Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 15:21:04 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Stephen Hurd <deuce@lordlegacy.org> Cc: Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Message-ID: <3BAD0ED0.BC9FF50E@mindspring.com> References: <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAAEEFCEAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Stephen Hurd wrote: > Jury of their peers... sorry to slap that one in there, I actually HAVE been > seeing similar statements, but are they any more likely to come to a fair, > impartial decision as a jusy chosen from a country that has been screming for > his blood for the last few years? Of course, you are right. We should have terrorists decide the fate of other terrorists. Preferrably, we should use terroists who are being funded by the man personally, in order to guarantee their impartiality. Right. > > > If the US granted asylum to someone say (totally random example) from > > > the IRA, and the British said "Hand him over, or we'll bomb the hell > > > out of you. You're harbouring him, so that makes you responsible for > > > all he has done... > > > > You'll have to pick a different example; the U.S. and the U.K. > > have extradition treaties which would preclude this happening; > > it was, in fact, these treaties which allowed the U.S. to take > > custody of the Osama bin Laden sponsored terrorist responsible > > for the bombing of the Pan Am jetliner over Lacherby Scotland, > > and who was scheduled to be sentenced in U.S. courts September > > 12th -- the day after the attack on the U.S.. > > I won't have to pick a different example, extradition is often > fought and sometimes not granted. The extradition treaties don't > flat out guarantee that the person will be extridited. Name one case where an IRA member was requested to be extradited from the U.S. and the extradition was not granted. > One of the resons for not extriditing is a lack of evidence, The U.S. permits extradition for questioning. > or (essentially) if the offense is not considered an offense > by the country granting refuge... I seem to remember somebody > being not extridited because he was sentenced to be caned... The U.S. has permitted extradition by countries of people who were accused of criminal acts in their contries of origin, even though the acts were not crimes in the U.S.. The exception to this rule is the granting of political assylum. In point of fact, if you have committed a crime in another country, they will not have to ask the U.S. for extradition: the U.S. will deport you. > > > including this stuff that we don't have any hard evidence that > > > he actually did." > > > > This is idiotic. We have proof, which we have shared with our > > allies. We would be incredibly stupid to compromise both our > > intelligence assets, as well as disclosing our reconissance > > capabilities, to people who have shown themselves to be our > > enimies by killing our civilians. > > Who has proof? Have you seen it? I haven't. Until they make it > public, or even say that they have it, they are proceeding without > proof. They have said they had it. I'm sure they will be happy to show the proof to any allied government, but you are kidding yourself if you believe they will expose their intelligence assets to sympathizers. > > This would be the same government who dynamited some of the > > largest and oldest Buddist statues in the world a month or > > so ago, in an extreme demonstration of religious intolerance, > > and an attempt to rewrite the history of their country. This > > would be the same government which just assasinated their major > > opposition leader via the auspices of a terrorist suicide bomber, > > a short week before the attack on the U.S.. This would be the > > same government which has permitted Osama bin Laden to operate > > his international terrorist organization unchecked from within > > their borders, turning a blind eye to his activities, such as > > the bombing of civilian airliners in Scotland, U.S. embassies > > in Nigeria and other African countries, and the recent attempt > > to sink the U.S.S. Cole. Right? > > Proof of the suicide bomber being sent by the government? I'm > not aware of any. His dead body? > I haven't looked into this though. It would probably behoove you to do so, before so strongly arguing their case for them. > As for the "blind eye" I'll have to dig up a bit more information... Start with Pan Am in Lacherby Scotland, and the previous attempt on the World Trade Center. > but the government seems to believe that they have cut off all of > Bin Ladens communitaction with the outside world (I don't believe > this, but they do - or say they do) in the US, that is not done > even to prisoners on death row. This is incorrect. Until earlier this year, we tracked bin Laden using his cell phone. If he had a cell phone, he was not cut off. > I would be perfectly happy with generalizations and data that would > not compromise U.S. Intelligence assests. If the head of the CIA > comes out and says "A source in Bin Ladens camp has been told by > someone close to Bin Laden that Bin Laden did in fact organise the > attack" I don't think that would compromise anyone or anything. But > they don't say that. That's because you are wrong: knowing that there is an inside source would result in a purge, which would likely compromise the source; if it didn't, it would reduce the potential number of sources sufficiently to render any source which were there useless as a source of future information for an extended period of time, if not indefinitely. > What Rumsfeld says is: > > "... what we do know is that this is not a problem of al Qaeda and > Osama bin Laden. It is a problem of a number of networks of terrorists > that have been active across the globe, and it is something that > strikes at the very heart of what Americans are, which is free people. " In other words, they are not ruling out participation by others, and they are going to go after everyone who poses a similar threat. This is reasonable and prudent, in light of the events of the 11th. > What it boils down to is "Afghanistan is first" I've spend the last hour > looking for any press statement even saying that the government posses > proof that bin laden was responsible... I couldn't find a single one. Please see the press release by the French Government last Thursday, involving the Qaeda and a planned attempt on a U.S. Embassy, which resulted in a number of arrests. > Now I don't think "We posess proof that it was bin laden... no > further comment" would compromise any U.S. Intelligence assets, or > any others countries assets either. I agree that this would be nice. It's the first suggestion you've made that would not explicitly or implicitly compromise assets. > > They "publically expressed outrage"? Was this before or after > > they stated that a religious court should judge him, and we > > should accept the outcome, if the activist zealots of the same > > stripe as Osama bin Laden found in his favor? > > It was before. And after the US said they would not differentiate > between the terrorists themselves and the countries that harboured > them and after it was apparent that they were convinced that bin > laden was responsible. The statement about terrorist allied states was made far in advance of singling out bin Laden: it was made in Bush's address on the day of the attack. > > This is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. The U.S. > > is in no way acting as terrorists: terrorists bomb first, and > > claim credit afterwards -- assuming that they don't say to > > themselves "Oh shit... I've stepped in it this time...". > > In hostage situations, terrorists get the hostages into a position where they > can be killed from, then demand that their demands be met or they will kill > the hostages. They do NOT kill the hostages first, they make demands first > such as "hand the following 10 prisoners over to us" Thew U.S. is not threatening to kill hostages. It is threatening collaborators. It is not even yet an explicit military threat: it is a threat which might merely involve economic sanctions, such as those which have been imposed on Iraq following Iraq's attack on Kuwait, and the use of poison gas on its own Kurdish and other minority citizens, in violation of the Geneva Convention. > A quote from President Bush -- WASHINGTON, Sept. 21, 2001 > "Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of Al Qaeda > who hide in your land ... Close immediately and permanently every > terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, > and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities > ... These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion, The Taliban > must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or > they will share in their fate." > --- end quote Frankly, I have no problem with this. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. It really doesn't matter if they are the ones responsible for a particular terrorist act, or not: they are terrorists. I guess that the people who think this is unreasonable simply do not understand Western thought. Western thought has an idea called an "Aristotilian mean" -- a black or white, binary state of being, which permits such ideas as "if you are not with us, you are against us"... with no room for the concept of neutrality. > If Afghanistan refuses to capture bin laden and hand him over, that > is the (stupid analogy bit) equivelant of ordering a landlord to go > in and arrest a murderer on threat of death when there is a swat team > sitting outside with the house surrounded. I'm certain that the U.S. will be happy with permission to come in and get bin Laden, if the Afghani's can't locate him on their own. Such permission would deflect the threat you claim the U.S. is making: to go with your analogy, it's a "I'm not responsible for my tenant" argument. > I feel that these are unreasonable demands... the the Afghanistan > government does not have the resources to implement them. And they > are being threatened with their very lives if they do not. Well, it's going to happen anyway, regardless of what you or anyone else feels, so the best advice possible is to stay out of the way and cooperate as much as possible. The U.S. will not turn the other cheek over the attacks. > > > That is the bit that scares me. If the United States said "We are > > > going to hunt all terrorists down no matter where they hide - that's > > > why we have special forces and are justifiably pround of our ability > > > to effect pinpoint strikes with massive firepower." I would be about > > > 87% behind them. That's not what they're saying though. > > > > Pinpoint strikes are not effective at avoiding civilian > > casualties, when you are fighting against people who hide > > behind civilians. The best chance at avoiding collateral > > damage would be if they were willing to excise the cancer > > themselves, rather than forcing the U.S. to go hunting for it. > > I'm not saying there must be no civilian casualties. That is, always > has been, and probobly always will be flat out impossible in most > situations. I'm saying take the war to the terrorists who perpetrated > the crime, not the people who run the country in which they live. I'm going to suggest, then, that when they hide behind the people who run the country in which they live, that those people step three feet to the left to avoid becoming collateral damage. > It's the REASON to go to war with Afghanistan not the war itself > that I take exception to. Harboring terrorists? That's about the best reason the U.S. has had for any of its military actions since World War II. > If Afghanistan does NOT attack the US troops, they are then NOT > protecting bin laden and his troops. Cool. That would make them our allies. We have no problem with our allies. We had no problem with bin Laden, when he was a U.S. ally. Now, he;'s not. > With their army and their internal problems, I would be hesitant > to try to go in, capture bin laden, and hand him over to the United > States government. Hesitant for the U.S. to do this, or hesitant for their internal forces to attempt this? If the latter, I agree, though how your claim "the government seems to believe that they have cut off all of Bin Ladens communitaction with the outside world" allows them this belief without them also knowing his location leaves me rather curious. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BAD0ED0.BC9FF50E>