Taliban Did Not Refuse to Hand Over Bin Laden

[JohnyCanuck]

December 4, 2009 at 01:38:59

By Ralph Lopez (about the author)

Obama slipped past a real doozy Tuesday night when he said the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden. It just ain't so. They tried three times to open negotiations for this, but Bush refused each time. He wanted to bomb people so bad it hurt.

UK Guardian:

A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night...

For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.

The Taliban have offered to hand over Bin Laden before but only if sufficient evidence was presented. Bin Laden is wanted both for the September 11 attacks and for masterminding the bombings of two US embassies in East Africa in 1998 in which 224 people were killed. He is also suspected of involvement in other terrorist attacks, including the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen last year.

But until now the Taliban regime has consistently said it has not seen any convincing evidence to implicate the Saudi dissident in any crime.

"Now they have agreed to hand him over to a third country without the evidence being presented in advance," the source close to the military said."

Combined with so unhesitatingly waving the Al Qaeda boogey-man to make his case, in a fashion Bush would have been proud of, (Al Qaeda isn't in Afghanistan) it all makes me mighty suspicious. The Taliban wasn't declared an enemy until after 9/11, even as we had evidence that bin Laden was behind the bombing of the USS Cole. That's because Bush's buddies were still hoping to get the contract for the oil pipeline, which the Taliban government was refusing to give them. These are just facts, I'm not even trying to make an argument here. But someone has to call them on these things.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Obama-Lied-Taliban-Did-No-by-Ralph-Lopez-091202-612.html

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R)

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Sneer." - xVP Dickie 'Five-Military-Deferments' Cheney (R)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_haR0YHoRdfY/Rl50PN2eMAI/AAAAAAAAAeA/_JWpIGdbPrc/s400/Chickenhawk+Cheney.jpg

[ThomWV]

3. I remember it clear as day - it was reported in the news and promptly ignored everywhere

They never - NEVER - refused to hand him over. They demanded proof that he was responsible for 9/11 and Bush said he would not be pushed around by demands from anyone. He wanted war and he wanted it right now. He got it.

I head it when Obama said that too - and it really fried my ass.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

72. Considering how they didn't make the offer until the war was already underway...

I would've brushed it aside as well. They're hardly men of their word, ask the Pakistanis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

[ThomWV]

83. Then you agree with the belligerent ass policy of George Bush.

One does not "brush aside" an opportunity to avoid war.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

86. Let's look at the facts, then you can tell me how legitimate you think the offers really were.

The first offer made by the Taliban was that they would try bin Laden themselves under Islamic Law, if only we would kindly hand over all of the evidence against him. Given the close ties between al-Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as bin Laden and Mullah Omar, it's pretty obvious why this offer was rejected.

A second offer was made later on, by which time the war was already underway. Under this offer, the Taliban did offer to give bin Laden up to a third country if we provided them with our evidence, however, given their penchant for screwing around while nations attempted to get their hands on bin Laden (the U.S. in the past, the Saudis, etc.), the close ties between the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and the fact that the war had already begun, this too was rejected. Frankly, I think it was the right move.

[truedelphi]

110. Maybe so, but I would love to hear of the reason behind

Our having a CIA official visiting Osama Bin Laden back in July 2001 when he was inside an American Hospital in Dubai.

[jpak]

4. Disingenuous much?

From th OP

"For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said."

The Taliban never agreed to hand OBL to the US - only to an unspecified third country with no guarantee that this unknown 3rd country would hand him over to the US or even put him on trial.

So Obama was correct - the Taliban never agreed to hand OBL over to the US.

So this is what to expect from now on?

Apologies for the Taliban and OBL to bash Obama?

pathetic

[Junkdrawer]

5. Here's Obama's quote:

"Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan."

He invokes "international legitimacy" in the same sentence and never specifies that "the Taliban never agreed to hand OBL over to the US."

[WhiteTara]

7. yes, I threw something at the tv

when he said that! I thought that the chimp's speech writers had taken over for the guy who wrote all the wonderful speeches on the campaign trail.

[jpak]

9. Like I said - disengenuous and apologies for the poor put-upon innocent Taliban

What next - forced burka wearing not so bad after all?

:puke:

[Junkdrawer]

10. Who's being disingenuous? I quote Obama - you invoke words he never said. n/t

[jpak]

12. This is disingenuous "Taliban Did Not Refuse to Hand Over Bin Laden"

that's what

[Junkdrawer]

14. I leave it to readers of this thread...

to read your post:


...

The Taliban never agreed to hand OBL to the US - only to an unspecified third country with no guarantee that this unknown 3rd country would hand him over to the US or even put him on trial.

So Obama was correct - the Taliban never agreed to hand OBL over to the US.

...


Read Obama's ACTUAL words:

...

"Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy -- and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden -- we sent our troops into Afghanistan."

...


and then decide WHO is disingenuous.

[jpak]

16. Obama was correct

and the OP was wrong

[rollingrock]

50. You seem to lack reading comprehension

Obama didn't say they refused to hand him over to the US.
He said they refused to hand him over, period. Comprende?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

75. Who in God's name would you expect them to hand him over to?

Cuba?

[bigtree]

11. wait

YOU misquoted the president. He didn't specify the U.S., he just said, "refused to turn over Osama . . ."

I guess all of the press which brought that fact to our attention are al-Qaeda sympathizers too? What about the 'military source' who first revealed the fact to the Guardian? Was the military apologizing too?

[jpak]

13. I never misquoted Obama - the OP was an apology for the Taliban

and was used to bash Obama

and I called bullshit

[bigtree]

15. I don't see it as an apology for the Taliban

I think that we could have avoided hundreds of thousands of deaths in both Afghanistan and in the opportunistic invasion of Iraq if the Bush administration had done more law enforcement work and diplomacy and less shooting from the hip. The arrogance of the Afghanistan invasion mirrored the jingoistic invasion of Iraq.

Imagine if bin-Laden and crew had been turned over to some other nation. Imagine if our government and intelligence agencies had relied on smart and measured means to capture the 9-year fugitive suspects? Look at the result of the military response. The suspects escaped. The ranks of individuals identifying their resistance to the U.S. military imperialism across their sovereign borders with of this little band of thugs mushroomed in these nations and around the world in response to Bush's militarism.

The Taliban didn't attack America. There's very few individuals who actually 'plotted' with bin-Laden and crew, yet our nation has declared war on not only the fugitives, but against an ideology rooted in these Taliban members' (the vast majority never having seen or heard from bin-Laden before the plane crashes) resistance and response to our own arrogance. We're fostering more and more enemies with the broad brush of our own individual arrogance and ignorance toward the people of Afghanistan and the region.

[jpak]

17. more Taliban apologies

and pathetic

[bigtree]

18. oh

now you're just bullying. Inspiring.

[Junkdrawer]

19. la la la "I can't hear bigtree" la la la...

pathetic

[jpak]

20. "The Taliban didn't attack America." apology #1

should I continue?

[bigtree]

22. they didn't

facts aren't apologies.

[bvar22]

46. His World is crumbling.

...Flailing around DU night and day with the fevered zeal of religious fanatic,
stamping his feet and insisting that the False is True without offering support for his personal version of "reality"....

...Retreating to an entrenched position of hard denial when shown indisputable facts.



I wouldn't work that hard unless I was paid.

[Junkdrawer]

23. "The Taliban didn't attack America." True Statement...

and very germain if you want to legitimately invade a nation and overthrow its government.

[jpak]

28. No, they just harbored and abetted OBL and AQ before and after 9/11

more apologies

:puke:

[Junkdrawer]

32. Bin Laden wasn't a guest of the Taliban...It was the Northern Alliance...

who harbored Bin Laden.

It's truly doubtful that the Taliban could have offered up Bin Laden even if they wanted to.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

78. You may want to recheck your facts?

"Bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and his Al-Qaeda organization. It is understood that Al-Qaeda-trained fighters known as the 055 Brigade were integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. Several hundred Arab Afghan fighters sent by bin Laden assisted the Taliban in the slaughter at Mazar-e-Sharif.<104> Taliban-Al-Qaeda connections, were also strengthened by the reported marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. During Osama bin Laden's stay in Afghanistan, he may have helped finance the Taliban.<105><106> Perhaps the biggest favor Al-Qaeda did for the Taliban was the assassination by suicide bombing<107> of the Taliban's most effective military opponent mujahideen commander and Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud shortly before 9 September 2001. This came at a time when Taliban human rights violations and extremism seemed likely to create international support for Massoud's group as the legitimate representatives of Afghanistan.<107> The killing, reportedly handled by Ayman Zawahiri and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad wing of Al-Qaeda, left the Northern Alliance leaderless, and removed "the last obstacle to the Taliban’s total control of the country ..."<108>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Relationship_with_Osama_bin_Laden

[jpak]

102. Bullshit, in 2001 the Northern Alliance was besieged by the Taliban and AQ assassinated its leader

Ahmad Shah Massoud just prior to the 9/11 attacks.

They did not harbor OBL.

try again

[aquart]

24. They didn't. Nasty as they are.

[spoony]

57. Do you think you can silence people with such smears? nt

[jpak]

26. Apology #2

these Taliban members' (the vast majority never having seen or heard from bin-Laden before the plane crashes)

The Taliban leadership most certainly knew of Bin Laden's and AQ's activities in Afghanistan.

And most certainly after Clinton's cruise missile strikes against AQ camps in Afghanistan in 1998.

just sayin'

[bigtree]

27. A small band of thugs knew

Not the thousands of Taliban we've declared war on.

Also, Clinton never declared war on the Taliban. His administration did go from supporting the Taliban to backing away from that relationship when the group began to form objectionable relationships. And this military invasion (the authorization to use military force) in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the Cole bombing which I believe the Clinton strikes were for.

Facts are not apologies.

[jpak]

29. Yeah - and the rest of the fucking non-thug Taliban were busy blowing up Buddha statues

and forcing Afghan women into life-long submission and making sure that Afghan girls grow up to be illiterate baby-machines.

and they are the ones throwing acid into school girl's faces, blowing up girls' schools and executing Afghan men who dare oppose them

and shit

again - more apologies

:puke:

[bigtree]

33. That's not what the authorization to use military force in Afghanistan is about

"Forcing Afghan women into life-long submission and making sure that Afghan girls grow up to be illiterate baby-machines" is horrible, but the plane crashes were why Congress and the world gave permission and support to invade and overthrow the Taliban. Now Bush did what Bush was bound to do and he was the only president we had at the time. He was bent on 'dead or alive' and he was hell-bent on kickin some ass. He was pumped. There wasn't a chance that he was going to do the smart thing. He had his finger on the trigger and he fired.

But, imagine if Bush had taken the Taliban up on their offer? One little band of thugs swelled into a movement because of Bush's overreach. The vast majority of thousands of Taliban we now are at 'war' with after 9-years knew NOTHING about bin-Laden and his plans. There was a core group of thugs, several still at-large, who were responsible. Imagine the lives we MIGHT have spared, innocent ones and avengers alike, if Bush had taken a smart and measured approach and called the Taliban leadership on their offer. Who knows? They might have relented. We can catch criminals at our own pace. We didn't need to declare war on a nation because of the actions of a small band of megalomaniacs.

[jpak]

38. The Taliban never made any sincere offers to turn OBL over to anyone

And I will remind you that Clinton hunted down and captured and tried and convicted the 1st WTC bombers, the African Embassy bombers and the USS Cole bombers.

but he could not reach OBL or AQ in land-locked Taliban Afghanistan - hence cruise missile strikes against AQ in 1998.

Bush ignored that threat and we paid the price for it.

If people wish to make the Taliban and AQ the victims here - I will call bullshit every time.

[bigtree]

42. the 'victim' thing is your own invention

. . . conjured-up to vent your spleen at the Taliban. Good for you.

ANYONE can plot and plan violence against the U.S. from ANYWHERE; from any parcel of land anywhere in the world.

The 9-11 attacks (the only offenses relevant to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan) were staged from within the U.S., not from Afghanistan. We haven't prevented attacks on our nation with our invasion. The deployment of hundreds of thousands of American troops in Afghanistan fulfilled the 9-11 plotters' wildest ambitions. The aim of the New York plane crashes was to draw the U.S. into a conflict where we would be killing Arab people and individuals identifying themselves as Muslim. Mission accomplished. No one can tell me that the result of all of that made us more secure, safe, or was detrimental to the 9-11 plotters' cause at all. They certainly didn't suffer from the overthrow of the Taliban and the 9-year military aggression.

[Pavulon]

55. Yemen and germany was where the planning took place

obviously they were based in Afghanistan. More attention should be payed to the people who fund this stuff. If it were known that if you fund this you have a high chance of dying an unnatural death the money would dry up. There is a limitless supply of meatpuppets willing to die for allah. Killing them is not an efficient way to handle the problem.

[timtom]

63. Whoa!

Off to Ignoreland with you, Farnsworth!

[Forkboy]

116. You sound like Hannity.

[TicketyBoo]

67. Crying over spilt milk.

Water under the bridge.

We are where we are.

The Taliban offering to hand over bin Laden to a third country could mean anything. Where? Iran? Libya? Yemen? Somalia? Pakistan?

Not an offer at all, really, if the third country was "unspecified."

You can pretty much bet they were only willing to hand him over to a Muslim country.

[bigtree]

69. the question goes to the heart of our 'war' against the Taliban, I think

. . .and whether conquering them in Afghanistan would have any effect at all on the fugitive 9-11 suspects. It also bears on the military's assertions about where the Afghanistan Taliban's true alliances lie.

[TicketyBoo]

70. Again,

we are where we are.

How we got there doesn't really mean a whole lot at this point.

I'm sorry Obama didn't decide to just withdraw, but he didn't.

Going back and rehashing how we got in is, in my opinion, not constructive. It's spinning our wheels and a waste of time.

Even though we were not originally fighting for the betterment of Afghanistan, maybe it can happen. If we can leave Afghanistan a better place than it was, that would be a good thing. But, in my opinion, it's not worth continuing this war. Since so little of al-Qaeda is left in Afghanistan, I can't see that is the current reason for being there.

But, again, there we are. Hopefully something good will come out of all the blood and bucks. I think most of us will, in the end, say "It wasn't worth it." I'm thinking it right now. But I don't have much say in the matter, except right here.

[bigtree]

74. I think it's still relevant because of the posture we're taking NOW

. . . against Afghanistan's Taliban. Nothing in the rout of them will address anything to do with the very authorization to use military force there. This isn't a cowboy adventure or an Afghan makeover. We have the conditions regarding use of military force for good reason. Justifying action against the Afghanistan Taliban based on avenging 9-11 is wrongheaded and counterproductive to even the most basic goals of 'stability' or security'; for either the U.S. or Afghanistan. Yet, what you call 'spilled milk' is constantly and repeatedly being used as justification by this administration and military. I think it's important in the face of all of that to set the record straight. When it comes to this military aggression, everything is not everything.

[TicketyBoo]

111. But Obama has made his decision.

It was my understanding that we initially were in there going after al-Qaeda, its bases, and its training camps in Afghanistan. Once they let them escape at Tora Bora, that would have been the point to withdraw, but Bush was too stubborn (and stupid) to do it.

I can't help but think that a lot of things are happening now that we don't know about (i.e., secret operations into Pakistan). Otherwise, it is insanity.

I believe that the very manner of the President's speech which is being attacked as "uninspired and dispassionate" shows that he is regretting having to make this decision, but believes it is the wise (and maybe the only) choice. This speech was too important and too serious to be a "rah-rah," "let's go get 'em" speech. I can see that is the reason for the tone of the speech, especially when set against the backdrop of West Point.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

77. Perhaps, but the other possibility is that it was simply a stall tactic

When one considers that the war was already underway by the time the offer was made, bin Laden and his cohorts were already on the move, and the Taliban were in disarray, that seems like a rather distinct possibility to me.

[JackRiddler]

93. What's the name for this logical fallacy?

Help me out here. It's the same one as when opponents of an Iraq invasion were called Saddam lovers.

[MilesColtrane]

30. As the head of the government of the United States, Obama wasn't speaking...

for any other country when he made that statement.

The words, "the Taliban refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden" didn't come out of the mouth of the president of Libya did it?

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. Comprehend much?

They had already offered to turn him over twice... providing, of course, that the US show some **credible proof** that he was involved...

Try reading for comprehension next time so maybe you don't make yourself look so stupid....

[jpak]

31. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now

and Obama was correct

:puke:

[Ghost in the Machine]

36. You're not very bright, are you?

I'm trying to think of some smaller words for you, but my last reply seemed simple enough... sorry you couldn't comprehend it...

By the way.. the Taliban called, they want the US to turn you over for bombing a mosque in Afghanistan. Please be ready to go... you don't need them to provide the US with credible proof, do you? They can just use George W Bush's words "We don't need to determine guilt or innocence> We KNOW he's guilty"...

Take your bullshit somewhere else, it doesn't fly here...

[jpak]

39. what a stupid post

:rofl:

[Ghost in the Machine]

41. I'm glad you're finally realizing how stupid your post was..

There may be hope for you yet..

:hi:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

81. Let's take a few facts into consideration here

The first being that the Taliban were already known for their unwillingness to hand bin Laden over. The Saudis had quite the ordeal trying to get their hands on him, a time during which the Taliban were backing him the entire way.

The second being the close ties between the Taliban and bin Laden/al-Qaeda from the integrated fighting forces, the marriage of bin Laden's son and Mullah Omar's daughter, etc.

Third, the first offer made by the Taliban was that *they* would try him under Islamic law. Do I really need to explain to you why that offer was rejected? If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/

Fourth, there was a second offer to turn him over, but by that point we were tired of being dicked around AND the war had already begun (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5).

Try that on for size.

[Ghost in the Machine]

94. The one MAJOR fact that you left out, either purposely or out of ignorance...

is the fact that the US offered **no credible evidence** that bin Laden had planned or carried out the attacks. Nothing. Nada. Zilch...

"Third, the first offer made by the Taliban was that *they* would try him under Islamic law. Do I really need to explain to you why that offer was rejected? If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban / "

Does someone really need to explain to YOU why the Taliban rejected the demands of the US? A little bit of basic reading comprehension would have allowed you to figure it out from your own link:

The Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, made the offer at a news conference in Islamabad. Zaeef said the Taliban would detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the United States makes a formal request and presents them with evidence.

"Fourth, there was a second offer to turn him over, but by that point we were tired of being dicked around AND the war had already begun (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 )."

No one really gives a fuck WHO was tired of being "dicked around". Maybe the Taliban was tired of being "dicked around" and from getting threats from a despotic wannabe dictator named George W Bush. Some more basic reading comprehension skills would have revealed this from your second link:

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty".

Some of you can try all you want to defend Bush and his illegal wars, but it doesn't hold water when all the facts are in. Just because we have a Democrat as a President now doesn't change those facts....


Try THAT on for size....

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

95. So let me make sure I understand your position

You honestly consider the Taliban's offer to detain bin Laden and try him themselves under Islamic Law worthwhile and something we should have pursued in earnest? Is that really your position? Because that's, well, ridiculous on a number of levels, all of which I've already explained numerous times on this thread and none of which you actually addressed in your post.

Secondly, as I stated in my post (and which you apparently missed), the issue of the Taliban refusing to hand over bin Laden is bigger than George Bush. They refused to hand him over under Clinton when he was indicted for the U.S. embassy bombings and they went back on a promise to hand him over to Saudi Arabia. The Taliban hardly had a track record for being agreeable or for being trustworthy on this subject even before the 9-11 attacks.

This has nothing to do with "defend(ing) Bush" and everything to do with sticking to the facts, whether they're inconvenient to your anti-war stance or not.

[Ghost in the Machine]

97. You're the one who seems to have a problem understanding facts..

What part of "provide credible evidence" is a foreign language to you? Or do you think people should be handed over and put on trial just on someone elses opinion that they're guilty? Do you have a problem with Due Process??

Now, *if* the Bush Misadministration *had* provided credible evidence and the Taliban refused to turn him over, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, would we? If you believe in justice and due process you have to believe in it for EVERYONE, not just a select few.


"Because that's, well, ridiculous on a number of levels, all of which I've already explained numerous times on this thread and none of which you actually addressed in your post."

:rofl: :rofl: Okayyyyyy... you might not know this but... just because YOU explain something, doesn't mean it's right. You do understand that, right? Maybe your points don't get addressed because they are wrong, and not worth responding to? :shrug:

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

99. Speaking of reading comprehension

***Extradicting him was not even on the table*** (not in the initial offer, anyway) so how you can argue we should have handed over the information to them anyway and cried then "foul!" when they didn't hand him over is beyond me. It's a stupid proposal, one that would have wasted even more time, and one that would have endangered our intelligence sources in the region.

Secondly, and this IS important despite the fact that you continue to ignore it, is the fact that the Taliban had a history of playing games with foreign countries on this very issue. I don't suppose you'll address this in your next post either, but I've restated it for those who are interested in considering all of the relevant data.

Third, if anything I've stated is wrong, it's sort've your obligation to prove how so. This is a discussion, after all, and no one should expect to simply be taken at their word when they say something is wrong.

[Ghost in the Machine]

103. Yeah, speaking of that...

"Third, if anything I've stated is wrong, it's sort've your obligation to prove how so. This is a discussion, after all, and no one should expect to simply be taken at their word when they say something is wrong."


Yes, and you shouldn't be expected to be taken at your word just because you say you're right... that blade cuts both ways, or did you not realize that?


As for this:

"Secondly, and this IS important despite the fact that you continue to ignore it, is the fact that the Taliban had a history of playing games with foreign countries on this very issue. I don't suppose you'll address this in your next post either, but I've restated it for those who are interested in considering all of the relevant data."

It still doesn't matter what games anyone has a history of playing, justice requires due process... as well as a little bit of diplomacy, not wannabe cowboy justice...

Yes, provide the credible evidence. Period. That's part of due process. If the Taliban had then refused to turn him over, or didn't hold a trial/held a sham of a trial, then by all means do what you have to do to get him. The problem with this is that even the F.B.I. doesn't have enough credible evidence to add the 9-11 attacks to bin Laden's Most Wanted profile...

No matter how you try to spin or twist, you're the one who still ignores all of the "relevant data" which you so strongly espouse. The most relevant data is still the fact that we ( the US ) did not provide any credible evidence that he was involved because, to this very day, we don't HAVE any credible evidence to provide. If YOU have some credible evidence, please contact your local FBI field office because they would LOVE to hear from you...

edited: to fix html tags (D'oh!)

Peace,

Ghost

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

104. We may have to agree to disagree, I'm very firm in my belief on this one.

On your first point, I don't expect to be taken simply at my word and if you require evidence for any of the claims I've made, let me know and I will provide it.

On your second point, you suggest that we should have provided evidence to a regime that had already stated, in no uncertain terms, that they weren't going to turn bin Laden over to us anyway. I mean this in the nicest way possible, but that's a stupid argument for a number of reasons, some of which I've already stated. For starters, we'd already been through this routine with the Taliban during the Clinton years, as had the Saudis. Also, it would have revealed many of our intelligence sources, and for what? We weren't going to get what we wanted and our sources would've been picked off one by one. And finally, we were in a time restriction as it were with the Afghan winter just around the corner. Squandering more time playing games with a regime notorious for playing games on this issue would have been a fool's errand and undercut our efforts even more than the stupidity at Tora Bora did...

[Ghost in the Machine]

105. I guess we will have to do that...

I just look at the overall picture of due process and justice. I think it would create a very slippery slope if we were to allow people to be prosecuted without evidence.

Even though the Taliban may have had a history of not extraditing, it doesn't mean that we bypass due process, even if it's just an illusion of due process.. you go through the motions so you get your allies behind you: "Look, we've done everything we can legally and humanly do to prosecute him, but the Afghan government still refuses to hand him over. We need your support for a Military intervention to bring him to justice..."

The bottom line is: You need credible evidence, and due process, to bring about justice. Period. There is no other way around it...

[ixion]

25. No, Obama was NOT correct

and the one being disingenuous here is you, I'm afraid.

The very clearly announced that they would turn over bin Laden if the US produced the evidence. I remember the news conference very, very clearly.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

82. Actually

What the Taliban initially offered was that THEY would try bin Laden under Islamic Law.

[ThomThom]

59. word games that what we should expect

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

73. Nicely put.

[WhiteTara]

6. thanks for finding the source of info

I've been telling everyone that. I'm sick of the lies and the lying liars who tell them. I'm not brain dead and I have a memory.

I think the only thing that the new architects of "1984" didn't count on is that you can't change all the information quickly enough to cover over the truth all the time. :tinfoilhat:

[bigtree]

8. SoS Clinton said it the other day, as well

[philly_bob]

34. I thought Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden too.

Could use second and third source on this.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

84. Essentially, they did.

They made a disingenuous offer to try bin Laden themselves, under Islamic Law, if we would provide them all of our evidence. Apparently people here think that was a pretty sweet deal that they put on the table? Frankly, Bush did the right thing in rejecting it, and I say that was someone who doesn't think Bush did the right thing in very many cases.

Later on they made another offer, by which time the war was already underway. It too was rejected, but when you consider their history for dicking around when nations were trying to get their hands on bin Laden (not just the U.S., Saudi Arabia and others had a hell of a time dealing with the Taliban), I see the logic behind disregarding this offer as well.

[HamdenRice]

35. " for trial in a country other than the US" -- Sorry, but that was not a serious offer

[bigtree]

37. did the Taliban even have bin-Laden

. . . were they in any position to follow through on their offer?

I didn't get the impression from what I've read and what I heard at the time that they actually had that ability to 'hand him over' and they looked like they were just trying to forestall an invasion.

[Junkdrawer]

40. Yep. Just like Saddam pretended to have WMD in the years before invasion...

the UN inspectors knew he was bluffing...

The CIA knew he was bluffing...

But Bush used it to justify the invasion anyway.

[HamdenRice]

43. Probably not in a position, correct. The picture people have of the relationship here is bizarre

I'm not motivated to actually get the links because frankly, DU has gone off the counter-factual deep end on this issue at this point, and no amount of facts, articles, links, etc., would change most people's minds.

The idea that the Taliban government had no responsibility for AQ or its role in 9/11 is simply too bizarre to contend with.

The Taliban government was extremely fragile when it captured Kabul. The population was relieved that the war was over, but the type of rural fundamentalism they imposed was not popular, and there was still a Northern Alliance and assorted warlords to contend with.

AQ was allowed in and became an extremely important military and financial asset of the Taliban government. The idea that the Taliban was not connected to AQ and therefore not responsible for AQ's role in 9/11 is absurd, but there's no point arguing that on this particular forum.

Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban, was deeply in thrall to the ideology and support of AQ, and had adopted the ideology of global jihand.

One way of thinking about AQ in Afganistan under the Taliban is that AQ had become something like a militia within a lose confederation of religious and war lord militias.

Your question is a good one -- because it isn't clear that if the Taliban government had decided to "turn over" AQ or OBL they could have done so.

Ironically for all the defenders of the Taliban government, the international legal norms that justify the US invasion of Afghanistan exist in part because of US illegal behavior toward Latin America. In the late 1800s, when the US wanted to interfere militarily in Latin American countries, rather than do so directly, they would allow private militias to organize in the US and go on private "fillibustering" invasions of Latin American countries. One of them practically took over Nicaragua. We were still doing that crap with the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

It was illegal when the US did it. It was illegal when Afghanistan allowed a "private" army of OBL to attack the US as well.

[bigtree]

45. the one thing I would take issue with

. . . is the characterization of the Taliban as some mass movement arrayed against the U.S.. It wasn't during the early days of the Clinton administration.

My argument here has been that the bulk of individuals who represent the membership of the Taliban that our nation is at 'war' with today in Afghanistan was largely ignorant of any plot to crash planes in New York before 9-11. The majority of Afghans who identify themselves as Taliban (or our government and military consider 'enemy' Taliban) knew nothing of plans to crash planes. The training films we were shown were ridiculous. The hijackers trained in the U.S. to fly the planes, financed by bin-Laden, not the Taliban.

My point is that the invasion has been a costly and deadly folly. I think it's wrong in more than just it's execution. The effect has been, predictably, to draw resistant, insurgent Afghans closer to whatever cause identifies with their resistance against the invaders of their homeland. The Taliban members in Afghanistan are as diverse as the different sects they belong to. It's a mistake to lump them all together as complicit in the plane crashes. That's what the invasion did and that's what the occupation has tragically multiplied.

Most of the individuals our troops are hunting down are just defending their autonomy in their own homeland and have seen their resistance conflated by the U.S. military with the original attacks. Sadly, after 9-years of this, what we're left with in Afghanistan isn't even a righteous opportunity for revenge for 9-11; we're just battling the consequences and effects of our own militarism. There is little quantifiable linkage between the Taliban we're staging assaults on there and the Sept. 11 plane crashes. It's all tangential and collateral at this point.

[HamdenRice]

48. I agree to a certain extent

I don't support "war" against the Taliban, but part of the mission is eliminating AQ and its offshoots on the Af-Pak border, and if Taliban are shooting at the troops as they pursue that mission, then the Taliban become "the enemy" as well. Also, you could say the same thing about a Japanese soldier in 1945 who had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. If you join a hostile force then you've joined the hostilities. The initial war against both AQ and the Taliban government in Afghanistan were legitimate under international law. And just as after WW II, the US and its allies strongly believed that the best defense against a resurgent, militarized Germany and Japan was installing a democratic government in Berlin and Tokyo, there is logic behind creating a governing alternative to a Taliban government in Kabul committed to "global jihad," which was in fact what Mullah Omar adopted as a governing ideology from AQ and OBL.

That said, I think the "mission" needs to be extremely narrow -- finding the remnants of AQ, finding out whether OBL is dead and getting out. I honestly don't care about whether Afghanistan is "helped" or "developed" or whether girls go to school, or whether the Kabul government functions or any of that crap.

The very best outcome considering the mentality of the US public is if at some point the administration can present "new evidence" that OBL is dead and declare the mission over and come home even before 2011.

[EFerrari]

51. And you know that how?

There was reportedly a lot of tension in the Taliban leadership in the level just under Omar about bin Laden being there at all BEFORE 9/11. And the Northern Alliance more than once asked CIA to get the "Arab Afghans" under bin Laden the hell out of Afghanistan because he was a lousy field commander.

[HamdenRice]

61. Not sure I understand your question. It's in the OP

Maybe my use of the word "serious"? I don't mean that they weren't serious about making the offer. I mean making a serious offer to turn over OBL to a third country for trial other than in the US is not a "serious" position.

[EFerrari]

68. The thing is, the Taliban was between the devil and the deep blue sea.

If they turned over bin Laden to us, they would be punished by their funders. If they didn't, they would be invaded. They were trying to find a way out of a no winner and they failed.

[HamdenRice]

71. There was a third way out

They could have said that AQ had committed an atrocity, that they did not have the capacity to capture or evict them, and said, your welcome to come and get him, and we won't interfere.

[EFerrari]

76. I don't think they had that option.

It would have read to their funders as a capitulation to the United States.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

87. The offer I like best is their first one, that *they* try him for us under Islamic Laq

Apparently people on this board think that was a really sweet gesture on their part.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

44. jpak, get over it

he lied and it's not the first or last time.

There is an ongoing lie being told and even on DU it's not okay to talk about.

[bigtree]

47. Taliban made another offer today

KABUL--The Taliban said in a statement Saturday it would provide a "legal guarantee" that they would not intervene in foreign countries if international troops withdraw from Afghanistan.

The Taliban have "no agenda of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and is ready to give legal guarantee if the foreign forces withdraw from Afghanistan," the group said in a statement emailed to news organizations.

The statement did not specify what such a guarantee would look like. A Taliban spokesman was not available for comment.

U.S. President Barack Obama has said that the main purpose of the war here is to prevent al Qaeda from reacquiring a safe haven from which its member can launch attacks against the West. U.S. and Afghan officials have been looking for ways to exploit the differences between al Qaeda, a mostly Arab organization that is focused on fighting a global holy war, and the Taliban, an Afghan group that largely restricts its activities to Afghanistan though it has links to the Taliban in neighboring Pakistan.

U.S. officials are skeptical that the Taliban can be taken at their word. "This is the same group that refused to give up (Osama) Bin Laden, even though they could have saved their country from war," said a U.S. official. "They wouldn't break with terrorists then, so why would we take them seriously now?" x(


read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126002422466878409.html

[EFerrari]

53. This is our government lying their asses off and right in our face.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

91. While this indicates a possible opening

it's unclear exactly what is on the table here, nor is it certain how trustworthy the Taliban leaders making this offer are. Pakistan was told peace was on the table too yet the Taliban continued their advance (until the military stepped in). So while this is perhaps worth pursuing, it remains pretty sketchy.

[bigtree]

92. I just thought it was interesting

. . . how, even today, the very argument on this thread is being furthered (beyond the president's and the SoS's statements) by others in the administration in response to a conciliatory initiative by the Taliban.

[bvar22]

49. At that time, I would have refused to turn him over too....

...unless I was shown some hard evidence that OBL was indeed connected to 9-11.

Bush had formed a lynch mob and showed up at the gate with nothing but a noose demanding OBL.
ANY legitimate government was well within their rights to refuse to give anyone up to that lynch mob.

Isn't that how International Law and "extradition" works?

The offer to turn him over to a neutral country was reasonable and legitimate.

Obama outright LIED about this.

[Pavulon]

52. Dude, he went on tape and said he did it.. They fucked up

dont know if they thought we would do nothing or just wanted to play holy war. They could have handed him over they chose not to.

[EFerrari]

54. They misudged the hurry Rumsfeld was in to get to Iraq.

And I bet there was a three way conversation going on with the ISI so that slowed them down, too.

Bush was going to go in no matter what.

[Pavulon]

56. OBL and the taliban should have been the focus

of the us energy. Iraq served no purpose, not even oil. No real benefit.

I digress, Afganistan and OBL should have been the start. Not closing the loop in tora bora and killing everyone dug in there was a massive error. Land troops or true strategic bombing and arty could have literally killed everything within that area. Classic errors like that were made in the US civil war and ww2.

The real work here is finding those who fund this, in any country, and killing them. No money, no jihad. Killing meatpuppets does not equal killing money and logistics guys.

[EFerrari]

58. Omg, we agree on something.

lol

You're right. We need to follow the money. Because getting those 100 guys in Afghanistan is useless when are are thousands of kids that need the money and will take the job.

[Pavulon]

60. Yep. A ground war on their turf is not advantageous to the us

by paying off people (like we have don for decades, greece, japan) we accomplish more. The other side is addressing those who pull the strings. If they are ISI or some government official in saudi, it should not matter. Those guys are more dangerous than OBL and should be treated accordingly.

We can agree every now and then without the space time continuum collapsing..

[bvar22]

62. That was long after the formation of the Bush lynch mob.

*

[Pavulon]

65. OBL and crew were on the CIA / NSA grid

before bush took office. This is not a bush thing. It was a massive error made by the intelligence community. He should have been dead after the embassy bombings and surely the cole attack.

We have taken up killing these guys and should continue to roll up their operations and kill their money and logistics guys.

[bvar22]

79. If they were "on the grid"...

..then simply turn over the evidence to International Law Enforcement and accept the offer to turn OBL over to a neutral country.
That is how things are done.

Bill Clinton was able to capture, prosecute, and imprison the perpetrators of the 1st WTC attack without forming up a lynch mob, invading and occupying land locked Asian countries, killing innocent civilians, and spending TRILLIONS of Dollars.

[Pavulon]

80. Bill also authorized lethal operations

against these guys. There are two realities, the one you want and the one their is. Even IF he they handed him over with a ball gag in mouth and carrot up his ass (never happen) he would die of old age during his trial.

Like I said the people who pay for and provide logistics for the war or provided it for 9.11 are military targets and can be killed any time anywhere.

In a toilet stall with a suppressed 22 or with a hellfire missile or anything in between.

That is how things have been done for a long time.

[bvar22]

101. Full On Invasion and Decades long hostile Occupation...

.. with 10s of thousands (Millions?) of civilian casualties is nowhere between "a suppressed 22 or with a hellfire missile".

I support International Law Enforcement including a limited, targeted Black Op (a la Israel).

[Pavulon]

113. Yep. Killing the right people could

avoid the invasion and occupation stage.

[ThomThom]

64. no he did not

[Pavulon]

66. que tape...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiKyWJRRjnU

plenty of others. make no mistake when his is found he will pay for what he did. If he is not killed in the process.

[ThomThom]

118. I did not hear him say he participated in the event in any way.

He did however agree with the reason for the attack which is not the same. Many people can understand what went before and not be involved. I am not saying he was not involved in this or other events, the USS Cole, but we have a system of justice and laws where proof must be put forth before punishment can be administered. Punishing innocent people is unacceptable including bombing and killing people who are not involved. The legal system is the way to redress these things.

[Pavulon]

120. The legal system covers war and police action (like korea and vietnam). The legal system

was around when we killed diem and a slew of others like him. The legal system does not a modern section for these guys. The laws on the record for them are all death penalty offenses.

Killing innocent people is not a good thing but is the consequence of war.

[Sebastian Doyle]

109. Oh, please... not the "he confessed on tape" bullshit

Get a clue.... that wasn't him.

[Pavulon]

114. Who was it? And please dont post some MIHOP shit...(nt)

[Sebastian Doyle]

117. MIHOP, LIHOP, or the ridiculous "official story" are irrelevant

Because the common denominator is the same - it always comes back to the Bush Crime Family.

If you believe Osama Bin Laden gave the orders from a hospital bed in Dubai or a cave in Afghanistan, then its also relevant who trained him to be a terrorist, and who had him on their payroll, isn't it?

The hijackers were trained to fly in a flight school owned by CIA agents Wally Hilliard and Rudi Dekkers in Jeb Bush's Florida. There are other accounts of Mohammad Atta flying other missions for the CIA/Bush Crime Family. The kind that involve certain "agricultural imports" from South America.

Jeb signed an emergency order the Friday before 9-11-01 that allowed him to deploy the National Guard among the civilian population in the event of an emergency. And his Idiot brother spent the night of Sept 10 not in the governor's mansion, where one would assume there was a spare room for him, but in a resort hotel where snipers equipped with surface to air missiles were stationed on the roof while Half Assed Monkey Boy slept.

Clearly the Bush Crime Family knew something was going to happen. The only thing in dispute is the degree that they were involved themselves.

[Pavulon]

119. Clearly...

of course none of this is backed by facts or conversations from people on record. What other missions did atta fly, just curious?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. But, we refuse to hand over our war criminals to Italy.

Not to mention Bush/Cheney/et al to The Hague.

[EFerrari]

88. Or to Venezuela. Or to Bolivia.

Posada is currently exhibiting his "art" in Florida.



I'm not sure where Valladares is but when the money trail from a foiled attempt on Evo Morales led straight back to him, he left Santa Cruz, Bolivia and ran for cover here in the US.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. Well, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Italy are wimps and won't invade us.

Unlike, our supertough "Smoke 'em out!" selves.

[Pavulon]

89. Swing and a miss..(nt)

[readmoreoften]

107. And the Pavulon team fails to hit the ball in the second inning.

Is that all you've got? Red herring much?

[Pavulon]

112. I am sure gwb will be sent to stand trial in a foreign country...

right after a fat meteor destroys the earth. Herring us yummy.

[emulatorloo]

96. Reading DU is these days is like watching a train wreck or a car crash

There is such a desire to ascribe the worst possible motives to Obama that the Taliban and AQ get let off the hook.

Don't bother flaming me with either name-calling or "sophisticated analysis". I get it.

It was plenty clear to me at the time that the Taliban's offer was disingenous. The project of pulling it out and rehashing it now seems pointless, other than an exercise to drum up misplaced outrage.

[EFerrari]

98. That's a great example of the facts people believe they know.

I don't think you do get it. The Afghan Taliban probably didn't have the authority to hand bin Laden over even if Bush would have taken him, which he wouldn't have because they needed a reason to invade Afghanistan so they could go into Iraq.

I really don't understand why people personalize this around Obama so much. He's only been in office for a minute and the structure of our government that does things like invading Afghanistan and Iraq has been around for decades.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

100. I guess I don't know what you mean by "didn't have the authority"

If they didn't have it, who did?

[bigtree]

108. The administration 'pulled it out' as justification for their latest escalation

It was one of the first things the president went to in his speech. Fine to disagree with folks, but whether the offer was genuine or not is a matter of debate, not established fact, with reasonable arguments on both sides. It's interesting to me how the Taliban is portrayed as so integral with al-Qaeda and bin-Laden, yet folks who tend to accept the administration's argument that they wouldn't give him when asked up really don't bother to show that they actually had that capability. Not to mention that the statement the administration is now spamming is false on it's face.

But go ahead and insist you're right. That's fine in a discussion (which is what DU is about), but not so fine to demean everyone who disagrees with you as just trying to 'demean' Obama.

[readmoreoften]

106. Yes, no one seems to remember that. /nt

[yurbud]

115. kick