Bump to Ocean Breeze- Show us your insight to what would happen if OBL was locked up -
Libya- End GAme in sight???
- Thread starter Ocean Breeze
- Start date
Bump to Ocean Breeze- Show us your insight to what would happen if OBL was locked up -
Why bother Goober. They've had Canadian jets bombing the Qaddafi compounds since March and she still is in denial about that.
The Taliban - And Bin Laden - Agree Extradition This new evidence came to light on Thurs. 4 Oct., just as the Prime Minister was setting out his case in Parliament. The Daily Telegraph reported an extraordinary story under the heading 'Pakistan halts secret plan for bin Laden trial'. (p. 9)
According to this report, leaders of two Pakistani Islamic parties, the Jamaat-i-Islami and the Jamaat Ulema-e-Islam, negotiated bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for the 11 September attacks. Bin Laden would be held under house arrest in Peshawar.
The first stage of the negotiations was carried out in Islamabad on Sat. 29 Sept., in Pakistan, when Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, the Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan, met with Qazi Hussain Ahmad, leader of the Jamaat-i-Islami, and Hamid Gul, former director of Pakistan's inter-service intelligence agency.
The final stage of the negotiations was in Kandahar, on Mon. 1 Oct., when Qazi, and Maaulana Fazlur Rahman, head of the Jamaat Ulema-e-Islam, met Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar.
'The proposal, which had bin Laden's approval, was that within the framework of Islamic shar'ia law evidence of his alleged involvement in the New York and Washington attacks would be placed before an international tribunal. The court would decide whether to try him on the spot or hand him over to America.' (Telegraph, 4 Oct., p. 9)
The British Government says that there is no nonviolent way to secure the capture or extradition of Osama bin Laden. But the Taliban have agreed an extradition deal. Amazingly, this extradition deal is reported to have had 'bin Laden's approval'. Admittedly, the deal only guaranteed extradition to Pakistan, but given Pakistan's new role as a US ally in the so-called "war on terrorism", the transfer from Afghanistan to Pakistan should have been a welcome step in bringing bin Laden to trial. Furthermore, the report clearly states that extradition to the United States would be a real possibility under this deal.
The Deal Fails
Why did the deal not go ahead? Despite being agreed by Mullah Omar, head of the Taliban, the extradition was vetoed by Pakistan's President Musharraf. The ostensible stumbling block 'was that he [Musharraf] could not guarantee bin Laden's safety'. (Telegraph, 4 Oct., p. 9) This is implausible.
It is intriguing that, according to the Telegraph, the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, was notified in advance of the mission to meet Mullah Omar. A US official has been quoted as saying that 'casting the objectives too narrowly would risk a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr bin Laden were captured'. (FT, 20 Sept., p. 7) Perhaps a US veto killed the deal.
No Justification For War
This story blows an enormous hole in the Government's rationale for war. We are being told that we must go to war because the Taliban have refused point-blank to hand over bin Laden. Now we know that in fact the Taliban, far from refusing to contemplate extradition, have agreed in principle to 'hand over' bin Laden for trial in Pakistan and possibly the US.
Whether or not the evidence against bin Laden is 'incontrovertible' and 'compelling', the fact of the matter is that there is a nonviolent alternative to war - and it is being rejected not by the Taliban regime, but by the British and US governments. The nonviolent alternative is to negotiate extradition. Negotiation of international conflicts is a solemn duty under Article 33 of the United Nations Charter.
Previous Offers
The Taliban's agreement on extradition is of a piece with its position all the way through this crisis. The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said early on, 'Anyone who is responsible for this act, Osama or not, we will not side with him. We told [the Pakistan delegation] to give us proof that he did it, because without that how can we give him up?' (Independent, 19 Sept., p. 1) Three days later, Taliban Ambassador Zaeef said, 'We are not ready to hand over Osama bin Laden without evidence' (emphasis added, Times, 22 Sept., p. 1).
When US Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to publish a US dossier of evidence against bin Laden (an offer subsequently withdrawn), Ambassador Zaeef responded positively. 'The ambassador said it was "good news" that the US intended to produce its evidence against Mr bin Laden. This could help to solve the issue "otherwise than fighting".' (Independent, 25 Sept., p. 3)
On Sun. 30 Sept, the Taliban made another offer which was completely distorted and misrepresented by the Government and the media. The Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan said - in a quotation that appeared only in one newspaper, the Independent, and incompletely even there - 'We say if they change and talk to us, and if they present evidence, we will respect their negotiations and that might change things.' ('Bin Laden "hidden by Taleban", BBC News Online, 30 Sept.)
The Independent's front-page opened with the statement that the Taliban 'gave no indication they were prepared to hand him over.' This was flatly contradicted by the quotation eight paragraphs later of Mullah Zaeef, Taliban Ambassador: 'We are thinking of negotiation. [If direct evidence of bin Laden's involvement were produced] it might change things.' (Independent, 1 Oct., p.1)
Daniel Lak of the BBC commented that it was 'unlikely' that Mullah Zaeef was simply saying that bin Laden was under Taliban protection and 'the Americans can do their worst': 'The ambassador did ask the Americans, and it almost seems in a pleading tone, to start talks with the Taleban "because this might produce a good result"' ('Analysis: Decoding Taleban's message', BBC News Online, 30 Sept., 15:52 GMT)
Briefing 05: The Smoking Gun
Are the F-35's still grounded? I wonder if it is too late to cancel our suck-up to buy them?
Considering the aid they have given the US I would hardly call them that.
Ocean Breeze. Slaugtering him in front of his family is as low as any country can go. No matter how much they believe they can justify the horrendous act. .[/QUOTE said:
Slaughtering almost a MILLION in a far off nation as the world watched in horror ( due to the LIE) is not exactly acceptable behavior......no matter how one lies to justify it.
As far as numbers go........the US has slaughtered so many more ........it is disgusting to even go there.
and the slaughter is not over. TEN shagging years of killing under changing excuses as soon as the public became skeptical.
One slight difference you are missing out on. The U.S. didn't START it! :smile:
It not like the US is immune to deficiencies in the intelligence network. (I'm not admitting that OBL wasn't dead for some years either)
as in fired the first bullet?? (figuratively speaking)
Or as in PROVOKED to at least some degree such an act ;of atrocity. One could go that path of "who started it" like a batch of kindergarden kids describing a bully fight. Counter productive.
What IS relavent is that BOTH are party to it ......as both contritubed to such an atrocity happening.
Sorry........no party is totally guilt free. But the US plays the role of victim to excess......so one has to wonder what is behind all that?? Probably making sure the sheeple don't forget to be afraid. People who are afraid are so easy to manipulate into following gov't agendas that they ordinarliy would never go along with.
Not to my knowledge. Seems that is the only thing bush could not pin on Iraq as he thundered for war like a crazed moron. He tried pinning just about everything else on Iraq in order to get his war. It is disgusting and embarrassing to remember those stupid lies and how the sheeple believed them.
Particularly when same lunatics were once a US "friend". And could reveal some nasty secrets if brought to a proper trial. Suddenly , SH was the biggest enemy the US had .......and that started the piling up of LIES to invade and occupy.......as only the US version of LUNATIC could do. Gee, Doesnt' the US have stockpiles of WMD?? Who on the planet has been most active in the war dept ?? Who is the only country that dropped an A bomb (over kill again) with dastardly after effects for decades.??
Imperialism and wars are integrated ......
funny how those WMD that SH supposedly had .......that could be launched quickly and make it to ;the US causing americans such grief.
(what a stupid fantasy that was ........and that is when the US began to lose its credibility& integrety .......and rightly so.) Totally shameful ........and historians will have a hay day with that event alone. (not counting the many others that have embarrassed the US into a lower class on the planet)
If you have an equation a + b + c + d = x and if you don't know what d is you'll never figure out x, and that is the problem with political discussions. We common folk just aren't privy to ALL the information.
How true, and even politicians until they get right at the top.
Obama ran on closing Guantanamo, bringing the soldiers home in a year...etc.
Guantanamo ist still open, a surge in Iraq that he was against brought results, so we armchair politicians, soldiers etc. what do we really know???
