shibh as an accomplice in the Sept. 11 attacks.

American officials had identified Mr. bin al-Shibh’s role in the attacks months before Mr. Zubaydah’s capture. A December 2001 federal grand jury indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, said that Mr. Moussaoui had received money from Mr. bin al-Shibh and that Mr. bin al-Shibh had shared an apartment with Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of the plot.

A C.I.A. spokesman said Thursday that the agency had vetted the president’s speech and stood by its accuracy.

“Abu Zubaydah was the authoritative source who identified Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the mastermind of 9/11 and the man behind the nickname Muktar,” the spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, said in a statement. “His position in Al Qaeda — his access to terrorist secrets — gave his reporting exceptional weight and it gave C.I.A. insights that were truly unique and vital. Abu Zubaydah not only identified Ramzi Bin al-Shibh as a 9/11 accomplice — something that had been done before — he provided information that helped lead to his capture.”

Besides the 14 prisoners identified on Wednesday, some officials and human rights advocates questioned the fate of dozens of others believed to have moved through the C.I.A. prison network over the past four years.

Human Rights Watch, in response to a request from The New York Times, provided a list of 14 men who the organization believes have been secretly detained since the Sept. 11 attacks and whose whereabouts are still unknown.

One of the men, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, is believed to have given false information about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda after C.I.A. officials transferred him to Egyptian custody in 2002. Mr. al-Libi’s statements were used by the Bush administration as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons.

It emerged later that Mr. al-Libi had fabricated these stories while in captivity to avoid harsh treatment by his Egyptian captors.

Human Rights Watch has also identified 20 other men it said were at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and who the group believes were once in C.I.A. custody.

I'll organize what follows, ASAP. I just wanted to offer it to the few who are interested, as quickly as I could....

Quote:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pb...31/1018/NEWS02
Shift on Suspect Is Linked to Role of Qaeda Figures

BY DOUGLAS JEHL AND ERIC LICHTBLAU

NEW YORK TIMES
WASHINGTON, Nov. 23 - The Bush administration decided to charge Jose Padilla with less serious crimes because it was unwilling to allow testimony from two senior members of Al Qaeda who had been subjected to harsh questioning, current and former government officials said Wednesday.

The two senior members were the main sources linking Mr. Padilla to a plot to bomb targets in the United States, the officials said.

The Qaeda members were Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and Abu Zubaydah, a top recruiter, who gave their accounts to American questioners in 2002 and 2003. The two continue to be held in secret prisons by the Central Intelligence Agency, whose internal reviews have raised questions about their treatment and credibility, the officials said.

One review, completed in spring 2004 by the C.I.A. inspector general, found that Mr. Mohammed had been subjected to excessive use of a technique involving near drowning in the first months after his capture, American intelligence officials said.

Another review, completed in April 2003 by American intelligence agencies shortly after Mr. Mohammed's capture, assessed the quality of his information from initial questioning as "Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies."

Accusations about plots to set off a "dirty bomb" and use natural gas lines to bomb American apartment buildings had featured prominently in past administration statements about Mr. Padilla, an American who had been held in military custody for more than three years after his arrest in May 2002.

But they were not mentioned in his criminal indictment on lesser charges of support to terrorism that were made public on Tuesday. The decision not to charge him criminally in connection with the more far-ranging bomb plots was prompted by the conclusion that Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Zubaydah could almost certainly not be used as witnesses, because that could expose classified information and could open up charges from defense lawyers that their earlier statements were a result of torture, officials said......

.........The C.I.A. has not acknowledged that it holds Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Zubaydah, and the locations of their prisons remain unknown. The two were identified in the report completed in 2004 by the Sept. 11 commission as being among a small group of so-called high-value terror suspects held at undisclosed sites overseas. The C.I.A. has in custody two dozen to three dozen such prisoners, and more than 100 others have been transferred by the agency from one foreign country to another, a process called rendition, officials have said.

The United States has never publicly identified Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Zubaydah as having provided the critical information against Mr. Padilla. A seven-page statement that the Justice Department declassified in June 2004 identified the two main witnesses only as "senior Al Qaeda detainee No. 1" and "senior Al Qaeda detainee No. 2."

But the statement provided detailed information about the interactions of Mr. Zubaydah and Mr. Mohammed with Mr. Padilla in Pakistan and Afghanistan after Sept. 11, and the current and former officials said the unnamed detainees were in fact those two senior Qaeda officials.

The fact that the C.I.A. inspector general's report criticized as excessive the use of interrogation techniques on Mr. Mohammed had not previously been disclosed. A spokesman for the C.I.A. declined on Wednesday to comment on any inspector general's report describing him.

A senior American official said, "There has been no reason to doubt that the accusations against Padilla in relation to the bombing plot were genuine."

The official said the administration had determined that concerns about subjecting Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Zubaydah to cross-examination by defense lawyers would be insurmountable.

Quote:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...d504955a92&p=1
Harkat informant called 'insane'
Terrorism suspect freed on bail; expert attacks accuser's credibility

Ian MacLeod, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, June 22, 2006

Suspected Ottawa terrorist Mohamed Harkat was freed on bail yesterday as evidence emerged that a former "high-ranking" al-Qaeda informant who triggered his arrest was, in fact, a relatively minor and "certifiably insane" operative.

What's more, Abu Zubaydah only revealed his information, including now questionable details about supposed al-Qaeda plots against the United States, while being tortured by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators.

The revelations by senior Federal Bureau of Investigation and CIA officials are contained in The One Percent Doctrine, a new book by Pulitzer Prize-winning U.S. journalist and author Ron Suskind.

Though it does not mention Mr. Zubaydah's tip about Mr. Harkat, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has confirmed he identified Mr. Harkat as the former operator of a guest house in the Pakistani city of Peshawar for extremists travelling to Chechnya. Mr. Harkat has denied any connection to Mr. Zubaydah.

It is not known what other incriminating information Canadian authorities have against him.

Yet even before Mr. Harkat's December 2002 arrest and detention on a government-issued security certificate, there were serious doubts within the FBI and CIA about Mr. Zubaydah's credibility, according to the book.

Their apprehensions and that "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and leap, screaming, at every word he uttered," were ignored by senior White House officials who wanted to publicly trumpet Mr. Zubaydah's March 2002 capture in Pakistan as a major coup for the "war on terror," writes Mr. Suskind.

But Mr. Zubaydah was little more than a "travel agent" for al-Qaeda operatives moving around the globe and had no operational role, says the book.

Quoting an unnamed top CIA official, it describes a high-level meeting at CIA headquarters:

"Around the room, a lot of people just rolled eyes when we heard comments from the White House. I mean, (President George W.) Bush and (Vice-President Dick) Cheney knew what we knew about Zubaydah. The guy had psychological issues. He was in a way, expendable. It was like calling someone who runs a company's in-house travel department the COO (chief operating officer). The thinking was, why the hell did the president have to put us in this box?"

Mr. Harkat's lawyer, Matt Webber, yesterday said the book's assertions about Mr. Zubaydah credibility are "quite staggering.

"It goes to show just how unreliable some of the (intelligence) information is. How could this have ever been presented as a reliable source of information in light of this?"

In March 2002, nine months before Mr. Harkat's arrest, Mr. Zubaydah was captured by CIA, FBI and Pakistani intelligence officers at his home in Faisalabad, Pakistan. Authorities, writes Mr. Suskind, believed he was an important, but mysterious player in al-Qaeda.

Counter-terrorism intelligence over the previous two years had picked up numerous references to the 30-year-old Saudi-born Palestinian. "His name was intoned by operatives at all levels, by new recruits, by foot soldiers, and wannabes throughout South Asia and the Mideast. It wasn't always clear what Zubaydah was doing, or where he fit in the wider organization. Just that he seemed to connect people."....

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...602142_pf.html
Secret World of Detainees Grows More Public

By Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 7, 2006; A18

....The DNI documents portray the capture and intermittent interrogations of Zubaida as crucial to unraveling much of what the government knows about the Sept. 11 attacks and the internal operations of al-Qaeda. But some of the portrayal appears to be at odds with other published reports, and intelligence sources indicated yesterday that Zubaida's case is more complicated than the administration let on.

Zubaida "was wounded in the capture operation" in Pakistan in March 2002, and "likely would have died" if the CIA had not provided medical attention, according to the documents. During an initial interrogation, he provided information "that he probably viewed as nominal," but which included identifying Mohammed as the Sept. 11 mastermind who used the nickname "Mukhtar," the documents say. The information "opened up new leads" that eventually resulted in Mohammed's capture, the documents say.

But in his recent book, "The One Percent Doctrine," Ron Suskind reported that a tipster led the CIA directly to Mohammed and subsequently collected a $25 million reward. Intelligence sources said yesterday that Suskind's description is correct but that Zubaida's information was also helpful.

What the DNI documents also do not mention is that the CIA had identified Mohammed's nickname in August 2001, according to the Sept. 11 commission report. The commission found that the agency failed to connect the information with previous intelligence identifying Mukhtar as an al-Qaeda associate plotting terrorist attacks, and identified that failure as one of the crucial missed opportunities before Sept. 11.

When Zubaida refused to provide further information, the CIA designed a new interrogation program that would be "safe, effective and legal," the DNI documents say, leading to "accurate and highly actionable intelligence" that led to the capture of Binalshibh........

Quote:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...itroom.02.html
THE SITUATION ROOM

Interview With Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger; U.S. Soldiers' Bodies Found Mutilated in Iraq; Interview With Author Ron Suskind; Data Brokers Selling Personal Phone Records

Aired June 20, 2006 - 17:00 ET

......BLITZER: There's controversy emerging right now about your reporting involving Abu Zubaydah. Remind our viewers who he was.

SUSKIND: Abu Zubaydah is the first major capture of the war on terror. He's picked up in Pakistan in March of 2003. And of course, at this point we hadn't gotten bin Laden or Zawahiri or any of the major players. There was great need by the administration to say we got somebody.

And of course, when we got Zubaydah they trumpeted it far and wide. He is an operational chief. He's the No. 3. Meanwhile, inside of FBI and CIA they were looking at the real evidence of the capture, including a diary that Zubaydah had written across 10 years, where essentially he presents himself as three different characters with all sorts of little crazy details about life and who's eating what and who's saying what.

Zubaydah, according to analysts in both CIA and FBI, is insane, is schizophrenic, is certifiably split personality. And more than that, he is largely the travel agent. That's why he kept popping up on signal intelligence. He's moving people around. He's paying bills...

BLITZER: There are former intelligence -- high-ranking intelligence analysts out there, because we've spoken to some, who say that, you know what, he did provide some useful information and still provides some useful information.

SUSKIND: I show in the book exactly the useful information he provided, and at the same time I show that essentially what happened is we tortured an insane man and jumped screaming at every word he uttered, most of them which were nonsense...

[3]The following disclosures about Ramzi al-Shibh was reported five years ago, in Sept., 2001, six full months before Zubadayah was captured, at the end of march, 2002. In Bush's Sept. 6, 2006 speech, he said:

Quote:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71850
We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking.....

....Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attack a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh.

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...A00894D9404482
http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/NewsHea...ws_briefs.html {Loc. not far from top of page.)
International Arrests Made

The pursuit of the network behind the terrorist attacks in the United States spread across Europe today, with arrests of four people in Britain and seven men in France and the issuing of two arrest warrants in Germany.

Prime Minister Abd al-Qadir Ba Jamal of Yemen announced the detention of 21 men for questioning about their possible links to Osama bin Laden, the Saudi fugitive who is the prime suspect in the attacks.

President Alejandro Toledo of Peru announced the detention of three men of Middle Eastern descent for potential links to international terror.

The British arrests were by the antiterrorist police, according to Scotland Yard, which said that two men and a woman, all in their 20's, had been arrested at two houses in West London. A fourth person, a man, was arrested in Birmingham, England. One of the unnamed persons has since been released after questioning. No further details were given.

In Germany, the arrest warrants were for two men who had signed a lease on an apartment and apparently lived with Mohamed Atta, a civil engineer who was said to be a hijacker on one of the planes that plowed into the World Trade Center. They have each been charged with 5000 counts of murder by German authorities.

"The German-based terrorist organization that was involved in the attacks on Sept. 11 is slowly getting a face, and with that names," the federal prosecutor of Germany, Kay Nehm, said today. One man being sought, Said Bahaji, paid the rent on the apartment, in Hamburg, and left Germany for Pakistan a week before the attacks, according to Nehm.

The actions by the German authorities are directly linked to the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the abortive hijacking of a plane which crashed near Pittsburgh. Bahaji and the other man named,Ramzi Muhammad Abdullah bin al-Shibh, had links to the hijackers and were guilty of "grave crimes," Nehm said.

At one time, the two shared an apartment in Hamburg with Atta, who was said to be the head of the cell that commandeered the first plane to hit the trade center. Bahaji paid the rent, and Atta and bin al-Shibh paid their shares to him, the prosecutor said. On the bank transfer forms, on the line after "purpose of payment," they wrote, "Dar al-Ansar," which in Arabic means "house of supporters," Nehm said.

Last August or September, bin al-Shibh asked to enroll in a pilot's course at a flight school in Florida and sent $2,200, Nehm said. Al—Shibh could not obtain a visa and did not go to flight school

[3]An FBI agent, Dennis Lormel, told a congressional committee about Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, 45 days before Zubadayah was captured!

Quote:

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/lormel021202.htm
Testimony of Dennis M. Lormel, Chief, Financial Crimes Section, FBI
Before the House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
February 12, 2002
Financing Patterns Associated with Al Qaeda and Global Terrorist Networks

....Sleeper Cells

One pattern of terrorist financing that has emerged involves Al Qaeda cells in Europe.....

.....The FRG has conducted extensive analysis related to the Al Qaeda cell that was based in Germany which included among its members Ramzi Bin al-Shibh and hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwin Al-Shehhi. This analysis was instrumental in linking the hijackers and their ties to Al Qaeda, determining the support it provided to the events of September 11th, and establishing other ties to the Al Qaeda organization. It also established links between the German cell, the hijackers and Zacarias Moussaoui that contributed to the indictment of Moussaoui for his role in the September 11th attacks. This analysis included tracing wire transfers from Bin al-Shibh to Moussaoui. FRG financial investigation has also helped establish links between Moussaoui and an Al Qaeda cell in Malaysia. Authorities in Malaysia have arrested and charged a number of the members of this cell. It should be noted that Bin al-Shibh was one of the five terrorists appearing in videos recovered from an Al Qaeda location in Afghanistan which were recently released by the DOJ. The videos appear to show Bin al-Shibh and the others discussing preparations to commit terrorist acts. The FRG is conducting financial investigations on the other four terrorists featured in the videos in order to help track them down.....

In addition, the FRG is conducting financial investigations involving hundreds of subjects associated with terrorism investigations being conducted in various foreign countries in an effort to identify, track, and locate associates, funding sources, other cell members, etc.

[5]

Quote:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...JiN2RlZGQyYjY=
August 7, 2006 6:17 AM

The Democrats’ Impeachment Road Map
It’s finished, ready to go — and waiting for November.
By Byron York

......And key elements of the president’s case for war, Conyers says, violated yet another statute. “We have found that President Bush and members of his administration made numerous false statements that Iraq had sought to acquire enriched uranium from Niger,” the report continues. “In particular, President Bush’s statements and certifications before and to Congress may constitute Making a False Statement to Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.”

In the next section of the report, Conyers alleges that the administration, in its treatment of prisoners, both in Iraq and in the broader war on terror, has violated three laws:

Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. 2340-40A)
The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441)
Material Witness (18 U.S.C. 3144)

Conyers suggests that American officials might be tried under the War Crimes Act for “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions, and might also be liable under the Anti-Torture Statute. “Those who order torture, or in other ways conspire to commit torture, can be held criminally liable under this statute,” the report says. “The statue doesn’t require a person to actually commit torture with his own hands.” Conyers singles out the two attorneys general of the Bush presidency, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, as potential targets of prosecution........

[5]

Quote:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/063...f,74085,6.html
Liberty Beat
Brutal Chain of Command
Harsh light from the Supreme Court on White House war crimes against detainees everywhere
by Nat Hentoff
August 6th, 2006 12:18 PM

[The detainee] was stripped naked, put in the mud and sprayed . . . with very cold hoses in February. At night it was very cold. . . . He was completely naked in the mud, you know. . . . [Then] he was taken out of the mud and put next to an air conditioner. It was extremely cold, freezing, and he was put back in the mud and sprayed. This happened all night. Everybody knew about it. — An interrogator with the special military and CIA task force at Camp Nama, Baghdad, quoted in a new 53-page Human Rights Watch report, "No Blood, No Foul: Soldiers' Accounts of Detainee Abuse in Iraq From 2003-2005."

With war in the Mideast and civil war in Iraq, the June Supreme Court decision Hamdan v. Rumsfeld telling the president he does not have the "inherent" constitutional power to make up the law as he goes along with regard to our prisonershas lost traction in the news.

But in the weeks and months ahead, you'll be seeing and hearing a lot about a part of the ruling that especially alarmed the president, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and the Republican leadership in Congress.

In addition to telling George Bush's lawyers that the Guantánamo military commissions they invented outside our laws do not measure up to "all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by civilized persons," the Supreme Court's most shameful instruction to the administration was that, in the way it treats its prisoners anywhere in the world, the standard must be Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which this country is a signatory.

For those not aware of the very specific protections in Article 3 that set a minimal standard for prisoners whether or not they are part of a national armythey mandate that all detainees "in all circumstances be treated humanely."

The president, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, et al. assure the world that we do just that and nobody anywhere believes them. But Article 3 goes much deeper than treating prisoners "humanely," prohibiting "at any time and in any place what- soever . . . violence to life and person [of detainees]in particular, murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, [and]outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." (Emphases added.)

Moreover, in "No Blood, No Foul"—a report based largely on firsthand accounts by U.S. military personnel in Iraq who, like all our military there, were told by Bush and Rumsfeld the Geneva Conventions did not apply to their prisoners—Human Rights Watch emphasizes that the chain of command, all the way to the top, is accountable for what has been done to detainees because:

"Acts of torture and other mistreatment . . . constituted grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The United States is bound to investigate and prosecute grave breaches that are committed by U.S. personnel in Iraq. The Geneva Conventions impose on the United States an obligation to 'search for persons alleged to have committed, or to [have ordered] to be committed, grave breaches and to prosecute them.' "

An independent prosecutor—if Congress ever appoints one—won't have any difficulty finding "grave breaches" by the White House, the Justice Department, and the Defense Department, going back to 2002.

This so far mythical prosecutor will be relying not only on Article 3 (common to the various Geneva Conventions of 1949) but also on an American law, the War Crimes Act of 1996. That statute forbids any U.S. personnel from committing any of the crimes listed in that statute. One of them is perpetrating "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions.

If an investigation of the chain of command happens, it would be one hell of a revelation, with reams of documented reports, including testimony by army personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, searches by human rights organizations, complaints by FBI agents on the scene, the many pages of facts on the ground obtained by the ACLU through the Freedom of Information Act, and testimony by many of the actual survivors of these "grave breaches."

In the imminent national midterm political campaigns—and the presidential tournament two years from now—do you think Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the Wizard of Oz money man George Soros, and other chieftains of the Democratic Party will persistently focus on the need for a truly independent inquiry into this administration's routine, systemic violations of Common Article 3? Ask your Democratic representatives in the House and Senate!

In the recent, nationally covered Democratic primary in Connecticut, focusing on beleaguered Joe Lieberman—billed as a "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party"—I haven't seen or heard any mention of the torture and other "humiliating and degrading treatment of U.S. prisoners" in Iraq and Afghanistan, let alone a demand for breaking down the doors of the CIA's secret prisons in various parts of the world. (Surely some of the treatments there are, at the least, degrading.)

The author of "No Blood, No Foul" (see hrw.org) is the invaluable John Sifton, senior researcher on terrorism and counter-terrorism at the organization. "It is now clear," he says, "that leaders were responsible for abuses that occurred in Iraq. It's time for them to be held accountable."

By whom?

Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen, was the victim of a CIA "rendition"—not as usual, to a foreign country to be tortured, but to the CIA's own "Salt Pit" interrogation center in Afghanistan. He remembers that during his brutal interrogation there, "they told me that I was now in a country with no laws, and did I understand what that meant?"

Those interrogators were citizens not of Afghanistan but of the United States. As you read this, the Bush administration is devising ways to persuade Congress to let it weasel out of the Supreme Court's findings in Hamdan v. Rumsfeldthat George W. Bush has been creating, with regard to his treatment of detainees, a country with no laws.

[5]

Quote:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-332
LIBRARY CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
AI Index: EUR 63/008/1996 1 March 1996
AI Index: EUR 63/08/96

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
THE DUTY TO SEARCH FOR
WAR CRIMES SUSPECTS:

......Amnesty International welcomes the recent announcement that IFOR is now informing its personnel of the identities of people who have been indicted by the Tribunal by providing them with photographs of some of the accused and instructing them to arrest any accused they happen to encounter, if feasible. This step, however, fails to fulfil state obligations to search for, arrest and bring to justice those responsible for grave breaches of the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 for the Protection of War Victims and its Additional Protocol I.

The refusal to search for people who have been indicted by the Tribunal for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions is a clear violation of international law. All the states contributing troops to IFOR are state parties or succesor state-parties to the Geneva Conventions and each is therefore obliged to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts, the courts of another state or an international criminal court (Geneva Convention No. I, Art. 49; Geneva Convention No. II, Art. 50; Geneva Convention No. III, Art. 129; Geneva Convention No. IV, Art. 146). This obligation applies in all cases, not just when the Tribunal or a national court has indicted an accused or asked for a suspect to be provisionally arrested. Thus, the duty to search for people suspected of having committed or having ordered to be committed such grave breaches is independent of any action taken by the Tribunal or a national court. The Geneva Conventions expressly provide that states parties to the Geneva Conventions may not absolve themselves of any liability which they or other states parties have incurred in respect of grave breaches (Geneva Convention No. I, Art. 51; Geneva Convention No. II, Art. 52; Geneva Convention No. III, Art. 131; Geneva Convention No. IV, Art. 148). The official commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross makes clear that this common provision removes any doubt that the duty to prosecute and punish the authors of grave breaches is absolute.

The refusal to search for people who have been indicted by the Tribunal also violates troop-contributing states legal obligations to implement Security Council Resolution 827 of 25 May 1993 establishing the Tribunal. That resolution requires all states to cooperate fully with the International Tribunal and to take any measures necessary to implement the resolution, including compliance with Tribunal orders or requests for assistance. There are no exceptions........

09-07-2006, 12:51 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	How do I defend his actions? As the acting arm of the National government his most basic function is to provide for the common defence of America. In war you serve no master but your ambition, however the American political climate doesn't allow for that. If people had their way we would no doubt need lawyers embedded with our troops for all circumstances of engagement and action lest the big bad America commit some "grievous" war crimes. Why is it that the executive is vested with the power and command of the armed forces? Because if it was in the hands of congress it would be entirely to political, which is exactly what is going on in Iraq, or the broader "war on terra". It is arguable in many instances whether Bush violated international law, but in instances where he did, I could really give two shits because I have yet to see any violation of sovereign American rights, and that's all I am concerned with. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-07-2006, 01:12 PM	#6 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Does anyone have any idea of what the ramifications of these treaty violations are? __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

09-07-2006, 01:19 PM	#8 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	They will declare America to be the Evil Satan? __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

09-07-2006, 02:59 PM	#12 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	I don't understand the point in the Geneva Convention or the U.N. I understand why they were created, but what's the point if anyone can break, or violate their terms without any repercussions. If the U.N and Geneva Convention cannot enforce the rules they created, then how do they expect anyone to seriously abide by them? You might as well say, "Don't drink and drive! We don't do anything if you do, but its against the law!" And don't answer with anything like "honor" or "giving their word they will." Those two have been dead for quite some time. The U.N. is the League of Nations older brother; both just as effective. Last edited by Ch'i; 09-07-2006 at 03:03 PM..

09-07-2006, 04:21 PM	#17 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Therefore your daughter is apart of the axis of evil. WIll we will continue this later, it's thursday and I have a vendetta against my liver. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

09-07-2006, 03:23 PM	#13 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Stevo, Ustwo, Mojo, and Seaver if the treaties we have signed are out the window when it suits us then why should Iran in North Korea have to abide by their treaties that say they won't develop nuclear weapons?

09-07-2006, 03:28 PM	#14 (permalink)
Ch'i Artist of Life	Uh, Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons...

09-07-2006, 05:45 PM	#21 (permalink)
rofgilead Crazy Location: Nowhere	I just am sad that our current leaders don't believe in justice or freedom for all. That's what is supposed to be so great about our country and part of our identity. When you can have no rights, be jailed indefinitely without a lawyer or ability to communicate to your family, can be tried based on hearsay without access to evidence against you in a kangaroo court, be tortured in secret prisons across the world, when your financial records and phone records are no longer protected from the government by due process what do you get? GW Bush America. I hate this president's administration.

09-07-2006, 08:32 PM	#27 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Oh christ, are we arguing if Iran is trying to become a nuclear power again? Might as well argue that the sun doesn't set in the west. This sort of blindness is what really disgusts me about tfp politics. Its not arguing philosphy or point of view, its arguing if Bush is involved in human sacrafice (thanks host), if 9/11 was some vast conspiracy (thanks will) or if Iran is trying to develope nuclear weapons (thanks many). If the issue is does the US use torture on prisoners, my answer is I dont know, but I don't care, and I hope we do. That is my point of view on the subject, I have my reasons I'd be more than willing to share. As for Iran, all I can say is go Israel! We have been handcuffed by those who wish to thwart the war on terror any way they can to the point we are unable to act. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-07-2006, 08:47 PM	#30 (permalink)
rofgilead Crazy Location: Nowhere	Iran is likely developing nuclear weapons at the same time that it is developing nuclear power. But this is a threadjack - what does it have to do with our President being honest/upholding international treaties? Anywas, what can America/UN do about Iran that would stop this nuclear weapon development? Nothing. The US has lost all international support and the president lost a 20% domestic support from approval ratings. Our military can barely handle the situation in Iraq right now. China, Russia have ties with Iran as does Japan and will not support sanctions. So - it appears that Iran will develop nuclear weapons 5-10 years from now without anything the US can do to stop this from occurring.

09-08-2006, 03:08 AM	#33 (permalink)
Rudel73 Psycho	using wikipedia as a source will get you laughed at in any formal academic setting.

09-08-2006, 06:02 AM	#36 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it is almost kinda vaguely fascinating how you gentlemen can mix primitive sarcasm and avoidance. sort of. nice way of advancing a discussion. o wait, you aren't trying to advance a discussion: you want the thread to go away. isn't that what we would call trolling? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-08-2006, 08:00 AM	#39 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	glad you like it, stevo: i wonder if you'd be less---um---as you are being if this thread were not started by host. just saying. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite