Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday May 15 2016, @01:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the let-the-conspiracy-theories-begin dept.

A member of the 9/11 commission has broken his silence about some of the unreleased findings:

A former Republican member of the 9/11 commission, breaking dramatically with the commission's leaders, said Wednesday he believes there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers and that the Obama administration should move quickly to declassify a long-secret congressional report on Saudi ties to the 2001 terrorist attack.

The comments by John F Lehman, an investment banker in New York who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration, signal the first serious public split among the 10 commissioners since they issued a 2004 final report that was largely read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia, which was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:37AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:37AM (#346266) Journal

    Right - and wrong.

    Afghanistan gave cassus belli when the ruling Taliban chose to protect bin Laden and freinds. We had legitimate reason to kick Afghanistan's ass. Of course, we screwed that pooch royally - we should have done a punitive campaign, and not even bothered to declare war on them.

    But, yes, it would have made sense to attack Saudi Arabia for the actions of their citizens. It made zero sense to attack Iraq over something which none of their citizens were involved in. As evil as Saddam Hussein was, he WAS a "stabilizing force" in the region. Today, there are no stable forces in that region, thus DAESH.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:11AM (#346276)

    > Afghanistan gave cassus belli when the ruling Taliban chose to protect bin Laden and freinds.

    That's a stretch.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:33AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:33AM (#346284) Journal

      > Afghanistan gave cassus belli when the ruling Taliban chose to protect bin Laden and freinds.

      That's a stretch.

      Despite the fact that no war was ever declared, since war is illegal under the UN Charter? It was just a prelude to a 16 year occupation.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:39AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:39AM (#346286) Journal

      No stretch at all. Apparently, you have little understanding of warfare, or the history of war.

      Definition of casus belli
      plural casus belli \ˈkä-ˌsüs-, ˈkā-ˌsüs-\
      : an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict

      It only took two gunshots, or one murder, to start World War One - http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/duke.htm [eyewitnesstohistory.com]

      Yes, the Taliban most certainly supplied the US with a casus belli. We had every justification necessary to invade their nation, to bomb them into the stone age, to shoot down any resistance, and to take any prisoners we deemed necessary.

      And, I'll repeat, we never should have declared war. We go in, we punish the government, we hunt down Osam bin Laden and company, destroy some infrastructure, then get the hell out - leaving the Taliban to rebuild all the shit we destroyed. Or, leaving the Taliban to be overthrown by the people who are pissed off at them for provoking the US into invading.

      • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday May 16 2016, @01:11AM

        by butthurt (6141) on Monday May 16 2016, @01:11AM (#346621) Journal

        From a November 2001 news story:

        The leader of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia agreed to extradite Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in 1998 but reneged following U.S. strikes on Afghanistan that year, a former head of Saudi intelligence said Saturday.

        -- http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/11/03/extradite.htm [usatoday.com]

        The United States blamed Mr. bin Laden for bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In response it attacked (the story goes on to say) "a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan thought to be linked to the Saudi exile." I don't know why it used its military rather than filing charges against Mr. bin Laden and attempting to extradite him, as the Saudis reportedly wanted to do.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 16 2016, @01:35AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 16 2016, @01:35AM (#346626) Journal

          I just woke up a bit ago, but I'm having trouble with that article, beginning with the first sentence.

          "CAIRO, Egypt (AP) — The leader of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia agreed to extradite Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia in 1998 but reneged following U.S. strikes on Afghanistan that year, a former head of Saudi intelligence said"

          1998? Huh? That was 3 years BEFORE 9/11/01, am I not right? Math can be difficult sometimes, but I thought I had that much mastered. More coffee . . . .

          Alright, the coffee has been effective. Yes, in response to the bombings of our embassies, the US attacked bin Laden where they thought they could hurt him.

          There is no indication that the US knew what Faisal knew, at that point in time. Nor is there anything to indicate that Faisal isn't just looking for a little self-aggrandizement in tht interview. Nothing in the article suggests that the individual who "agreed" to extradite bin Laden would or could have carried through on the half-promise. Mohammed Omar wasn't exactly a supreme dictator in Afghanistan - his word carried weight, but so did that of many other mullahs, muftis, and whatever else.

          Bottom line - there was no formal agreement, or even official discussions, where Afghan officials were promising to turn bin Laden over to the US. What you have unearthed is merely some informal talk between a member of the House of Saud, and the mullah. The conclusion you have drawn may or may not be correct. Without the attack on Afghan soil, then perhaps those informal talks may have advanced into more formal negotiations - but you can't know that.

          If Faisal was having these informal discussions, did he inform the US of them? Was the US aware that the mullah was willing to agree to an extradition? How does extradition even work in a Muslim country? There's a court, I imagine, composed of - judges? Mullahs and imams? An impartial jury?

          I think you've dug up some good information, but jumped a little to far to arrive at your conclusion.

          • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday May 16 2016, @04:51AM

            by butthurt (6141) on Monday May 16 2016, @04:51AM (#346703) Journal

            Thank you for the response. Except for part of my last sentence, I was just quoting and paraphrasing material from the news story. The Guardian [theguardian.com] makes a similar inference to that in the AP story in USA Today (that missile attacks by the United States harmed the chances for prosecuting bin Laden), and remarks:

            The claim, by Prince Turki al-Faisal, is likely to raise questions about whether more efforts could have been made to negotiate Bin Laden's extradition before launching the latest bombing campaign.

            When I said that the United States did not file criminal charges against Mr. bin Laden nor attempt to extradite him, that was my own unsupported statement. Please correct me, if I'm mistaken.

            My post was in response to your statement that "Afghanistan gave cassus belli when the ruling Taliban chose to protect bin Laden and [friends]." Mr. bin Laden was said to have been operating training camps for terrorists inside Afghanistan, allegedly in connection with attacks such as the one on the USS Cole. What I assumed you meant by your statement was that Afghanistan's government refused to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice for doing so, whether in their own courts or in another country's. Did I misconstrue what you wrote? If not, do you have any information about the evidence of Mr. bin Laden's guilt, or generally the effort to prosecute him? It may just be my ignorance, but 'm not aware that such a thing happened.

            You wrote:

            Bottom line - there was no formal agreement, or even official discussions, where Afghan officials were promising to turn bin Laden over to the US.

            I have the same impression. It looks to me as though the United States may not have asked Afghanistan to turn bin Laden over for prosecution. If Prince Turki al-Faisal--who, according to the AP article, had at one time been a friend of Osama bin Laden--gave a true account, it indicates that someone within the government of Afghanistan had at one time been willing to discuss bin Laden's extradition. Of course, turning him over to Saudi Arabia on charges of "anti-government agitation and opposition to the presence of U.S. troops" and turning him over to the United States for, presumably more serious, charges related to bombings are different propositions.

            Besides the articles about the prince's claim, I found a BBC News article dated 12 September 2001 which quotes the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan:

            "If any evidence is presented to us, we will study it," he told reporters.

            "About his handover, we can talk about that in the second phase," Mr Zaeef said.

            It goes on to say:

            [...] the ruling militia has consistently maintained that allowing Mr Bin Laden to remain in the country was a matter of honour.

            A reversal could mean that Afghanistan's leaders are trying to rescue themselves from an all out, massive attack by American forces.

            Mr Bin Laden has denied involvement in the attacks on the United States, but says he fully supports such "daring acts".

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 16 2016, @05:46AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 16 2016, @05:46AM (#346722) Journal

              To be honest - I've never dug into the US efforts to have bin Laden extradited, either before or after 9/11/01.

              Alright, I'll be even more honest here. I vaguely recall statements by the Bush administration that the Taliban refused to turn bin Laden over to us. I never bothered to dig into the exchanges between our countries. I can't say whether the US made feeble attempts, ordinary attempts, or extraordinary attempts to have bin Laden turned over to us. I just accepted the word of the administration and the media that the Taliban refused to extradite bin Laden.

              It is possible that the same Bush who went on an adventuristic war in Iraq was intent on invading Iraq, and that he DID NOT make an honest effort to have bin Laden extradited.

              That might be an interesting thing to research - but, right now, at this point in time, I'm not ready to take up that course of research.

              If you feel up to it, can I ask you to share? Unless and until one of us makes the effort, we can remain blissfully ignorant . . .

              And, I'm doing just a wee bit of soul searching, as well. In 2002, when the nation was preparing to invade Iraq, I made it a priority to learn more about Iraq, and the likely results of an invasion. I was very vocal about my opposition to invading. So - WTF didn't I bother with Afghanistan? I just accepted the fact that the Taliban had thumbed their noses at us, and that we should go in and kick their asses.

              Maybe it's because I have been to Iraq, but I've never been to Afghanistan? Maybe that influenced my attitudes toward the two different countries. Maybe, maybe, maybe, but I'm thinking . . . .

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:33AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:33AM (#346285)

    Afghanistan gave cassus belli when the ruling Taliban chose to protect bin Laden and freinds.

    Osama bin Laden dead since 2001 [youtube.com].

    A former head of a state definitely knows more than you.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:45AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:45AM (#346289) Journal

      Yes, because no head of state has ever been fooled by propaganda. The lady says "I could be wrong" - she obviously does NOT subscribe to your theory of "the infallibility of heads of state".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:04AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:04AM (#346293)

        What makes you so sure that she has been fooled? (Note that she has inside knowledge, which you don't have.)

        Normal people, who know a thing or two are usually unsure. Propagandists are always sure, 100%.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:15AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:15AM (#346297) Journal

          I can't say with certainly when bin Laden died - but I'm pretty damned sure that he was still alive after he escaped Tora Bora in December of 2001. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tora_Bora [wikipedia.org] If he had been killed during that confrontation, the US and allies would have crowed about it, endlessly.

          Sorry, but anyone who claims that he died in 2001 is sadly mistaken.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:24AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:24AM (#346301)

            the US and allies would have crowed about it, endlessly.

            Crowed about cold blooded murder in an illegal war, yes? The ends do not justify the means.

            There is a little known fact that Iraq war, its invasion and destruction started in March 2003. And that war would not have been possible if the illegal Afghan war and invasion had concluded in 2001.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:31AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:31AM (#346307) Journal

              Gunning down an armed man isn't "cold blooded murder". And, your description of Afghanistan as an illegal war may sound good at an activist rally, but it doesn't make the grade in either scholarly circles, or a court of law. Once again, the Taliban gave the US a just reason to invade.

              It appears that we can agree that there was no just reason for invading Iraq.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:34AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:34AM (#346310) Journal

          This page appears to be a pretty comprehensive list of statements and/or videos released by Osama bin Laden. A couple of the latest videos were controversial, in that, some claimed they were released by imposters. But, even accounting for that possibility, bin Laden appeared in videos as late as 2005 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4628932.stm [bbc.co.uk]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @11:17AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @11:17AM (#346379)

            That BBC site is not opening in https.

            Videos can and have been faked and you know that, being a science person and all that.

            Your american government lies all the time, so cannot be believed even if they spoke the truth some day. But most choose to believe them anyway.

            "controversial, " you bet your black ass they were controversial wearing a gold ring, writing with right hand.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday May 15 2016, @11:40AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 15 2016, @11:40AM (#346385) Journal

              So - you suspect that those videos released by Al Jazeera and other mid- and far-eastern news sources were all released in collusion with the CIA. Sounds reasonable - NOT!