|
Post by HA on Jun 11, 2004 12:00:01 GMT -5
Terror report's 'good news' turns bad The US state department today retracted a report that claimed terrorist attacks were on the decline, after it turned out they had actually increased. The Bush administration hailed the initial annual assessment as proof of the success of the war on terror when it was published in April, but officials have now been forced to concede the revised figures for 2003 will show a sharp upturn in the number of attacks. Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, denied the errors were part of deliberate effort to make the administration look good. "Nobody has suggested that the war on terrorism has been won," he told reporters. "The president has made it clear that it is a war that continues and that we have to redouble our efforts. "I am very disturbed that there were errors in the report. We're going to correct it." .... From www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1236520,00.html
|
|
|
Post by HA on Jun 11, 2004 12:08:39 GMT -5
50,000 troops in Gulf illness scare All 50,000 troops who served in the first Gulf war might have been exposed to low levels of chemical warfare agents during the fighting and its aftermath, a US investigation has suggested. The implication of a Congressional report that large numbers of civilians and troops in Iraq and neighbouring countries could have been exposed will galvanise the controversy over illnesses suffered by more than 5,000 British veterans since 1991 that have been linked to their service in the Gulf. ... From www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1236426,00.html
|
|
|
Post by HA on Jun 12, 2004 7:27:07 GMT -5
A torturer's charterSecret documents show that US interrogators are above the law On the stage of a London theatre on Thursday night, a lawyer held up an official US document, classified by Donald Rumsfeld as "secret" and "not for foreign eyes". Considering its contents, the document has attracted remarkably little attention here since it was leaked this week to the US media. Its significance was raised by Clive Stafford-Smith, director of the US-based group Justice in Exile. Rumsfeld's classified document, drawn up by US government lawyers, argues that American interrogators can ignore US domestic law banning torture, because it would restrict the president's powers in his "war on terror". The document, drawn up last year, says that "criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority" over "the conduct of war". It adds: "In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, [the prohibition of torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogators undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority". ... From www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1237241,00.html So much for the argument that the US will punish wrong-doing soldiers ...
|
|
|
Post by HA on Jun 13, 2004 3:08:36 GMT -5
Secret world of US jails Jason Burke charts the worldwide hidden network of prisons where more than 3,000 al-Qaeda suspects have been held without trial - and many subjected to torture - since 9/11 The United States government, in conjunction with key allies, is running an 'invisible' network of prisons and detention centres into which thousands of suspects have disappeared without trace since the 'war on terror' began. In the past three years, thousands of alleged militants have been transferred around the world by American, Arab and Far Eastern security services, often in secret operations that by-pass extradition laws. The astonishing traffic has seen many, including British citizens, sent from the West to countries where they can be tortured to extract information. Anything learnt is passed on to the US and, in some cases, reaches British intelligence. The disclosure of the shadowy system will increase pressure on the Bush administration over its 'cavalier' approach to human rights and will embarrass Tony Blair, a staunch ally of President George Bush. The practice of 'renditions' - when suspects are handed directly into the custody of another state without due process - has sparked particular anger. At least 70 such transfers have occurred, according to CIA sources. Many involve men who have been freed by the courts and are thus legally innocent. Renditions are often used when American interrogators believe that harsh treatment - banned in their own country - would produce results. ... From www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1237650,00.html
|
|
|
Post by HA on Jun 16, 2004 10:06:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HA on Jun 16, 2004 10:10:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HA on Jun 16, 2004 10:12:20 GMT -5
"He said they are like dogs and if you allow them to believe at any point that they are more than a dog, then you've lost control of them,'' Karpinski said in the BBC interview.
....
|
|
Better than M Moore
Guest
|
Post by Better than M Moore on Jun 20, 2004 3:29:24 GMT -5
9/11: At last, the full story has been told After a week of shattering revelations, Americans now know the truth about the extraordinary plot to attack their country and the chaos that overtook their leaders on that fateful day. Some held their heads in their hands. Others wept openly. A few stared straight ahead. It was the end of the 11 September commission's public hearings and those in the cavernous auditorium in Washington knew that they had just heard the final, definitive account of the world-changing events 33 months before. They had heard a story that shattered myths and provided few comforts.They had heard of the chaos in the administration and air defence systems on that fateful morning; they had heard of the failures of the security services of the most powerful state in history; they had heard from inside the terrorist cell that hatched - and successfully executed - the most ambitious attack ever. They had heard the truth at last. For some, the proceedings brought calm. Others remain angry. 'There's an invisible wound in my heart that can only be closed with truth and by someone accepting responsibility,' said April Gallop, who survived being buried in the rubble of the Pentagon ... From www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1243340,00.html
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jun 20, 2004 22:10:49 GMT -5
Actually, the above is a complete distortion of fact – For those who want to pounce on anything to lambast the Bush administration, the statement of a link between Iraq and Al-Queda was never made by Bush or members of his administration, though it is not something to dismiss as impossible. If Saddam was willing to do business (buy arms) from a country he called the Great Satan, why people still cling to the notion that it was impossible he would collude with Al-Queda (on 9/11 or for any other reason) is beyond me. Especially since Saddam and Al-Queda had the same hatred for the U.S. and both wanted to see our country fall.
And it has come out in the news as well that Russia supplied info to the U.S. about Saddam’s intentions to plan attacks against the U.S.
The media has greatly misled the public with their headlines of “no Iraq-Al Queda ties”. This was NOT what the report stated, and the panel Co-Chair, Lee Hamilton indicates that there were indeed ties between Iraq and Al-Queda (THIS HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR YEARS, AND WAS EVEN REPORTED ON BY THE SAME NEWSPAPERS THAT TRASH THOSE WHO NOW SPEAK OF THOSE TIES). Hamilton is baffled by the disparity between what’s actually in the report, and how the media is reporting it; but this is not surprising, given their propensity for doing this in the past, specifically when Presidents with politics they disagree with are in office . . .
And if anyone had watched some of the testimony before the 9/11 commission, there were officials who testified there that again repeated the FACT about links between Iraq and Al-Queda.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jun 21, 2004 8:31:17 GMT -5
Actually, the above is a complete distortion of fact – For those who want to pounce on anything to lambast the Bush administration, the statement of a link between Iraq and Al-Queda was never made by Bush or members of his administration, though it is not something to dismiss as impossible. No, you are right. No one in the Bush administration ever said directly that there was an Iraq - 9/11 link. That would have been a provable lie. What they did is to imply that the connection was there. It was, after all, mentioned in the resolution to invade Iraq. In a October 2002 speech, he[Bush] said, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."This was an unsupported 'fact' as well. From March 14 Christian Science Monitor: Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. I don't think anyone ever said the link was impossible. The statement from the commission was that there were no facts to support that claim. That is because you are equating what is within the realm of possibility with what can be supported by the facts. Try as they may, there has been nothing to support the tie between Iraq and the 9/11 event. Again, this shows they shared some beliefs but does not show that they worked together. Hmmm. Two days after the commission we learn this. That sounds a little strange. And the wholehearted support does give one pause: "We had no information that Hussein's regime was linked to any specific terror attacks," Putin said.Yet Putin gave an evasive answer when asked if he thought the Iraqi war -- despite the threatening intelligence information provided by Russian special agents -- was justified.
"Does this (information) give enough evidence to show that the United States acted in military self defense -- I do not know," Putin said. "This is a separate matter.I think the reason people kep saying this is because even though the VP says there is a connection the only facts in hand show the two groups did not work together. No they did not repeat facts. They repeated that there ws the possibility of them working together. And a senior official was sent. That is known. But there is nothing to show that it went beyond that. Remember, Bin Laden was not a supporter of Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jun 27, 2004 16:23:50 GMT -5
Funny that so many of Bush?s harshest critics continue to assert that this claim was made. Those that actually do agree the claim was never made have resorted to saying that the Bush administration intentionally misled the American people into thinking there was a link. Give me a break. Well, there definitely was a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda. Even the Clinton administration asserted this. The Zelikow ReportBy WILLIAM SAFIRE Published: June 21, 2004 www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/opinion/21SAFI.html?ex=1088395200&en=6def8ee2f0b48d06&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1 9/11 panel: New evidence on Iraq-Al-QaidaBy Shaun Waterman UPI Homeland and National Security Editor Published 6/20/2004 5:27 PM www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040620-050700-2315rThe Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.aspClinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddamwww.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htmBush has insisted that Iraq was part of a broader war on terror. (And it is.) They've maintained that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda (and they do). The President made it very clear that the attack on Iraq was PRE-EMPTIVE. How could it be pre-emptive if it were in RESPONSE to 9-11? If it were in response to 9-11 it would clearly not be pre-emptive. And just days after September 11, 2001, the Congress authorized Bush to use force against "anyone" that he determined to be implicated in the 9/11 attacks. By seeking a separate authorization to use force against Iraq, he implicitly acknowledges that he didn't believe Iraq was specifically implicated in the 9/11 attacks (yet). Bush alleged that Saddam Hussein and Iraq could be considered among "international terrorists and terrorist organizations." Obviously, he included also , as an add-on (those who were involved in 9-11) but only under the broader, general umbrella of "international terrorists and terrorist organizations." You think? Funny, the Clinton administration reported pretty much the same thing that Bush is saying now. Not yet, anyway ? there are some very suspicious ties with regards to terrorists who were involved in planning/carrying out the 9/11 attacks. I?ve recently discovered there are some strange ?coincidences? between Militant Islam, Terry Nichols (sp?) and the OK City bombing of 1995. Also, John Doe #2 looks suspiciously like Jose Padilla. As I said, not yet, anyway. There were links between the two. Saddam was linked with other Militant Islamic terrorists/terror groups; he aided and abetted them. You can go ahead and convince yourself that he wasn?t a threat if that makes you feel better. Not so. The link with 9/11 hasn?t been ?proven? yet; Saddam?s regime was definitely a state supporter of Militant Islamic terrorism and definitely did have connections with Al-Queda. TODAY, top Clinton officials are still not backing down from these claims [of Iraq/Al-Queda ties]. William Cohen, former secretary of Defense, defended the strikes as recently as March 23, 2004, in testimony before the September 11 commission. Cohen said an executive from the Sudanese plant had "traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of [Iraq's] VX [nerve gas] program."
www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/257ftolv.asp
William Cohen written statement: news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/911rpt/cohen32304stmnt.pdf
"While some charge that the Bush Administration exaggerated or manipulated the available intelligence, the fact is that all responsible officials from the Clinton and Bush administrations and, I believe, most Members of Congress genuinely believed that Saddam Hussein had active WMD programs.
To give you a sense of the difficulty of developing intelligence against terrorist targets, consider the al-Shifa facility in Sudan that we destroyed in 1998 because of the intelligence community's assessment that it was associated with terrorist efforts to obtain chemical weapons. At the time, the intelligence community at the highest level repeatedly assured us that "it never gets better than this" in terms of confidence in an intelligence conclusion regarding a hard target. There was a good reason for this confidence, including multiple, reinforcing elements of information ranging from links that the organization that built the facility had both with Bin Laden and with the leadership of the Iraqi chemical weapons program; extraordinary security when the facility was constructed; physical evidence from the site; and other information from HUMINT and technical sources.
I believe that we have been complacent as a society. We have failed to fully comprehend the gathering storm. Even now after September 11, it is far from clear that our society truly appreciates the gravity of the threat we face or is yet willing to do what is necessary to counter it. Even after September 11, and after anthrax and ricin attacks in the U.S., I remain concerned that the controversy over not finding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will lead to the erroneous assumption that all the talk about the dangers of WMD is just another exercise in the cynical exploitation of fear."That doesn?t mean he was above using Saddam?s resources to carry out his designs.
|
|