David Ray Griffin: Left-Leaning Despisers of 9/11 Truth

[Shoestring]

Check out David Ray Griffin on top form in his new article, which is an "Open Letter to Terry Allen, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Chris Hayes, George Monbiot, Matthew Rothschild, and Matt Taibbi."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20039
Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?

by David Ray Griffin

Global Research, July 6, 2010

An Open Letter to Terry Allen, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Chris Hayes, George Monbiot, Matthew Rothschild, and Matt Taibbi.1

According to several left-leaning critics of the 9/11 Truth Movement, some of its central claims, especially about the destruction of the World Trade Center, show its members to be scientifically challenged. In the opinion of some of these critics, moreover, claims made by members of this movement are sometimes unscientific in the strongest possible sense, implying an acceptance of magic and miracles.

After documenting this charge in Part I of this essay, I show in Part II that the exact opposite is the case: that the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center implies miracles (I give nine examples), and that the 9/11 Truth Movement, in developing an alternative hypothesis, has done so in line with the assumption that the laws of nature did not take a holiday on 9/11. In Part III, I ask these left-leaning critics some questions evoked by the fact that it is they, not members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, who have endorsed a conspiracy theory replete with miracle stories as well as other absurdities.

Contd. ...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20039

[Mark Gobell]

Awesome essay.

I've read DRG's previous essay Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan? and it is simply superb.

This latest, open letter to the likes of Terry Allen, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Chris Hayes, George Monbiot, Matthew Rothschild, and Matt Taibbi will surely kick up some dust.

About time.

Let's see how the scions of the alleged progressive left react to having to face their ridiculous position and irrational belief in the official conspiracy theory of 9/11

Should be a squirmy blast.

DRG you are a saint.

[Shoestring]

Anyone who has not already read it should check out Barrie Zwicker's chapter "The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left" (available online here) from his book Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11. Zwicker's book, like Griffin's work, is essential reading for members of the 9/11 truth movement.

[Mark Gobell]

For those who encounter arguments that the NATO bombing of Afghanistan was legal, ample evidence that the UN did not authorise military action is provided in the two essays from Prof. Griffin, posted above.

In short, the UN did not sanction military action against Afghanistan in October 2001. No ifs no buts. It just didn't.

However, another justification is frequently cited, most recently by President Obama during his speech at West Point in December 2009.

That being, NATO's invocation of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

The Washington NATO Treaty, Article 5 states:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

If invoked, Article 5 invokes Article 51 - the right to self defence:

United Nations Charter, Article 51 states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

In this article, September 11, 2001: America and NATO Declare War on Afghanistan, NATO's Doctrine of Collective Security, Michel Chossudovsky illustrates the steps that were taken by NATO, to inform the United Nations Security Council of their decision to take military action, as required by the UN Charter and also counters the argument that 9/11 was an armed attack by a nation state.

On September 12, 2001, NATO's North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, adopted the following resolution:

"if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001] attack against the United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan] against "The North Atlantic area", it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty".

The phrase if it is determined... is crucial of course.

We all know that no sooner had the attacks occurred on the morning of September 11th, the usual suspects were already screaming that Al Qaida were responsible.

The US provided substantiation of the "if" clause of the NATO resolution by using, what Michel Chossudovsky calls, The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report.

Frank Taylor, US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism, briefed the North Atlantic Council on October 2nd, five days before the commencement of the bombings, "on the results of investigations into the 11 September attacks.... "

The classified report was not released to the media. And to this date, to our knowledge, it has remained classified.

So, we have a rather tricky paradox.

Whilst we know that the Taliban twice responded to US demands to hand over Bin Laden, on the condition that the US provide prima facie evidence of his involvement in 9/11 and that both offers were ignored or refused, the US was in fact, able to present a classified dossier to the North Atlantic Council, which enabled it's Secretary General and former member for Hamilton South, George Robertson to proclaim:

"The facts are clear and compelling. The information presented points conclusively to an al-Qaida role in the September 11 attacks.

We know that the individuals who carried out these attacks were part of the world-wide terrorist network of al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and his key lieutenants and protected by the Taliban.

On the basis of this briefing, it has now been determined that the attack against the United States on September 11 was directed from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

I want to reiterate that the United States of America can rely on the full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against terrorism."

This might lead to a reasonable argument that the evidence within that same dossier could have been used as the basis to persuade the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden, thereby avoiding the carnage and bloodshed of the last nine years.

The fact that the US and NATO chose not to respond to the two Taliban offers and chose bombing instead of a peaceful resolution as mandated by the United Nations, is therefore clear and irrefutable, hoisted, as they are, by their own petard - another dodgy dossier.

Will the world outside of secret intelligence, ever get to see the "clear and compelling" evidence that NATO used to justify the bombing of Afghanistan in October 2001 ?

[Mark Gobell]

Another important essay from Prof. David Ray Griffin, Jan 2010.

Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners

This essay is complicated, as it accounts for the changing understanding of this issue over time.

DRG's previous positions on the alleged, incriminating phone calls from the alleged hijacked aircraft on 9/11, are clarified.

This essay is a crucial piece of 9/11 research.

Extract:

Conclusion

Although this essay has focused on details, often minute, in merely one aspect of the official account of 9/11, the implications are enormous.

Without the widespread assumption that the 9/11 attacks had been planned and carried out by al-Qaeda, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would not have been possible. With regard to the war in Afghanistan in particular, Michel Chossudovsky has recently emphasized the fact that NATO’s decision to support this US-led war was based on a briefing by Frank Taylor of the US State Department, in which he provided what was called conclusive evidence of al-Qaeda’s responsibility for the attacks.

Although the contents of Taylor’s briefing have never been made public, the main evidence provided to the general public has consisted of the hijack-describing phone calls reportedly received from passengers and flight attendants aboard the airliners.

But when subjected to a detailed analysis, these alleged phone calls, far from supporting the war-justifying story, lead to a very different conclusion: that these alleged calls were faked. This analysis thereby suggests that the entire 9/11 story used to justify the US-led wars is a lie.

If asked which part of the official story can be most definitively shown to be false, I would speak not of the alleged phone calls but of the destruction of the World Trade Center, the official account of which says that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down without the aid of pre-set explosives. Given the fact that this theory involves massive violations of basic laws of physics, the evidence against it is so strong as to be properly called proof – as I have recently emphasized in a book-length critique of the official report on WTC 7 in particular.

Nevertheless, the importance of the evidence against the official account provided by analyzing the alleged phone calls should not be minimized. If the official story is false, then we should expect every major dimension of it to be false – which, as I have emphasized in another recent book, can be seen to be the case.

It is this cumulative argument that provides the strongest disproof of the official, war-justifying account of 9/11. The evidence that the alleged phone calls from the airliners were faked is an important part of this cumulative argument.

[xmasdale]

[Mark Gobell]

Nice one Noel. Good ideas.

I've politely forwarded it to Mark Curtis & George Monbiot, just for their information, in case they were not yet aware of the open letter.

Hopefully, GM et al must respond at some point.

[Mark Gobell]

For reference:

In DRG's excellent essays:

Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?

and

Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?

he mentions a report produced by the R J Lee Group on behalf of their client The Deutsch Bank, which was commissioned to examine whether the dust in the Deutsch Bank building was from the WTC event or was normal building / office dust.

Incredibly and very fortunately for those of us who are interested in independent evidence which can support the claim of NIST's scientific fraud, Deutsch Bank had to prove to their insurers that the dust was WTC dust, before their claim for clean up costs would be met !

From DRG's "Left Leaning Despisers" essay:

[Mark Gobell]

Why Progressives Should Press for Building-7 Exposure

Written by Dwain Deets
Tuesday, 27 July 2010 17:35

OpEdNews, July 24, 2010,


Progressives should press for exposure of the problems related to the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. (An abbreviated set of seven of these problems are available at the 7problemswithbuilding7.info website, and over 1,200 architects and engineers are calling for a new investigation.) Thus far, these problems have been mostly hidden from the public. Exposure could provide a rallying point for efforts to bring accountability and justice in America. It can bring clarity to the press for transparency in government, and it can expose corporate Machiavellian manipulations that have clearly gone on relative to Building 7's collapse.

Transparency in government is badly needed, both within the Administration and in Congress. The happenings related to Building 7 make this abundantly clear.

Within the Administration, a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have been submitted seeking records on the Building 7 collapse-analysis data. The final report on World Trade Center 7 was issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in November 2008; however, going on two years later, most requests have been denied. Most troubling is the reason given for denial. The Director of NIST has determined that release of the information "might jeopardize public safety." This reasoning is outrageous. If anything, not releasing the information might jeopardize public safety.

Congress is guilty of inhibiting transparency in government, for not insisting on accountability, by not holding any hearings on this subject. Apparently, to members of Congress, the collapse of Building 7 is a taboo subject. Yes, some members of Congress will listen to some of the troubling evidence involving the collapse, but the reasons given for not pursuing the matter are usually vague, such as there isn't a consensus this matter should be pursued.

Exposure of corporate Machiavellian manipulations relative to Building 7 is the other major reason this matter should be pursued. Major corporations in mainstream media, in major investment areas generally associated with Wall Street, and in the military/industrial complex should be parties of interest in this matter.

Mainstream media's collusion, for example, can be seen in the way the TV networks quickly let the collapse of Building 7 drop out of the news in the hours and days following the event. The visual image of the building descending at, what now has officially been acknowledged as a free-fall drop, should be a commonly-recognized image, but the obvious manipulations by the media has hidden that image from public view.

The failed financial giants Enron and Worldcom, mired in investigations of corporate fraud by the SEC prior to the Building 7 collapse, should have been brought to Justice by now. However, their records were "conveniently" housed in the SEC offices in Building 7. All these records were, apparently, lost. Why were these critical records not backed up at some other physical location? Isn't that standard procedure in both government and the industry?

And finally, is there not anyone interested in bringing accountability and justice to players within the Military/Industrial Complex? Profits abound from the War on Terror, all justified by the events of September 11, 2001. Many who have studied the available evidence feel the collapse of Building 7 is the Achilles heel in that day's events. Doesn't that at least warrant a new investigation of the Building 7 collapse? The ramifications would be so massive if it was found that the prior investigation was a fraud. It could bring into question the whole basis of the War on Terror, itself.

Aren't these reasons enough for progressives to set aside inhibitions they may have about looking into these matters? Isn't it important to have institutions we can have confidence in -- transparency in government that works as intended -- and corporate entities that don't trample the Main Street public?

[Mark Gobell]

[Mark Gobell]

The FCO responded, saying that they do not hold the information I requested.

That's the UK's delegation to NATO - not holding the details of the justification for bombing the Taliban.

The FCO suggested that I contact the MOD. Which I did.

Today I received a reply from the MOD stating that they do not hold the information I requested.

That's our Minsitry of Defence, not holding the details of the justification for bombing the Taliban.

The MOD suggest that I contact NATO.

I have contacted NATO, several times and not even had an acknowledgement, let alone a reply.

Today, I have chased up the US State Department, as my FOI to them was acknowledged in August 2010, and also sent yet another enquiry into NATO.

Tough this transparent democracy lark. Innit.

[scienceplease 2]

[Mark Gobell]

Francis X. Taylor

Francis Xavier Taylor was the United States Coordinator for Counterterrorism from 2001 to 2002 and Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security from 2002 to 2005.

US Air Force biography, Brigadier General Francis X Taylor.

He ended up as a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board sitting alongside former Solicitor General, Ted Olson.

[Mark Gobell]

Important info here - with thanks to ATTE at J7

Briefings & Documents Menu / Anti-war Briefings Menu / Briefing 06

8 October 2001

Incontrovertible?
The "Evidence" Against Bin Laden

War has started against Afghanistan - against terrorist camps, and against the Taliban regime. The British and US Governments proceeded after convincing key allies that (1) they possessed 'incontrovertible' proof that Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 11 September atrocities (no such proof exists, as we shall see), and (2) persuading them also that there was no nonviolent method of securing him for trial for these crimes.

Despite Government/media propaganda that the Taliban 'refused to hand over bin Laden', the truth is that the Taliban have refused to 'hand over Osama bin Laden without evidence' (Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Times, 22 Sept., p. 1, emphasis added).

According to a report in the Telegraph, the Taliban actually agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan on 1 Oct.: '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.' The deal was vetoed by President Musharraf of Pakistan. (Telegraph, 4 Oct., p. 9, see ARROW anti-war briefing 5 for more details.)

This agreement makes it clear that earlier offers by the Taliban were genuine: extradition might really have been possible if credible evidence against bin Laden had been provided earlier to the Taliban regime. But President Bush 'peremptorily dismissed a request from the Taliban for proof that Mr bin Laden was behind the outrages on 11 September.' (Independent, 22 Sept., p. 1) This was the consistent US/UK position.

The Dossier

The British and US Governments have provided an openly published dossier of 'evidence' from the British Government; a confidential briefing to NATO ambassadors (which won their support); and a confidential briefing of President Musharraf of Pakistan (which appeared to win his support).

First, the famous 70 point dossier published by Tony Blair - savaged by the British broadsheet press. Bronwen Maddox, Foreign Editor of the Times, describes it as 'a puzzling and worrying piece of work' with 'so many puzzling omissions that the document begins to undermine itself.' She feels it was 'more significant for what it leaves out than for what it leaves in', with 'few clues even to the form of evidence for September 11: almost nothing on money or phone records'. It 'seems lame - to the point of advertising a deficiency - to say that a signature of an al-Qaeda attack is the absence of a warning'. (Al-Qaeda being bin Laden's 'network'.)

'There is nothing hard enough in it to convince sceptics in either London or Washington, let alone Kabul.' It is 'a political dance, not a serious attempt to preach to the unconverted', a 'paper shield' for President Musharraf of Pakistan, and the rulers of Saudi Arabia. (Times, 5 Oct., p. 8 )

The dossier is described by the Independent on Sunday as 'conjecture, supposition and assertions of fact', a work that 'uses every trick in the Whitehall drafter's arsenal to make the reader believe they are reading something they are not: a damning indictment of Mr bin Laden for the events of 11 September.' (7 Oct., p. 7). The dossier is 'almost worthless from a legal point of view'. (Guardian editorial, 5 Oct., p. 23) The document 'took us no further than the information already in the public domain.' (Independent, 5 Oct., Review p. 3) The Telegraph suggests there is 'powerful evidence' against bin Laden - but not in the dossier. Still-secret intelligence evidence convinces those who have seen it: 'We are happy to take it on trust'. (5 Oct., p. 29) The Telegraph does not refer to the dossier at all, a telling sign of its weakness.

Nine Points

Most of the material in the dossier does not deal with 11 September. 'Only nine of the 70 points in the document relate to the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon'. (Robert Fisk, Independent, 5 Oct., p. 5) For Bronwen Maddox, it is 'striking', given the dossier's purpose, 'that apparently the most solid evidence refers to the 1998 attacks [on US Embassies]. There is comparatively little on September 11.' (Times, 5 Oct., p. 8 )

One claim is that Osama bin Laden warned his closest associates to return to Afghanistan by 10 Sept. (para 62) The Guardian pointed out that 'Dozens of men suspected of having links to bin Laden's al-Qaida network have been detained in Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands' and US reports say 'that four or five al-Qaida cells remain in the US and have either been detained or are under surveillance'. There have been 'no confirmed cases so far of known al-Qaida members being ordered back to Afghanistan on the eve of the attack.' (5 Oct., p. 5) The Independent on Sunday concluded that 'if there was advice to go to Afghanistan, presumably [these agents] ignored it or did not receive it.' (7 Oct., p. 7, emph. added) The evidence indicates no such recall was issued.

Associates And Rival Groups

The dossier alleges that three of the hijackers were 'associates of al-Qaeda'. (para 61) Senior British lawyer Anthony Scrivener QC is troubled by the word "associate": it 'gives the impression that they are not members of that organisation and I would certainly wish to examine the evidence to see what associates really means.' (Times, 5 Oct., p. 7) The Independent on Sunday comments that the word "associate" 'suggests the authorities lack intelligence on al-Qa'ida: they think they know who may be involved but they are not sure, and they are not certain where they come in the pecking order - hence the catch-all "associate".' (7 Oct., p. 7)

Anthony Scrivener QC also seized on another crucial weakness of the dossier: the claim that 'No other organisation has both the motivation and the capability to carry out attacks like those of September 11'. (para 69) For Scrivener, 'the main problem' with the dossier is the fact that 'there are other terrorist groups who share the same hatred of the Americans who might have carried out this atrocity. (Times, 5 Oct., p. 7)

The Times pointed out that the dossier did not mention the 1994 attempt by the 'Armed Islamic Group' of Algeria 'to crash a hijacked plane into the Eiffel Tower': 'Intelligence experts are sceptical' about the claim that no other group has the motivation and capability to carry out such attacks. (Times, 5 Oct., p. 4)

Legal Opinions

Richard Gordon QC said that bin Laden's alleged prior record (as set out in the dossier) 'shows, in the language of the lawyers, propensity, but it proves little.' (Independent on Sunday, 7 Oct., p. 7)

Nick Blake QC, of human rights lawyers Matrix Chambers, said the evidence in the dossier could feasibly support charges of incitement to murder; there were 'debatable' grounds for a a charge of conspiracy to murder; but it would need 'more concrete evidence to obtain an indictment for murder against bin Laden': 'Nothing in the disclosed material shows actual participation in the murders as opposed to giving approval to terrorist attacks.' (Telegraph, 5 Oct., p. 6)

Anthony Scrivener QC said, 'it is a sobering thought that better evidence is required to prosecute a shoplifter than is needed to commence a world war'. (Times, 5 Oct., p. 7)

NATO

NATO ambassadors were subjected to a 40 minute oral presentation by US State Department counter-terrorism envoy Frank Taylor, which led Lord Robertson to declare the evidence against bin Laden 'incontrovertible.' However, the secretary-general of the alliance was contradicted by NATO diplomats who said (anonymously) 'that the US presentations could not show, beyond doubt, real factual hard evidence, apart from the names of several of the hijackers, details of where they had studied, and their backgrounds.' (FT, 5 Oct., p. 6) Not much incontrovertible secret intelligence material there.

Pakistan

For the Times, 'Nothing could more powerfully validate the proof' that Osama bin Laden is guilty 'than the acceptance by Pakistan that there were sufficient grounds for indictment in a court of law'. '[N]o country has greater reason for wanting to claim that the evidence is still ambiguous.' (5 Oct., p. 23) Unfortunately for the Times, this is precisely the Pakistani position: President Musharraf has said, 'I personally and my government feel that there is evidence which is leading to an association between the terror acts and Osama bin Laden.' (FT, 6 Oct., p. 7) Merely 'leading to an association'!

Earlier a Pakistani Foreign Ministry official had indeed said that there were grounds for an indictment, but Mohammed Riaz Khan pointed out that information provided to Pakistan 'related to both pre-September 11 incidents and also to the September 11 events'. 'Mr Khan side-stepped reporters' questions as to whether the evidence pertaining to the September 11 attacks provided clear grounds for a court indictment on their own.' (FT, 5 Oct., p. 6)

Unconvinced

The secret intelligence shown to the Pakistanis did not convince them. 'There is no evidence presented [in the dossier] that directly links bin Laden to September 11.' (Bronwen Maddox, Times, 5 Oct., p. 8 ) Given the distortions and omissions in the Government's dossier, there are no grounds for believing 'incontrovertible evidence' exists to support the Government's bold assertions. The British Government has launched a war which may cost tens of thousands of lives through famine with less "evidence" on display than is needed to prosecute a shoplifter.

Justice not Vengeance

[Mark Gobell]

Yet another, legally worthless narrative from Bliar & Co.

Thursday, 4 October, 2001, 12:25 GMT 13:25 UK

BBC - The UK's Bin Laden dossier in full

This is the full text of the document, entitled Responsibility for the terrorist atrocities in the United States, released by Downing Street on Thursday about the evidence against Osama Bin Laden.

This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.

Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources.

But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document.

Introduction

# 1. The clear conclusions reached by the government are: Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the terrorist network which he heads, planned and carried out the atrocities on 11 September 2001;
# Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda retain the will and resources to carry out further atrocities;
# The United Kingdom, and United Kingdom nationals are potential targets; and
# Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were able to commit these atrocities because of their close alliance with the Taleban regime, which allowed them to operate with impunity in pursuing their terrorist activity.

2. The material in respect of 1998 and the USS Cole comes from indictments and intelligence sources. The material in respect of 11 September comes from intelligence and the criminal investigation to date. The details of some aspects cannot be given, but the facts are clear from the intelligence.

3. The document does not contain the totality of the material known to HMG, given the continuing and absolute need to protect intelligence sources.

Summary

4. The relevant facts show: Background
# Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation with ties to a global network, which has been in existence for over 10 years. It was founded, and has been led at all times, by Osama Bin Laden.
# Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been engaged in a jihad against the United States, and its allies. One of their stated aims is the murder of US citizens, and attacks on America's allies.
# Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been based in Afghanistan since 1996, but have a network of operations throughout the world.

The network includes training camps, warehouses, communication facilities and commercial operations able to raise significant sums of money to support its activity.

That activity includes substantial exploitation of the illegal drugs trade from Afghanistan.

# Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda and the Taleban regime have a close and mutually dependent alliance.

Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda provide the Taleban regime with material, financial and military support.

They jointly exploit the drugs trade. The Taleban regime allows Bin Laden to operate his terrorist training camps and activities from Afghanistan, protects him from attacks from outside, and protects the drugs stockpiles.

Osama Bin Laden could not operate his terrorist activities without the alliance and support of the Taleban regime.

The Taleban's strength would be seriously weakened without Osama Bin Laden's military and financial support.

# Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda have the capability to execute major terrorist attacks.
# Osama Bin Laden has claimed credit for the attack on US soldiers in Somalia in October 1993, which killed 18; for the attack on the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 which killed 224 and injured nearly 5000; and were linked to the attack on the USS Cole on 12 October 2000, in which 17 crew members were killed and 40 others injured.

# They have sought to acquire nuclear and chemical materials for use as terrorist weapons.

In relation to the terrorist attacks on 11 September:

5. After 11 September we learned that, not long before, Bin Laden had indicated he was about to launch a major attack on America.

The detailed planning for the terrorist attacks of 11 September was carried out by one of Osama Bin Laden's close associates.

Of the 19 hijackers involved in 11 September 2001, it has already been established that at least three had links with al-Qaeda.

The attacks on 11 September 2001 were similar in both their ambition and intended impact to previous attacks undertaken by Osama Bin laden and al-Qaeda, and also had features in common. In particular:

# Suicide attackers

(a) Co-ordinated attacks on the same day

(cool.gif The aim to cause maximum American casualties

© Total disregard for other casualties, including Muslims

# Meticulous long-term planning (a) Absence of warning.

6. Al-Qaeda retains the capability and the will to make further attacks on the US and its allies, including the United Kingdom.

7. Al-Qaeda gives no warning of terrorist attack.

The facts

Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda

8. In 1989 Osama Bin Laden, and others, founded an international terrorist group known as "al-Qaeda" (the Base). At all times he has been the leader of al-Qaeda.

9. From 1989 until 1991 Osama Bin Laden was based in Afghanistan and Peshawar, Pakistan.

In 1991 he moved to Sudan, where he stayed until 1996. In that year he returned to Afghanistan, where he remains.

The Taleban Regime

10. The Taleban emerged from the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan in the early 1990s.

By 1996 they had captured Kabul. They are still engaged in a bloody civil war to control the whole of Afghanistan. They are led by Mullah Omar.

11. In 1996 Osama Bin Laden moved back to Afghanistan. He established a close relationship with Mullah Omar, and threw his support behind the Taleban.

Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban regime have a close alliance on which both depend for their continued existence.

They also share the same religious values and vision.

12. Osama Bin Laden has provided the Taleban regime with troops, arms, and money to fight the Northern Alliance.

He is closely involved with Taleban military training, planning and operations. He has representatives in the Taleban military command structure.

He has also given infrastructure assistance and humanitarian aid. Forces under the control of Osama Bin Laden have fought alongside the Taleban in the civil war in Afghanistan.

13. Omar has provided Bin Laden with a safe haven in which to operate, and has allowed him to establish terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

They jointly exploit the Afghan drugs trade. In return for active al-Qaeda support, the Taleban allow al-Qaeda to operate freely, including planning, training and preparing for terrorist activity.

In addition the Taleban provide security for the stockpiles of drugs.

14. Since 1996, when the Taleban captured Kabul, the United States government has consistently raised with them a whole range of issues, including humanitarian aid and terrorism.

Well before 11 September 2001 they had provided evidence to the Taleban of the responsibility of al-Qaeda for the terrorist attacks in East Africa.

This evidence had been provided to senior leaders of the Taleban at their request.

15. The United States government had made it clear to the Taleban regime that al-Qaeda had murdered US citizens, and planned to murder more.

The US offered to work with the Taleban to expel the terrorists from Afghanistan.

These talks, which have been continuing since 1996, have failed to produce any results.

16. In June 2001, in the face of mounting evidence of the al-Qaeda threat, the United States warned the Taleban that it had the right to defend itself and that it would hold the regime responsible for attacks against US citizens by terrorists sheltered in Afghanistan.

17. In this, the United States had the support of the United Nations.

The Security Council, in Resolution 1267, condemned Osama Bin Laden for sponsoring international terrorism and operating a network of terrorist camps, and demanded that the Taleban surrender Osama Bin Laden without further delay so that he could be brought to justice.

18. Despite the evidence provided by the US of the responsibility of Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda for the 1998 East Africa bombings, despite the accurately perceived threats of further atrocities, and despite the demands of the United Nations, the Taleban regime responded by saying no evidence existed against Osama Bin Laden, and that neither he nor his network would be expelled.

19. A former Government official in Afghanistan has described the Taleban and Osama Bin Laden as "two sides of the same coin: Osama cannot exist in Afghanistan without the Taleban and the Taleban cannot exist without Osama".

Al-Qaeda

20. Al-Qaeda is dedicated to opposing 'UN-Islamic' governments in Muslim countries with force and violence.

21. Al-Qaeda virulently opposes the United States. Osama Bin Laden has urged and incited his followers to kill American citizens, in the most unequivocal terms.

22. On 12 October 1996 he issued a declaration of jihad as follows: "The people of Islam have suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed by the Zionist-Crusader alliance and their collaborators...

"It is the duty now on every tribe in the Arabian peninsula to fight jihad and cleanse the land from these Crusader occupiers. Their wealth is booty to those who kill them.

"My Muslim brothers: your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places [i.e. Saudi Arabia] are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy - the Americans and the Israelis.

"They are asking you to do whatever you can to expel the enemies out of the sanctities of Islam."

Later in the same year he said that "terrorising the American occupiers [of Islamic Holy Places] is a religious and logical obligation".

In February 1998 he issued and signed a 'fatwa' which included a decree to all Muslims: "...the killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty for each and every Muslim to be carried out in whichever country they are until Al Aqsa mosque has been liberated from their grasp and until their armies have left Muslim lands".

In the same 'fatwa' he called on Muslim scholars and their leaders and their youths to "launch an attack on the American soldiers of Satan".

And he concluded: "We - with God's help - call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill Americans and plunder their money whenever and wherever they find it.

"We also call on Muslim...to launch the raid on Satan's US troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them."

When asked, in 1998, about obtaining chemical or nuclear weapons he said "acquiring such weapons for the defence of Muslims [was] a religious duty".

In an interview aired on Al Jazira (Doha, Qatar) television he stated: "Our enemy is every American male, whether he is directly fighting us or paying taxes."

In two interviews broadcast on US television in 1997 and 1998 he referred to the terrorists who carried out the earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 as "role models".

He went on to exhort his followers "to take the fighting to America."

23. From the early 1990s Osama Bin Laden has sought to obtain nuclear and chemical materials for use as weapons of terror.

24. Although US targets are al-Qaeda's priority, it also explicitly threatens the United States' allies.

References to "Zionist-Crusader alliance and their collaborators," and to "Satan's US troops and the devil's supporters allying with them" are references which unquestionably include the United Kingdom.

25. There is a continuing threat. Based on our experience of the way the network has operated in the past, other cells, like those that carried out the terrorist attacks on 11 September, must be assumed to exist.

26. Al-Qaeda functions both on its own and through a network of other terrorist organisations.

These include Egyptian Islamic Jihad and other north African Islamic extremist terrorist groups, and a number of other jihadi groups in other countries including the Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and India.

Al-Qaeda also maintains cells and personnel in a number of other countries to facilitate its activities.

27. Osama Bin Laden heads the al-Qaeda network.

Below him is a body known as the Shura, which includes representatives of other terrorist groups, such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader Ayman Zawahiri and prominent lieutenants of Bin Laden such as Abu Hafs Al-Masri. Egyptian Islamic Jihad has, in effect, merged with al-Qaeda.

28. In addition to the Shura, al-Qaeda has several groups dealing with military, media, financial and Islamic issues.

29. Mohamed Atef is a member of the group that deals with military and terrorist operations.

His duties include principal responsibility for training al-Qaeda members.

30. Members of al-Qaeda must make a pledge of allegiance to follow the orders of Osama Bin Laden.

31. A great deal of evidence about Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda has been made available in the US indictment for earlier crimes.

32. Since 1989, Osama Bin Laden has conducted substantial financial and business transactions on behalf of al-Qaeda and in pursuit of its goals.

These include purchasing land for training camps, purchasing warehouses for the storage of items, including explosives, purchasing communications and electronics equipment, and transporting currency and weapons to members of al-Qaeda and associated terrorist groups in countries throughout the world.

33. Since 1989 Osama Bin Laden has provided training camps and guest houses in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sudan, Somalia and Kenya for the use of al-Qaeda and associated terrorist groups.

We know from intelligence that there are currently at least a dozen camps across Afghanistan, of which at least four are used for training terrorists.

34. Since 1989, Osama Bin Laden has established a series of businesses to provide income for al-Qaeda, and to provide cover for the procurement of explosives, weapons and chemicals, and for the travel of al-Qaeda operatives.

The businesses have included a holding company known as 'Wadi Al Aqiq', a construction business known as 'Al Hijra', an agricultural business known as 'Al Themar Al Mubaraka', and investment companies known as 'Ladin International' and 'Taba Investments'.

Osama Bin Laden and previous attacks

35. In 1992 and 1993 Mohamed Atef travelled to Somalia on several occasions for the purpose of organising violence against United States and United Nations troops then stationed in Somalia.

On each occasion he reported back to Osama Bin Laden, at his base in the Riyadh district of Khartoum.

36. In the spring of 1993 Atef, Saif al Adel, another senior member of al-Qaeda, and other members began to provide military training to Somali tribes for the purpose of fighting the United Nations forces.

37. On 3 and 4 October 1993 operatives of al-Qaeda participated in the attack on US military personnel serving in Somalia as part of the operation 'Restore Hope'.

Eighteen US military personnel were killed in the attack.

38. From 1993 members of al-Qaeda began to live in Nairobi and set up businesses there, including Asma Ltd, and Tanzanite King.

They were regularly visited there by senior members of al-Qaeda, in particular by Atef and Abu Ubadiah al Banshiri.

39. Beginning in the latter part of 1993, members of al-Qaeda in Kenya began to discuss the possibility of attacking the US Embassy in Nairobi in retaliation for US participation in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia.

Ali Mohamed, a US citizen and admitted member of al-Qaeda, surveyed the US Embassy as a possible target for a terrorist attack.

He took photographs and made sketches, which he presented to Osama Bin Laden while Bin Laden was in Sudan.

He also admitted that he had trained terrorists for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the early 1990s, and that those whom he trained included many involved in the East African bombings in August 1998.

40. In June or July 1998, two al-Qaeda operatives, Fahid Mohammed Ali Msalam and Sheik Ahmed Salim Swedan, purchased a Toyota truck and made various alterations to the back of the truck.

41. In early August 1998, operatives of al-Qaeda gathered in 43, New Runda Estates, Nairobi to execute the bombing of the US Embassy in Nairobi.

42. On 7 August 1998, Assam, a Saudi national and al-Qaeda operative, drove the Toyota truck to the US embassy. There was a large bomb in the back of the truck.

43. Also in the truck was Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al 'Owali, another Saudi.

He, by his own confession, was an al-Qaeda operative, who from about 1996 had been trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in explosives, hijacking, kidnapping, assassination and intelligence techniques.

With Osama Bin Laden's express permission, he fought alongside the Taleban in Afghanistan.

He had met Osama Bin Laden personally in 1996 and asked for another 'mission'.

Osama Bin Laden sent him to East Africa after extensive specialised training at camps in Afghanistan.

44. As the truck approached the Embassy, Al 'Owali got out and threw a stun grenade at a security guard.

Assam drove the truck up to the rear of the embassy. He got out and then detonated the bomb, which demolished a multi-storey secretarial college and severely damaged the US embassy, and the Co-operative bank building.

The bomb killed 213 people and injured 4500. Assam was killed in the explosion.

45. Al 'Owali expected the mission to end in his death. He had been willing to die for al-Qaeda.

But at the last minute he ran away from the bomb truck and survived. He had no money, passport or plan to escape after the mission, because he had expected to die.

46. After a few days, he called a telephone number in Yemen to have money transferred to him in Kenya.

The number he rang in Yemen was contacted by Osama Bin Laden's phone on the same day as Al 'Owali was arranging to get the money.

47. Another person arrested in connection with the Nairobi bombing was Mohamed Sadeek Odeh. He admitted to his involvement.

He identified the principal participants in the bombing. He named three other persons, all of whom were al-Qaeda or Egyptian Islamic Jihad members.

48. In Dar es Salaam the same day, at about the same time, operatives of al-Qaeda detonated a bomb at the US embassy, killing 11 people.

The al-Qaeda operatives involved included Mustafa Mohamed Fadhil and Khaflan Khamis Mohamed.

The bomb was carried in a Nissan Atlas truck, which Ahmed Khfaklan Ghailani and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan, two al-Qaeda operatives, had purchased in July 1998, in Dar es Salaam.

49. Khaflan Khamis Mohamed was arrested for the bombing. He admitted membership of al-Qaeda, and implicated other members of al-Qaeda in the bombing.

50. On 7 and 8 August 1998, two other members of al-Qaeda disseminated claims of responsibility for the two bombings by sending faxes to media organisations in Paris, Doha in Qatar, and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

51. Additional evidence of the involvement of al-Qaeda in the East African bombings came from a search conducted in London of several residences and businesses belonging to al-Qaeda and Egyptian Islamic Jihad members.

In those searches a number of documents were found including claims of responsibility for the East African bombings in the name of a fictitious group, 'the Islamic Army for the liberation of the Holy Places.'

52. Al 'Owali, the would-be suicide bomber, admitted he was told to make a videotape of himself using the name of the same fictitious group.

53. The faxed claims of responsibility were traced to a telephone number, which had been in contact with Osama Bin Laden's cell phone.

The claims disseminated to the press were clearly written by someone familiar with the conspiracy.

They stated that the bombings had been carried out by two Saudis in Kenya, and one Egyptian in Dar es Salaam.

They were probably sent before the bombings had even taken place.

They referred to two Saudis dying in the Nairobi attack. In fact, because Al 'Owali fled at the last minute, only one Saudi died.

54. On 22 December 1998 Osama Bin Laden was asked by Time magazine whether he was responsible for the August 1998 attacks.

He replied: "The International Islamic Jihad Front for the jihad against the US and Israel has, by the grace of God, issued a crystal clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on Jihad aimed at liberating the holy sites.

"The nation of Mohammed has responded to this appeal. If instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans... is considered to be a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal.

"Our job is to instigate and, by the grace of God, we did that, and certain people responded to this instigation."

He was asked if he knew the attackers: "...those who risked their lives to earn the pleasure of God are real men. They managed to rid the Islamic nation of disgrace. We hold them in the highest esteem."

And what the US could expect of him: "...any thief or criminal who enters another country to steal should expect to be exposed to murder at any time...

"The US knows that I have attacked it, by the grace of God, for more than ten years now...

"God knows that we have been pleased by the killing of American soldiers [in Somalia in 1993].

"This was achieved by the grace of God and the efforts of the mujahideen... Hostility towards America is a religious duty and we hope to be rewarded for it by God.

"I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America."

55. In December 1999 a terrorist cell linked to al- Qaeda was discovered trying to carry out attacks inside the United States.

An Algerian, Ahmed Ressam, was stopped at the US-Canadian border and over 100 lbs of bomb making material was found in his car.

Ressam admitted he was planning to set off a large bomb at Los Angeles International airport on New Year's Day.

He said that he had received terrorist training at al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and then been instructed to go abroad and kill US civilians and military personnel.

56. On 3 January 2000, a group of al-Qaeda members, and other terrorists who had trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, attempted to attack a US destroyer with a small boat loaded with explosives. Their boat sank, aborting the attack.

57. On 12 October 2000, however, the USS Cole was struck by an explosive-laden boat while refuelling in Aden harbour. Seventeen crew were killed, and 40 injured.

58. Several of the perpetrators of the Cole attack (mostly Yemenis and Saudis) were trained at Osama Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

Al 'Owali has identified the two commanders of the attack on the USS Cole as having participated in the planning and preparation for the East African embassy bombings.

59. In the months before the September 11 attacks, propaganda videos were distributed throughout the Middle East and Muslim world by al-Qaeda, in which Osama Bin Laden and others were shown encouraging Muslims to attack American and Jewish targets.

60. Similar videos, extolling violence against the United States and other targets, were distributed before the East African embassy attacks in August 1998.

Osama Bin Laden and the 11 September attacks

61. Nineteen men have been identified as the hijackers from the passenger lists of the four planes hijacked on 11 September 2001.

At least three of them have already been positively identified as associates of al-Qaeda.

One has been identified as playing key roles in both the East African embassy attacks and the USS Cole attack.

Investigations continue into the backgrounds of all the hijackers.

62. From intelligence sources, the following facts have been established subsequent to 11 September; for intelligence reasons, the names of associates, though known, are not given.

# In the run-up to 11 September, bin Laden was mounting a concerted propaganda campaign amongst like-minded groups of people - including videos and documentation - justifying attacks on Jewish and American targets; and claiming that those who died in the course of them were carrying out God's work.

# We have learned, subsequent to 11 September, that Bin Laden himself asserted shortly before 11 September that he was preparing a major attack on America.

# In August and early September close associates of Bin Laden were warned to return to Afghanistan from other parts of the world by 10 September.

# Immediately prior to 11 September some known associates of Bin Laden were naming the date for action as on or around 11 September.

# Since 11 September we have learned that one of Bin Laden's closest and most senior associates was responsible for the detailed planning of the attacks.

# There is evidence of a very specific nature relating to the guilt of Bin Laden and his associates that is too sensitive to release.

63. Osama Bin Laden remains in charge, and the mastermind, of al-Qaeda. In al-Qaeda, an operation on the scale of the 11 September attacks would have been approved by Osama Bin Laden himself.

64. The modus operandi of 11 September was entirely consistent with previous attacks.

Al Qaeda's record of atrocities is characterised by meticulous long term planning, a desire to inflict mass casualties, suicide bombers, and multiple simultaneous attacks.

65. The attacks of 11 September 2001 are entirely consistent with the scale and sophistication of the planning which went into the attacks on the East African Embassies and the USS Cole.

No warnings were given for these three attacks, just as there was none on 11 September.

66. Al-Qaeda operatives, in evidence given in the East African Embassy bomb trials, have described how the group spends years preparing for an attack.

They conduct repeated surveillance, patiently gather materials, and identify and vet operatives, who have the skills to participate in the attack and the willingness to die for their cause.

67. The operatives involved in the 11 September atrocities attended flight schools, used flight simulators to study the controls of larger aircraft and placed potential airports and routes under surveillance.

68. Al-Qaeda's attacks are characterised by total disregard for innocent lives, including Muslims.

In an interview after the East African bombings, Osama Bin Laden insisted that the need to attack the United States excused the killing of other innocent civilians, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

69. No other organisation has both the motivation and the capability to carry out attacks like those of the 11 September - only the al-Qaeda network under Osama Bin Laden.

Conclusion

70. The attacks of the 11 September 2001 were planned and carried out by al-Qaeda, an organisation whose head is Osama Bin Laden.

That organisation has the will, and the resources, to execute further attacks of similar scale.

Both the United States and its close allies are targets for such attacks.

The attack could not have occurred without the alliance between the Taleban and Osama Bin Laden, which allowed Bin Laden to operate freely in Afghanistan, promoting, planning and executing terrorist activity.

[Mark Gobell]

Briefings & Documents Menu / Anti-war Briefings Menu / Briefing 05

8 October 2001

The Smoking Gun

The Taliban Agreed To Extradite Osama Bin Laden To Another Country

In the aftermath of 11 September, we now have a 'smoking gun'. But it is not evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt in relation to the atrocities of 11 September. It is evidence of Government lies about the basis for the current war against Afghanistan. This is an unnecessary war.

According to the Prime Minister, it is impossible by any nonviolent means to secure the extradition from Afghanistan of the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden who the British Government holds responsible for the 11 September atrocities. This is why force has to be used to destroy bin Laden's infrastructure in Afghanistan, and to retaliate against the Taliban regime which harbours him.

But this argument is completely undermined by a report in the Daily Telegraph, which appeared on the day Tony Blair set out the Government's 'evidence' in Parliament. There are three main questions in this war: What is the evidence against bin Laden? If he is guilty, are there nonviolent methods of securing him for trial? Is the force being used by the Government legal?

On the first point, the 70 point dossier produced by the Government has been described by the Independent on Sunday as little more than 'conjecture, supposition and assertions of fact' (7 Oct., p. 7; see briefing 6 for more details). On the third point, it is clear this is neither a war of self-defence nor an authorised use of force.

On the matter of extradition, the subject of this briefing, the Daily Telegraph has reported that not only is bin Laden's extradition from Afghanistan possible in theory, an agreement to extradite has actually been reached in fact.


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)


Media Distortion

The most recent reported Taliban offer was noted in the Observer, but in a typically distorted fashion: 'Although most recent statements by Mullah Omar have been stridently defiant, there have been hints in recent days that the relentless diplomatic and military pressure on the Taliban is beginning to tell. On Friday [5 Oct.], senior [Taliban] officials offered to put Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect for the 11 September attacks in America, on trial in an Islamic court if given sufficient evidence.' (Observer, 7 Oct., p. 2) In fact, of course, such offers have been made throughout. In the same issue, it is claimed that whenever Mullah Omar 'detected any possible weakness in the statements of his envoys in Pakistan or elsewhere he was swift to countermand them. There would be no surrender'.

(p. 17) In the real world, Mullah Omar had made his position clear earlier (in the Guardian - the Observer's stable mate): 'We have told America that if it has any evidence, give it to the Afghan supreme court, or let the clerics from any three Islamic countries decide his case, or he could be placed under the observation of the organisation of the Islamic conference [representing 52 countries]. But these offers have all been rejected.' (21 Sept., p. 4)

The Taliban regime has not 'refused to hand over bin Laden'. Up until 1 Oct., the Taliban refused to to 'hand over Osama bin Laden without evidence' (Mullah Zaeef, Times, 22 Sept., p. 1, emphasis added). On 1 Oct., they agreed to bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan without evidence of his guilt.

The US has consistently brushed aside such diplomatic feelers. Ari Fleischer, White House spokesperson has said repeatedly, that there will be 'no negotiations, no discussions' with the Taliban. (Telegraph, 22 Sept, p. 1)


Media Propaganda

President Bush says 'I gave them a fair chance'. (Times, 8 Oct., p. 2) The reality is that he has rejected negotiations and nonviolent alternatives to war. Extradition from Afghanistan was possible, and may still be possible if the war is ended. The media have effectively suppressed evidence of the Taliban's offers, and have distorted the Taliban's position - thereby making war seem natural and inevitable. It is neither. Public pressure can help to force the media into more honest reporting, and help end this illegal and unnecessary war.


Restraint

'What we need less of is war rhetoric and war against Afghanistan in particular, and to explore the possibility of a judicial solution. In the short term, the first priority should be to hunt down and arrest the criminals with the goal of achieving justice, not revenge. This is a task left not to the military but to investigative police forces, who can prepare for a trial.'

'The last thing I wanted was for more widows and fatherless children to be created in my name. It would only produce a backlash. As the victim of violence, I'd never want this to happen to another woman again.'

Professor Robin Therkauf is a lecturer in the political science department at Yale University. She lost her husband Tom in the World Trade Centre on 11 September. (Quotes taken from Radio 4, 2 Oct., and the Friend, 28 Sept.)

[Mark Gobell]

So, it seems that NATO's bombs began to fall on Afghanistan, based on a still classified, 40 minute Powerpoint presentation, to the former Member for Hamilton South, by Frank Taylor.

[scienceplease 2]

[Mark Gobell]

Nice idea.

I'll just send him an email and say "hey Franky, any chance of a peek at your world changing PowerPoint file me ol' mucka ?"

[Mark Gobell]

Reply received today from NATO: