Skip to main content

The Bush administration is determined to overturn established law and the Geneva Conventions when it comes to detainees in its gulags.  I believe the reason is that virtually all the detainees and the evidence would point to Pakistan as the nexus for training, supply and financing of international terror.

Before 9-11 Pakistan was regarded as hostile to the USA and complicit in international terrorism against the USA.  The terrorist training camps funded by the CIA and Saudis and run by Pakistan's ISI to resist the Soviets in Afghanistan had morphed into the world's leading terrorism resource.  

Since 9-11 Pakistan has been embraced by the Bush administration as an ally and received billions of dollars of grants, loans and weaponry.  Given that Pakistan is linked to ALL major terrorism attacks before 9-11, on 9-11 and since 9-11, you have to wonder whose side they are on.

The reason for secret trials and secret evidence may be the risk in open court that we would find out.  We need a transparent judicial process if we are to discover the truth.

Timeline and request for help below.

It struck me a week or so ago that every time Bush and Musharraf get together there is another major incident of terrorism somewhere in the world followed by another grant of billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan.  Pay off or blackmail, I couldn't say, but surely more than coincidence.  With Musharraf coming to the White House this week, and Bush's warning last week that the terrorists "will strike again", I felt it was time to do a little research.

Pakistan has been linked to the training, supply and financing of the 9-11 attacks in New York and Washington, the Bali Bombings, the Madrid bombings, the 7/7/05 and 7/21/05 attacks in London, and the Delhi bombings.  Pakistan harbours all the leaders of Al Qaeda, facilitates all the finance, provides all the sophisticated equipment for bombings, and provides all the training to all the known terrorist cells.

Despite what Bush would have you believe, Pakistan still operates training camps accommodating 3,000 militants of various nationalities at any time.

In March it was revealed by the Friday Times in Pakistan that testimony to the Public Accounts Committee confirmed that the government had paid thousands to US lobbyists to get anti-Pakistan references dropped from the 9/11 Commission Report, bribing members of the Commission and 75 Congressmen.  The Pakistan Foreign Office defended the decision as reflecting "established practice in the US."

According to 9-11 Press for Truth, from 51:00 to 1:12, the trail of 9-11 bombers leads right back to Pakistan.

-  1980s - CIA and Saudis channel hundreds of millions through ISI to fund Afghan resistance to Russian occupation, raising Taliban and Bin Laden. ISI founds Taliban training camps and jointly administers ISI/Taliban terror strikes in Afghanistan and India using the same people and same leadership.  More than $7 billion is provided to Pakistan during the Reagan/Bush I administrations.

-  1999 - Randy Glass, part of 1999 Operation Diamondback by FBI and ATF, testified to having dinner with "Abbas", identified as an ISI agent, in a sting to sell illegal arms.  After dinner Abbas pointed to the WTC and said, "Those towers are coming down."  Glass was later threatened by the FBI and instructed to keep silent.

-  Summer 2001 - Wire transfers via Pakistan to Mohammed Atta from Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was a member of ISI and was supported by ISI.  Orders for the transfers were signed by Lt General Mahmood Ahmad, chief of ISI.

-  September 2001 - Osama Bin Laden is placed in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

-  September 11-14, 2001 - Lt Gen Mahmood Ahmad was in Washington, having wired $100,000 on September 10 to the hijackers.  He met with State Department officials on the evening of September 11th, concluding September 14th when he returned to Pakistan with an unprecedented package of billions of dollars in aid and public recognition of Pakistan as "an ally in the War on Terror".

Despite this record, the Bush administration has been very generous to Pakistan while being very tight with just about every other developing nation.  From the L.A.Times:

Since 9/11, the Bush administration has been propping up Musharraf's military regime with $3.6 billion in economic aid from the U.S. and a U.S.-sponsored consortium, not to mention $900 million in military aid and the postponement of overdue debt repayments totaling $13.5 billion. . . .

On Sept. 19, 2001, Musharraf made a revealing TV address in Urdu, not noticed at the time by most Americans, in which he reassured Pakistanis who sympathized with Al Qaeda and the Taliban that his decision to line up with the U.S. was a temporary expedient.

To Taliban sympathizers, Musharraf directed an explicit message, saying: "I have done everything for the ... Taliban when the whole world was against them....We are trying our best to come out of this critical situation without any damage to Afghanistan and the Taliban." He has kept his promise to the latter.

I'm not the first or only one to notice that Pakistan is linked to all the major acts of terrorism.  Others are beginning to notice too.  Just a few weeks ago here in London, Christina Lamb of the Times wondered Just whose side is Pakistan really on?

It was ISI that turned the Taliban from a bunch of religious students into a movement that took over Afghanistan. According to Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, ISI continues to provide a safe haven, training them to fight British soldiers in Helmand.

Whose side is Pakistan on? After September 11, when Pakistan's leadership was given the blunt choice by President Bush -- "you're either with us or against us" -- it had little option. The decision to support Bush's war on terror turned President Pervez Musharraf from a pariah dictator to a feted world leader.

It was a lucrative move. Pakistan has again become one of the biggest recipients of US aid -- just as it was during the Afghan war against Soviet occupiers when ISI was the main conduit for arms and funds. Since September 11, America has dismissed $1.5 billion in debt and provided Pakistan with more than $3 billion in military assistance.

Last year Pakistan was one of the world's fastest-growing economies. It recently placed a $2.5 billion order for American F-16 jet fighters -- as much as Afghanistan's entire annual foreign aid.

My guess is that the determination of the Bush administration to have secret military tribunals and secret evidence against detainees is driven by a need to hide Pakistani complicity in virtually every major act of terrorism for the past 20 years, including all major attacks against the United States and its War on Terror allies - Britain, Spain, Australia and India.  My guess is that every serious terrorist being held by the United States in its gulags was trained, financed and supplied by terrorist organisations based in and operating from Pakistan.  

We need to know the truth before nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets get delivered to a radical Islamist nation that may decide once again that its interests favour supporting terrorism against the United States.

Below is a list of all the terrorist incidents since 1993 linked to Al Qaeda.  I've added connections to Pakistan in italics and will continue to update as we find more.  Every event I've researched so far has been directed, funded, trained and equiped from Pakistan.  You can help by finding more connections if you've got some time and some Google skills.


1993 (Feb.): Bombing of World Trade Center (WTC); 6 killed.
Mastermind was Ramzi Yousef, a Pakistani with links to the Pakistani government.

1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia.

1996 (June): Truck bombing at Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killed 19 Americans. Main suspect is Saudi named Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser.

1998 (Aug.): Bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; 224 killed, including 12 Americans.
Masterminds were all terrorists based in Pakistan. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was captured by Pakistani security forces in the eastern city of Gujrat in 2004.

1999 (Dec.): Plot to bomb millennium celebrations in Seattle foiled when customs agents arrest an Algerian smuggling explosives into the U.S.

Algerian plotters were trained in Pakistan and co-ordinated by Pakistan leadership.

2000 (Oct.): Bombing of the USS Cole in port in Yemen; 17 U.S. sailors killed.

Mastermind later captured in Pakistan and turned over via rendition to CIA.

2001 (Sept.): Destruction of WTC; attack on Pentagon. Total dead 2,992.
All 19 terrorists and Zacarias Moussaoui (suspected 20th) spent time in ISI-financed institutions in Pakistan.  In Septmeber 2001, the Bush administration proposes an aid package to Pakistan worth billions in sweeping debt rescheduling, grants stretching over many years and trade benefits as a reward for its support against terrorism.

2001 (Dec.): Man tried to denote shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
Richard Reid trained at an ISI-financed institution in Pakistan by the same explosives expert who taught Moussaoui.

2002 (April): Explosion at historic synagogue in Tunisia left 21 dead, including 11 German tourists.

Bomber trained in Pakistan and Al Qaeda unit in Pakistan claims responsibility for bombing.

2002 (May): Car exploded outside hotel in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 14, including 11 French citizens.

2002 (June): Bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12.

2002 (Oct.): Boat crashed into oil tanker off Yemen coast, killing 1.

2002 (Oct.): Nightclub bombings in Bali, Indonesia, killed 202, mostly Australian citizens.

The leaders and perpetrators of the bombings were trained in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

2002 (Nov.): Suicide attack on a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 16.

2003 (May): Suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

2003 (May): 4 bombs killed 33 people targeting Jewish, Spanish, and Belgian sites in Casablanca, Morocco. Bombers linked to Zarqawi and other Pakistan-linked terrorists.

2003 (Aug.): Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia.

2003 (Nov.): Explosions rocked a Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, housing compound, killing 17.

2003 (Nov.): Suicide car-bombers simultaneously attacked 2 synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 25 and injuring hundreds.

2003 (Nov.): Truck bombs detonated at London bank and British consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 26.

2004 (Jan.): Daniel Pearl, journalist for the Wall Street Journal investigating financing of 9-11, kidnapped and killed in Karachi.

2004 (March): 10 bombs on 4 trains exploded almost simultaneously during the morning rush hour in Madrid, Spain, killing 191 and injuring more than 1,500.

Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, the Syrian-born mastermind of the Madrid bombings, fled to Pakistan where he lived quietly until his reported arrest in 2005 when he was rendered to either the Americans or Syrians.

2004 (May): Terrorists attacked Saudi oil company offices in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 22.

2004 (June): Terrorists kidnapped and executed American Paul Johnson, Jr., in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

2004 (July): Pakistani arrested for plotting bombing of 34th Street Herald Square subway station.

2004 (Sept.): Car bomb outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, killed 9.

2004 (Dec.): Terrorists entered the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 9 (including 4 attackers).

2005 (July): Bombs on 7 July exploded on 3 trains and a bus in London, England, killing 52.
Mohammed Sidique Khan atttended a madrassa in northern Pakistan in July 2003, and Khan and Shehzad Tanweer took the same flight from London to Karchi on 19 November 2004, returning together 8 February 2005.  A Pakistani who remains unidentified led the group of bombers on a white water rafting trip in Wales a month before the bombings.
Bombs on 21 July in London. The leader of the bombers travelled to Pakistan in December 2004.
Sophisticated road-side bombs detonated by long range cellular phones are deployed in Afghanistan. Investigators conclude that insurgents, training and equipment are all coming from ISI in Pakistan.

2005 (Oct.): 22 killed by 3 suicide bombs in Bali, Indonesia.

2005 (Nov): Australian police arrest Islamic militants in raids in Sydney and Melbourne.
Arrested Australian Khaled Cheikho trained in a paramilitary camp run by ISI-connected Lashkar-e-Taiba in 2001.

2005 (Nov.): 57 killed at 3 American hotels in Amman, Jordan.

2006 (March - June):  12 Pakistanis and Bangladeshis arrested for bomb plot in Toronto.

2006 (Feb.): Southern Afghanistan bombings intensify. Attacks were reported by suspects as organised and led by Taliban in Pakistan using Pakistani bombers.

2006 (March): 7 Pakistani Britons arrested for plotting shopping mall bomb.

2006 (Aug.): More than 25 arrested in plot to blow up jetliners between London and U.S.
At least 17 suspects arrested in London had ties to Pakistan.  Two ringleaders had travelled to and received funding from Pakistan.

Just this month Pakistan has agreed a truce with extremists, assuring them territorial sovereignty over the border region with Afghanistan and amnesty from arrest, including Osama Bin Laden. The Bush response has been to defensively assert in a press conference that we can't get OBL because it would violate Pakistani sovereignty. (Sovereignty didn't stop him in Afghanistan or Iraq, did it?)

Originally posted to LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 05:25 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Great diary, excellent research (106+ / 0-)

    Thanks for posting this. I want the truth to come out about this Administration and I want them to pay.

    Our media is dead and we need to count on our "citizen media" to uncover the ugly truths.

    Great work London Yank.

  •  makes sense (18+ / 0-)

    I always thought that Afghanistan was just a tangent.  I think that the "War on Terra" is a kind of extension of the Afghan-Soviet War - and one of the warring sides is STILL the ISI backed by Saudi money.

    Republicans are jokes, wrapped in lies inside a cloud of obfuscation.

    by calipygian on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 05:22:57 AM PDT

  •  Looking back a bit further (33+ / 0-)

    Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who ruled Pakistan, a country that was born out of religious violence, was the main figure in radically instituting Islamic law in the country.

    Under Jimmy Carter, Pakistan, under Zia-ul-Haq, had its foreign aid cut off because of its breaching of the nuclear non-proliferation issue. All that changed under Reagan, who had one and only one foreign policy focus - defeating the Soviets, primarily through proxy wars and by outspending them militarily. Reagan's administration looked the other way at the abuses of the Pakistani Islamic dictatorship (some of these described below), while it aided it, and the future Al-Qaeda in their fight against the commies; in retrospect, we probably would have been much better off if the commies had won in all the `stans.

    In the present, we should recognize that Pakistan is a two faced ally.

    General Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization

    Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization On December 2, 1978, on the occasion of the first day of the Hijra calendar to enforce the Islamic system in Pakistan in a nationwide address, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq accused politicians of exploiting the name of Islam saying: "Many a ruler did what they pleased in the name of Islam."

    After assuming power, the task that the government set to was its public commitment to enforce Nizam-e-Islam (Islamic System), a 180 degree turn from Pakistan's predominantly Anglo-Saxon Law. As a preliminary measure to establish an Islamic society in Pakistan, General Zia announced the establishment of Shariah Benches.

    Under Offenses Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance 1979), the punishment of imprisonment or fine, or both, as provided in the existing Pakistan Penal Code for theft, was substituted by the amputation of the right hand of the offender from the joint of the wrist by a surgeon. For robbery, the right hand of the offender from the wrist and his left foot from the ankle should be amputated by a surgeon. Hudood ( Arabic حدود, also transliterated Hadud, Hudud; plural for Hadh, حد, limit, or restriction) is the word often used in Islamic social and legal literature for the bounds of acceptable behaviour.

    In legal terms, (Islamic law being usually referred to as Sharia, شريعة) the term is used to describe laws that define a level of crime classification. Crimes classified under Hudud are the most severe of crimes, such as murder, theft, and adultery. There are minor differences in views between the four major Sunni madhhabs about sentencing and specifications for these laws. It is often argued that, since Sharia is God's law and states certain punishments for each crime, they are immutable. However, with liberal movements in Islam expressing concerns about hadith validity, a major component of how Islamic law is created, questions have arisen about administering certain punishments. Incompatibilities with human rights in the way Islamic law is practised in many countries has led many to call for an international moratorium on the punishments of Hudud laws until greater scholarly consensus can be reached. It has also been argued by some, that the Hudud portion of Sharia is incompatible with humanism or human rights.

    Drinking of wine (i.e. all alcoholic drinks) was not a crime at all under the Pakistan Penal Code. In 1977, however, the drinking and selling of wine by Muslims was banned in Pakistan and the sentence of imprisonment of six months or a fine of Rs. 5000/-, or both, was provided in that law.

    Under the Zina Ordinance, the provisions relating to adultery were replaced as that the women and the man guilty will be flogged, each of them, with one hundred lashes, if unmarried. And if they are married they shall be stoned to death.

    The Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and the Criminal Procedure Code were amended, through ordinances in 1980, 1982 and 1986 to declare anything implying disrespect to Muhammad, Ahle Bait (family of the Prophet Muhammad), Sahaba (companions of the Prophet Muhammad) and Sha'ar-i-Islam (Islamic symbols), a cognizable offence, punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with both.

    Stop bitching and start a revolution!

    by Randian on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 05:31:39 AM PDT

    •  And then Benazir Bhutto took him out. (7+ / 0-)

      Maybe it's time for Benazir to come back a third time and try to finish what she started.  I wonder if she's contemplated that.  I know she's got a lot of baggage with the corruption charges but the younger people must remember the good old days when a modern democracy was trying to take root.

    •  follow-up; from our own State Dept. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      suzq, Penny Century, snakelass, StrayCat

      Here is the U.S. State Dept.'s International Religious Freedom Report 2006 on Pakistan

      Funny how this report lays things out in the open, and yet, when do we ever hear Condi speaking up and ampliphying these comments from her own diplomats and intelligence officers?

      From the report:

      Freedom of speech is subject to "reasonable" restrictions in the interests of the "glory of Islam." The consequences for contravening the country's "blasphemy laws," are the death penalty for defiling Islam or its prophets; life imprisonment for defiling, damaging, or desecrating the Qur'an; and ten years' imprisonment for insulting another's religious feelings. To end the filing of frivolous charges, the Government enacted a law in January 2005 that requires senior police officials to investigate any blasphemy charges before a complaint is filed. In addition, any speech or conduct that injures another's religious feelings, including those of minority religious groups, is prohibited and punishable by imprisonment. However, in cases where the religious feelings of a minority religion were insulted, the blasphemy laws were rarely enforced and cases rarely brought to the legal system.


      Under the Anti-Terrorist Act, any action, including speech, intended to stir up religious hatred is punishable by up to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Under the act, bail is not to be granted if the judge has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty; however, the law is applied selectively.

      Pressure from societal, religious, or political leaders routinely prevented courts from protecting minority rights. These same pressures forced justices to take strong action against any perceived offense to Sunni Islamic orthodoxy. Discrimination against religious minorities was rarely placed before the judiciary. Courts would be unlikely to act objectively in such cases. Resolving cases is very slow; there is generally a long period between filing the case and the first court appearance. Lower courts are frequently intimidated and therefore, delay decisions, and refuse bail for fear of reprisal from extremist elements. Bail in blasphemy cases is almost always denied by original trial courts on the logic that since defendants are facing the death penalty, they are likely to flee. Defendants can appeal the denial of bail (and many do), but bail is often times not granted by the high court or the supreme court in advance of the trial.

      The country's penal code ostensibly incorporates a number of Islamic law (Shari'a) provisions, applying to all, Muslims and non-Muslims, that allow victims to carry out physical retribution. The judicial system encompasses several different court systems with overlapping and sometimes competing jurisdictions that reflect differences in civil, criminal, and Islamic jurisprudence. The federal Shari'a court and the Shari'a bench of the supreme court serve as appellate courts for certain convictions in criminal court under the Hudood Ordinances, and judges and attorneys in these courts must be Muslims. The federal Shari'a court also may overturn any legislation judged to be inconsistent with the tenets of Islam; however, in March 2005, the supreme court chief justice, issuing a stay in the Mukhtaran Mai rape case, ruled that the federal shari'a court had no jurisdiction to review a decision by a provincial high court even if the Shariat court should have had initial appellate jurisdiction, marking a blow to the power of the Shariat appellate benches.

      The Government designates religion on passports and national identity documents. In November 2004 the Government began issuing new machine-readable passports without the religion column. A conservative backlash and Islamist party protests led the Government to reverse course and restore the column in March 2005. Those wishing to be listed as a Muslim on such documents had to swear a belief in the finality of the prophethood and denounce the Ahmadiyya movement's founder as a false prophet and his followers as non-Muslims.

      Nice backward medieval country we are allied with in Bush's "war on terra." Their possessing nuclear weapons is like sending one's five year old child outside with a chainsaw to cut up some firewood.

      Stop bitching and start a revolution!

      by Randian on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:59:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pakistan (55+ / 0-)

    article - 9/16/06

    In what could be the most troubling development in the War on Terror since it began, Pakistan has released nearly all of the Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists it has had in custody since the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

    Since the invasion, Pakistan has taken into custody thousands of al-Qaeda terrorists and Taliban fighters. But with Pakistan’s inability to defeat or control the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance on the Pakistani side of the Afghanistan border, Mushrraf has ceded land, arms and now all terrorists held prisoner.

    Say no to hate, bigotry, and the author of the Fed. Marriage Amendment, Marilyn Musgrave. Please donate to Angie Paccione.

    by OLinda on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 05:33:24 AM PDT

  •  1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia. (14+ / 0-)

    Just a note that far more Pakistani soldiers were killed in this uprising than American.

    Not to say, however, that this makes Pakistan's hands clean.  Musharraf is at best trying to ride the dragon of the ISI and at worst is complicit in their actions.  There is no doubt that the ISI raised and nurtured the nascent Taliban and their al Qaeda allies.  This is documented historical fact.

    One should also look to Saudi Arabia's intelligence services, too, for another strong supporter of these groups.  That is another link that well documented historically--And it seems likely that there is still some level of cooperation, or at least a blind eye being turned to the funders of these groups.

    Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!

    by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 05:52:03 AM PDT

    •  The CIA has well-established links with the ISI (9+ / 0-)

      The CIA has well-established links with the ISI, having trained it in the 1980s to ‘run’ Afghan mujahideen (holy Muslim warriors), Islamic fundamentalists ...

      •  But those links were very strained (10+ / 0-)

        in the period immediately after the repulsion of the Soviets and into Clinton's fight against al Qaeda.

        In fact, one of the major reasons that we could not get bin Laden before 9/11 was that there was virtually no cooperation between the ISI and the CIA during the crucial period of the mid to late 1990's.

        And even when we were 'cooperating' in the 1980's against the Soviet invasion, much of our 'cooperation' consisted of dumping tons of military supplies into the hands of the ISI, who were extrememly wary of the CIA and jealously guarded their assets within Afghanistan.

        Two books are recommended reading:

        Charlie Wilson's War, for the period up to the Soviet withdrawal, and

        Ghost Wars, for the period after up until 9/11.

        Both books also shine a valuable light onto the inner workings of the CIA--And I feel help dispell a  lot of misinformation about that agency and how it operates.

        Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!

        by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:20:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wonder if there was behind-the-scenes (10+ / 0-)

          skullduggery by neocons in the Pentagon, throughout the 1990's, while they were planning to retake the government. Ever since the back channel 'arrangements' that led to the October Surprise I've suspected that the Republicans will do anything they can behind the scenes to manipulate power to their own advantage. This would include continuing to coordinate with their ISI connections despite GHWB's loss to Clinton.

          Shortly before Clinton became President, Cheney's neocons produced the 'Defense Planning Guidance' which was the basis of the PNAC 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' which is our current (unstated) foreign policy. There's no way they would have cleaned out their desks and thrown up their hands in acknowledgment of GHWB's loss and given up on their scheme. They maintained friends at the DoD who 'kept the flame alive.'

          According to Sylvester's excellent diary it was Clinton who first straddled the line between a law enforcement approach to apprehending UBL, versus a military approach to 'take him out.' The CIA was hesitant to apply lethal force without carefully parsed permission in the form of a Presidential Directive, due to the flack from the Iran-Contra trials. My point here shines a light onto the Cheney/Rummy war on the CIA, and consolidation of all government power in DoD:

          Don't confine your searches to CIA connections to Pakistan. There may be DoD connections that Clinton was not aware of, orchestrated by neocons in the Pentagon still working for Cheney behind the scenes. This is wild speculation on my part. Am I too tfh?

          •  2000 October Surprise? USS Cole bombing . . . (13+ / 0-)

            was in October 2004, and Clinton/Gore were beaten with being soft on Al Qaeda right into the election.  I never wondered about it before today, but now I can't help but wonder.

            Bush 41 invented the "October Surprise" when he cut a deal with the Iranians to keep the American hostages until after the 1980 election.  I don't think these guys change much, except to get ever more evil and traitorous.

            "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Winston Churchill

            by LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:26:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  When Pakistan and the ISI set up the Taliban (0+ / 0-)

            in Afghanistan, weren't they acting in the interests of Big Oil?

            Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

            by lysias on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:07:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I can't remember. Sylvester McMonkey (0+ / 0-)

              will remember, having just finished reading Ghost Wars. But did you mean 'Pakistan and ISI'? How would Pakistan benefit by kowtowing to Big Oil? That's a GOP thing. Rather, the Taliban were the product of Pakistan's madrassas, and perhaps stability and a friendly regime were the goals in supporting their takeover in Afghanistan.

              •  More important was how Pakistan would benefit (6+ / 0-)

                from Big Oil.

                Benazir Bhutto had a dream of Pakistan as a gateway to South Asia and the recently created nations that resulted from the breakup of the Soviet Union.  The civil war in Afghanistan was the major stumbling block to that dream.  She saw the nascent Taliban as a stabilizing force in the (happily for Pakistan) Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and thus began the effort to support their rise to power.

                Unocal and Bridas were two oil companies that were fighting for the rights to develop a pipeline across the soon to be pacified Pashtun areas.

                So, in part, Pakistan did help to prop up the Taliban in hopes of supporting "Big Oil" interests.  But it is debatable that this was the main or even a significant reason for their involvement.

                It should be noted, however, that the Clinton Administration lobbied for Unocal's interest in this pipeline in the interest of 'opening' foreign market for US companies.

                Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!

                by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:49:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •   according to ghost wars (7+ / 0-)

              which i do not have in front of me, Pakistan had inked an oil deal with a Brazilian or Argentinian company which was going to build the pipeline in a similar location as Unocal across southern Afghanistan, which utilized the same terrain as the Silk routes of centuries before. This was the Taliban stronghold at the beginning of their takeover and therefore for Afghanistan at that time relatively peaceful. Pakistan also agreed to purchase the natural gas and oil. This was a deal that Unocal tried with all its corporate might to have the US State Department and CIA influence Pakistan to abort.

              JAMES MADISON:"Liberty cannot long endure in a country in a permanent state of war."

              by rofodem on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:12:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  When Clinton sent missles into Afghanistan, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LondonYank, walkshills

          it was our good allies in Pakistan that warned Osama.  We missed him by 45 minutes.

        •  look like great books; thanks for the recs n/t (0+ / 0-)

          BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what? QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center. BUSH: Nothing! Except for...

          by DrReason on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 02:11:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  the whole mess (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LondonYank, walkshills

        "Mr. Speaker, I mourn democracy." Barney Frank, House of Representatives, 06/29/06

        by suskind on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:58:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I understand Musharraf's motivation. . . (7+ / 0-)

    because I remember the scared look on his face on September 11 or 12, when he could see that he thought American jet fighters would be paying his country a visit if he didn't dance to Bush's tune.  But what is Bush's motivation, besides his supreme incompetence?  Is it that Pakistan gives him cover as being anti-terrorist, regardless of the results?

    All politics is class-warfare.

    by dhfsfc on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:01:40 AM PDT

  •  What I just can't get out of my mind... (43+ / 0-)

    ... is that Osama's older brother Salem Bin Laden was the first and largest investor in Arbusto, George W. Bush's first (failed) oil company. What are the odds of these guys ending up where they are today just by chance? The other amazing thing is the MSM's complete  amnesia on this story - remember Clinton and the Chinese? The Chinese didn't kill 3000 Americans, but the story was hammered to death.

    •  Bushes & bin Ladens are cronies (16+ / 0-)

      Long established cronies in the "oil bidness" and none of this is new, but when the Bushite Scum control all  major media, this is not a story that will be seen.

      Look at how Saudi Ambassador, "Bandar Bush" enjoyed a cigar on 9-13-2001, after he had arranged with Georgie to get 20 some bin Laden relatives out of the US. This when ordinary americans were not allowed to fly, but of course Bush's cronies have not been subject to any laws.

      •  This post is garbage (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and almost merits a Troll rating.

        1. The "Bushite Scum control all major media"?  If you define "Bushite Scum" as major corporatations, then I'd agree but that's an extremely loose definition.
        1. Richard Clarke took responsibility for the Saudi departures

        Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

        by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:31:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  True about Clark..... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I heard him say in an interview that he had ordered the evacuation of the Saudis in the days following 9/11. He was worried vigilantes might go after them.

          •  That's all well and good (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            It's assuming that Clark is on our side. He isn't really, he's just someone who got hosed by Bush for being marginally more truthful.

          •  Riiiiight... (4+ / 0-)

            The narrative of the 9/11 Commission Report would have us believe:

            Richard Clark was responsible for the decision to deport the Bin Laden family members.

            "Hmmmmm, I've got custody of Osama Bin Laden's family. I wonder if we should tell the President and Vice President. Nah, I think I'll just fly the family of the number-one suspect out of the country. This isn't worth wasting their time. I've got to show initiative!"

            Even if Richard Clark tried to keep Cheney and Bush from knowing about it, he couldn't keep it secret from them.

            Obviously, this passage from the 9/11 Commission Report is ridiculous:

            "Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of [National Security Council official] Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals ... The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee."

            •  Bin Laden family is huge (0+ / 0-)

              and Osama had been estranged a long time ago.  The claim that Bush arranged the Saudi departures is mere conspiracy theory.

              Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

              by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:09:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Right, I know the story. (0+ / 0-)

                You have strong convictions about the innocence of Bush and the good name of the Bin Laden family.

                •  You can't even spell Richard Clarke's name right (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Alice in Florida

                  and now you're accusing me of supporting Bush?  The quality of content is going seriously downhill here.

                  Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                  by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:32:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is a ground-breaking diary (8+ / 1-)

                    With contributions from many people who've been paying close attention to what the media suppresses, ignores and distracts us from.

                    There's no anti-semitism, no tin-foil hat garbage, nothing easy to dismiss. I can see you're not having any fun.

                    BTW, I never accused you of supporting Bush, only that you believe his testimony which was not given under oath in which he denies he knew about the FBI aquiring custody of the Bin Laden family.

                    Remember, Bush and Cheney insisted as a pre-condition of testifying to the 9/11 Commission on NOT going under oath when he made this ridiculous claim of ignorance of the FBI letting the Bin Laden family members leave the US.

                    Wow, you really believe that Bush was telling the truth to the 9/11 Commission? You must really trust his character to vouch for his innocence. Maybe you do support Bush.

                    •  "Maybe you do support Bush"? (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm not vouching for Bush's innocence because I trust his character?  WTF is with this troll bullshit?  I believe Richard Clarke's statement that the departures were cleared by the FBI under his authority.  It's a dead end conspiracy theory and has no bearing on the rest of this diary.

                      Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                      by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:59:27 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I uprated - troll rating was inappropropriate (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        stodghie, Jbeaudill

                        Please unrate your troll rating.  This diary is for discussion of something pretty important to unravelling the whole War on Terror mess.  I'd prefer it didn't get sidetracked with namecalling and bickering, much less troll rating.

                        "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Winston Churchill

                        by LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:18:27 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I agree and applaud this diary (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Alice in Florida, jrooth

                          but I don't think it should be polluted with debunked conspiracy theories about the Saudi departures and specious accusations about my loyalties.  The troll rating stands.

                          Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                          by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:24:17 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  How was it debunked? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            John L

                            By Bush denying it? Is that all it takes to make you believe something so implausible?

                            You really believe Bush and Cheney's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, which was explicitly not under oath, in which they claimed that they didn't know that the FBI was rounding and deporting Bin Laden's family until it was already done?


                          •  What the hell is wrong with you? (0+ / 0-)

                            I keep telling you that my opinion has nothing to with Bush's statements but Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 Commission.  And btw, you are wrong to claim that the FBI too the Bin Laden family's statements at face value.  Based on Clarke's testimony, it's clear that they were under heavy surveillance.

                            And, let's see, in open session I can say that I was very well aware of the members of the bin Laden family and what they were doing in the United States. And the FBI was extraordinarily well aware of what they were doing in the United States. And I was informed by the FBI that none of the members of the bin Laden family, this large clan, were doing anything in this country that was illegal or that raised their suspicions.

                            And I believe the FBI had very good information and good sources of information on what the members of the bin Laden family were doing.

                            That's why Clarke OK'd the departures.  Now stop accusing me of taking this on Bush's word.  

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:39:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your Position (0+ / 0-)

                            Your assertion:

                            The claim that Bush arranged the Saudi departures is mere conspiracy theory.

                            Based on this assertion, it's implicit that you believe the testimony that Bush and Cheney gave the 9/11 Commission.

                            To my knowledge, Richard Clarke didn't say anything which corroborated Bush and Cheney's "testimony" which was explicitly not under oath.

                            From Clarke's testimony (Which was under oath):

                            And I was informed by the FBI that none of the members of the bin Laden family, this large clan, were doing anything in this country that was illegal or that raised their suspicions.

                            So he got the ok from the FBI to let them go. Where did the FBI get its direction from? You think they didn't ask their superiors? You really think Bush and Cheney were out of the loop?

                            Furthermore, I pointed out the hypocrisy that Afghan teenagers have been imprisoned and even tortured with no charges against them for years in Guantanamo while the whole Bin Laden family was released because it was presumed that Osama was the one blacksheep in an otherwise good family.

                            You implicitly believe Bush's testimony if you actually believe that Bush was "out of the loop".

                            Apparently you're also satisfied with the decision not to detain the Bin Laden family members at all.

                          •  How can I believe Bush & Cheney's statements (0+ / 0-)

                            when there's no record of them?

                            Bush, Cheney meet with 9/11 panel

                            No transcript

                            Bush and Cheney did not testify before the panel -- they were not under oath and there was to be no recording made of the session nor a stenographer in the room.

                            What exactly do you accuse me of believing?

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 12:45:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A recap (0+ / 0-)

                            ...Richard Clarke took responsibility for the Saudi departures
                            by pontechango

                            My challenge drawing from content you linked to:

                            Even if Richard Clark tried to keep Cheney and Bush from knowing about it, he couldn't keep it secret from them.

                            Obviously, this passage from the 9/11 Commission Report is ridiculous:

                            "... The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media..."

                            by PaulGaskin on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:06:30 AM PDT

                            More of your opinions:

                            The claim that Bush arranged the Saudi departures is mere conspiracy theory.

                            I believe Richard Clarke's statement that the departures were cleared by the FBI under his authority.  It's a dead end conspiracy theory and has no bearing on the rest of this diary.

                            So there you have it, I read the content you presented and brought some of it up to you.

                            I really want to draw your attention again to this part from the 9/11 Commission Report:

                            "... The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue [Bin Laden Flights] at all until it surfaced much later in the media..."

                            That is my case that you've argued on behalf of the idea that Bush was out of the loop and that no one above Richard Clark was responsible for arranging the departure of the Bin Laden family.

                          •  I don't claim to know whether they told the truth (0+ / 0-)

                            I have no idea what they said nor how much it corresponded to reality!  For the last time, I merely stated that I don't believe that the departures were done under Bush's authorization.  Did they know about it?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Did Bush make an executive decision for their departure?  No.  Based entirely on Clarke's sworn testimony, I that is highly unlikely. You can make a speculative argument about the Bush Administration's indirect power in the decision, but I have seen no concrete evidence to support that.

                            I'm not vouching for Bush & Cheney's statement in the 9/11 Commission Report, nor am I denouncing it.  It's silly to pretend to know something that I have no way of knowing.

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:20:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm confident Bush knew and he's responsible (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            stodghie, blueoasis, John L, Rogue Scoop

                            as the Commander in Chief.

                            The utter hypocrisy of getting the Bin Laden family out of the US immediately and and then imprisoning Afghan teenagers for years is astounding.

                            I don't pretend to know anything. The truth is outrageous enough.

                          •  It's a hypothesis with little evidence for it. (0+ / 0-)

                            Assuming that it's "the truth" doesn't make it so.

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 04:15:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're struggling (0+ / 0-)

                            to make the case that it's actually plausible that Bush and Cheney were in fact, out of the loop on the Bin Laden flights.

                            How ridiculous!

                          •  That's not my argument. (0+ / 0-)

                            That's a strawman.  I already said that they may have known about it.  I have no idea.  That would mean that they were "in the loop".  They did not, however, use executive authority to force the departures against the will of the Counterterrorism Security Group and the FBI.

                            I don't think that you understand these nuances.

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 09:36:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Btw, there is an argument to be made (0+ / 0-)

                            that the White House made and shepharded the request to allow the departures through the FBI and to Richard Clarke's desk.  However, that is not the argument that you have been making.  Nor, have you presented any evidence besides Clarke's speculation that the request did come from the Whitehouse.  It is certainly plausible that it did but it is presumptive to assume that it did.  Anyway, such a request is not the same thing as an executive order.  I think you are overlooking this distinction.

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 09:43:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I never said anything about an "executive order" (0+ / 0-)

                            I think it's hair-splitting. Bush is the President and he must have known. I will not ever believe that Bush and Cheney didn't know about such an important event.

                            There's no getting around the fact that Bush is to blame for letting the Bin Laden family go. I don't care if Richard Clarke says he "takes responsibility" for it. He was not the president.

                            You can split hairs all day but ultimately it happened on Bush's watch and then he apparently lied to the 9/11 Commission when he said he didn't know about it.

                          •  Is there any evidence that Bush or Cheney knew (0+ / 0-)

                            about the departures besides Clarke's statement?

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 03:42:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As for the Bin Laden family (0+ / 0-)

                            I have no idea what it would have accomplished to detain them.  But I think you will agree that Richard Clarke, the head of the Counterterrorism Security Group and lead expert on Al Qaeda, would have had a pretty good idea.

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 12:55:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't agree with his judgement on that issue. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            stodghie, blueoasis

                            And it seems very clear to me that Bush and Cheney had to have been aware of the situation and approved of the release of the Bin Laden family despite what they are reported to have said to the 9/11 Commission in the report.

                          •  I guarantee Clarke knows more about the Bin Laden (0+ / 0-)

                            family than you do.  Notwithstanding your obsession with that one sentence in the 9/11 Commission report.

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:29:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nothing against Richard Clark (0+ / 0-)

                            But personally, I'm not a fanboy of any particular government beaurocrat. I'm also not thrilled about his decision in this case.

                            I think letting the Bin Laden family go immediately after 9/11 is a pretty important issue but you've been dismissive of that and a lot more since the beginning.

                          •  And, still, you have no evidence (0+ / 0-)

                            besides what Clarke himself said.

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 04:42:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and there a lot we don't know and should know. (0+ / 0-)
                          •  The Saudis organised the flights on their own (0+ / 0-)

                            no one was "deported"

                            The FBI merely gave the green light to their departures and facilitated them by conducting the most cursory of inquiries.

                    •  Tin-foil hat garbage? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      pontechango, Robert Davies

                      Take a closer look - click the links -- try to find one verifiable fact. There are pieces in the links -- one goes on and on about the terror group supposedly linked to the U.K.-U.S. airline plot (the JUD), claiming over and over agian that it is a thin disguise for the LET -- blamed for attacks in India. But no evidence is ever offered for that assertion -- or for anything else in the diary. You won't find it on the diary, or in any of the links which aren't to the sources the diary suggests they are.

                      This really is tin-foil hat garbage.

                      "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

                      by FischFry on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:19:41 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It says something that LondonYank (0+ / 0-)

                        would upbraid me for troll-rating the ad hominem attacks of that conspiracy theorist.  The intellectual rigor in this diary is suspect.

                        Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                        by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:03:04 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  We rate the comment, not the person around here (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          The comment I uprated had sufficient substance and no personal attack in it.

                          "The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. " - Patrick Henry

                          by LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:26:52 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, there were personal attacks (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Alice in Florida

                            You should acknowledge them.

                            There's no anti-semitism, no tin-foil hat garbage, nothing easy to dismiss. I can see you're not having any fun.

                            What is that suppose to mean about me not having any fun?  Why should I be having fun?  I'm not here to dismiss this diary.  I merely corrected a statement that had been contradicted by testimony.  Why is this made personal?

                            BTW, I never accused you of supporting Bush, only that you believe his testimony which was not given under oath in which he denies he knew about the FBI aquiring custody of the Bin Laden family.

                            This is a misrepresentation of everything that I've posted on this topic.  I've repeatedly stated that my opinon is based on Clarke's testimony.

                            Wow, you really believe that Bush was telling the truth to the 9/11 Commission? You must really trust his character to vouch for his innocence. Maybe you do support Bush.

                            I've repeatedly stated that this is not my position, but PaulGaskin kept stating that it must be my motivation.  I never said anything about Bush's "innocence".  Accusing me of supporting Bush is fighting words.  If you wanted to nip this sideshow in the bud, you would have taken PaulGaskin to task for repeatedly misrepresenting my opinions.  But it seems that you prefer his flattery to my skepticism.

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:48:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  [Sigh!] I don't write here to salve your ego (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            stodghie, snakelass, walkshills, blueoasis

                            I write here to participate in a collective political process that has the capacity to influence the future course of the most powerful nation on the planet.

                            I've been troll rated.  I've been criticised.  I've been attacked by Armando (and praised by him too).

                            You petty piss artists are hijacking my diary.  I'm sick of all of you, but am willing to recognise that with care and attention you might someday be very valued members of this Kommunity.  I was a newbie once myself.

                            Paul is behaving like a jerk.  FischFry is behaving like a jerk.  And you are behaving like a jerk.  But maybe someday you will all earn places on my subscription list.  I sincerely hope so.

                            In the meanwhile, there is a policy on troll rating.  Live with it.


                            "The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. " - Patrick Henry

                            by LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:22:39 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Trolling defined (0+ / 0-)


                               * Proven-false information, conspiracy theories, or debunked talking points.

                               * Personal attacks on other site users, including following them from thread to thread.

                            The troll-rating was perfectly appropriate.  It's not about my ego.  It's about sloppy and malicious reasoning.

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:50:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Appropriate Use of Troll Ratings (0+ / 0-)

                            From the FAQ page for DailyKos:

                            An excellent discussion of when a troll-rate is appropriate, and some of the common types of trolls, can be found in the troll rating article, originally from this diary. Reading this article is highly recommended before issuing any troll-ratings.

                            "The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. " - Patrick Henry

                            by LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:58:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, and follow that link to "Trolling defined" (0+ / 0-)

                               * Proven-false information, conspiracy theories, or debunked talking points.

                               * Personal attacks on other site users, including following them from thread to thread.

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 12:08:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've just challenged you on this. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueoasis, jkilkullen


                            BTW, this particular issue is not petty and I appreciate your efforts to support your position.

                            It's actually very important to talk about whether Bush and Cheney really were out of the loop on the Bin Laden flight, as they claimed.

                            I feel I've made a rather good case for the implausibility of the "testimony" Bush and Cheney gave to the 9/11 Commission.

                            I've also argued that your dismissal of my points as "mere conspiracy theory" imply your acceptance of the accuracy of Bush's "testimony".


                            Sorry if you feel insulted but you have painted yourself into a corner with your conviction that Bush's hands are clean on the Bin Laden flights.

                            You've actually provided information which supports my argument. Richard Clarke's own testimony shows he took his cue from the FBI who vouched for the Bin Laden family.

                            Also, you're the one who said:

                            The quality of content is going seriously downhill here.

                            I'm pretty proud of the content of this diary and I think the content is improving dramatically. Again, sorry for your bruised feelings. I hope you can understand how important this issue is which you clearly have strong convictions on.

                          •  Answered at other post n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                            by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 12:47:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Diary pollution! Regardless of what both of you (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      stodghie, snakelass

                      state, Bush & Cheney did the American people a great disservice by refusing to testify under oath and by insisting on testifying together and not individually and in not having a written or taped record as to what their testimony actually was. Major CYA?  Please let's stay on subject.

                      In youth we learn, in age we understand.

                      by Jbeaudill on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:01:51 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  9/11 Warren Commission (11+ / 0-)

                Personally, I put as much faith in the 9/11 Commission as I do in the Warren Commission.

                Bob Iger must pay. Mickey Rat must die. Disney must be destroyed.

                by expatjourno on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:47:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  FBI had the Bin Ladens under heavy surveillance (0+ / 0-)


              And, let's see, in open session I can say that I was very well aware of the members of the bin Laden family and what they were doing in the United States. And the FBI was extraordinarily well aware of what they were doing in the United States. And I was informed by the FBI that none of the members of the bin Laden family, this large clan, were doing anything in this country that was illegal or that raised their suspicions.

              And I believe the FBI had very good information and good sources of information on what the members of the bin Laden family were doing.

              That's why it wasn't a priority to interview them.

              Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

              by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:13:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  That's not true that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            he "ordered" the evacuation.

        •  Your post is garbage. (19+ / 0-)

          You cite who cites the 9/11 Commission Report? Would you also cite the Warren Commission on the Kennedy Assassination?

          Regardless, Bin Laden family members were flown out of the US, as much as the fact is downplayed:

          These flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI. For example, one flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. Screening of this flight was directed by an FBI agent in the Baltimore Field Office who was also a pilot ... The Bin Ladin flight and other flights we examined were screened in accordance with policies set by FBI headquarters and coordinated through working-level interagency processes. Although most of the passengers were not interviewed, 22 of the 26 people on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.

          Gee, they take the word of Bin Laden family at face value, but a 14 yr old Afghan kid ends up in Gitmo for 6 years because he cannot be believed under any circumstance, except when he's tortured, of course.

          Also, even though it's plausible the flight departed after the no-fly restriction was lifted, this plane had to fly around the country picking these Bin Laden family members up, because they were scattered around the country. These gathering-up flights may be the ones which occurred during the no-fly days.

          Last point - Richard Clarke cannot take responsibility for what Bush surely knew about. Gathering up and deporting the family of the number one suspect is not something that Bush or Cheney would be out of the loop on.

          This is the kind of garbage you will find in the 9/11 Commission Report:

          Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of [National Security Council official] Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals ... The President and Vice President told us they were not aware of the issue at all until it surfaced much later in the media. None of the officials we interviewed recalled any intervention or direction on this matter from any political appointee.

          Do you think Bush would admit it if it were true? The 9/11 Commission just take his word that he was out of the loop? It's not plausible that Bush would be out of the loop on the FBI aquiring custody of Bin Laden's family. Totally implausible.

          You present your disinformation with such conviction.

          •  You have no evidence (0+ / 0-)

            to contradict the word of Richard Clarke, a very credible witness.  You are promoting nothing but a conspiracy theory.

            Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

            by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:06:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How about this? (15+ / 0-)

              This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke’s sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.

              “The request came to me, and I refused to approve it,” Clarke testified. “I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the — at the time — No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved ... the flight.”

              “That’s a little different than saying, ‘I claim sole responsibility for it now,’” Roemer said yesterday.

              However, the FBI has denied approving the flight.

              FBI spokeswoman Donna Spiser said, “We haven’t had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights.”

              “We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to,” she said. “We didn’t interview 100 percent of the [passengers on the] flight. We didn’t think anyone on the flight was of investigative interest.”

              When Roemer asked Clarke during the commission’s March hearing, “Who gave the final approval, then, to say, ‘Yes, you’re clear to go, it’s all right with the United States government,’” Clarke seemed to suggest it came from the White House.

              “I believe after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all these decisions that we were making in those hours, which was the interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference,” Clarke testified. “I was making or coordinating a lot of the decisions on 9-11 in the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don’t know. The two — since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House chief of staff’s office.”

              Instead of putting the issue to rest, Clarke’s testimony fueled speculation among Democrats that someone higher up in the administration, perhaps White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, approved the flights.

              “It couldn’t have come from Clarke. It should have come from someone further up the chain,” said a Democratic Senate aide who watched Clarke’s testimony.


              •  If Bush and Cheney didn't know that the FBI (9+ / 0-)

                had rounded up Bin Laden family members while Richard Clarke and the #2 at the FBI knew it, something is very wrong.

                It's so ridiculous to contemplate, it's not even remotely plausible that Richard Clark and Dale Watson of the FBI knew about it and yet Bush and Cheney were "out of the loop" as they testified.

                It would be like a week after Pear Harbor, they aquired custody of the family of the Emperor of Japan and then didn't bother to tell FDR about it. Preposterous.

                I think this is legally defined as perjury, if Bush and Cheney testified to the 9/11 Commission that they were not informed of the FBI aquiring custody of Bin Laden family members.

                But maybe that was why they insisted on NOT testifying under oath, because they knew they had to lie big and repeatedly. It wasn't under oath, was it? If I remember correctly, they'd only agree to testify if not under oath.

              •  Speculation (0+ / 0-)

                WH Chief of staff's office is a possible source for the policy item but Clarke still authorized it.  That's a far cry from "Bandar Bush enjoy[ing] a cigar on 9-13-2001, after he had arranged with Georgie to get 20 some bin Laden relatives out of the US".

                Still no evidence.

                Essential funk: 'Indictment' by Antibalas

                by pontechango on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:02:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Beg to differ (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  They did have cigars on the Truman balcony on September 13th but nobody was there but them so we don't really know what they talked about.  

                  But we do know that mere hours later the first flights evacuating Saudi Royal family and bin Ladens began taking off...

                  And Craig Unger reports that after 9/11 "Bandar went to work immediately setting up a 24 hour hotline for Saudi Nationals at the Saudi Embassy and stayed in constant contact with Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice."

                  So, Bandar was actively involved in helping the Saudis stuck here and he smokes cigars with Bush and then the flights take off...  That's circumstantial but there's a very viable case to be made that there is a connection here.  Then you factor in Richard Clarke's testimony at the Commission about the request coming from the White House? State? and it builds steam.
                  P.S.  I don't think Clarke is covering for anyone when he changed his story.  I think he was just too intent on taking the blame and started using overly broad language.

            •  The Republicans are a conspiracy theory (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              stodghie, blueoasis
              And you are beginning to sound like their shill.
        •  No he didn't (0+ / 0-)

          He didn't block it but it was pretty clear that the Okay was given over his pay grade.

    •  I can't get over this either (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      etatauri, LondonYank, tzt

      You and I both know that the press and the public would have been screaming bloody murder if Clinton had been President on 9/11, and business ties between him and ANY bin Laden had been uncovered; or if Clinton had expedited the exit of bin Laden family members from this country in the days after 9/11.

  •  ISI: a 'state within a state' (19+ / 0-)

    It is important for anyone to understand the trajectory of Pakistani politics to understand how powerful and independent the ISI truly is.  The ISI, as well as the Military, represent a truly independent political power base within the government, and there is the potential for a successful coup (or assassination) at any time from either of these two institutions.

    From the Wiki on the ISI:

    Critics of the ISI say that it has become a state within a state, answerable neither to the leadership of the army, nor to the President or the Prime Minister.[5] The ISI has been deeply involved in domestic politics of Pakistan since the late 1950s. The 1990 elections for example were widely believed to have been rigged by the ISI in favor of the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) partyM, a conglomerate of nine mainly rightist parties by the ISI under Lt. General Hameed Gul, to ensure the defeat of Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) in the polls.[6] Gul has denied that the vote was rigged. In September-October 1989, two ISI officers launched Operation Midnight Jackals in a bid to sway PPP members of the National Assembly to back a vote of no confidence against the Bhutto government.[7]

    ISI's Internal Political Division has been accused by various members of the Pakistan People's Party in assassinating Shah Nawaz Bhutto, one of the two brothers of Benazir Bhutto, through poisoning in the French Riviera in the middle of 1985 in an attempt to intimidate her into not returning to Pakistan for directing the movement against Zia's Military government, but no proof has been found implicating the ISI.

    Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!

    by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:07:13 AM PDT

  •  I understand Musharaff's motivation but (10+ / 0-)

    how does Bush benefit by giving Pakistan all this money in aid?
    I mean, it really looks like he's paying them to train terrorists for him to not fight against.

  •  Bingo! And a question: Chalabi.... (7+ / 0-)

    You get the Grassroots Intel Award for the week for that one.  

    Excellent OSINT analysis.  Well done & well written.  

    I've got a question.

    What do you think about Ahmed Chalabi's possible role in all this?  

    In the past I thought he was working for Iran.  A friend in MI suggested looking at him as a "free agent," which fits better with certain facts that point to him & his boys selling our secrets to the highest bidder (e.g. the Iran crypto secrets were given/sold to Iran; the date 9.11 for the military anti-terrorist training exercises would have been useful to Osama so he could choose the same date for his attacks).  

    But your research suggests that Paki is so deeply involved in terr attacks that it might be worth looking at them in relation to Chalabi.  For example, what kinds of info would Chalabi be able to get that the Pakis would find useful?  And what kind of agenda would the Pakis have that Chalabi could promote in DC (as he promoted the Iranian agenda to get us to attack Iraq)?  

    •  Chalabi has been owned by the neo-con CIA cabal (11+ / 0-)

      since the 1970s.  They put him in his job at the American University in Beirut, then financed him to start Bank Petra which he looted of $300 million before fleeing the counrty, then got him safely to London with a brand new British passport, then set him up with the spurious Iraqi National Congress to spearhead regime change in Iraq.  Chalabi has been owned a long time.  

      He may also play as a double agent for the Iranians and others whenever convenient, and his first loyalty is always to himself, but he was groomed, promoted and created by our neo-cons:  Perle, Ledeen, etc.

      "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Winston Churchill

      by LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:25:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chalabi cont'd... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        What would you suggest is the best source for the full history of Chalabi, in terms of mainstream sources that a Republican could accept?  

        Stupid Me for not buying that issue of Time Magazine that came out with the big story on him a few years ago, including the details of the Iran Crypto Leak (for which the guilty party has not to this day been identified, much less prosecuted).  

        So then the neocons get him going with the INC, and at that point he's in the position to double-dip with Iran.  "First loyalty always to himself," yeah my friend in MI said the same thing.  

        What's your take on the underlying motivations of the neocons?  Are they in turn owned by someone, or are they just in it for empire as it seems from their published material?  

        And, back to my first question, do you see any connections between Chalabi and the Pakis?  

        If yes, then we have another new trail to follow.  If no, then we have two distinct nexes of what, for want of a better word, should be called treason: tolerating Paki's goings-on & playing footsie with Paki as you've documented, and the whole Chalabi/Iran nexus including serious national security leaks.  

        (Yes, I'm out of touch with some of this, I tend to pay more attention to technical stuff and sometimes neglect the human intrigue elements.)

        I can't help but thinking that, if the US was serious about destroying Al Qaeda and its ilk, we should have a) finished the job properly in Afghanistan, b) stayed out of Iraq, c) done to Paki what we did to Iraq but finished the job properly in the post-maneuver phase, and at the same time as all of this was going on, e) put Saudi on notice that they're next if another attack occurs that's got a bunch of Saudi nationals involved.  And also at the same time as all of the above, f) major effort for energy independence, including wind, nuclear, solar, efficiency, and conservation.  

        BTW, the middle east is doomed anyway.  Major overpopulation problem, one of the two highest regional birth rates in the world, and a declining resource base (oil) on which they depend for their bread on the table.  This is a classic formula for overshoot & collapse.  The place is just waiting to have a dieoff one way or the other, probably via war rather than plague or pestilence.  And here we are, stuck to the place like an addict in a bad relationship with an abusive partner.  It would be funny in a sick tragic way if it wasn't so damn dangerous.  

      •  where is Chalibi right now ?serving in Iraq gvt.? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        racerx, walkshills
      •  Hey if you can't trust... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        melo, walkshills, blueoasis

        the intelligence assessments of an embezzler who hasn't been to the country in question for years, and who has close ties to your supposed enemy (Iran), then who CAN you trust?

  •  Not entirely (12+ / 0-)

    The basic reason for secret trials, as I see it is quite simple: we - and others - tortured people.

    That would normally trash any convictions if the Geneva Conventions were followed.

    But you've got a point there that's not often considered.

    "It's better to realize you're a swan than to live life as a disgruntled duck."

    by Mumon on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:16:23 AM PDT

  •  Was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed captured by Pakistan? (17+ / 0-)

    Here is an interesting analysis from - Click through for the reference links.

    A witness present in the house when Khalid was said to have finally been seized was adament that "the only people in the house were my brother, his wife and their kids.... I have absolutely no idea why the police came here." For The Guardian, Isobel Hilton wrote that in Pakistan, the story of his arrest "appears to be almost entirely fictional." And there's the famous photo of Khalid, fat and unshaven against a wall of peeling paint. But according to The Sunday Times a "thorough search of the house shows there is no such wall."

    To allay doubts of Khalid's capture, Pakistan's ISI held a first-ever press briefing and screened a laughable eight minutes of footage purportedly taken during the raid. "Broken doors, blood-stained walls and wrists in handcuffs were all shown but curiously, no face shots...not even the well publicized 'arrest' photo of Mohammed that has been widely circulated and questioned. When one CNN reporter, Tom Minter asked why, the ISI said the tape had been edited but that the actual footage did record his face but had been edited out for the presentation." Pakistani intelligence had its own good reasons to attempt deception as, like 9/11 paymaster Omar Saeed Sheikh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not only an al Qaeda commander but also an ISI operative. Which is why both men wanted Daniel Pearl dead.

    If Khalid actually is in custody, he has remained out-of-sight from all but his CIA minders. The Kean Commission relied heavily upon Khalid's account of 9/11 to construct their own story - he's mentioned in 272 paragraphs of the report - but no commission representative was permitted to meet him or take his testimony: there is no corroboration that the account given was actually his own. The commission supplied questions to his captors, and his captors returned transcripts of interrogations that allegedly contained Khalid's answers. Its claim of authenticity rests solely upon the goodwill of the Agency.

    More questions than answers. Made me want to see a video of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to verify that he has been captured.

    I would also like to hear what he has to say.

    Definitely worth looking into the Pakistan connections. Thanks for the diary.

  •  This is a pretty serious allegation (33+ / 0-)

    In March it was revealed by the Friday Times in Pakistan that testimony to the Public Accounts Committee confirmed that the government had paid thousands to US lobbyists to get anti-Pakistan references dropped from the 9/11 Commission Report, bribing members of the Commission and 75 Congressmen.  The Pakistan Foreign Office defended the decision as reflecting "established practice in the US."

  •  For what it is worth (19+ / 0-)

    The ISI is completely independent from the Pakistani government. Pakistan essentially has two governments. Musharraf has little control over what the ISI does and in fact the ISI  is covertly hostile to him.

    In the research I did right after 9/11, I came to the same conclusion you did. The ISI was up to their neck in the attack.

    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy" Theodore Roosevelt

    by se portland on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:21:48 AM PDT

  •  Above all else (5+ / 0-)

    Oceania must be at war, and so they are all on the same side; instability.

  •  This is solid research, LondonYank. (8+ / 0-)

    The sort of work that used to come from very good investigative journalists.  Thank you for injecting some truth.

    •  This is bullshit (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LondonYank, ohcanada

      This isn't solid research -- the links aren't sources for the information offered. Even when they are, the linked "source" isn't a credible reporting site -- it's just a bunch of essays written by people who make grand assertions of fact (really speculation and opinion) without ever offering the slightest support for their claims. It's all one set of baseless assertions that link to other baseless assertions, without ever offering one piece of solid, verifiable fact. At least, I didn't find any. I gave up after 5 or 10 minutes of fruitless efforts to trace all the links to any verifiable fact. Quotes from testimony and links that don't lead to the testimony or any first-hand reporting. This isn't investigative research -- this is the essence of nutroot conspiracy babble.

      There are some important questions touched on in this diary -- it's a shame i can't take any of it seriously because it's so badly sourced.

      "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

      by FischFry on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:14:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do the subject justice - I'm just one person (12+ / 0-)

        who has spent a day on this.  I'm glad it made the Rec List in hopes that someone with serious time and research capabilities can take it forward.

        If the dirty little secret being hid behind the barbed wire of Guantanamo is Pakistan complicity in terror atttacks, it would be good to have the detailed trail.  I can't do that by myself in one day, but I believe that all of us bloggers working together can do it once we're pointed in the right direction.  

        If I've given even just a steer I did good today.

        "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Winston Churchill

        by LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:23:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  LondonYank (5+ / 0-)

          I think that this is a very fair response by you. I read your diary with interest but share a number of reservations expressed by FischFry. (To be honest, some of the concern over the "tin-foil" nature of aspects of this thread is a function of some of the subsequent comments and not your diary.)

          I do think that the diary fails to recognise the difficulties of the internal politics under which  Musharraf is working. I am equally sure that these difficulties are wrong footing US Intelligence at times and that the diary is right that this is causing mistaken decisions to be made and for certain monies to be misdirected.

          That having been said, Musharraf  is the only source through which US intelligence can operate effectively and, far from being concerned by his visit to Washington, I welcome it in the hope that it will bring some greater clarity and renewed purpose to an ambiguous and muddy situation.

          •  It's not my best researched diary ever (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sui Juris, walkshills, jkilkullen

            but the links are growing as I get the time to backcheck and there's enough substance there for others to take some of the burden and move the topic forward.  I'm pleased to see so much good material on this thread that is substantive, documented and supports the thesis that Pakistan's role merits further scrutiny.

            "The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. " - Patrick Henry

            by LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:25:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

            In truth, some of the tinfoil hat stuff is in comments to your diary, but some of it seems to be in the links you provide, as well. Pakistan is a problem. They have nukes, so we have to treat 'em with kid gloves...What's the solution?

            "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

            by FischFry on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:25:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Secrets of Pakistan and the ISI (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LondonYank, walkshills

          Well LondonYank,  I think this is a very important subject, and I myself have brought up the incongruities in U.S. foreign and security policy when it comes to Pakistan. The activities and movements of General Ahmed just prior to 9/11 are quite interesting (inlcluding giving instructions to Saeed Sheikh to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohamed Atta)and very telling. For those who question sourcing, both ABC News (9/30/01)and The Wall Street Journal (10/10/01)reported on this story.    

          It is no accident that Musharraf made General Ahmed (who had been instrumental in the success of the coup which brought him to power in 1999) the Director of the ISI. All the ties between the U.S., (more specifically the CIA) Pakistan and the ISI are explored in detail in Chapter 8 of David Ray Griffin's excellent book The New Pearl Harbor.        

          Recently, I also wrote a short piece in my own blog about the hypocrisy exhibited by Bush as regards the stated U.S. policy on terrorism and how Pakistan has been treated. It can be found here:

          I link to an excellent story written by Dar Jamail which explores the roles of various high officers within the Pakistani military and the ISI. My piece asks many of the same questions that LondonYank is asking.

          Be nice to America, or else they'll bring democracy to your country.  

      •  go to the source (5+ / 0-)

        The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson; pages 239-274.
        I don't think anyone has yet called this book, from Co-operative Research, badly sourced.

          The Complete 9/11 Timeline consists of information from over 7,000 mainstream news stories on 9/11, each fact immediately followed by sourcing which links back to the original news article.

          As Village Voice reporter James Ridgeway puts it, “Paul Thompson’s timeline is based on public documentation of what we know—what the world knows—about 9/11. It almost has to be taken more seriously than the 9/11 Commission Report because it’s open. There’s nothing secret here.” In early 2004, Thompson finally quit his job at a San Francisco-based environmental protection group to focus on his timeline full time.

          Press for Truth released this month, is a documentary based on the timeline.

          9/11 Terror Timeline

        "Mr. Speaker, I mourn democracy." Barney Frank, House of Representatives, 06/29/06

        by suskind on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:17:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I watched that madness... (0+ / 0-)

          It makes a big deal about a couple of press reports that may not be accurate themselves. The fact that there hasn't been additional reporting on some of the claims there isn't indicative of a conspiracy --it suggests the original stories were of dubious value. There are all these stories about what other countries intelligence services were reportedly telling U.S. officials. You have to ask why these stories appeared in the first place. Who had someting to gain by claiming that their intelligence service provided valuable information that might have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Why were they trumpeting such stuff to the press? And what reason would we have to believe that the Brits or the Italians or the Egyptians,etc. had valuable intelligence forecasting the attacks?

          Question everything -- but especially question the stuff you find on the net questioning work in which hundreds of people invested many months of very long days trying to get to the truth.

          "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

          by FischFry on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:33:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thompson can be seen on C-SPAN - he is working (4+ / 0-)

          with others for a re-opening of hearings
          on 9/11.

          In youth we learn, in age we understand.

          by Jbeaudill on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:34:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Wha??? (13+ / 0-)

    Pakistan??? But I thought we were tying up the terrorists in Iraq! The president said so!

    I'm so confused. Fox News, show me the light!

  •  Don't forget CYA Blair and UK govt - (7+ / 0-)

    Excellent work re: Pakistan's connection to terrorist acts.I think that this would also be a good time to mention that secret tribunals would also save the UK government, not just the Blair administration, a whole lot of embarassment as well when it comes to the absolute ignorance of radical Islamist influence being allowed to exist in the UK,and a failure to round up and deport, or arrest radical Islamist clerics in the UK who literally preach the violent overthrow of western governments from their puplpits every Friday, right in the middle of London, Manchester, Leeds and other UK cities!
    Many Americans may not be aware that several of the persons referred to in US newspapers as "Pakistani", or "Pakistani nationality", etc., are in reality, UK CITIZENS, and not all of them are naturalized UK citizens; many of those arrested are SECOND GENERATION- meaning that their parents were BORN IN THE UK! Now, it is bad enough that the persons involved in planning certain terrorist activities are born and bred in the UK, but several radical Islamist clerics cannot be "arrested and deported" from the UK because they are also UK born and bred!
    The "Pakistani" terrorist who arranged the kidnapping and beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was also a UK citizen. When this man's arrest was announced, I personally do not remember any US newspaper, or Television news outlet report the fact that he is indeed a UK citizen- funny, isn't it?
    The UK has proportionally far more citizens who claim their religion to be "Islam" than does the US;in and of itself, this might not be a problem, but when you consider that these people VOTE in UK elections,then I thuink you must wonder what effect the infiltration of Radical Islamist thought and teaching in some UK mosques has had on the UK political system.IN all democracies, politicians are usually after one thing, and one thing only, and that is to prolong their time in office, and in order to prolong their time in office, they must get people to VOTE for them.Muslims in the UK make up a rather large number of voters, and there is the possibility that the majority of voters in an
    MP's district,could belong to a mosque where a radical Islamist cleric has been preaching jihad for quite some time.When that MP is called upon to voice his support for internal security policies within the UK is it not logical to think that the MP would be reticent to support any increasing security measures that his constiuency may not like? After all, back in the days of racial segregation in the US, didn't certain congressmen from southern states take every opportunity to delay the passage of civil rights legislation in the US House because of the fear of losing the votes of their constituents at the next election?
    It is time that the UK government answer soime tough questions- but as with our own government, even though the time is right, it probably will never happen-after all, if there was any investigation into the effects of Radical Islam on the UK political system, it might just affect the "war on terror" and because of that could of course, never be made public......
    Just my 2 cents

    •  Excuse me (0+ / 0-)
      What rubbish
    •  Do you advocate secret trials? (0+ / 0-)
      I think that this would also be a good time to mention that secret tribunals would also save the UK government, not just the Blair administration, a whole lot of embarassment

      Do you advocate secret trials that keep us in the dark?

      Is so, how will we know the truth about what is really happening. For example:

      What to blame on radical Muslims and who specifically.

      What to blame on crazy Christians and who specifically.

      What to blame on Jewish people abusing their faith and who specifically.

      Your post could use some paragraphs and some links.

    •  Most British Muslims are moderate and sensible (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tzt, Jemand von Niemand, jkilkullen

      and I've waited all day to reply to you because I really couldn't figure out where to start or how to address your misconceptions.  Britain has a large Muslim population, but most are British and Muslim and really good folks too.  My kids' best friends are Muslim, and I don't ever think of them or their parents as related in any way shape or form with terrorism.

      We have terrorists here in Britain that happen to be Muslim lately.  When I first moved here they were all Catholic (except in Northern Ireland where some were Protestant too).  I don't think the worse of Muslims generally than I thought of Catholics generally in the 1990s.  

      Terrorists are criminals and I don't care much what they call their gods.  We've got some here, but we're dealing with them pretty well through investigation, prosection and the courts - as the law requires.

      As for the political system here, it is a lot more resiliant and honest than the politics in America.  It is very hard to corrupt much in British politics, where you have to resign for just about any little problem that crops up.  

      "The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. " - Patrick Henry

      by LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:08:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pakistan is in a cold civil war (6+ / 0-)

    I'm convinced that Pakistan is at war internally, not with guns and bombs yet (beyond assassination attempts on Musharraf).  The U.S. props up the modernist side that will most likely lose, and that side cannot take strong action against the radicals because it dosn't have large groups of the military on its side.

    It's worth noting that as we demonize Islam, Muslims are likely to react with a hearty, "Screw me? Well, screw you too, bud," just as we would.  PAkistan is one of the orginal 20th Century nations founded on Islam.  By which I mean they would be part of India save for their religion.

    Osama bin Laden? Osama been livin' in Pakistan and the admin ain't done a damn thing about it.

    by nightsweat on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:33:20 AM PDT

    •  And the sad thing... (7+ / 0-) that in all sorts of Muslim countries, secular democratic government had a decent chance of succeeding, but we kept manipulating them for Cold War and Warren Terra purposes. As a result, the secular governments were corrupt and violent and faith in secular democracy was largely destroyed. So people turned to strict Islam as a way of having a decent government. People do not revert to violent and conservative religious traditions nowadays without having a pretty damn good reason.

  •  Pakistan (11+ / 0-)

    Pakistan, Saudia Arabia etc are NO different than Iraq, Syria, Iran.  

    I mean Pakistan is a muslim country connected deeply with terrorism, run by a military thug, who has given out nuke secrets to others, and even has the bomb itself. They ARE the worst case scenario being made about Iran, but yet unlike Iran, Pakistan is already there.  They are the worst case scenario and YET I still live.  How is this possible?

    I am so sick of this terrorism bullshit, it's like Freddy 5, the shit isn't even remotely scary anymore.

    Osama Bin Bathtub. Slip and Falls injuries kill many, many more americans each year than terrorism. Should we be afraid of the tub as well?

    by voter for sale on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:34:36 AM PDT

    •  There is this difference: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Iran and the southern part of Iraq are Shiite, while Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan and Egypt are all Sunni. The vast majority of the terrorists are Sunni - not Shiite - come from our 'allies.'

      So, you have the Sunni world (and there's much more than I mentioned), with nuclear-armed Pakistan, versus Iran and southern Iraq and Syria.

      So, you're alive: even with all these threats, your odds of being hit by terrorist is less than being struck by lightning.

      So, you could be asking: is there really a serious terrorist threat? Or is it perhaps the M-IC setting up eternal war ala the Cold War?

      Or maybe you're just a lucky sonofagun and we should all be standing right next to you.

      Illumination is cheap around here.

      by walkshills on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 03:29:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Musharraf is like a battered spouse. (6+ / 0-)

    On the one hand, Bush publicly humiliated him by sending all that nuclear technology to India. But on the other hand, we are the single biggest supplier of aid in the world, and no other country can replace him. So, Bush probably calculated that he would come back grovelling for more aid -- it is the only way he can stay in power.

    I think Musharraf is trying to have it both ways -- appease the terrorists and buy time for him to get more military aid from us so he can crush them in the future.

    •  I've got a friend... (7+ / 0-)

      ....who is Pakistani and he says that Musharff is a real tightrope walker. Musharff's number one concern is internal stability, so he'll make whatever deals he has to make with fanatics and the folks in the northwest to stay in power. But he also knows he needs support from the US, so he'll occasionally kiss Bush's ass, too. My friend says that for a general, Musharff is a pretty effective politician.

      •  Spot on (9+ / 0-)

        Those wanting to take a serious look at Pakistan's role in terrorism and stability in that region would do well to understand that there is no singular "Pakistan".  Among the many significant players with divergent agendas are the ISI (security services), regular military (fully backing Musharraf, for now), tribal areas in the NW areas, Iran's subversives, the Sharif/Bhutto political alliance (puppeted from afar), and oh yeah, significant radical religious leaders.  None of these are fundamentally aligned with each other.  

        •  The Tribal Nature Of The Region (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LondonYank, ohcanada, blueoasis

          ...and the Arabic World, and Iran, is a significant reason all of this is so difficult for Westerners to grasp.  

          We like things linear, and our allegiances are fairly individualistic -- though in a crisis, we'll risk our lives to help others. Bottom line, though, we think about immediate, blood-family first.

          In the Arabic countries, and Pakistan - Afghainstan - Iran - not only are there family group allegiances, but those with clans, 'royal' houses or principalities (Lebanon, Saudi Arabia; Gulf States, et al.); Sunni or Shi'a... It's a very different set of identities than we have in Western culture.

  •  What about the German Commuter train plot (5+ / 0-)

    that was recently uncovered, supposedly only by virtue of the fact that the bombs failed to detonate. Pakistan not implicated yet, but who knows?

    Using DNA evidence from one of the suitcases as well as the videotape, the police narrowed their search to Kiel, a northern university town, where Youssef Mohammed E. H. was about to begin studies (under German law, the full names of suspects in criminal cases are not disclosed). He was arrested around 4 a.m. at Kiel’s main railway station.

    The videotape, which showed an image of the man wearing a German soccer jersey and lugging a bag, was broadcast widely here. Among those who saw it was the suspect, who called his family in Lebanon to ask for advice, according to a report by the state broadcaster ARD on Monday. Lebanese intelligence picked up the call, ARD said, and tipped off the Germans.

    German officials said it was probable that the Lebanese man was part of larger organization within Germany, though they have not yet suggested any links to Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or other groups.

    “Are these home-grown terrorists, like in London, or is it Al Qaeda?” Mr. Schmalz said. “We have to be prepared for everything. We don’t have a consistent picture of the Islamic terrorists here yet.”

    •  Like every other arrest... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A German court on Thursday ordered the release of a young Syrian man held in connection with the failed bid to bomb trains in Germany in July. The federal court in Karlsruhe, in southwestern Germany, cited a lack of evidence against Fadi A.S. that would require his further incarceration.

  •  So the big question(s)... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LondonYank, nio, WisVoter, Buffy Orpington

    If Bush wants military tribunals to keep the truth from coming out about Pakistan, why is he sheltering Pakistan?  Why is he allowing Pakistan to host the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Waziristan?  Why hasn't Bush pursued bin Laden more aggressively?

    With all his noble still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin--Darwin

    by MadScientist on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:37:22 AM PDT

  •  Whose allies? Whose enemies? (10+ / 0-)

    The misconception: Pakistan and the US are allied against international terrorism.

    The reality: The Bush Administration and the ISI are terror sponsors allied against the US.

  •  It has also been reported (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LondonYank, nio, Penny Century, walkshills, tzt

    that some of the detainees and Gitmo are guilty of....nothing. So the so-called 'classified evidence' in their cases would be empty folders. Which of course might take some serious spinning, er, explaining. But then again that's why the hired Snowjob.

  •  What about Pakistan's treatment of AQ Khan? (8+ / 0-)

    The "Father of Pakistan's Nuclear Bomb" has been running a nuclear proliferation mill for decades. The money that has been made is astronomical.

    Pen's diary from May is a good intro to the relations between Bush and Pakistan. Outing Plame effectively shut down the investigation into Khan's continuing nuclear weapon parts sales, especially to Iran and North Korea.

    The key here will be to investigate the profits made by the sale of nuclear materials. What Musharaff "has on" Bush is that Mushareff runs the sales department of the Bush nuclear materials network. Bush needs Mushareff in place because he's a trusted employee. Mushareff isn't getting a payoff - he's getting his salary and bonuses.

    And if there is a nuclear war? Who cares? It's not Bush's concern.

    Face it, we aren't real to Bush and the 100,000 or so members of his real constituency. We are Common Fodders Units, the human equivalent of cattle or mushrooms.

  •  Oh, this is sad (11+ / 0-)

    In March it was revealed by the Friday Times in Pakistan that testimony to the Public Accounts Committee confirmed that the government had paid thousands to US lobbyists to get anti-Pakistan references dropped from the 9/11 Commission Report, bribing members of the Commission and 75 Congressmen.  The Pakistan Foreign Office defended the decision as reflecting "established practice in the US."

    We used to prosecute American corporations for bribing officials in other countries. Their defense was that it was just "established practice" in these corrupt third world administrations.

    Great diary!

    Blowing up frogs was good training for The Torture President

    by grayday101 on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:51:19 AM PDT

  •  Some more "must read" (7+ / 0-)

    entries for what's going on with Pakistan.

    Please check out Bill Roggio's The Fourth Rail.  He's  former military and a reporter who's done 2 rounds of embed, 1st in Iraq in 2005 and then in Afghanistan in 2006.  

    He's very nicely summarized many of his postings in this entry called The Fall of Waziristan.

    Documenting the Taliban's rise to power in Waziristan over the course of 2006

    The fall of North and South Waziristan and the rise of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan was an event telegraphed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban. During the winter of 2006, Osama bin Laden announced his strategy to establish bases and pockets of territory along the Afghan-Pakistani border. The Taliban and al-Qaeda (virtually indistinguishable in this region at this point in time) had been fighting a long term insurgency against the Pakistani Army after President Musharraf put troops in the region shortly after 9-11.

    But two developments accelerated al-Qaeda's plans to conquer the agencies of North and South Waziristan: the airstrike against Ayman al-Zawahiri in Damadola, and the attack on the Danda Saidgai training camp in North Waziristan. In both instances, al-Qaeda's senior leadership was targeted, and in Danda Saidgai, Osama bin Laden and his praetorian 'Black Guard,' or personal bodyguard, were the subject of the attack.

    While bin Laden and Zawahiri escaped, senior commanders such as Abu Khabab al-Masri (WMD chief) and Imam Asad (chief trainer of the Black Guard), among others were killed. Al-Qaeda could no longer countenance a Pakistani presence in the region. The time had come to force the Pakistani Army to withdraw and force the government to accept terms of surrender. Al-Qaeda retaliated for the airstrikes by murdering a U.S. official at the Consulate in Karachi.

    South Waziristan fell some time in the spring of 2006 (I suspect sometime in late March). On March 6, I referred to South Waziristan as 'Talibanistan.' Shariah Law was declared in South Waziristan at this time and the Taliban began to rule openly. A single political party was established in South Waziristan, a party loyal to the Taliban. It is said a secret accord was signed between the Pakistani government and the Taliban around this time. All along the fighting in North Waziristan increased over the course of 2006.

    Pro-Pakistani government tribal leaders and informants were murdered and made an example of. The Pakistani Army paid a devastating price for their operations in Waziristan. The official government reports claim around 200 soldiers killed, however the unofficial numbers put the casualties somewhere around 3,000 killed in combat.

    On June 25, I sounded the alarm that a truce would be in the offing in North Waziristan. The Pakistan Army was taking a pounding, and President Musharraf lacked the will to fight in the region became apparent. All along, Musharraf and the Pakistani elite attempted to draw distinctions between the Taliban and “miscreants” and “foreigners” - which is merely code for al-Qaeda. The failure to realize the Taliban and al-Qaeda worked towards the same end, and have integrated political and command structures, led the Pakistani government to cut deals with the 'local Taliban' and the eventual establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are by no means finished with their goals of carving out safe havens along the Afghan-Pakistani border.

    The series of posts below document the history of the fall of North and South Waziristan and the rise of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, from 2006 onward.

    This intro is followed by links to his posts on the Taliban takeover of Waziristan, each with a short synopsis, including his remarkable posts, Talibanistan: The Establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan and The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan and Greater Talibanistan.

    The detail and background information I've seen on this blog is altogether MIA in the corporate media.  

    This is why Americans are "surprised" when something happens overseas that finally breaks through the threshold of ignorance.  The info was there all along -- the clues that something was going on -- but very few were paying attention.  

  •  National sovereignty (8+ / 0-)

    Right wingers (Pat Buchanan pops to mind, but lots of them do it) go on and on about how they don't want to give up "our" soveregnty to international law.

    Except that treaties, of which the Geneva Convention is one, become US law once ratified by the Senate.  Having worked a lot on tribal affairs, I've had plenty of occasion to deal with legal issues related to treaties.  And, as it happens, treaties once confirmed are a higher level of law than regular Congressional legislation.  (That's what makes NAFTA & other "free trade" treaties an end run around environmental and other laws.)  If they dump Geneva, they're in violation of the treaty, which is to say a higher form of US law.

    This is (sort of) an aside from your diary, but I've had it in mind for awhile now.  This just seemed the right moment to mention it.

  •  I commented previously (4+ / 0-)

    about   neocon reasoning in this connection.

    Four more years of peace and prosperity---not

    by stunster on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:01:25 AM PDT

    •  I love your comment - so here it is again! (18+ / 0-)

      From the Department of Things to Remember

        1. Pakistan has a population of 166 million.

        2. 96% are Muslim.

        3. Of these, 19% are Shia.

        4. Hence, Pakistan has the second highest Shia population in the world, after Iran, and more than India or Iraq.

        5. Pakistan has successfully tested a nuclear bomb.

        6. Pakistan secretly and illegally shared nuclear technical know-how with third parties.

        7. Pakistan has sponsored the Taliban for years.

        8. Pakistan has said bin Laden will not be arrested if he doesn't engage in violence.

        9. Pakistan is not a democracy.

       10. Pakistan was used as a base of operations by the mastermind of the 9/11 plot and other international terrorist plots, including those recently affecting the UK.

       11. Pakistan is used as a base of operations for terrorism in Kashmir and other parts of India

       12. Pakistan is our friend.

      So what do the neo-conservatives have to say about all this?

      "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Winston Churchill

      by LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:04:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "whose side" oversimplifies the situation (5+ / 0-)

    First, thanks for the research that shows the extent to which the government of Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia, is a "friend" only in the most hollow sense.

    But I also think that the picture you're drawing misses some complexities of the situation. For example, asking the question of "whose side" they are on. I know you got that from the Times piece, but it is misleading to think that anyone (even Israel) is simply on our side or on (the other?) another side.

    Pakistan is a combination of different agents, sometimes with opposite agendas. At times you say "Pakistan" did things that are actually done by elements within Pakistan, and not the state, and other times you're talking about the government. I'm not just being picky about this, because while the ISI is the agent that is most involved with training people who have gone to attack the US, it is also true that the ISI has the closest ties to US intelligence agencies. By contrast, Pakistan is a majority Sunni state, only 15% Shia, and so geopolitically some see Pakistan as a potential counterweight to Iran in the region. The idea that Pakistan is our hidden enemy is true in one sense but in another it is like saying New York Catholics are our enemy because Tim McVeigh was born one.

    Again, sorry if this sounds picky, but the same thing happens every day throughout the world with people conflating Bush, the US government, and Americans. I don't like it there, either.

  •  Anyone seen this? (5+ / 0-)

    There is a link to the entire document as well. Looks like we have a war criminal for a president.

    "Live right. Think left." Gregory Peck

    by bookwoman on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:07:44 AM PDT

    •  Not for nothing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sui Juris, jkilkullen

      Under what auspices was this tribunal created?  Looks like a bunch of law profs from Japan. according to Wikipedia, although Ramsey Clark's presence adds a bit of credibility.

      Not that I refute their findings, by any stretch of the imagination, they just don't seem very "official".

      Although, it looks a lot more legit than Pravda's web page.  What's up with that train wreck?

      We should have a DailyKos International Criminal Tribunal.  Maybe C-Span would broadcast it.

      •  I'm glad to see others checking foreign press (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LondonYank, jkilkullen

        and not just the usual London Times, Le Monde etc,
        we should be doing this regularly as our news is so biased and managed here in USA... Thomas Paine would not be happy with USA today! Nor Peter Z.

        In youth we learn, in age we understand.

        by Jbeaudill on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 12:18:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Human Rights First (0+ / 0-)

        International War Crimes Tribunals

        Human Rights First
        Justice and Accountability
        Over the past decade, HRF  ’s International Justice program has made substantial contributions to the establishment of international tribunals and courts with jurisdiction over war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including genocide. We played a key role in the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and assisted a number of states parties with the process of implementing the provisions of the statute of the court (the Rome Statute) in their national legal systems.  The Crimes against Humanity program builds on these past contributions through our continued engagement with the ICC and other international courts, and through our efforts to ensure that courts are able to conduct successful investigations and prosecutions in the various cases they undertake. By promoting an integrated and effective international justice system, capable of providing justice and accountability for genocide and other crimes against humanity, HRF works to combat impunity and thus deter the occurrence of such egregious human rights violations in the future.

        International and Other Criminal Courts

        see also
        Benjamin Ferencz Prosecutor at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal

        "Mr. Speaker, I mourn democracy." Barney Frank, House of Representatives, 06/29/06

        by suskind on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 02:44:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's a load of crap (0+ / 0-)

      The "International Criminal Tribunal" is, not the allegations, I mean.  Looks like 20 or so people got together to play dress up.  It's a complete joke.

      •  Who recommended this BS Diary? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yellow Canary

        WHile teis diary does deal with imprtant questions, the argument is seriously diluted becuase it's written by a bipolar paranoid -- the quotes that are linked to sites that are not the purported source should be a clue to the problems here, if the bizarre citation

        "According to 9-11 Press for Truth, from 51:00 to 1:12"

        wasn't the dead giveaway it should be. Of course, the fact that the source there is an internet conspiracy theorist should also call into queston reliance on any "reporting" found there.

        The situation in Pakistan is a mess, and I feel unease with supplying sophisticated weapons to such an unstable government. But we can't win any arguments if we feature paranoid conspiracy theories. I've written a diary entry today on one such group of conspiracy theorists that have invented their own history to suit their theory (a fabricated revisionist 'history' of the first Gulf War).

        There is an amazing amount of bullshit on the internet -- baseless propaganda masquerading as real history and real news. The comment here, in this thread, buying into some piece about some bogus "International Criminal Tribunal," is a prime example. Apparently, some people are spending so much time surfing the internet for information that they can no longer distinguish real news and credible reporting from all the other detritus. If this site is going to be a useful forum for intelligent discussion of the issues, the powers-that-be need to be more careful about recommending such crap. The nuts are out there, but we need to be more circumspect about what we promote. If someone says the government is reading his thoughts with microwaves...he really is crazy...Some of he internet crap falls into that category, even if it seems more sophisticated, intellingent and credible. Be skeptical. Question everything -- but, especially question the nut-roots.

        "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

        by FischFry on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:06:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent diary. Some of this material (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is in my own site, some isn't.  I'm busy compiling the data from your diary that didn't make it into mine.  Full credit to you, of course!

    This Far and No Further -- documenting 109 years of conservative thuggery

    by Black Max on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:09:22 AM PDT

  •  It's my feeling (5+ / 0-)

    that the big reason Bush is kind towards Pakistan, even allowing their terrorist connections, has to do with oil/gas.

    Going back to pre 9/11, remember.  The idea was to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan.  Pakistan is of strategic importance in the area, with its access to the Arabian Sea.  The entire region north of Pakistan is rich in energy, and even Brzinski (sp) wrote a book on the absolute need to control the area.  

    We've installed an oil man in Afghanistan (Karzai), and the hope is we can, in any way possible, control Pakistan.

    Even if they do foster terrorism.

    •  Even if, or precisely because? (0+ / 0-)

      Have you read Richard Labeviere's pre-9/11 and prophetic Dollars for Terror?

      I have a feeling the CIA and other elements within the U.S. government have long seen terror as a way of promoting the creative destruction they seek.

      Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

      by lysias on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:13:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pakistan secret service wires $ to 911 Highjacker (12+ / 0-)

    I saw Gore Vidal speak at UCLA prior to the invasion of Iraq, and I remember him talking about the Pakistan Secret Service meeting with the CIA and then wiring money to some of the 911 highjackers.

    Took me a while, but I found some references to this. I hope I didn't miss it when I read the diary above.

    Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?

    Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?

    LA is for Lower Alabama. Also known as the Florida Panhandle for any Yankees not in the know.

    by Thom K in LA on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:13:36 AM PDT

  •  Pakistan has been good for NeoCon Iraq pretext (6+ / 0-)

    and many others, as we can see. The Bush cabal have been working feverishly to convert the fallout from Pakistani-sponsored terrorism into benefits for themselves and their corporate sponsors. We have the creation of the so-called "unitary executive" (fascist dictatorship); a run at creating a perpetual presidency; cover for stolen elections; the opportunity to roll back American civil rights and to drain our national treasury; payoffs to defense and energy industry cronies.

    What remains is to conduct the forensic examination that reveals the political mechanics of how BushCorp and Pakistan have managed their collusion in this synthetic "war on terror" along with the extensive involvement of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the British.

    Yep, Bush/Cheney/Rove, et al., have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by maintaining their efforts of total control over the flow of information to the American people. Once this becomes widely known, all hell will break loose on their heads. Tinfoil speculation: Perhaps the sudden flurry of activity over e-voting machines is a Rovian distraction?

    It's easy to take democracy away from Americans. They won't take the risks or make the sacrifices necessary to force us out of power. --Gloating NeoCon Fascists

    by Enough Talk Lets Get Busy on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:45:23 AM PDT

  •  A little off topic, but isn't witholding evidence (3+ / 0-)

    unconstitutional? Does not it fly in the face of habeas corpus? That Cheney/Bush are advocating the withholding of evidence, and that the media reports that with no discussion of habeas is shocking.

    17. Ne5

    In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

    by Spud1 on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:55:57 AM PDT

    •  Habeas Corpus is SO Pre 9-11 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      danger durden, fhcec

      Our government says "Rights are when WE are right!"

      "Facts do not matter, we will make them up if we have to."

      "We are protecting our Freedom. You do not have the right to disagree with us."

      "We never question the patriotism of those lying subversive members of the Democrat Party"

      Democrats want better government, government that serves real people and not just those with power and influence. Nevada Appeal, Carson City NV

      by Tuba Les on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:09:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Prior to Feb/Mar '06 (3+ / 0-)

    The US Army had some "Big Guns" at installations in Southern Afghanistan.  This artillery was capable of reaching rather deep into Pakistan.  After a series of complaints by the Pakistani government, the Big Guns were removed & some smaller, short range howitzers brought in.

    The Big Guns had been used previously to shell the active Taliban & al Quaeda paramilitary units near the border.  The artillery was especially effective at punishing & pursuing units that had made attack forays into Afghanistan & were in retreat to their bases in Pakistan.

    Also, when the Pakistan Army was actively engaging Taliban & al Quaeda units, the artillery could be called in to pound the militants as the Pakistan forces stood off & relayed the target data.

    Looks as if all 3 of those efforts are over.

    Impeach. Convict. Imprison. End this REIGN OF MISERABLE FAILURE.

    by whl on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:02:20 AM PDT

  •  Fleashing out your timeline a little (15+ / 0-)

    May 2001 - Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a career covert operative and former Navy Seal, travels to India on a publicized tour, while CIA Director George Tenet makes a quiet visit to Pakistan to meet with Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Armitage has long and deep Pakistani intelligence connections. It would be reasonable to assume that while in Islamabad, Tenet, in what was described as "an unusually long meeting," also met with his Pakistani counterpart, Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, head of the ISI. [Source: The Indian SAPRA news agency, May 22, 2001]

    summer 2001 (est.) - Pakistani ISI Chief Gen. Ahmad  orders an aide to wire transfer $100,000 to Mohammed Atta who was, according to the FBI, the lead terrorist in the suicide hijackings. Ahmad recently resigned after the transfer was disclosed in India and confirmed by the FBI. The individual who makes the wire transfer at Ahmad's direction is Ahmad Umar Sheik, the lead suspect in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. [Source: The Times of India, Oct.11, 2001.]

    July 2001 - Immediately after the G8 Summit three American officials -- Tom Simmons (former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs) and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia) -- meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin and tell them that the U.S. is planning military strikes against Afghanistan in October. A French book released in November, "Bin Laden - La Verite Interdite," discloses that Taliban representatives often sat in on the meetings. British papers confirm that the Pakistani ISI relayed the threats to the Taliban. [Source: The Guardian, Sept. 22, 2001; the BBC, Sept. 18, 2001; The Inter Press Service, Nov. 16, 2001; Alexander's Gas and Oil Connections, Feb. 21, 2002]

    Aug. 2, 2001 - U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Christine Rocca (a former CIA officer), meets in Islamabad with a Taliban ambassador and demands the extradition of bin Laden. This was the last known meeting on the subject. [Source: Brisard and Dasquie, p 79.

    Sept. 11, 2001 Gen. Mahmud of the ISI (see #16), friend of Mohammed Atta, is visiting Washington on behalf of the Taliban. He is meeting with the Chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., [Source: MSNBC, Oct. 7, 2001; The New York Times, Feb. 17, 2002]

  •  Regardless (3+ / 0-)

    of a conspiracy -  theory or real,
    That report that came out two week regarding Pakistan  having a treaty with the Taliban aiding Bin Laden should continue to raise more than eye brows.

    A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." George W. Bush

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:13:47 AM PDT

  •  Goss&Graham (12+ / 0-)

    Let's not forget that as our country was under attack, literally, Porter Goss and Bob Graham were eating breakfast with the enemy, Pakistani ISI General Mahmud Ahmed.  Let's not forget that these two, Goss and Graham, were then made co-chairs of the original 9/11 joint inquiry.  They promised to follow all evidence where ever it led.  They did not follow the evidence which led to and from their own breakfast guest on 9/11.

    A Cloak No Dagger From The Washington Post

    An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. (Woodrow Wilson)

    by Alter Ego Manifesto on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:21:29 AM PDT

  •  This is all making me very jittery. (4+ / 0-)

    I'm an Indian living in India (the last holdout; all my siblings are in the US).

    I can feel the hot breath of war on my neck. I saw '9/11: Press for truth', and it makes this very case, extremely powerfully. If enough people see it, and hold the Administrations feet to the fire and demand that he stand by his promise of going after those who harbour terrorism...whoopsie!

    Granted, India isn't Pakistan. But it's right next door. And that madman just might decide in his opportunistic way: 'Well, so long as I'm in the neighbourhood...'

    Anyone know any reason why Bush might want to invade India? Some pipeline maybe? (Jerome a Paris would know).

    •  er, Administration's (4+ / 0-)

      We Indians do English pretty damn good.

    •  Mumbai, India (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LondonYank, Buffy Orpington

      July 11, 2006.  This three-page PDF has info on the publicised connections with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and touches on a number of issues raised in various comments as well.


      Only $6 per citizen per year to publicly fund each and every election for House, Senate and White House.

      by We hold these truths on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:57:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  invade India? (0+ / 0-)

      No way.

      Granted, a good deal of Pakistan's support for the jihadis has to do with recruiting bodies to take part in the activities in Kashmir.

    •  Jeezus A Christe!!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Welshman, pontechango

      You're all nuts!!!! We're not invading India -- not now, not ever. I don't know who Jerome a Paris is, but I'm sure he knows why we will be invading India. His tin-foil hat is intercepting the secret microwave transmissions, no doubt.

      "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

      by FischFry on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:24:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, FischFry. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pontechango, danger durden

        Thanks for that very definitive statement. Ayyo raama! (Indian cry of relief). 'Not now, not ever'. I can sleep easy tonight.

        But then, consider that Bush is a madman. He's fronting a cabal whose machinations run deep. Wheels within wheels within wheels. Consider that there might be some Byzantine reason, based on a labyrithine line of reasoning, for why invading India might be a good thing.

        I like your sig. Borat is one of the all-time greats of comedy, and is making a huge nuisance of himself among powerful people who want to do important stuff like invade other countries and kill people. He's getting their knickers in a twist. Bush and Nazarbayev (Prez of Kazakhstan) are going to hold talks about him. A great day in history.

      •   Jerome a Paris can represent himself. (0+ / 0-)

        No need for you to misrepresent Jerome a Paris or any of us.

        No one here thinks India will be invaded.

        •  I can't misrepresent (0+ / 0-)

          I can't misrepresent someone I've never heard of -- as for the insanity about invading Indai, someone in the thread said he was nervous that it was possible.

          "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

          by FischFry on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:57:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yet you did. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            davidincleveland, gotgat54, blueoasis

            I don't know who Jerome a Paris is, but I'm sure he knows why we will be invading India.

            You just misrepresented him and denigrated his intelligence and the whole community.

            I'm just not 'one of you.' In which case, I gladly plead guilty. I try to maintain a healthy skepticism of cult-like groupthink. The pod-people are coming...


            •  Paul, your even newer . . . UID 104,159 (5+ / 0-)

              [When did we pass 100,000?!?]

              You need to be a bit more reflective and less combative while getting used to the site.  There are a lot of views here, but tolerance and good will go a long way whether you are agreeing or disagreeing if you want to make a case that's convincing to others.

              Post less.  Think more.

              "The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. " - Patrick Henry

              by LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:59:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree but with reservations. (0+ / 0-)

                I'm just trying to preserve the integrity of the discussion by challenging these guys who denigrate our intelligence.

                Nobody  seriously considered the idea that Bush would invade India, and for these guys to imply that I or others took that question seriously is just a pathetic straw-man argument.

                I don't want the unserious conspiracy theorists adding their contributions because it only diminishes the credibility of those who are serious by association.

                Sorry for getting carried away, but this diary is worthy of some defense. Anyway, I'm ready to give it rest.

                •  Preserving integrity (3+ / 0-)

                  Your post is garbage.  by PaulGaskin
                  Garbage.  by PaulGaskin
                  Now THIS is tin-foil hat garbage. n/t  by PaulGaskin
                  You're insincere and unhelpful.  by PaulGaskin


                  Awesome work on the preservation, does it occur to you that a large portion of community-driven discussion is conjecture? People discussing what they think could be true is not harmful in any way.

                  Do the right thing and assume everyone has the best motives in mind until proven otherwise. Although 99.9999999999(rounding error)% of people here want the Republicans out of office, past experience and personal values lead to different methods.

                  I for instance would enjoy seeing a catapult constructed on the White House lawn (for exit purposes, not entrance).

                  •  If we do not disassociate ourselves (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    from those who are not serious, we will be placed in the same category as them.

                    If we do not respond to critics, we will not be taken seriously either.

                    Perhaps I got a little "bogged down" but it's better than yeilding the forum to people who don't take it seriously.

                    •  I totally understand where you're coming from, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      but just try and be a little more constructive in your replies to others regarding unsavory sources and theories.. I've heard some crazy stuff around here in my day, but also have learned that I can't put anything past this administration.

            •  Maybe the whole community... (0+ / 0-)

              Since I said "I don't know who Jerome a Paris is," it's kind of hard to say with a straight face that I denigrated him or his intelligence...

              Somebody wrote that they don't know why the U.S. would invade India, but added that Jerome a Paris would. So, anyone with a modicum of intelligence would appreciate that I was denigrating the intelligence of anyone who would suggest the U.S> might invade India. Since I don't know the first thing about this Jerome person and have no reason to believe that he thinks the U.S. would invade India, it's quite a stretch to say that I said anything personally about him.

              "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

              by FischFry on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:09:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, I am critical (0+ / 0-)

              I have been critical of a huge swath of the DK community which I think slavishly follows some perceived groupthink -- and I do'nt buy into the premise that certain Democrats are teh real enemy of progresives. It seems pretty clear to me the problem is the Republican control of government. So, I've argued the primary goal should be to change that fact.

              I have criticized efforts directed at fellow Democrats who, for one reason or another, are deemed to be the enemy because they don't subscribe to some important elements of the goupthink. I think these efforts represent a misdirection of our energy, and may even be counter-productive.

              I remember when there were many conservative Democratic senators (before they jumped ship or retired), and the Democrats had control of the Congress. We had a much more progressive government then. I think we can survive a few Democrats that are out of step with liberal orthodoxy. We can't survive a government that is in Republican hands.

              "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

              by FischFry on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:18:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  FischFry, you're awfully new here . . .UID 98,284 (6+ / 0-)

            I'm guessing you joined the site this summer during that little dust-up in Lebanon.  Take some time to get to know the neighbourhood.  Don't be too judegmental or combative.  Look for good will and humour.

            I don't think the poster from Mumbai really thinks that the US might invade.  But it wouldn't be irrational for them to think the US might turn a blind eye if Pakistan tried to take back Kashmir at some point.  

            Anyway, you're posting too much and respecting too little.  Take it a bit easier while you get used to the rythms and personalities here.

            "The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. " - Patrick Henry

            by LondonYank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:55:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for the advice (0+ / 0-)

              "We support your war of terror!" -- Borat Sagdiyev (a/k/a Sacha Baron Cohen)

              by FischFry on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:04:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah -- both newbies FischFry and Gaskin (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LondonYank, davidincleveland

              Need to take slow deep breaths and tone down the invective.

              I was "this close" to calling motives into question, but I think they may both just need to slowwww dowwwwnnn.  Before someone troll rates them.

              ...two nations, divisible by bank account, with liberty and justice for those able to pay the going rate ... Lewis H. Lapham, November 2005

              by Randomizer on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:08:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The poster from Mumbai ... (0+ / 0-)

              indeed thought that the US would invade India.

              Granted, India isn't Pakistan. But it's right next door. And that madman just might decide in his opportunistic way: 'Well, so long as I'm in the neighbourhood...'

              I think the madman he was referring to is W.

  •  As deep throat told Woodward (7+ / 0-)

    to follow the money, I've suggested to interested friends to follow Pakistan.  And you've done an excellent job.  Although his politics can be suspect, Arnaud de Borchgrave (Google him) has been tireless in his digging and revelations about Pakistan.

    Great Work!

    No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. --Edward R. Murrow

    by craigb on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:40:19 AM PDT

  •  You Forgot the Taliban (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattes, Buffy Orpington

    The Taliban was a Pakistan proxy government for Afgahnistan with deep ties to the Pakistan government.

  •  totally agree with the post... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LondonYank, Buffy Orpington

    have felt that Pakistan was the nexus all along, you just hammered it home. Also the point that US money and training started it is typically ironic of our bungling foriegn policy. We gave Saddam chemical weapons in the 80's! Then we get all flustered when he used 'em.

    Well done.

    •  It's not bungling, it's deliberate. (5+ / 0-)

      Reagan and Rumsfeld didn't mind when Saddam gassed the Kurds. Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand after that. They didn't get "flustered" until it became a convenient excuse to invade Iraq.

      This terrorism being sponsored by Pakistan is not bungling and it's not as if the Bush's weren't in a position to know it was going to happen. The Bush-controlled CIA would know the capabilities of the Islamic terror cells it funded and trained.

      Bush was explicitly warned with the August 6th PDB that said "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US".

      As the diarist pointed out, Pakistan has received billions from Bush, even as Pakistan gives nuclear secrets to Iran, shelters Al Qaeda and empties its prisons of known terrorists.

      Furthermore, as the diarist pointed out, the cover-up of Pakistan's complicty in ALL the major terror events has been thorough, expensive and deliberate.

      •  Good points Paul (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vinylgirl, blueoasis

        I agree, and I really don't think that anything  Bushco , PNAC et al. does is an accident or bungling, save for maybe the Chimp's bungling of the English language at press conferences etc. Even when David Frum feeds him the words to say he still can't pronounce them or otherwise complete a sentence without stumbling all over himself.

        Perhaps it's a good thing that Junior refers to The Patriot Act as the "terrorist act." These Freudian slips let us know how he really sees things. Kinda like when Rummy slipped and stated that a missile damaged the Pentagon.

        PNAC plans to institute The New World Order is much more complex and intricate that most people can fathom. The fact that so many journalists and bloggers focus on the incompetence and bungling means they are totally missing what is happening.

        Iraq is a quagmire by design. People just don't get it. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are getting exactly what they want. The ongoing destabilization of the Middle East is a big part of their ultimate plan. It is part of the agenda. Iraq was not "a mistake" as most political commentators on the left like to label it.

        The plan includes inflamming already existing hatred for Israel and the increasing demonization of the Muslim people and the positioning of radical Islam on a global scale as the foil to Christianity.

  •  Stupid liberals (0+ / 0-)

    you just don't get it. Eurasia has always been our ally, we have always been at war with Eastasia. Ignore the man behind the curtain. Take your stress pill and relax.

    Resistance is the secret of joy. - Alice Walker

    by benheeha on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:12:03 AM PDT

  •  While I don't believe that... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LEP, LondonYank, danger durden

    Bush/CheneyCo are intent on doing secret tribunals to protect Pakistan, Pakistan's complicity in incident after terrorism incident, and this administration's cozying up to Musharraf (their man in Islamabad), and turning a blind eye to China's complicity in arming Pakistan to its teeth - these will come back to bite US ass - sooner than later. Stingers handed out freely to the Mujahideen during the Russian occupancy of Afghanistan (Carter administration was complicit in that, but it was Reagan who did most of the arming) are now turned back on NATO and US soldiers in Afghanistan (and elsewhere).

    There is a great web group to discuss terrorism in South Asia with many articles on Pakistan's complicity - it is South Asia Analysis Group

    I am highlighting just one slightly older article which is scary beyond belief - these people are still free.

    Nuclear Scientific Community of Pakistan: Clear and Present Danger to Nonproliferation

    Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra  

    Recent revelations of support to North Korean uranium enrichment programme and the connections of some of the scientists with Al Qaeda appear to confirm that Pakistan is developing into one of the most dangerous proliferant countries in the world. The nuclear scientific community plays a pivotal role in it. Right at the top, Dr. A.Q. Khan to several other scientists who were involved in the nuclear development programme of Pakistan, remain suspects. More than a dozen scientists in Pakistan can be called as  nuclear proliferation agents.  

    Including a list of suspected scientists in Pakistan, this paper is an effort to draw attention of the international community on the existing alleged rogue nuclear scientific community in Pakistan and their potential involvement in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction worldwide at different state and non-state levels.  

    For comprehensive understanding, this paper may be read in continuation with a few earlier papers of the same author on Pakistan’s nuclear development complex

    Pakistan as a proliferator state: Blame it on Dr. A.Q. Khan

    Nuclear Safety and Security in Pakistan: Under the shades of terrorism

    Nuclear Pakistan: Implications for National and International security

    Pakistan today is not only the epicenter of international terrorist network but it is also placed in the world as the hub of the international proliferator nuclear scientist network.

    The possible fallout may be spread of knowledge, technology, design, material or development of wide range of nuclear devices for both the non-state and state actors worldwide. Given an opportunity, international terrorist networks like Al Qaeda might have hardy lost any stone unturned to acquire technical know-how of radiological dispersal bomb or dirty bomb. Whether Al Qaeda had got it or not, by now it is widely accepted that Al Qaeda has had the motivation for acquisition of nuclear weapons terror strike capability. Countries like North Korea, have been immensely benefited from the Pakistani scientists.  

    Proliferation: wanted list in Pakistan

    Pakistani President and officials of the government at various levels have repeatedly denied any suspected association of scientists from Pakistan with the outside entities. But, the fact remains that the key scientific personnel of Pakistan have lost credibility and their integrity is at stake. Media and intelligence sources indicate following names as frontrunners in the murky deeds, though not all, have as yet not been exposed!  

    1. Dr. Abdul.Qadeer Khan:  

    The most revered nuclear scientist in Pakistan remains the most suspected rogue scientist in Pakistan. He has illegal linkages with nuclear aspirants throughout the world. His stature is so elevated and protected by the Pakistani government that he has been epitomized as larger than the “nuclear image” of Pakistan. Anything said or done against the scientist is supposed to be anti-Pakistan, anti-Islam and so non-tolerable. But, no doubt, the recent media and intelligence expose suffice evidence for Dr. Khan’s pivotal role in proliferations emerging from Pakistan.

    "If the international community had a proliferation most-wanted list, A Q Khan would be the 'most-wanted' on the list," Robert Einhorn, former assistant secretary of state for non-proliferation in the Clinton administration was so quoted in The News. (The News, Sunday Weekly, Special Report, January 19, 2003)  

    Dr. A.Q. Khan, the so called father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, who is alleged to have stolen the design and engineering plans for gas centrifuges from Netherlands, has visited many Islamic and non-Islamic countries. Dr. Khan’s interaction with the scientists of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Libya and his reported visits to North Korea and Iran have brazenly violated the norms of the nonproliferation regimes.  

    2. Dr. Bashiruddin Mehmood:

    It is now known that the Pakistani nuclear scientist, Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, who was arrested on October 23, 2001, had held extensive meetings in August 2001 with Osama bin Laden, one of his top lieutenant Al Zawahiri, and two other Al Qaeda officials in the Afghan capital of Kabul. Including former military officers Brig (rtd.) Mohammad Hanif, foundation’s finance director and Commodore (rtd.) Arshad Ali Chaudhary, vice president of the foundation many other associates of Dr. Mahmood in his suspected charitable foundation “Ummah Tameer-e-Nau” or " Islamic Reconstruction " can be said to be the conduits to the scientist’s alleged connection with Al Qaeda.

    Dr. Mahmood had also several meetings with Mohammad Omar, head of the ousted Taleban government, during his visit to Kandahar in mid-summer of 2001.

    He has been quoted saying in public that Pakistan should help other Islamic nations build nuclear bombs. He also had admired the fundamentalist regime of Taleban militia.

    Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood is popularly known in Pakistani scientific circles as SBM and a staunch believer in Islamic science. In 1986, he founded the Holy Koran Research Foundation to explore the intersection between Islam and science.

    Pakistani officials have maintained that the scientists did not pass important secrets to Al Qaeda, but they have no proper explanation to the fact that Mahmood failed multiple polygraph examinations about his activities.

    Dr. Mahmood has experience in both uranium enrichment and plutonium production. The Scientist is said to be a significant contributor to Khushab nuclear reactor, mainstay of Pakistan’s weapon grade Plutonium. During interrogation, in an interview to The News he had said that he could never stay before the (lie-detecting) machine beyond a few minutes because of his age and health!

    By early 1990s, he was a key figure in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme. He headed the Kahuta uranium enrichment plant in the early 1990s and was given charge of the Khushab reactor, in 1998. He worked there till his resignation in 1999.

    3. Chaudhary Abdul Majid:

    Abdul Majid has worked in Afghanistan along with Dr. Bashiruddin Mahmood. He worked till 1999 as Chief Engineer in PAEC.

    4. Dr. Mirza Yusuf Baig:

    A former scientist of PAEC, Mirza Yusuf Baig is a close associate of Dr. Bashiruddin Mahmood. The scientist’s alleged connection with mastermind of Al Qaeda has not yet been cleared.

    5. Mohammad Nasim:

    Mohammad Nasim had co-authored Bashiruddin in 1999 to an article in opposing Pakistan’s probable stance on signing CTBT. It is not yet clear whether he was interrogated for his association with Dr. Bashiruddin.

    6.  Humayun Niaz:

    Humayun Niaz is a former PAEC personnel and has allegedly tried to explore the occurrence of uranium and plutonium in Afghanistan.

    7. Sheikh Mohammed Tufail:

    Sheikh Mohammed Tufail is the owner of one of Pakistan’s leading engineering companies and, also, one of the directors of Dr. Mahmood’s charitable foundation, “Islamic Reconstruction”.

    8. Dr. Muhammd Ali Mukhtar:

    Dr. Mukhtar is Ph.D in nuclear physics and has served in Khusab and Islamabad offices of PAEC. He is said to have joined PAEC in early 1980s. This Scientist is a weapon expert. He was allowed to slip out of Pakistan to Myanmar along with Dr. Suleiman Asad fearing interrogation by American agencies. The duo are said to have participated in an unspecified “research programme” in Myanmar. Before leaving to Myanmar, the scientist had been working in Khan Research Laboratories in the department dealing with defence production. The scientist is said to have connections with Al Qaeda.

    9. Dr. Suleiman Asad:

    To escape the interrogation regarding his linkage with Al Qaeda, with the support of Musharraf government Dr. Asad along with Dr. Ali Mukhtar had flown to Sagaing division of Myanmar. Dr. Asad is a weapon expert.


    Between 1997 to 2002, nine scientists are said to have left Pakistan for unknown destinations as listed in an internal memo of Chasma Nuclear Power Plant (CHASNUPP) as “absconders”. This further adds to the worry of international community of the fear of falling of nuclear know-how into wrong hands. Wherever they are they could easily fall prey to shady middlemen and money launderers working for both the state and non-state actors internationally. It all depends on the price one will be willing to get for transferring classified information and sensitive technologies. They are:

    1.  Muhammad Zubair, worked as Asst. Engineer, CNS (Center for Nonproliferation Studies, US) Fellow, in Electrical Division, absconding from April 1997,
    1.  Murad Qasim, worked as Senior Engineer, KINPOE (KANNUP Institute of Nuclear Power Engineering) fellow, in Mechanical Division, Maintenance, absconding from February 2000,
    1.  Tariq Mahmood, worked as Senior Engineer, CNS Fellow, in Operation Division, absent from May 2000,
    1.  Saeed Akhther, working as Senior Engineer, CNS Fellow, in Training Division, absconding from June 2000,
    1.  Imtaz Baig, worked as Senior Engineer, KINPOE Fellow, of Operation Division not available since July 2000,
    1.  Waheed Nasir, had been working as Senior Engineer, KINPOE Fellow, in Mechanical Division, absconded from August 2000,
    1.  Munawar Ismail, employed as Senior Engineer, CNS fellow, in Technical Division absconding from October 2000,
    1.  Shaheen Fareed, had been working as Senior Engineer, CNS fellow, of Operation Division, not available since February 2002 and,
    1.  Khalid Mahmood, worked as Senior Engineer, in Operation Division, absconded from July 2002.

    Why Pakistani nuclear scientists are proliferants personified?  

    Media and intelligence reports reveal illegal involvement of Pakistani scientists in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Scientists in Pakistan are inclined for performing unlawful services for primarily three main reasons.  

    First, there exists a close nexus of Islamic fundamentalist identities in between scientific community, military and the government agencies- both political and intelligence. The shared feeling for the development and spread of Islamic bomb, has its bearing on the scientists who have actively participated in the development of nuclear weapons in Pakistan as their “religious duty”. The scientists are motivated to indulge into illegal practices in the name of national religion i.e. Islam. Pakistani scientists whose credentials are verifiable for alleged hobnobbing with other Islamic countries fall in this group. Infiltration of extremist ideologies into this group raises vulnerability. Radical Islamist scientists of such nature are identifiable for possible connection with the  “Jehadis” too.

    Second, Pakistani government institutions oversee and support the scientists whose services are employed in furtherance of Islamabad’s interest internationally. Pakistani scientists who are alleged to have been involved in the nuclear development programmes of the frequently referred “axis of evil” states, Iran-North Korea and Iraq, fall in this category.  

    Also, the third, desire for getting more financial rewards can be said as great impetus for the scientists to cross the essentially required moral conduct limits. Scientists of both the above mentioned group may or may not belong to this category, but in an atmosphere of state sponsored evils, there must emerge a few outlawed scientists who dare to be disloyal to institutional affiliation in terms of self-interest. This section of scientists is most dangerous for any non-proliferation regime or for any international coalition to fight against nuclear terrorism.  

    In a nutshell, Pakistan as a state actor not only sponsors scientists in covert activities but also harbours rogue scientific elements in the country.  

    The Challenges ahead:

    • Pakistani nuclear weapons programme has a long history of illicit procurements and deliberate deceptions that involved many scientific personnel too. The heroic accreditations as attached to Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, despite international condemnations, remains a dream objective of many fellow scientists in Pakistan.
    • Therefore, in a state sponsored illegal nourishing environment like one in Pakistan, chances are always high of commissions and omissions by the Pakistani scientists. But for the long-term security and safety of international community, this practice needs to be monitored and checked. Consolidated international efforts are required to make Pakistan a responsible state actor.
    • The whereabouts of the absconding Scientists should be checked and they should be interrogated for possible connections.
    • Verification and control regimes of nonproliferation should review the policy approach towards this problem.  Pakistan’s scientific community is already excessively influenced by the ideology of developing “Islamic bomb”. Close monitoring is required over the movement and activities of the brains that have worked in the Pakistan’s nuclear weapons development programmme.  
    • Periodic examination of credentials of the scientists working in different sensitive facilities in Pakistan may have to be undertaken.
    • There should be an arrangement by which scientists with radical motivations could be dissuaded from indulging in unlawful activities. This is a responsibility of the state and a duty towards the international community.
    • Sharing of information should be a priority for the nations who are committed to fight against the menace of terrorism in general and nuclear terrorism in particular. Mutual trust and diplomatic initiatives will add to its effectiveness.  
    • An international consensus could be evolved to crack down on the terrorist outfits worldwide, with the slightest indication for the possession of weapons of mass destruction capability in any form, without discrimination.
  •  This just in... (9+ / 0-)

    From The Guardian (more sources on Google News):

    He entered the witness box last week and spent two days talking about going to Pakistan to receive military training and then "working for the cause" to free Islamic lands. After speaking on Friday afternoon about raising money for Afghanistan using fraud, he was due to talk about the fertiliser on Monday morning.
    The men, accused of being a British al Qaida linked cell, were arrested in March 2004 after the fertiliser was discovered in a west London storage depot.
    Khyam said: "Before we go on to that topic, I just want to say the ISI (Pakistani secret services) in Pakistan has had words with my family relating to what I have been saying about them. I think they are worried I might reveal more about them, so right now, as much as I want to clarify matters, the priority for me has to be the safety of my family so I am going to stop. I am not going to discuss anything related to the ISI any more or the evidence."

  •  Clinton';s visit to Pakistan late in his term... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LondonYank, mediaprisoner

    evoked comments on both the left and right which cited that nation's historic ties to terrorism.


  •  From 911 through ISI to Daniel Pearl (5+ / 0-)

    Can someone tell me again how Saddam Hussein represented a threat to the U.S. and yet Pakistan is our ally?

    Sept. 11's Smoking Gun: The Many Faces of Saeed Sheikh
    By Paul Thompson

    an excerpt:

    In his roughly two years of freedom before 9/11, Saeed was a very busy terrorist. According to Newsweek, once in Pakistan, Saeed “lived openly—and opulently—in a wealthy Lahore neighborhood. US sources say he did little to hide his connections to terrorist organizations, and even attended swanky parties attended by senior Pakistani government officials.” The US government inferred that he was a “protected asset” of the ISI. [Newsweek, 3/13/02] In fact, his house was given to him by the ISI. [Vanity Fair, 8/02] Even more remarkably, the media reported that Saeed was freely able to return to Britain [Press Trust of India, 1/3/00], just as if he had accepted Britain’s secret amnesty offer. He visited his parents in Britain in 2000 and again in early 2001. [Vanity Fair, 8/02, BBC, 7/16/02, Telegraph, 7/16/02] The British citizens kidnapped by Saeed in 1994 called the government’s decision not to try him a “disgrace” and “scandalous.” [Press Trust of India, 1/3/00]

    It as been reported that Saeed helped train the hijackers. [Telegraph, 9/30/01] Presumably this happened in Afghanistan, where he trained others and where he traveled regularly. [New York Times, 2/25/02, National Post, 2/26/02, Guardian, 7/16/02, India Today, 2/25/02] He also reportedly helped devise a secure, encrypted Web-based communications system for al-Qaeda. “His future in the network seemed limitless; there was even talk of one day succeeding bin Laden.” [Vanity Fair, 8/02, Telegraph, 7/16/02]

    But at the same time, much of his time was spent working with the ISI. He worked with Ijaz Shah, a former ISI official in charge of handling two terrorist groups, Lieutenant-General Mohammad Aziz Khan, also a former deputy chief of the ISI in charge of relations with Jaish-e-Mohammad, and Brigadier Abdullah, a former ISI officer. He was well known to other senior ISI officers. [National Post, 2/26/02, Guardian, 7/16/02, India Today, 2/25/02] How much of his work with al-Qaeda was done on the orders of the ISI is not known.

    Stop bitching and start a revolution!

    by Randian on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:32:29 AM PDT

  •  LondonYank - (10+ / 0-)

    This is the best kind of investigative journalism - simply piecing together facts available in the public domain.

    Outstanding. Hotlisted.

    Thank you.

    As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas

    by occams hatchet on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:44:46 AM PDT

  •  Bush will murder whoever he has to (0+ / 0-)

    in order to advance his dark vision of the world. And that includes the 3,000 Americans he needed to murder in order to send our troops to Iraq to retrieve Saddam's gun for his office wall.

    Bush is a War Criminal and should already be in prison.

    If we fry it, they will come.

    by Fried Freedom on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:45:15 AM PDT

    •  I agree, but first, strip him of power (0+ / 0-)

      The first step is to strip Bush/Cheney of power, and the pragmatic way to start this process is for us to (a.) help the Dems regain Congress and then (b.) immediately press for hearings on Bush/Cheney's misuse of power the past 5 years.
      Every little step toward these goals helps.

      Stop bitching and start a revolution!

      by Randian on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:53:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Garbage. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Pure rhetorical slop just meant to distract.

      •  Your comments are the garbage meant (0+ / 0-)

        to distract from the severity of Bush's crimes.

        I resent your trollish assumptions about the purpose of my comments.

        Just because you want to wait for the evidence to be in before making assumptions on what's possible... doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

        If New Yorkers continue to wait for the evidence to be in... the next 911 will be on top of them before they can do a damn thing about it.

        It's your brand of "wait and see" accommodation that has made the Bush regime possible. That's the garbage we all need to be worried about, cause that's the garbage thinking that will get more Americans killed.

        After Bush has led the life he has, the assumptions I'm making about his character are only about playing it safe with our National Security. And everybody else should have been doing the same since November 2000.

        If we fry it, they will come.

        by Fried Freedom on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:49:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's ample evidence. No need to wait. (0+ / 0-)

          Just because you want to wait for the evidence to be in before making assumptions on what's possible... doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

          Let me get this straight - You want to make assumptions on what's possible without waiting for evidence. That sounds very unproductive.

          I recommend we use the evidence we have. I recommend we don't bother with assumptions when we're standing atop a mountain of evidence.

          •  If you want to put your kids in (0+ / 0-)

            danger because you don't have all the evidence you need on any given subject, that's your option.

            But when it comes to National Security, I practice massive amounts of scepticism on the honesty of wealthy Republicans:

            Everyday, on every topic; not just the topics where the verdict is in.

            If we fry it, they will come.

            by Fried Freedom on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:25:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  American Al-Qaeda guy spotted in Pakistan! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, GreyHawk, blueoasis

    It looks like alot of pieces are starting to fit:

    Alexis Debat Reports:

    The American al Qaeda, Adam Gadahn, was spotted last month in a remote area of Pakistan but moved before he could be captured, Pakistani intelligence officials tell ABC News.

    Pakistani officials say they are "hot on the trail" of Gadahn, although South Waziristan is one of the areas where Pakistani soldiers have been ordered to stay in their barracks as part of a "peace agreement" between the Pakistani government and tribal militants believed to shelter al Qaeda and Taliban elements.

    Terrorist safe haven? Appeasing fascism? My head is about to explode!

    "One of the hardest parts of my job is to try to connect Iraq to the war on terror." George W. Bush, CBS Evening News 9/6/06

    by danger durden on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:52:17 AM PDT

  •  Excellent Diary and Long overdue (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GreyHawk, stonemason, CTLiberal

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

    by Tanya on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:53:10 AM PDT

  •  Dont Forget the '93 Bombay blasts (9+ / 0-)
    Remember the multiple bomb blast's in Bombay that killed more than 350 people and wounded hundred's more in 1993 ? Well, the mastermind Mr Dawood Ibrahim, India's most wanted terrorist is living like a king in Pakistan. And he is not even in hiding! India's been wanting his extradition for more than a decade and the Pakistanis just laugh it away, no kidding. Its beyond outrageous that this sad rogue state is "an important ally in the war against terror".
  •  and, stop me if you've heard this one... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, LondonYank, GreyHawk

    Some great info and links to source material from Juan Cole, back in Sept. 2003...

  •  Bush is still alive. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    danger durden

    That seems like one of the more obvious reason he's cut the deals he has with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

    He's likely paying them off so their terrorist groups don't assasinate him.

    I'd assume the same deal is in place for Bin Laden, vice-versa, as long as Bush requires it.

    He's also probably paying Pakistan to try to make sure no more terrorist attacks occur in America until Bush gives the OK... ie until Democrats are in power. Pakistan is likely funneling the money to the terrorists, so they can stock up.

    They don't mind waiting until Bush is out of power. Not if Bush is willing to pay them so well... with our tax money.

    If we fry it, they will come.

    by Fried Freedom on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:58:05 AM PDT

    •  Now THIS is tin-foil hat garbage. n/t (0+ / 0-)
      •  it'll be too late... (0+ / 0-)

        if you wait until it's printed in the NY Times before considering the possibility that it's going on.

        if you don't think it's responsible to be cynical for our kid's sake...

        then i can't say we see eye to eye.

        better safe than sorry i say... and i'd rather be working on the assumption that bush is shielding the terrorists should it be true...

        than be surprised later.

        it's all quite likely based on his past... in my view.

        If we fry it, they will come.

        by Fried Freedom on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:14:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What New Yorker was imagining (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          that Bush would let terrorists attack them?

          And yet he did, knowingly.

          Better they had been suspicious than let him do it... and get away with it.

          But on Sept. 11, it was too late.

          If we fry it, they will come.

          by Fried Freedom on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:16:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're insincere and unhelpful. (0+ / 0-)

            Your comments are so unthoughtful, so disjointed and unproductive it seems like they're deliberately intended to hurt the credibility of this diary and DailyKos. I flagged it as tin-foil-hat garbage for the sake of those of us who take these topics seriously.

            •  Illiterate much? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mediaprisoner, blueoasis, CTLiberal

              disjointed? insincere?

              Do you even know what those words mean? Because you aren't using them in a meaningful way.

              It seems as if you were just flailing for words and came up empty, so you threw in whatever you could find.

              Insincere? No, I'm quite sincere when I say that I believe George Bush Jr. is more on the side of Saudi and/or Pakistani terrorists than he is on mine or the American people's.

              I believe that 100% and so do a lot of my fellow Americans.

              I know for damn sure his "real base" (as he said in F911) is more on their side than mine if the money's right.

              Disjointed? No, if anything, I think the comments I've made are coherent.

              Maybe you meant to use a different word and just didn't know what it meant.

              As per my opinions, since my comment was recommended, I think there are plenty of people who believe my comment could be true.

              I make no assertion that what I say is fact. I just say that from my perspective, it's quite possible.

              Just because you think my opinion tarnishes the site, that doesn't make what I have to say insincere or disjointed.

              You're just going to have to accept that it's people like me who push the envelope...

              it's people like me that help others come to terms with their true suspicions and help move the debate further and further.

              People like yourself that want me to restrict free debate and open dialogue are the reason that our mainstream media get away with as much propaganda in the other direction as they do.

              If we fry it, they will come.

              by Fried Freedom on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:39:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Here's what I'm referring to (0+ / 0-)

                He's likely paying them off so their terrorist groups don't assasinate him.

                You really think so? I think the terrorist groups love Bush. He plays right into their hands.

                Sorry, I just found this to be a very productive diary and I didn't want to see it associated with the less credible stuff like this idea of Bush paying the terrorists not to assassinate him. That just seems silly.

                Insincere? No, I'm quite sincere when I say that I believe George Bush Jr. is more on the side of Saudi and/or Pakistani terrorists than he is on mine or the American people's.

                I agree with you there. It's just that one line seemed so goofy I mistaked it for insincerity, as if you were trying to diminish our credibility.

                •  yes. (0+ / 0-)

                  i think some terrorists would assasinate bush if they had the chance.

                  and i think they could be receiving benefits from bush's people via the standard terror financing channels that bush refuses to shut down... if they hold off on it.

                  that's 100% possible (even likely) from my perspective.

                  bush isn't going to just sit around relying on the same infrastructure that "failed" on 911...

                  particularly when the "good half" of our CIA would probably like to see him get whacked right about now regardless.

                  my bet is the bush family made their own plans.

                  and that's why bush seems so inept at finding and prosecuting terrorists. that's why so few have been brought to justice.

                  in my view, there's very possibly an agreement between bushco (carlyle, etc) and the terror financers to attack when bush gives the go signal, and not before.

                  If we fry it, they will come.

                  by Fried Freedom on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 02:47:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Ah, so... now *Pakistan* is the global Big Dog. (0+ / 0-)

      That makes sense.


  •  Sept 15 2006 (12+ / 0-)

    The Pakistani government is living up to its commitments on the “Waziristan Accord,” and has emptied the prisons of Taliban and al-Qaeda who have been captured since the fall of 2001. The “Waziristan Accord” calls for the Pakistani government to “release prisoners held in military action and would not arrest them again,” and that is exactly what is happening.

    The Daily Telegraph discloses that Pakistan has released over 2,500 Taliban and al-Qaeda, although an American military intelligence source estimates the number is higher. The Pakistani military has in the past put the number of al-Qaeda and Taliban captured at around 500-700.

    Included among those released:

    Mansour Hasnain: A member of the group that kidnapped and murdered Danny Pearl. He also was “a militant of the Harkat-al-Mujahedin group, is one of those who hijacked an Indian Airlines jet in December 1999 and forced New Delhi to release three militants — including Omar and Azhar.”

    Mohammad Hashim Qadeer: “Suspected of being one of [Daniel] Pearl’s actual killers, was arrested in August 2005 and has notable al-Qaida links” and “ties with the banned extremist groups Harkat-ul-Mujahedeen and Jaish-e-Muhammad.”

    Mohammad Bashir: Another Pakistani complicit in the murder of Daniel Pearl.


    "Mr. Speaker, I mourn democracy." Barney Frank, House of Representatives, 06/29/06

    by suskind on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 09:59:29 AM PDT

    •  Great (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      NATO was asking for 2500 troops and they didn't get that much ( Poland gave 1000, but that was in the plans already if i remember correctly). The other side just got 2500 reinforcements from Pakistan, how nice.

      Pakistan in not on the right side when it comes to fighting terrorism.

  •  Thanks, this needed to be put together (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LondonYank, GreyHawk, danger durden

    like this.  You have done a tremendous job.  It should be posted as a wiki somewhere.  
    This is a security issue that the responsible Mainstream media folks should be reporting on for their security as well as ours.

    Hey, Katie Couric, this is an important issue. Pakistan has that Nuke-u-lar stuff, doncha know!  Maybe you could do a story on this????

  •  terrorist causes? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So, regardless of where terrorists are assumed or proven to be, the real problem that still faces us is the eradication of terrorism itself.
    If we were able to accomplish the goals set out for us in the Millenium Developmet Goal UN agreement in 2000, we might not have to worry about who is hiding which terrorists where.

  •  woohoo ! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    nicely done LY

  •  There sure were some wacky stories circulating... (9+ / 0-)

    ...right after 9/11.

    On Sept. 19, 2001, Musharraf made a revealing TV address in Urdu, not noticed at the time by most Americans, in which he reassured Pakistanis who sympathized with Al Qaeda and the Taliban that his decision to line up with the U.S. was a temporary expedient.

    Remember the stories in the first few weeks after 9/11 about massive, systematic profiteering on airline stocks as a result of the hijackings? Where did that story GO? Without even reaching for my roll of Reynolds Wrap, I can't help but wonder what kinds of influence were used on America's press outlets to choose which stories to pursue. How have we even come to a point where "conspiracy theory" is an automatically pejorative term? (Like "liberal"....) First you have a theory, then you find the facts which either do or don't support the theory - like "the theory of evolution", for example. Regarding 9/11, where are the friggin' facts?

    •  Our Sainted Leaders (0+ / 0-)

      Promote the post-9/11 world as 'Wartime', and they have depended upon that context from the moment Bush delivered his post-attack address Congress and the nation: We Are At War, Rally 'Round The President.

      They linked this new conflict with non-State hostiles to the Second World War, to the Cold War, suggesting that anything other than total support for what they did was traitorous, a betrayal of America, and "helpful to Al-Qaeda".

      In late 2001 and going forward, no one in the press wanted to be accused of being unsupportive. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, story lines were spiked by news editors, and leads were ignored. Abu Ghirab, Renditions, the NSA surveillance, and possibly other stories were supressed the government's request.

      We didn't hear about Musharraf's speech backpedalling on alliance with America because the press had been brought into line. Many media outlets, many editorial boards and individual news editors (ignoring obviously biased outlets, like Murdoch's) are still toeing that line.  

      But it's changing -- slowly, maybe too slowly. And when it's all over, will we ever trust what's reported in most of this country's media as impartial and factual, again?

  •  Connecting the dots is our only option (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    melo, LondonYank, mojo workin, GreyHawk, Tanya

    in the current situation. We don't have reliable information from our current government. When efforts are made to find and connect the dots then that effort is denegrated by calling it a conspiracy theory.

    If we accept this critisism as the end point of our efforts to find and connect the dots then we have given the military industrial complex a policy and financial blank check. This is indeed what our foreign policy looks like to me, a blank check for the interests who benefit from extending the reach of U.S. military global domination.

    If the U.S. foreign policy was run on the basis of open and honest government discolsure then we would have a chance for development of a democratic foreign policy. My guess is that this would lead to very different foreign policy decisions by future leaders.

    Excellent diary!!

    Our economy sucks up our environment, people, and government. Redesign it at Beyond Political Center

    by Bob Guyer on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:18:46 AM PDT

    •  An algorithm of all the known truths in this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LondonYank, GreyHawk, blueoasis

      diary is what is needed, no conjecture need apply and then see what is outcome. This incredible diary is like a great novel or a bad movie but I am grateful that LondonYank had the time and initiative to post it.

      In youth we learn, in age we understand.

      by Jbeaudill on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 12:45:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Both firming up the truth value of the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreyHawk, SherriG

        information and speculation have value. The stronger the facts the better the outcome when putting the facts together. But we don't put facts together to just have a nice string of facts, we need to use the facts to understand the implications of, in this case, the actions of our government.

        Speculation and imagination also have a vlaid role beacuse they help put the pieces together into meaning and also point the way toward what is not known and what might be. Often it is the spontaious insight that revelas something that wasn't visible before but suddenly becomes obvious. That often leads to new way of seeing the information. Both aspects of trying to understand need to be valued.

        Our economy sucks up our environment, people, and government. Redesign it at Beyond Political Center

        by Bob Guyer on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 01:20:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  More on Taliban truce and Waziristan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LondonYank, GreyHawk

    here and here.

    Sorry if this is already posted, couldn't go through comments right now, only skim this valuable post.

    "Yes dear. Conspiracy theories really do come true." (tuck, tuck)

    by tribalecho on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:26:16 AM PDT

  •  Context For India Nuclear Deal? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LondonYank, GreyHawk, Jbeaudill

    I'm throwing this out without research (you can only do so much on a lunch hour) but at the time the Cheney Administration made a unilateral decision to provide India with a nuclear technology transfer, I was more than surprised.

    It seemed to be a destabilizing move, considering the barely-controlled tensions between India and Pakistan, both of whom possess fission weapons. The upshot seemed to be that India would eventually be superior to Pakistan in its ability to produce weapons-grade nuclear material -- I could be wrong in the details, so feel free to correct me. But India was clearly the recipient of something its rival did not have.

    This seemed an inexplicable move on the part of Cheney and the peevish dullard who is the administration's mouthpiece. But, in the contex of LondonYank's (really excellent) research, was it more a warning to Musharraf and elements supporting Islamic fundimentalisim in Pakistan?

  •  Pakistan is our partner in the War on Terror. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neroden, Rogue Scoop, PaulGaskin

    Only the terror is to be inflicted on Americans.

    Secret tribunals with secret evidence submitted is for Americans who dissent against the American Imperialist PNAC/FDD doctrine for world domination: "if you're not with us then you are against us." The starkest warning yet.

    According to this video (High Quality Footage of a FEMA detention camp), apparently if you're on the "red" or "blue" lists they plan on gassing you. 26,000 people can be processed at this facility every 24 hours.

    I'm sure we're all on those lists. However, I get the feeling they hadn't anticipated or weren't expecting low approval ratings and an air of 'throw the bums out', e.g. the GOP, for the 2006 election cycle. I'll bet the plan was for the presidential elections in 2008. It's their own fault they won't be able to complete their plans successfully due to their own outrageous incompetence. They will be hard pressed to throw all the elections this time around. But I wouldn't put it past them.

    October is almost here. What sort of 'surprise' awaits, I wonder?

    •  My bet is this: (0+ / 0-)

      A nice mushroom cloud.

      Nothing clarifies the mind like an American city that's been vaporized.  People will pretty much give up the right to breathe air, at that point.

      Here's the telling part: I can actually believe this.

      •  I have occasionally wondered if they would do (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        this to make their fucking point. They probably would, wouldn't they?

        Republicans saw the savagery of 9/11 and quickly descended into savagery themselves.

        by lecsmith on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 04:06:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  My bet is that enough unrest and distrust (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LondonYank, patriotgames

        has arisen that any major attack on American now would serve two purposes:

        1. It would clarify that this "regime" is fucking useless, and
        1. People would riot if there was any attempt to snowball or prevent an investigation.

        I think BushCo has seen that possibility (probability, now, I think) and is partly planning for it by enaction of the martial law powers that the Patriot Acts enable them to claim in the event of a major attack.  

        They'd be able to suspend elections, habeas corpus, roll out the military and detain citizens.

        Given that their alternative is to lose both chambers (esp. since the Diebold scam is getting major exposure now), face investigations, impeachment, trial and conviction for charges ranging from treason to war crimes, I don't put anything past them.

        Not a single, blessed thing.

        Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
          Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
        Tempest even in reason's seat.

        by GreyHawk on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 07:54:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sadly... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          You hit the nail on the head. I couldn't quite verbalize it to myself, as if speaking it would somehow make it come true. There is deep, unspeakable evil in our government. Inasmuch, I'm flabbergasted we're fighting tooth and nail for our freedom right now running into the November midterm elections. The battleground is right here, it's right now. This is the moment. Can't remember where I read it, but it's an apropros quote: Either we step up and be Churchill, or we stand down and be Chamberlain. The shit hitting the fan is shredding the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, and the Bill of Rights to bits -- and, it would appear all the while they are doing it fucking gleefully, I might add. This last part is truly sick and twisted.

          I can feel this pulsating, palpable moral rage just beneath the surface out there (do you feel it too?). I think the real U.S. military -- you know, those 'ancient' holdovers who put integrity above the interests of their President and aren't licking neo-con (new con, get it?) boots -- might be in wide open revolt at this point. They are the real patriots, the unsung heroes. They deserve our support, we must make them as high profile as possible.

          Alas, with the missing $2.3 trillion taxpayer dollars from the DoD's coffers before 9/11, these PNAC/FCC fuckers can buy their own military, slap U.S. flags on the uniforms, and nobody would be able to tell the difference.

          So when or what will be the breaking point? Are we seeing the first skirmishes of open revolt against tyranny, or has the farm already been sold beneath us and the shadowplay of politics but a veil over the coffin?

          Our democracy is truly imperiled. Let's hope that Maslow was correct: that people are inherently Good. Let's hope Good prevails, in whatever shape it takes -- even if it's just strong political opposition at this point, we'll take all we can get. It's going to be a battle in earnest to recover the torn & tattered Constitution, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th amendments...all of which are actively being trampled. I welcome the day we cart these fuckers off to jail en masse; our own Nuremburg.

          Anyway, don't give up hope: at least some of our leaders are Good. We the People will prevail if we're vigilant. The States still have a say in this, after all. Let's hope that Beast has been awakened and the States revolt. We've defined ourselves as a beacon of freedom, free from tyranny. We've beat it back time and time again and we will do whatever it takes to fight it down once more.

          Have the courage to stick to your convictions. These are trying times. Brace yourself, and read the Bill of Rights once again to see what still stands.


          Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

          Amendment I

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

          Amendment II

          A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

          Amendment III

          No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

          Amendment IV

          The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

          Amendment V

          No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

          Amendment VI

          In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

          Amendment VII

          In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

          Amendment VIII

          Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

          Amendment IX

          The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

          Amendment X

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

          It took just six years to undo 250 years of glorious freedom and democracy.

          May whatever God you pray to have mercy upon your souls, boys. Tonight we drink to Lady Liberty! Cheers!

          •  And in six months, it can be restored again. (0+ / 0-)

            The start of the new Congress and the start of accountability will bring defections and confessions in a Washington DC awash in sudden panic.

            Don't be surprised if the condition is forced by the People for the People, either.  I think the undercurrent of rage and dismay is coming to a head.

            October may bring a new surprise or fiasco -- perhaps both -- and November will bring the bells that toll.

            Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
              Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
            Tempest even in reason's seat.

            by GreyHawk on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 07:56:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Just who's side is Bush on? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wayward, stodghie, 4thepeople, blueoasis

    From the sounds of it, the president has committed treason if he knowingly delivered those billions of dollars to a terrorist state.

    Time to start lining these traitors up against the wall.

  •  LondonYank, there is another possibility .... (0+ / 0-)
    ...that you have not addressed.  Who and how many have been executed thus far at the hands of the kangaroo court?  Has anybody died in custody in the jail on the edge of the runway of Baghdad International Airport runway?

    What is that puckering sound emanating from....................


    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 02:41:11 PM PDT

  •  Occam's razor, hatchet and laser scalpel... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldjohnbrown, GreyHawk

    suggest that the United States will do anything, repeat, anything to keep Pakistan from cementing its relations further with the emerging bloc of continental Asian powers, led by China, Russia and India.

    Even let some of the most unsavory of Pakistani residents (if not nationals) do what they please to prepare for the occasional but not devastating attack on American soil.

    I suspect that arrangements are in place, unambiguous ones, that Pakistan dies as a nation-state if some serious badness ever originates from Pakistani soil.

    But the occasional skyscraper, airplane, subway big.

    Just, please, o pretty please, don't leave us for Beijing.

  •  I have a speculative question. Do we actually (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LondonYank, 3goldens

    know that Musharraf's did his coup on his own steam, or was he helped by the CIA? This is something I have wondered off and on for a couple of years (since looking at the 9/11 timeline, on which the documentary, "9/11 Press for Truth" is based.

    I also wondered at the time when it happened if Daniel Pearl was killed because he found out too much about connections between Bush administration and Pakistan.

    Republicans saw the savagery of 9/11 and quickly descended into savagery themselves.

    by lecsmith on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 04:04:09 PM PDT

    •  thanks for your mention of the film (4+ / 0-)

      it appears not a single diary has been posted regarding the Jersey Girls and their fight and the pressing questions about just what the hell happened, not the least of which is of course with regard to Pakistan.

      Danny Pearle was killed by an ISI agent, who also happened to be the long missing paymaster to Atta. What do you suppose Pearle was working on when he got that close? I have talked to one of his sources and also his wife. One thinks he was tracking the paymaster and the other describes a whole other track. I think someone somewhere might know just why Pearle was killed.

    •  Technically, Musharraf didn't 'do' it at all (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LondonYank, oldjohnbrown

      In 1999, while Musharraf was flying on a commercial flight, the current Prime Pakistani PM, Nawaz Sharif, announced he was going to fire Musharraf and install the current head of the ISI, Khwaja Ziauddin in his place.

      This move violated all protocol, and the Pakistani Generals were outraged.  Nawaz Sharif was not popular among the military and they mobilized to arrest Sharif and Ziauddin.  After a tense period, the army gained control of the control tower at the Karachi airport, which had been ordered to keep Musharraf's plane in the air, despite it being very low on fuel.

      Musharraf landed, and, much like Claudius, was raised to supreme command on the arms of the military.  He then, in turn, appointed the head of the corps who moved on Sharif as the new head of the ISI.

      This was seen at the time as a big setback in the CIA's prosecution of the campaign against the Taliban, both politically because of the changed circumstances and operationally because the new head of the ISI, Mahmoud Ahmed, had few links to Langley and ended up being only the most reluctant of allies.

      Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!

      by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 08:47:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I have read the story you mention. (0+ / 0-)

        But did you see Fahrenheit 9/11? There was footage in there of the Taliban visiting Governor George Bush in Texas. I need to go back and look, but I think Bush (and undoubtedly his cronies) were courting the Taliban initially.

        Republicans saw the savagery of 9/11 and quickly descended into savagery themselves.

        by lecsmith on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 04:54:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Pakistan trying to hurt India's economy? (0+ / 0-)

    NEW DELHI (XFN-ASIA) - A Pakistani government printing press in the city of Quetta is churning out large quantities of counterfeit Indian currency, The Times of India reported, citing a Central Bureau of Intelligence note to Indian security agencies and the finance ministry.

    The rupee notes are then smuggled into India as 'part of Pakistan's agenda of destabilising (the) Indian economy through fake currency,' the daily said.

  •  Amazing work here... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catullus, LondonYank, lecsmith, Tanya

    This is breathtaking research and something I have been arguing about for years. I have always said that if we had to go to war, absolutely ever had to go to war, we should have focused on Pakistan for many of the reasons you cite and others that are not listed. I would like to clarify that ISI is but one Pak intel agency. There are many of them and not all of them agree or even work with one another. But ISI is truly a Saudi and CIA creation. The two questions I have always had regarding the ISI parallel is a). when did CIA and the Saudi's lose control of their asset and b). did they really lose control of their asset?

    Also, I don't think blackmail is key here in terms of why the Bush administration has protected the Pak network. Something else is at play here and it probably has to do with serious business interests. I would look less at this point at Khan and more at the poppy boom in Afghan for the likely answer. Khan's network has been largely fractured into tiny networks and the product is largely outdated. The bigger threat now is that these smaller networks tend to work for themselves, not any particular government. My guess is that there is absolutely something else in play here that blackmail just does not answer for me.

    Anyway, amazing diary and highly recommended.

    •  Here I am with my wild imagination again. (0+ / 0-)

      This may seem unrelated, but I have repeated the thought frequently that I think they want DPW to control major U.S. ports because of how easy it makes moving contraband around undetected. Apparently lots of stuff moves through Dubai itself. I also wondered about the increase in poppy production. In any case, if the major players associated with this administration are moving around weapons, people, drugs, currency, and other stuff, I wouldn't be surprised.I think a goal is to be as undetectable as possible, so it helps to have a lot of chaotic states.

      Republicans saw the savagery of 9/11 and quickly descended into savagery themselves.

      by lecsmith on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 05:04:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  From the party that brought you Iran-Contra. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LondonYank, 3goldens, blueoasis

    The Republicans really would sell rope to their own hangman.

  •  The Roving Eye - U.S. plans to attack Afghanistan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LondonYank, tzt

    Get the Truth - vote Democratic!

    by annefrank on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:59:57 PM PDT

  •  If there's war on terror, and prisoners held (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LondonYank, GreyHawk
    ...then there are Prisoners of War. I reject the term detainees because of the implication that the protections for POWs under Geneva Accord do not apply.

    Reject the language of the Gestapo Bush/Cheney/Yoo/Hadley/Rumsfeld/Rice regime. They are war criminals. We reject them and their language in its entirety.

    What they do to the least of these people, they do to us. The Bush/Cheney/Yoo/Hadley/Rumsfeld/Rice criminal cartel has already declared that even Republicans who oppose them are "aiding the enemy."

    We must assume they are planning to do to us what they do to those people whose liberties they have taken and denied access to the courts and whom they refuse to call POWs.

    14,000 POWs with no rights, thanks to the Gestapo regime, and counting

    I urge everyone to read this entire story:
    In not too long a time, it could be the story of any one of us. Excerpted below...

    Op-Ed Contributor
    The View From Guantánamo

    Published: September 17, 2006

    Tirana, Albania

    I HAVE been greatly saddened to hear that the Congress of the United States, a country I deeply admire, is considering new laws that would deny prisoners at Guantánamo Bay the right to challenge their detentions in federal court.

    I learned my respect for American institutions the hard way. When I was growing up as a Uighur in China, there were no independent courts to review the imprisonment and oppression of people who, like me, peacefully opposed the Communists. But I learned my hardest lesson from the United States: I spent four long years behind the razor wire of its prison in Cuba.

    I was locked up and mistreated for being in the wrong place at the wrong time during America's war in Afghanistan. Like hundreds of Guantánamo detainees, I was never a terrorist or a soldier. I was never even on a battlefield. Pakistani bounty hunters sold me and 17 other Uighurs to the United States military like animals for $5,000 a head. The Americans made a terrible mistake.

    It was only the country's centuries-old commitment to allowing habeas corpus challenges that put that mistake right -- or began to. In May, on the eve of a court hearing in my case, the military relented, and I was sent to Albania along with four other Uighurs. But 12 of my Uighur brothers remain in Guantánamo today. Will they be stranded there forever?

    Without my American lawyers and habeas corpus, my situation and that of the other Uighurs would still be a secret. I would be sitting in a metal cage today. Habeas corpus helped me to tell the world that Uighurs are not a threat to the United States or the West, but an ally. Habeas corpus cleared my name -- and most important, it let my family know that I was still alive.

    Like my fellow Uighurs, I am a great admirer of the American legal and political systems.... I respectfully ask American lawmakers to protect habeas corpus and let justice prevail. Continuing to permit habeas rights to the detainees in Guantánamo will not set the guilty free. It will prove to the world that American democracy is safe and well.

    I am from East Turkestan on the northwest edge of China. Communist China cynically calls my homeland "Xinjiang," which means "new dominion" or "new frontier." My people want only to be treated with respect and dignity. But China uses the American war on terrorism as a pretext to punish those who peacefully dissent from its oppressive policies. They brand as "terrorism" all political opposition from the Uighurs.

    Amnesty International reports that East Turkistan is the only province in China where people may face the death penalty for political offenses. Chinese leaders brag about the number of Uighur political prisoners shot in the head. I was punished for speaking against China's unjust policies, and I left because of the threat to my life. My search for work and refuge took me from Kyrgyzstan to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    I heard about the Sept. 11 attacks for the first time in Guantánamo. ... It was a terrible thing. But I too was its victim. I would never have experienced the ordeal and humiliation of Guantánamo if this horrific event had not taken place.

    ... I want America to be a strong and respected nation in the world. Only then can it continue to be the source of hope for the hopeless -- like my people.

    Abu Bakker Qassim was imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from 2002 to May. This article was translated from the Uighur by Nury Turael.

  •  Ridiculous Tin-Foil Liberals (0+ / 0-)

    All Together Now:

    THEY say Eeeran!
    WE say Pakistan!

    Enough with the demonization of Pakistan on this thread already ... yeah, they have terrorists and extremists living amidst artists, peasants, film-makes, computer scientists, land-owning feudal oligarchs and loads of disaffected young people desperately seeking sex,drugs, religion and/or explosive devices.

    So don't get too excited over a google-fed conspiracy fever -- let's find a way to engage with their intellectuals, leaders, students, feminists and union members.

  •  Finding Osama "not worth Bush's time" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    That was then: Bush vows to find Osama

    This now: bin Laden "not a top priority,"

    It's such "hard word" you know, that bush can't be bothered with it. And he doesn't have any problem with Pakistan letting al qeada or the Taliban run loose in that country either. So much for "the war" on the people who attacked us. All Bush wants to do is bump off governments that won't give his family and cronies rich contracts, and put somebody in their place who will.

    President Bush says Pakistani pact with pro-Taliban militants is okay

    I'd like to think that the last thing that went through the warden's mind, besides that bullet, was how did Andy get the best of him. The Shawshank Redemption

    by William Domingo on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:19:16 PM PDT

  •  Nearly all of the suicide IEDs we see (4+ / 0-)

    in Afghanistan are executed by Pakistanis.  Most of all of the other types of IEDs we see here are Pakistani in origin.

    "Good night and good luck" --Edward R. Murrow, Keith Olbermann

    by soonergrunt on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:13:55 PM PDT

    •  Glad you checked in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A couple folks have asked about you, and naturally I thought about you when I learned how Pakistan was supplying the high-tech detonators to Afghanistan.  There's something really creepy about how the Bushistas are cozying up to Pakistan, our biggest terrorist supplier and training ground.  

      A few folks are linking what is written here to the Sibel Edmonds testimony about money laundering, drug running and arms dealing through Israel and Pakistan and Turkey.  A trailer for her movie can be watched on YouTube.

      Take care of yourself.  Scary times.

      "The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. " - Patrick Henry

      by LondonYank on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 12:20:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  sibel edmonds (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        this from the brochure to the Sibel film:

        "In this film, we would like to bring a special mention to Daniel Pearl.
        This journalist paid the ultimate price for his courage to go to Pakistan looking for answers to questions he had, like some others at the time.
        Among them, Sibel Edmonds"

        thanks for promoting the trailer. I can't wait to see the film.

  •  VERY NICE RESEARCH (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Thanks for all your time and effort. I know it takes alot. There are so many things happening right now. These are very scary times we live in. Bush I think, is planning a complete "Holy War". He seems so fixed on this idea, doesn't seem to see he is leading it! One thing for sure, he IS guilty of war crimes, along with Cheney,Rumsfeld and the Generals in Iraq. You probably have already seen proof, but in case you haven't you can visit my website. I have 1 video and 1 site link with photos of prisoners. I warn you these are graphic.Go to Impeach page to view.

    We in America do not have a government by the majority. We have a government by the majority that participate -Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of U.S. 1801-1809

    by Patriotic American finds HOPE on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:26:39 PM PDT

  •  We supported the wrong side in 1980s Afghanistan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A communist government in Afghanistan would have brought the country into the 20th century, and 9/11/01 would not have happened. Can there be any doubt that we created the monster of Islamic terrorism, and that we are currently strengthening it?

    "Men use thought only to justify their wrongdoing, and employ speech only to conceal their thoughts." Voltaire

    by chimpwatch on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 03:08:45 AM PDT

  •  when we support violence of any kind (0+ / 0-)

    we are ALWAYS supporting the wrong side.

    We are on a road that requires us to choose non-violence or non-existance.  Don't think that just because we have not used nuclear weapons for over 60 years does not mean it won't happen next month, or next year.

    New Orleans was never flooded before - at least, not like it was in 2005.  It can happen, and I am fearful it will happen.  

    And I have thought for years that Pakistan is the country that is the greatest danger to the USA.  If Musharraf is kicked out, we will be in deep trouble very quickly.  And he is a dictator, and most of Pakistanis don't like him.    

    We aren't just "selling" F-16s to Pakistan, we are giving them "aid" that allows them to buy the F-16s.  And we are doing this for Lockheed Martin, not for any other reason.

    Imagine what results we could have gotten by using that 'aid' to build schools, hospitals, clinics and libraries in Pakistan.

    Just imagine.  And we could have named each one after a victim of the 9/11 attacks.

, Meteor Blades, skybluewater, jaydfwtx, Brian Bell, Kimberley, clyde, Mark Sumner, Louise, wozzle, claude, Alumbrados, trillian, vicki, Go Vegetarian, dwellscho, SteveLCo, fergusrules, RF, Trix, pb, miriam, Irfo, musing graze, randompost, dratman, hester, melo, teacherken, bluecayuga, ks, Sparhawk, natasha, XOVER, Trendar, slip kid no more, glitterscale, Oregon Bear, Liberal Thinking, moon in the house of moe, yerioy, mooncrow, gattogrosso, tikkun, Pen, MarkC, cosbo, Gooserock, mjr, whataboutbob, mem from somerville, melvynny, ScientistMom in NY, stumpy, bribri, gorlim, JTML, Robespierrette, Avila, Disillusioned, karlpk, jawbone, Shockwave, Schmuck, Jambro, Sherri in TX, LynChi, Wintermute, jasonwhat, rogun, tacet, shycat, UTLiberal, OLinda, lysias, LynnS, LEP, jrod, Mnemosyne, etatauri, tryptamine, ignatz, TX Unmuzzled, saluda, chicagochristianleft, Raven Brooks, swamp possum, marjo, Sandia Blanca, MarkInSanFran, musicsleuth, zeroooo, givmeliberty, Jerome a Paris, bostonjay, Caneel, hubcap, zeitshabba, TexasDemocrat, strengthANDwisdom, Plan9, sardonyx, Eternal Hope, queen, RubDMC, soonergrunt, undersiege, DJ Adequate, eyeswideopen, rasbobbo, DaveV, concernedamerican, calipygian, hestal, bronte17, Joe Sixpack, worriedmom, sponson, Dazy, stunster, DigitalApoptosis, Wee Mama, leveymg, amsterdam, nyceve, susakinovember, MD patriot, srkp23, Loquatrix, awakentech, Morague, highacidity, jimbo999, wanderindiana, PBnJ, Glic, scamp, Scoopster, muledriver, boilerman10, mrblifil, luaptifer, roses, khloemi, chechecule, Arun, mauricehall, stodghie, sgilman, amanuensis, cognitive dissonance, jukeboxgrad, jbeach, Torta, juergendopp, Spindizzy, corncam, Thaxter, Gonzophile, Cedwyn, jted, antirove, Everbody, aitchdee, wader, suzq, kharma, AlphaGeek, caseynm, psnyder, Barbara Morrill, Alizaryn, annan, rcvanoz, oldjohnbrown, Stand Strong, Dallasdoc, paluxy1945, DeadB0y, HenryDavid, Quentin, missliberties, coldwynn, Sycamore, SKB, mcm, alivingston, cometman, susie dow, TXsharon, HeedTheMessenger, hoolia, i dont get it, Caldonia, grayslady, churchylafemme, kjo, David Mason, flatford39, joan reports, Penny Century, dwahzon, Chirons apprentice, lizah, pfd, Catte Nappe, snakelass, dnn, whyvee, tombstone, FLDemJax, lecsmith, lcrp, 313to212, kismet, Larisa, vetman, LayedBackGuy, Dave925, walkshills, DMiller, Bluefish, AllisonInSeattle, craigb, parkslopper50, VerbalMedia, zerelda, mattes, tigerjade, smartgo, Eckhart1234, WisVoter, CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, SanDiegoDem, andyj2287, Mosquito Pilot, Steven D, Black Max, HK, DarkSyde, Thestral, bablhous, DrewDown, rickeagle, kd texan, notcho, eve, The Gryffin, Renaldo Migaldi, snowbird42, rmx2630, thereisnospoon, We hold these truths, califdweller, Spam Spam Bacon Spam, macmcd, environmentalist, Sol Fed Joe, decitect, drewvsea, TexH, Gowrie Gal, Jersey Joe, Tirge Caps, tea in the harbor, sxwarren, ewan husarmee, julifolo, rapala, SteveK, sharkbite, John3, frostyinPA, nehark, jonathan94002, joanneleon, paige, bloomer 101, tribalecho, Bluesee, saodl, farleftcoast, 3goldens, jrooth, DianeNYS, Alexander G Rubio, i love san fran, bellevie, Methion, Elise, tzt, franziskaner, docangel, LarisaW, JanetT in MD, wardeo mixup, Pym, Alice Marshall, mjd in florida, arnott, Halcyon, irate, Heronymous Cowherd, PBen, PsychoSavannah, Jashugan, Militarytracy, topdog08, Superpole, KnotIookin, kamarvt, Luetta, rjo, beans, Valtin, basquebob, sleeplessinsarasota, juliesie, mmcole, Richard Carlucci, YucatanMan, volballplr, Dire Radiant, Laurence Lewis, ratzo, boofdah, lennysfo, scribe69, mojo workin, cfk, marathon, Morrigan, majcmb1, eyama, mateosf, Pam from Calif, JoieDe, Mr X, EconAtheist, jorndorff, EdlinUser, jimreyn, A Ernest Mann, lcbo, GreyHawk, skralyx, Overseas, annefrank, illyia, JellyPuddin, bmaples, babatunde, antiapollon, Cecile, Synergy, JenThinks, The Raven, paddykraska, neroden, wiscmass, serrano, sodalis, dsteffen, Rogneid, Unduna, Lindy, JanL, gazingoffsouthward, psyched, kkjohnson, mightymouse, troutwaxer, zapmama, viscerality, Land of Enchantment, ThatBritGuy, Paper Cup, Eloi Scientist, fhcec, forbodyandmind, SoulCatcher, taracar, motherlowman, pmc1970, occams hatchet, JosephAZ, keefer55, trashablanca, wwwdeadissuecom, dsteele2, methodishca, New Deal democrat, tommymet, blacklib, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Keone Michaels, Taunger, highfive, cas2, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, fuzzex, sherlyle, parallel man, Daisy Cutter, awakenow, Raymond P, njr, BlueInARedState, Ceee, venatrix, frogmarchbush, GreenGirl, stonemason, 4thepeople, Ellicatt, rl en france, Yellow Canary, cookseytalbott, mooshter, Chincoteague, allmost liberal european, smokeymonkey, buhdydharma, dougymi, pagsarv, The Wizard, deha, DInPhilly, Tao, Sparkygal, madcitymelvin, isis2, kck, greenearth, Sassy725, quinque, blueoasis, SherriG, Silent Lurker, people for truth, zigeunerweisen, TalkieToaster, TexasIPLaw, birdbrain64, MJ via Chicago, global citizen, StrayCat, Tanya, arbiter, everhopeful, imabluemerkin, paul2port, condoleaser, Iranaqamuk, FireCrow, southernphilosopher, CTLiberal, el cid, Demena, Maillard, Josh or Con or Both, Turbonerd, BlueMississippi, rage, inner light, CA Nana, fezzik, Doggie269, Timothy J, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, poppyseed, Stripe, means are the ends, betterdeadthanred, MadMs, Mary2002, Enough Talk Lets Get Busy, Snarcalita, 20shadesofviolet, kidneystones, Friend of the court, Temmoku, henna218, slksfca, AllanTBG, jabu, Riddle, OHdog, Aaa T Tudeattack, BentLiberal, DBunn, Hamish in CT, eastmt, McSnatherson, One Pissed Off Liberal, old wobbly, smaugg, Cronesense, Aquadragon, whl, possum, ksp, kmiddle, godislove, leftyguitarist, suburi, mikk0, Rumour95, DrWolfy, jayb, Mary Mike, secretchimp99, Muttly, Busted Flat in Baton Rouge, gonzoliberal, Ticonderoga, flumptytail, shadowarrior1, londubh, coloradocomet, eOz, vivdarkbloom, Buffy Orpington, Flirtin with Disaster, Desbrisay, klondike, Canyon Lefty, stratocasterman, Zaphod Beeblebrox, epppie, RamR, World Patriot, right wing douche, prostratedragon, beemerr, Alter Ego Manifesto, millwood, PaulGaskin, Real Texan

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site