Amnesty... are they stupid?
 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ari/index.html

Members of Al Qaeda are allowed to surrender and will receive full amnesty if done so within 1 month.

Are the Saudis stupid? Why are they doing this? Do they not realize that these people are WANTED?

Other countries would piss and moan if we took a wanted fugitive and granted him complete freedom if they surrendered.

well, I dunno... on the other hand a lot of people aren't happy about the legal process (or lack of) in Guantanamo bay either you know... but no, the Saudi's aren't everyone's favourite western-style democracy - they are the most pro-western arab nation though i think

the BBC have at: this page

and
at : this page

Forgive
Document
Watch like a hawk

Could work....and is certainly better than nothing.

It's possible that amnesty means something very different to the Saudis than it does to us.

Interesting technique - probably more to it, but if it succeeds in getting terrorists off the street, I can for go the usual punishments if that's what it will take.

Doesn't this just mean that if they surrender, they can avoid being beheaded? Correct me if I'm wrong...I may very well be.

At least it's something. If by killing off a few more of their leaders, and by allowing the lower echelons to contemplate the futility of their cause, it causes even just a few of them to drop arms and walk away...then I'm for that.

I would hope that the amnesty is also conditioned upon providing information about the financial network, operations and personnel of AQ.

That is correct Bill O'. It isn't a case of turning up at the police to declare yourself as an ex-terrorist and then you're free to go.

Given the choice of a quick, professional beheading or a life sentence in Saudi jail I'd have to do some serious thinking.

I think basically they're trying to cut off the legs of the organization by removing the lower members through this incentive. When you cut off their support, what will the top work on?

I'm guessing the idea is to put pressure on the top not just directly but also by cutting off their possible replacements.

You can kill leaders but if people are there to replace them, what good is it? But take out those who do their dirty work, and they might be out of a job.

It's not like a get out of jail free card. If charges can be brought against them they will face a trial by Islamic Law. I could see a very low level guy getting off free and I'm fine with that as long as they haven't done too much for the organization. Look at what we have done for people who turned against the mob...

In an organization as large as AQ, there are bound to be some people who got into it thinking one thing and found out it was much more than they thought it was. Maybe some of them know things that can help us and were just too afraid to step forward.

I like it.

This is another way for the Saudis to issue a threat.
What is clearly implied is: after 1 month they will brutally and savagely seek out and destroy this enemy in slow painful ways, whenever possible, and wantonly and with no mercy in all cases, no matter the body count. In other words, after 30 days all bets are off.

I hope you're right, <b>Art</b>, but to agree with you would require faith in the trustworthiness and motives of the Saudi government, which I currently lack.

For years they've been playing a dangerous game, placating the beast that wants to devour them. I hope they've finally realized that their only chance of survival is to hunt down and kill these quasi-religious miscreants. The one shared vision of all the disparate sects of fundamentalist terrorists is the creation of a muslim state in Suadi Arabia.

Maybe the royal family finally gets it.

good point, it's the carrot and stick principle - it usually works (with sufficiently large carrots and sticks)

Having to actually work and toil is a difficult prospect for the Royals. Without foreign labor they are done for.

A couple of questions do spring to mind in all of this though. If Art's theory is correct (and I've taken the amnesty pledge the same way) and the Saudis do go after the terrorist cells and they are very successful at capturing/destroying them or there is substantial response to their offer where does that leave us? If the terrorists respond to the offer and turn themselves in, is it because they know the Saudis know exactly who they are? If they're successful at destroying the cells is it because they have intimate knowledge of the cell's membership? If so and they haven't been helping us to destroy them then that proves that they weren't with us but were against us in the war on terror. What do we do then to deal with our Saudi "allies"?

I really hope that you're predicting exactly what's going to happen. As much of a pacifist as I am, I don't think there's any other solution to the problem. If an Islamic government hunts down the terrorists and does far worse things to them than US law would ever allow us infidels to do to them, there's a faint glimmer of hope that a few will get the message and lay down their arms.

I really appreciate the agreement on that point, MrSelfDestruct. It makes me believe that even if my candidate is not reelected, we can come back together in solidarity against the actual threats that are posed against us.

Your reading of the Saudi government's veiled threat seems accurate to me, ART. However, I don't see the connection between that and the caustic divisiveness that has been at play in America's domestic political life since early in the Clinton era. Or am I misreading your statement by inferring such a connection from it?

The thing about the Saudi's is that the royal family is holding on to their rulership of the country by a thread. If they do too much against the terrorists they run the risk of being overthrown by people that are much more sympathetic to the terrorist's ideals and I don't think that would be a good thing.

Hmm. I agree that it'd be catastrophic to western countries if SA would be hijacked by a militant fundamentalists - but I have heard two theories of the dilemma of Saudi Arabia - (or why the government is on a verge of collapse).

The other one is that the problem is actually lack of reform in government and that pressure is held back only with massive amounts of money coming in from the oil revenues and thus "bribing" off (installing them in useless but well-paid desk jobs) the citizens of Saudi Arabia and just paying for the foreign workers from the poor countries to do the dirty, laborous and lowpaid work.

Another one is that there is huge pressure generated by the social inequality and corrupted fatcat Saudi royalty and that the militant fundamentalists are using that in their propaganda.

I wonder which of these two views is closer to the truth or are they perhaps intermingled.

At the risk of going off-topic, I must remind everyone that venomous partisanship is not unique to the last decade of American politics. Yes, we are living through a particularly nasty period, but it in no way matches other, more contentious, eras. Hell, it was once a common practice for congressman to come to session armed with knives and guns.

Thanks for the historical perspective, Cthulu. It has only been in the last decade or so that I've personally noticed it. Back to the main topic...

There is an additional source of pressure: population growth has outpaced that of oil revenue. Per capita income in SA is a fraction of what it used to be. Instead of preparing young people for productive careers, the educational system is theocratic, with a large component of anti-West dogma.

Thomas Friedman once described this condition as "The Curse of Oil" - meaning that the oil wealth had caused lack of investment in human capital and has resulted in masses of disaffected, idle young men who are prey for religious fanatics.

SinisterMotives, at this point in the deteriorated state of political dialog among those of us who, in the long run, are all on the same side in the eyes of this enemy, any common ground I see between us as it relates to comprehending, defining, and dealing with the true nature of and threats posed by this enemy is encouraging.

if the Saudis want to nail up a real live terrorist by his head to the city gates as an example then that in my opinion would be a damn good thing... and i'm generally kind of liberal-ish

pour encourager les autres ... being liberal is fine when the conflict is on your terms ... after that it gets nasty

if they can get them to stop killing people in any other way, that would be better than nothing

Art...was that ever in contention? Personally, I think that "your candidate" did one hell of a fine job from 9/11/2001, right up to 3/20/2003. This country was unified, the degree of which I have not seen since the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979. This country can come together like nobody's business, when actual threats are posed against us. No...no matter who wins in November...*cough*Badnarick*cough*...our security will be paramount.

Liberal or conservative, Westerners are much more alike than different in our agreement on certain ground rules. The terrorists' tactics are a marked departure from the civilized modes of interaction we all take for granted.