Yeah, I wish this was me.
Pakistan -- is the hostility real or kabuki? Is the OBL death a propaganda collaboration by elements of both states, or, as currently given, a raid by the US in violation of the Pakistani authorities' will? Is it the beginning of drawdown for the empire, or, as many here seem to think, the prelude to a new false flag atrocity and a World War III scenario? Was Black Box OBL successfully hiding from everyone, protected by a deal with the ISI, under house arrest, or already dead? Was his location known to elements in either state prior to the US claim of discovering him, and if so, when?
I keep saying it: developments will show likely answers to at least some of these questions. You won't get the direct indisputable details, but you will see outlines of the truth in what the various actors say and do in the weeks to come. A great deal of that will be kabuki and/or clueless noise. Different Pakistani officials will (and already have) say Pakistan tipped off the Americans; Pakistan didn't know but doesn't mind the operation; Pakistan didn't know and is outraged by the operation. All may be true, depending on the speaker and understanding of what constitutes "Pakistan." American officials and media will offer up (and already have provided) a similarly confusing mix of statements, including that "Pakistan" knew nothing, knew where OBL was, left him unmolested, was taken by surprise when the raid came, would have tipped him off if they knew, etc. etc.
If aid to Pakistan continues and a hostile confrontation does not occur, I will take that as support or consistent with (hardly proof) for the hypotheses I currently prefer:
My own current reading of the shadows is that OBL passed from relative autonomy in Afghanistan into either death or the hands of handlers at the Pakistani ISI in 2001. Either they kept him under house arrest, or, knowing he was dead, they effectively gained spook rights to construction of his legend, which they could sell to American collaborators. Assuming the man or the body is in the right hands and no one who could or would ruin the game can show it, his real status and fate go into a black box and his legend can be controlled by his sponsor-captors-freezer-handlers.
Starting already in 2001 or at some point since, an understanding with a relevant box within the American national security state is obtained (Alec Station would be an obvious candidate, though it has blinked in and out of existence). Dead or alive, the OBL brand will be a joint propaganda production. Videos and audio to maintain the legend and boost the Bush agenda are put out for discovery by SITE and the like. (One weakness in my ideas may be the incredibly botched production values of these videos, especially the laughable "still image" video of 2007.) Again, it doesn't matter who is in the videos as long as the real man or the body is in the black box. Also likely put out by the same handlers are many of the "Al Qaeda" statements, e.g. the ones by the "al-Amriki" characters and the silly English language mag. This isn't to say that Islamist extremist cells are all staged, far from it, but since these cells are autonomous and not centrally commanded and controlled, the power of constructing the legend goes to anyone who has the real OBL in hand or knows he's dead. (It's not unlike the vulnerability of Anonymous, which we are now seeing, to outsiders claiming that they are Anonymous.)
Once joint legend production begins, neither side can afford to burn the other and both derive their benefits in profit or aid, as do the other parts of the parapolitical realm involved in the AfPak operations and other windfalls derived from constructed terror. The Americans finally exercise their option to stage an OBL killing when it best suits them. The old administration loved the production to pieces and didn't contemplate ending it. The new administration decided it could do better by cashing it in. Administration figures don't all need to know what is real, they get what they want delivered and need not question it if they like it. Pakistani officials can't be seen collaborating on the strike, and need deniability on both claims, that they harbored Bin Ladin and that they forked him over. So they get to make contradictory statements, all of which will be treated as forgotten in two months.
So here are a whole bunch of interesting and mixed signals:
http://www.businessinsider.com/pakistan ... -us-2011-5
Pakistan Can Still Count On U.S. Aid
Merrill Goozner, The Fiscal Times | May 3, 2011, 4:41 PM | 298 |
See Also:
Pakistan Says It Had No Idea Where Osama Bin Laden Was Hiding
CIA Chief: U.S. Feared Pakistan Would Tip Off Bin Laden
Gallup: Public Gives Military, CIA High Marks For Bin Laden Raid
The White House on Monday defended continuing U.S. aid to Pakistan in the wake of revelations that Osama bin Laden was hiding out in a million-dollar walled compound near Islamabad before he was slain by U.S. forces on Sunday.
Doubts about whether Pakistan has been a trusted partner in the effort against al-Qaida surfaced again after learning that the residence was located in an area surrounded by Pakistan military.
Even as John Brennan, the White House advisor on homeland security, contradicted Pakistan’s claims that the government was given advance warning by U.S. intelligence officials about the raid that led to the death of the 9/11 mastermind, he praised Pakistan’s efforts in the long-running war on terror. Brennan pledged continued military and foreign aid, which has totaled $18 billion since 2002, two-thirds of it security-related.
“That partnership is critically important to breaking the back of al-Qaida,” Brennan said during a White House press briefing. Bracing for what is certain to be heightened scrutiny of foreign military assistance to Pakistan, especially in the current tight fiscal environment; he called questions about aid to Pakistan “legitimate.” Bin Laden’s “location there raises questions,” Brennan said. “They [Pakistani government officials] seemed as surprised as we were that he was holding out” so close to the capital of Pakistan.
Leaders on Capitol Hill stopped short of calling for cutbacks in aid, but pledged heightened scrutiny of both civilian and military programs, which have come under fire in recent months. The Government Accountability Office recently released a critical analysis of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009, which pledged $7.5 billion in civilian aid to the world’s second largest Muslim country over the next five years.
Just $180 million of the first year’s appropriation was spent, GAO said, because Pakistani organizations “lack the capacity to efficiently and effectively implement and monitor U.S.-funded projects.” By contrast, U.S. military support in the last few years has flowed freely, including $500 million for maritime patrol aircraft, $476 million for updating Pakistan’s fleet of F-16 fighter jets, and over $200 million for anti-tank missiles.
Yet the heightened military hardware apparently hasn’t won their loyalty, at least not entirely. Two weeks ago, the top U.S. military officer, Admiral Michael Mullen, accused Pakistan's intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), of maintaining ties to militants targeting U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan. “Their bureaucratic structures are fragmented and their loyalties are fragmented,” said Jack Jacobs, a former military officer who monitors events in the Middle East and South Asia. “A majority, in the military, in the ISI, have been hostile to American efforts to get rid of terrorism.”
That issue may finally be ripe for scrutiny on Capitol Hill in the wake of Sunday’s successful raid. “I think the Pakistani army and intelligence have a lot of questions to answer – the location, the length of time and the apparent fact that this facility was actually built for bin Laden and it’s close to the central location of the Pakistani army,” Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters on Capitol Hill. “I think the army and the intelligence of Pakistan – there are plenty of questions that they should be answering.”
But Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence committee, cautioned that “we have to remember this: there are still some counter-terrorism needs that we have that are mutually beneficial between Pakistan and the United States. . . I would be very careful about saying that we’re going to throw them overboard given how many other targets that are really critical for us to go after,” he said in an interview on MSNBC.
The U.S. embrace of Pakistan’s military and intelligence establishment to help fight the war on terror has exacted a commercial price, too. Last week, India’s government rejected a Boeing bid to sell an older version of its F-16s to that fast-growing economy. It would have been the largest U.S. foreign jet sale in nearly two decades.
India, which is now negotiating the deal with European manufacturers, who are willing to sell their latest jets, needs to replace its 1970s-era air force comprised of MIG-21s, which were produced by the former Soviet Union. “We weren’t able to offer our most advanced fighters to India because of our relationship with Pakistan,” said Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the National Security Network, a Washington-based think tank. “We told them we wouldn’t sell them anything more advanced than what we sell the Pakistanis.”
Pakistan officials have done little to help their own cause. Two weeks ago, Pakistan finance minister Hafiz Shaikh lashed out at U.S. critics, claiming it was “largely a myth” that U.S. aid to his country had totaled tens of billions since 9/11. However, the Congressional Research Service reported that since 2001 Congress has approved about $20 billion in direct grants for Pakistan, about half of it in unrestricted funds to combat terrorism, which isn’t counted as foreign aid.
The Pakistani official apparently was referring to the 2009 law, sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., which was designed to shift the focus of Pakistani aid from military support to civilian projects. That money must be appropriated every year, and as the GAO report pointed out, is slow in arriving because of poor financial controls in Pakistan’s underdeveloped civilian sector.
Some analysts suggested the death of bin Laden could trigger a long overdue reevaluation of U.S. policy in the region, which has emphasized nation-building in Afghanistan to prevent that country from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. U.S. troops are slated to begin leaving Afghanistan this summer. The analysts suggest the time has come to shift the focus of attention to impoverished Pakistan, which has received guns but not much else from the U.S.
“We spend way too much time thinking about Afghanistan,” said Hurlburt, “Pakistan, which will become the largest Muslim population in the world in five years, almost defaulted during the economic meltdown.”
This post originally appeared at The Fiscal Times.
http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/2011 ... ter-claims
Article published the Wednesday 04 May 2011 - Latest update : Wednesday 04 May 2011
Pakistan tipped off US about bin Laden compound, minister claims
Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani called for the world's help in fighting "terrorism and extremism", during a visit to Paris which followed the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Pakistani Foreign Minister Salman Bashir has claimed that his country’s secret services, the ISI, told the US in 2009 that bin Laden’s compound was suspicious.
The ISI had tipped off the Americans but the resources of the US’s CIA were needed to determine whether the villa in Abottabad was an Al-Qaeda hideout, said Bashir. [Because it's in outer space and Pakistan lacks the rockets?] He angrily rejected claims by CIA chief Leon Panetta working with Islamabad “could have jeopardised the mission”.
US officials have criticised Pakistan and questioned whether elements in Pakistan’s military and intelligence had known about the compound for five years and were providing a “support system” to the world’s most wanted man.
Pakistan’s Foreign Office called the raid an “unauthorised unilateral action” on Tuesday.
France may withdraw its troops from Afghanistan before 2014, Foreign Minister Alain Juppé told RFI’s sister TV station, France 24, after meeting Gilani on Tuesday. He also insisted that there must be cooperation with Pakistan, adding that Gilani had admitted that the operation showed a failure on the part of Pakistani security services.
The rest of the world shares the blame for the intelligence failure, Gilani said Wednesday.
"There is intelligence failure of the whole world, not Pakistan alone," he told reporters in Paris.
France could suffer reprisals for bin Laden’s death, Interior Minister Claude Guéant told RTL radio Thursday.
“Al Qaeda is a very decentralised organisation,” Guéant pointed out, warning that groups linked to it could take action against any country linked to the US-led presence in Afghanistan.
Over 300 armed police, as well as a smaller number of soldiers, are reported to have clamped a security cordon around the bin Laden compound Wednesday, subjecting residents to ID checks and body searches.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... eader.html
Osama bin Laden dead: Pakistan played 'pivotal role' in operation to kill al-Qaeda leader
Pakistan played a 'pivotal role' in the death of Osama Bin Laden, the country's foreign secretary Salman Bashir has said.
Pakistan Foreign Secretary, Salman Bashir (R), Afghan Deputy Foreign Minister, Jaweed Ludin (C) and US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Marc Grossman join hands during a press conference in Islamabad Photo: AFP
7:29AM BST 04 May 2011
Salman Bashir told the BBC that US statements suggesting they were not trusted with details of raid was 'disquietening.'
CIA chief Leon Panetta has said no intelligence was shared with Pakistan for fear the raid would be jeopardised.
"He is entitled to his views but I know for sure that we have extended every cooperation to the US including the CIA, and to other countries as far as the campaign against terror is concerned, said Mr Bashir.
"All the significant al-Qaeda people who have been picked up, it was done by the ISI (Pakistan's Intelligence Service), from Pakistan towns and cities.
"Therefore this whole context that seems to have surfaced about the lack of trust is, in my view, sort of misplaced."
Related Articles
Pakistan 'shared information since 2009' 03 May 2011
Mr Bashir said Pakistan had indicated as far back as 2009 that the compound was a place that Osama bin Laden may have been hiding. [Yeah, and they couldn't just surround it, watch it, knock on the door and see.]
"The fact is on this particular occasion it was pointed out by our intelligence quite some time ago to the US intelligence.
"Of course they have a much more sophisticated viewpoint to evaluate and assess but it's a fact that most of these things that have happened in terms of success against the global anti terror, Pakistan has a pivitol role.
"We had indicated as far back as 2009 (it was) a possible place. This whole issue of locating Osama bin Laden had been a priority for everyone in the world.
"Pakistan does not have to go over and over again its credentials in these matters."
But Mr Bashir admitted there were 'millions' of other places that Osama bin Laden might have been and said they had been primarily concentrating on the 'caves and hideouts.'
Lieutenant General Asad Durrani, former head of Pakistan's Intelligence Service also told the BBC it was "more likely" the Pakistani government did know about the raid.
"It is more likely that they did know as far as ISI concerned they had some idea about the presence and of course as far as the operation itself is concerned it is not conceivable that it was done without the involvement of Pakistani security forces at some stage maybe late enough but the indications are that they were involved and they were told they were in position," said Lieutenant General Durrani who was director general of the ISI in the 90s.
"The army chief was in his office, the cordons were turned around that particular place police as well as the military.
"The pakistani helicopters were also in the air so that indicates that they were involved but as far as the knowledge is concerned it is possible that the one would not know about him all the time, but small part of it did know the idea was that."
Bin Laden was shot dead by US special forces in Abbottabad on Sunday.
On Tuesday the White House clarified the details of how the raid took place, saying bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed after resisting capture.
Dramatic description of bin Laden using his wife as a “human shield” and forcing her to sacrifice her life also proved to be false. The woman was still alive and was taken into custody with several of the terrorist’s children.
In an embarrassing climb-down, Barack Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, admitted that the previous version of events — which came mostly from the chief US counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan — had been put out “with great haste”.
US officials have said they are considering when to make public their photographs of his corpse.
Mr Carney said the "gruesome" image could inflame sensitivities, but Mr Panetta said there was no question it would at some point be shown to the public.
He also appeared to cast doubt on suggestions that the US filmed bin Laden’s burial at sea by refusing to confirm that the video existed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 35#4838298
Pakistan tipped off US about bin Laden compound, minister claims
Latest update : Wednesday May 04 2011
By Radio France International
Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani called for the world's help in fighting "terrorism and extremism", during a visit to Paris which followed the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Pakistani Foreign Minister Salman Bashir has claimed that his country’s secret services, the ISI, told the US in 2009 that bin Laden’s compound was suspicious.
The ISI had tipped off the Americans but the resources of the US’s CIA were needed to determine wether the villa in Abottabad was an Al-Qaeda hideout, said Bashir. He angrily rejected claims by CIA chief Leon Panetta working with Islamabad “could have jeopardised the mission”.
=snip=
France may withdraw its troops from Afghanistan before 2014, Foreign Minister Alain Juppé told RFI’s sister TV station, France 24, after meeting Gilani on Tuesday. He also insisted that there must be cooperation with Pakistan, adding that Gilani had admitted that the operation showed a failure on the part of Pakistani security services.
The rest of the world shares the blame for the intelligence failure, Gilani said Wednesday.
Full article: http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/2011 ... ter-claims
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/world ... nted=print
May 5, 2011
Pakistani Army Chief Warns U.S. on Another Raid
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The head of Pakistan’s army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, said Thursday that he would not tolerate a repeat of the American covert operation that killed Osama bin Laden, warning that any similar action would lead to a reconsideration of the relationship with the United States.
In his first public reaction to the American raid early Monday that left many Pakistanis questioning the capacities of the nation’s army, General Kayani did not appear in person, choosing instead to convey his angry message through a statement by his press office and in a closed meeting with Pakistani reporters.
The statement by the army’s press office said, “Any similar action violating the sovereignty of Pakistan will warrant a review on the level of military/intelligence cooperation with the United States.”
General Kayani had decided that the number of American troops in Pakistan was to be reduced “to the minimum essential,” the statement said.
He did not specify the exact number of American troops asked to leave Pakistan, and it was not clear that the level was below what Pakistan had previously demanded after a C.I.A. contractor shot and killed two Pakistanis in January.
Then, the Americans were told that the number of Special Operations soldiers involved in a training program would have to be reduced to 39 from 120, that C.I.A. contractors would no longer be allowed to stay in Pakistan, and that other American officials who appeared to be working for the C.I.A., but whose jobs were not clearly defined, would have to leave, too.
Clearly, the Bin Laden raid has compounded Pakistani anger, and further worsened relations.
Calling the American raid a “misadventure,” General Kayani told the Pakistani reporters that another, similar, raid would be responded to swiftly, a promise that seemed intended to tell the Pakistani public that the army was indeed capable of stopping the Americans’ trying to capture other senior figures from Al Qaeda.
General Kayani’s blunt warnings came after he met with his top commanders at their monthly conference at army headquarters at Rawalpindi, a gathering of the top 11 generals. The meeting was devoted to the consequences of the raid, which has severely embarrassed the Pakistani military, leaving the nation’s most prestigious institution looking poorly prepared and distrusted by its most important ally.
The official statement acknowledged “shortcomings” in developing intelligence on the presence of Bin Laden in Pakistan, a reference to the fact that the Qaeda leader was hiding in a compound in Abbottabad, a midsize city that is home to a top military academy and is about two hours from Islamabad, the capital.
The C.I.A. had developed intelligence on Bin Laden with the Pakistanis in the early going when the Pakistani spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, had provided “initial information.”
But the C.I.A. did not share further development of intelligence on the case with ISI, “contrary to the existing practice between the two services,” an account that generally conformed with what American officials said in the aftermath of the Bin Laden raid.
Pakistani officials and Western diplomats have described General Kayani and Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the head of ISI, as seething with anger at the American go-it-alone action.
In an earlier account on Thursday, the foreign secretary, Salman Bashir, sought to dispel domestic criticism of Pakistan’s lack of response to the raid, saying that two Pakistani F-16 fighter jets were airborne as soon as the Pakistani military knew about the operation. But, by that time, he said, the American helicopters were on their way back to Afghanistan.
Mr. Bashir, speaking at a news conference, said that the Americans had used technology to evade Pakistani radar.
Alternately combative and defensive, Mr. Bashir said Washington should abandon the idea that Pakistan was complicit in helping Bin Laden hide. But he did not elaborate, saying only that the ISI had a “brilliant” record in counterterrorism.
Defending the Pakistani Army, the fifth largest in the world, Mr. Bashir said, “Pakistani security forces are neither incompetent or negligent about the sacred duty to the nation to protect Pakistan.”
But after withering criticism at home and abroad about how and why the Pakistani security forces could allow Bin Laden to be in Pakistan, the initial reaction here to Mr. Bashir’s appearance was mixed.
One of Pakistan’s best-known television journalists, Kamran Khan, who is regarded as a supporter of the military, dismissed the performance. “They have no answer,” Mr. Khan said. “We have become the biggest haven of terrorism in the world and we have failed to stop it.”
A retired ambassador and newspaper columnist, Zafar Hilaly, who has called for a public inquiry into Pakistan’s military, said that Mr. Bashir had erred in seeming to ask for the world’s sympathy by saying 30,000 Pakistani civilians and more than 3,000 soldiers had lost their lives in the fight against terrorism.
“The world wants to know whether we are effective,” Mr. Hilaly said.
Apparently in response to comments by American officials that the United States decided not to share details in advance with Pakistan because of a lack of trust, Mr. Bashir said, “All we expect is some decency and civility, especially in the public domain.”
The Pakistani authorities first learned of the operation when one of the American helicopters involved in the raid crashed at the Bin Laden compound.
“Immediately our armed forces were asked to check whether it was a Pakistani helicopter,” Mr. Bashir said. Although Abbottabad is home to a major military academy and three military regiments, he said, none of these institutions required sophisticated defenses that could have detected the impending raid.
The authorities learned that Bin Laden had been killed in the raid from surviving members of his family, he said.
Pakistan received the first official word from the United States about the covert operation when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, called General Kayani about 3 a.m. Monday local time, Mr. Bashir said.
That call took some time to arrange, he said, because “secure sets” were needed. Mr. Bashir said Admiral Mullen had been the first to raise the issue of Pakistan’s sovereignty in the call, but he did not specify exactly what the admiral said. Later, President Obama telephoned the Pakistani president, Asif Ali Zardari.
The relationship between the United States and Pakistan will endure, the foreign secretary said, because “we share strategic convergence.”
In Washington, American aid to Pakistan faced new criticism. The top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday expressed “deep and ongoing concerns” about the United States providing Pakistan more than $1 billion a year in security assistance in light of the discovery of Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad and other recent evidence that Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies are aiding militants.
The lawmaker, Representative Howard L. Berman of California, wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that “Pakistan’s continued resistance to cooperate with the United States in counterterrorism bespeaks an overall regression in the relationship.”
Israel Shamir has been highly problematic as we've discussed on this board. But I see no reason to reject out of hand his recent articles on the Wikileaks files published in Counterpunch.
http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir05042011.html
May 4, 2011
CounterPunch Exclusive
Cross and Double Cross With Gitmo Files
US Knew Where Osama Was Since 2005
By ISRAEL SHAMIR
The unredacted Guantanamo files show clearly that the trail to Abbottabad was known to the US intelligence services at least since 2005, when al-Libi, another Abbottabad dweller, was captured.
Timing is everything. The US President announced killing of Osama bin Laden just as Wikileaks completed its publication of Guantanamo files. Was it coincidence? If not, what was the connection?
An answer to this question is directly connected with the cross and double cross accusations exchanged in the murky world where the intelligence services meet mainstream media.
Publication of the US secret papers, the Guantanamo Files, was done almost simultaneously by two competing media groups.
One was the Wikileaks of Julian Assange and their partners The Washington Post, The Daily Telegraph, the French Le Monde.
Another one was The New York Times, The Guardian, the Israeli Haaretz.
The Guardian said of the files: “They were obtained by the New York Times, who shared them with the Guardian, which is publishing extracts today, having redacted information which might identify informants. The New York Times says the files were made available to it not by Wikileaks, but "by another source on the condition of anonymity".
Haaretz made more of it: “A few media outlets, including The New York Times, the Guardian and Haaretz, obtained the documents from an independent source without the help of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is under house arrest in Britain awaiting his appeal not to be extradited to Sweden, where he faces charges of rape and sexual assault.” The Guardian’s David Leigh twitted “double-crossing Assange!”
Now we’ll give you the story behind the story: who crossed and double crossed whom, which information was redacted and how did it lead to OBL?
In the beginning, the source was one; allegedly Private First Class Manning or whoever it was who got it and transferred to the Wikileaks of Julian Assange. The entire file is still far from being published – a big part of it was encrypted and uploaded as Julian Assange’s Insurance file. Assange published two tranches of that: the War Diary: Afghanistan War Logs and War Diary: Iraq War Logs. He prepared publication of the third tranche: a huge collection of the State Department cables (Cablegate: 250,000 US Embassy Diplomatic Cables) in the Guardian.
At that point, the data river forked. The treasure trove was copied by a Wikileaks German employee,Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who went AWOL after this appropriation. Domscheit-Bergmade a deal with David Leigh of the Guardian which then cold-shouldered Assange, declared the deal 'void', and shared the data with Bill Keller, editor of the NY Times. They published the cables after redacting them, or should we say "censoring" – removing everything the secret services demanded to remove. We wrote about it at length here in CounterPunch.
Julian Assange succeeded in regaining some lost ground: he established new partnerships, with the Daily Telegraph and others. The cables were being published all the time. And then Assange learned that the Guardian and theNew York Times planned to publish the Guantanamo files. There was no time to lose: in a few days, the Wikileaks team prepared the files and began to upload. So did the competitors, possessing the Domscheit-Berg appropriated copy. This was the double-cross.
Julian Assange succeeded in regaining some lost ground: he established new partnerships, with the Daily Telegraph and others. The cables were being published all the time. And then Assange learned that the Guardian and the New York Times planned to publish the Guantanamo files. There was no time to lose: in a few days, the Wikileaks team prepared the files and began to upload. So did the competitors, possessing the Domscheit-Berg appropriated copy. This was the double-cross per Leigh.
The Guardian and the New York Times have a big and skilful staff, a lot of research, rich archives. But they decided to play ball with the secret services of their countries, redacting information which might identify informants. What a hutzpah! Sometimes, the identity of “informants” is more important than the information.
For instance in the file of Adil Hadi al Jaz’iri Leigh and Keller removed the name of the informant
from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/guantan ... G-001452DP
To their misfortune and to our advantage, at this time the Wikileaks and the Guardian/NY Times were not a loving couple but two competing enterprises. And the Wikileaks published this file in full, warts and all.
Here is the name in full:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/0 ... r-nothing/
Abu Zubaydah the informer was the subject of intensive research, available here that makes clear: this unfortunate man was tortured by the CIA, with permission of US medics and Bush administration, to the point of the total collapse of his personality. He was one of the High Value Detainees; all of them suffered tortures beyond our ability to comprehend. Information they provided was not only unacceptable in court, it was of nil value because they said everything their tormentors wanted in order to gain a moment of peace.
Andy Worthington wrote: Since then, more and more compelling evidence has emerged to demonstrate that Abu Zubaydah was indeed nothing more than a “safehouse keeper” with mental health problems, who “claimed to know more about al-Qaeda and its inner workings than he really did”… “The United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered.” Further confirmation was also provided that his torture yielded no significant information and led only to vast amounts of the intelligence agencies’ time being wasted on false leads. A year ago, summing up the results of Zubaydah’s torture, a former intelligence official stated, bluntly, “We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms.”
Removal of his name by the Leigh-Keller gang was not “caring about informers”, it was caring about the torturers.
However the most important redactions by Leigh and Keller were directly dictated by the US intelligence services. The name of Nashwan Abd Al Razzaq Abd Al Baqi, or by another name, Abd al Hadi al Iraqi or by his number IZ-10026 was edited away from the file of Abu al-Libi (US9LY-010017DP) and elsewhere. This file is available in a redacted version of the Guardian and in the uncut version of Wikileaks. Comparison shows to what extent all the traces of al Iraqi were removed. It was not connected to “caring about informers”, for al Libi was dead, having allegedly committed suicide in a Libyan jail just before the arrival of the US Ambassador in Tripoli. The file of al Iraqi is missing in all databases; he was captured in 2005 and kept in various secret prisons, until transferred to Guantanamo where he is detained now.
Careful reading of the file shows that al-Libi was connected with al Iraqi since October 2002. In 2003, OBL stated al Libi would be the official messenger between OBL and others in Pakistan. In mid-2003, al Libi moved his family to Abbottabad, Pakistan and worked between Abbottabad and Peshawar. He maintained contact with al Iraqi.
And we know that OBL was found and killed in Abbottabad – just as this publication hit the pages of the newspapers. So the trail to Abbottabad was known to the American services at least since 2005, when al-Libi, another Abbottabad dweller, was captured.
What we do not know is the nature of the contacts between the US authorities and OBL.
What we do know is that David Leigh and Bill Keller tried to hid it from their readers. Their redacting of the Guantanamo files, like their redacting of the Cablegate, had nothing to do with “saving informers”.
David Leigh claimed that Assange "double-crossed" the paper by distributing the Gitmo files to various "right-wing" news organisations, meaning the conservative Daily Telegraph. This is rich. “Left” and “right” has very little meaning nowadays, after Blair and Clinton. What is important is the position on wars and overseas interventions, susceptibility to Secret Service meddling, subservience to the priorities of the state.
In France, right-wing Marine Le Pen stands against foreign interventions in Libya and Côte d'Ivoire , against payments to bankers, against the president, while left-wing Bernard Henri Levy supports wars and interventions, loves bankers, is a friend of the right-wing president Sarkozy.
In England, the Guardian is the leading newspaper for calls to war. Libya, Syria – the Guardian wants them bombed. Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq, - the Guardian wanted them to be invaded. It is just the package is different: instead of right-wing jingoism, the Guardian served the neo-colonialist adventurism under delicate sauce of humanitarian intervention. The Guardian leads on hypocrisy. The Guardian is not the newspaper of the left; it is the problem of the left. The case of Guantanamo files proves that the Guardian redacted the most vital information as told by the CIA.
And Osama? What about Osama bin Laden? Now we know that the US knew of his whereabouts; they knew of the trail, they asked Leigh and Keller to remove relevant references. Why didn’t they capture him or kill him earlier?
OBL’s organisation did what the US authorities wanted to be done. They fought the Russians and ruined Afghanistan. They conspired and fought against Hezbollah, slaughtered Shias in Iraq, undermined Qaddafi, hated Hamas and Iran. They supported ethnic cleansing of ‘infidels’ in Chechnya and in the Balkans. They never ever attacked Israel: they preserved their vigor for Sayyed Nasrallah. Like a dreadful beast nurtured in the CIA secret labs, only once they reportedly rebelled against their merciless creator - on 9/11. Osama was greater than, but similar to such American friends as Jonas Savimbi of Angola or Shamil Basayev of Chechnya, and hopefully after his death his organization will vanish like Unita and Basayev did.
The Guantanamo files reveal utter wretchedness of Osama’s unlucky followers. With exception of a few dozen close associates, the rest of the prisoners made a wrong choice ever listening to him. They (especially foreigners) were idealists, who wanted to establish the Kingdom of God upon the earth; they were encouraged by the US to flock to Afghanistan to fight the Commies. The majority of them never even had a chance to hold the gun. They, the foreigners in Afghanistan and Pakistan were sold for bounty to the Americans as fast as possible. They paid for this by years of torture. And now they are about to learn that their supreme chief was safeguarded by the same Americans who tortured them!
But in the mind of the Muslim masses OBL will be remembered (justly or not) as the architect of the only successful response of the oppressed to the Empire on its own soil. And that ensured him greatness of his own and a place in history.
Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net
World copyright CounterPunch
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4840123
George Bush angry at Obama's Ground Zero 'victory lap'
Source: Daily Mail
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 2:32 PM on 5th May 2011
Former president George Bush is angry at Barack Obama for not giving him or his administration credit in the discovery and killing of Osama Bin Laden, it was reported today.
Bush, who arguably set up the intelligence infrastructure that led to Bin Laden's bloody assassination, was 'rubbed the wrong way' after the President failed to acknowledge
his predecessor in the aftermath of Sunday's kill operation.
The spat comes as the President prepares to tour Ground Zero later today, meeting victim's families in private before laying a wreath at the disaster site.
snip
'Obama gave no credit whatsoever to the intelligence infrastructure the Bush administration set up that is being hailed from the left and right as setting in motion the operation that got Bin Laden. 'It rubbed Bush the wrong way.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_a463f892-7506-11e0-adf3-001cc4c03286.html
Schweitzer: With bin Laden dead, U.S. should leave Afghanistan
By GWEN FLORIO of the Missoulian | Posted: Monday, May 2, 2011 11:45 pm
The United States must take one more step to make things right following the killing of Osama bin Laden, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Monday.
Bin Laden's death "ought to put us in helicopters leaving Afghanistan," he said. "...There's no reason to stay. He's now dead. He's gone."
Schweitzer spoke with members of the Missoulian's editorial board Monday, a meeting originally scheduled to discuss the just-ended 2011 legislative session, which until Sunday night was the biggest news in Montana.
That news quickly was eclipsed by President Barack Obama's announcement that the U.S. military had killed bin Laden, who directed the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Along with millions of others, Schweitzer watched the coverage of reaction to the momentous event. The raucous celebrations around the country troubled him.
After all, he said, the nearly 3,000 deaths on Sept. 11 that launched the hunt for bin Laden are an unthinkable tragedy, perhaps best marked by somber reflection.
"I don't believe we ought to be dancing in the streets and waving American flags," he said. "... This is not like winning a hockey game," he said. "We killed an evil individual."
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that stemmed from the 9/11 attacks have claimed the lives of about 5,500 members of the U.S. military. But the conflict in Afghanistan quickly ceased to have anything to do with bin Laden, Schweitzer said.
"We went to Afghanistan for one reason and one only. We were going to shut down Al Qaeda and find and kill Osama bin Laden. There was no mention of the Taliban."
Yet Al Qaeda is largely gone from Afghanistan and U.S. troops are now focused on the Taliban, he said.
"We're a great country, but we weren't fighting one man. This is a clash of cultures, a clash of identities and it didn't end [Sunday] night when Osama bin Laden was killed. There's still something we need to resolve, but it doesn't mean we need to stay in Afghanistan or Iraq."
Schweitzer quoted his friend, the late Walter Breuning of Great Falls, who was the world's oldest man when he died last month at age 114.
The last time he saw Breuning - "a hell of an American" - the two joshed about running for president, the governor said. Breuning, said Schweitzer, straightened his tie and allowed as to how he might consider the idea. As president, Schweitzer asked him, what would he do?
"He said we had no business going in there and that we should leave," Schweitzer said.
And Schweitzer heartily concurred.
"A pox on all their houses," he said. "Load up. Leave. There's nothing to win. I don't even know what winning is there."
Missoulian reporter Gwen Florio can be reached at 523-5268, gwen.florio@missoulian.com, or CopsAndCourts.com.
Source: Daily Kos
WED MAY 04, 2011 AT 06:40 PM PDT
Pelosi on Afghanistan: 'very impressed for the first time with the intention to leave'
byChris BowersforDaily Kos
On a conference call today with progressive new media types, Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi indicated that, for the first time, she believes the United States military is prepared to withdraw from Afghanistan.
During the call, I asked Leader Pelosi "do you think the killing of Osama bin Laden will increase support in the House of Representatives for a more rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan?" While she said that she did not know the answer to that question at this time, she did relay some important information about a recent trip she took to Afghanistan.
On that trip, which took place over St. Patrick's Day weekend, Pelosi said "I was very impressed for the first time with the intention to leave." She indicated that in all conversations she had during her trip, from the highest echelons of the military and diplomatic corps to the rank and file soldiers in the field, "everything was about preparations to leave."
Pelosi added that "we will be on the President's timetable to begin the withdrawal of troops and go from there." This latter remark echoes what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters earlier in the week, that the killing of bin Laden will not result in an accelerated withdrawal timeline.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/0 ... iontoleave
