Holy shit - US could have had Osama given to them

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-04 04:06pm

From here:

Taliban told US it would give up Osama - middleman
By Mark Trevelyan

BERLIN, June 4 (Reuters) - U.S. and Taliban officials met secretly in Frankfurt almost a year before the September 11 attacks to discuss terms for the Afghans to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a German television documentary.

But no agreement was reached and no further negotiations took place before the suicide hijackings in 2001, which bin Laden subsequently hailed in a videotape as the work of his al Qaeda network.

ZDF television quoted Kabir Mohabbat, an Afghan-American businessman, as saying he tried to broker a deal between the Americans and the purist Islamic Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, who were sheltering bin Laden.

He quoted the Taliban foreign minister, Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil, as saying: "You can have him whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him."

A German member of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, confirmed to Reuters that he had helped Mohabbat in 1999 to establish initial contact with the Americans.

"I was told (by Mohabbat) that the Taliban had certain ideas about handing over bin Laden, not to the United States but to a third country or to the Court of Justice in The Hague," Brok said.

"The message was: 'There is willingness to talk about handing over bin Laden', and the aim of the Taliban was clearly to win the recognition of the American government and the lifting of the boycott," he said, referring to the international isolation of the Taliban.

Brok said he was not in a position to judge how credible the offer was, but he passed it to the U.S. ambassador to Germany, John Kornblum. He said Mohabbat was then summoned to Washington to be interviewed by U.S. officials.

This led in turn to the German meeting, which ZDF said took place between Taliban ministers and U.S. officials in a Frankfurt hotel in November 2000.

The documentary, broadcast on Thursday evening, said the Afghans put forward "several offers" and there was talk of holding further negotiations at the U.S. embassy in Pakistan on where and when bin Laden would be handed over.

In fact, no more talks took place before September 11. But negotiations did resume five days after the attacks, in the Pakistani city of Quetta, ZDF said. This meeting has been previously reported in U.S. media.

Mohabbat said the Americans pressed in Quetta for the handover of bin Laden within 24 hours, but the Taliban were unable to meet that demand.

Within weeks, U.S.-led forces intervened in Afghanistan to drive the Taliban from power and kill, capture or disperse al Qaeda fighters based in Afghan training camps. Bin Laden himself is still at large.

Brok said he had not personally taken part in either of the reported meetings between the Taliban and the United States but believed there had been a "political decision" not to pursue negotiations after the one in Frankfurt.

He told ZDF: "I have to say that I consider this offer (on bin Laden's handover) very much more seriously with hindsight than I did at the time."

Former U.S. envoy Kornblum is now head of investment bank Lazard in Germany, and his office said he had no comment. A U.S. embassy spokesman said he was not familiar with the ZDF programme.

06/04/04 09:35

Can this be for real?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-06-04 04:11pm

If this is real, whose the retard who said no?

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2004-06-04 04:15pm

If it's the event I am thinking of it is covered in Lies and the Lying Liers who tell them (The Al Franken book) but unfortunatly I have currently lent that book to a friend... if anyone else has a copy could they check this for me, but if it is the event I am thinking of, it was filled with many problems from the start but the right likes to bring it out every now and again and trumpet it as important.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-04 04:28pm

This sounds just as bogus as the "deal" Sudan offered.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-06-04 04:29pm

It could be real, but it sounds like a pretty shitty deal if it had any credibility at all. Its pretty unlikely that the Taliban could even catch Bin Laden in ordered to hand him over anyway, its not like he lived inside police station in Kandahar. Even if he was handed over, his intact organization would still have been able to launch such attacks as September 11th.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-06-04 04:35pm

This occured during Bush's regime, correct? Whenever right-wingers bust out the bogus "Sudan offered to turn over bin Laden to Clinton" story after refuting it you can bust this one out on them.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-04 04:45pm

Skelron wrote:If it's the event I am thinking of it is covered in Lies and the Lying Liers who tell them (The Al Franken book) but unfortunatly I have currently lent that book to a friend... if anyone else has a copy could they check this for me, but if it is the event I am thinking of, it was filled with many problems from the start but the right likes to bring it out every now and again and trumpet it as important.

Incorrect, that was a totally different situation where the Clinton administration was dealing with a totally unreliable civilian that claimed to be representing a government that could hand over Bin Laden.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-04 04:56pm

HemlockGrey wrote:This occured during Bush's regime, correct? Whenever right-wingers bust out the bogus "Sudan offered to turn over bin Laden to Clinton" story after refuting it you can bust this one out on them.

No, actually it wouldn't be. Bush didn't take Office until January of 2001 so with out a more precise date, it doesn't seem to be.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-04 04:58pm

SirNitram wrote:

If this is real, whose the retard who said no?

Just because the Taliban offered it doesn't mean that they could deliver him or that their demands were anything we'd be in a position to grant them. The fact that they sheilded him after the attacks suggests they weren't being all that reasonable about it.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-04 04:58pm

The Kernel wrote:
Skelron wrote:If it's the event I am thinking of it is covered in Lies and the Lying Liers who tell them (The Al Franken book) but unfortunatly I have currently lent that book to a friend... if anyone else has a copy could they check this for me, but if it is the event I am thinking of, it was filled with many problems from the start but the right likes to bring it out every now and again and trumpet it as important.
Incorrect, that was a totally different situation where the Clinton administration was dealing with a totally unreliable civilian that claimed to be representing a government that could hand over Bin Laden.

EDIT: Nevermind, it appears to be the same thing. And you are right, this was covered quite well in Al Franken's book.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-06-04 05:58pm

n fact, no more talks took place before September 11. But negotiations did resume five days after the attacks, in the Pakistani city of Quetta, ZDF said. This meeting has been previously reported in U.S. media.

Mohabbat said the Americans pressed in Quetta for the handover of bin Laden within 24 hours, but the Taliban were unable to meet that demand.

Within weeks, U.S.-led forces intervened in Afghanistan to drive the Taliban from power and kill, capture or disperse al Qaeda fighters based in Afghan training camps. Bin Laden himself is still at large.

That's the part that bugs me the most. 24 hours was unrealistic, but as I recall they still were given a few weeks after the date mentioned.

They were given time.

Skelron · Post by **Skelron** » 2004-06-04 05:59pm

The Kernel wrote:
Skelron wrote:If it's the event I am thinking of it is covered in Lies and the Lying Liers who tell them (The Al Franken book) but unfortunatly I have currently lent that book to a friend... if anyone else has a copy could they check this for me, but if it is the event I am thinking of, it was filled with many problems from the start but the right likes to bring it out every now and again and trumpet it as important.
Incorrect, that was a totally different situation where the Clinton administration was dealing with a totally unreliable civilian that claimed to be representing a government that could hand over Bin Laden.

Yep your right as I was scroling down I saw mention of Sudan and knew I'd been wrong... but it was too late. As I said if I had my copy I'd have checked and not posted it seems....

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-06-04 06:12pm

Stormbringer wrote:
SirNitram wrote:

If this is real, whose the retard who said no?
Just because the Taliban offered it doesn't mean that they could deliver him or that their demands were anything we'd be in a position to grant them. The fact that they sheilded him after the attacks suggests they weren't being all that reasonable about it.

Thinking for a moment, you're probably right. From our perspective, it seems hard to consider any price not worth it, but no one knew then that he'd smash so many buildings.

Still, five days after they offered again? That sounds pretty extraordinary.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-04 06:23pm

SirNitram wrote:Thinking for a moment, you're probably right. From our perspective, it seems hard to consider any price not worth it, but no one knew then that he'd smash so many buildings.

It does seems odd to a post September 11th world but it doesn't sound like they were offering much in the way of a deal. And that assumes they were making an actual good faith offer to begin with.

SirNitram wrote:Still, five days after they offered again? That sounds pretty extraordinary.

Not terribly so. They didn't have him then (nor did we) and it seems likely it fell far short of the turn him over to the US unconditionally.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-04 06:24pm

Stormbringer wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:This occured during Bush's regime, correct? Whenever right-wingers bust out the bogus "Sudan offered to turn over bin Laden to Clinton" story after refuting it you can bust this one out on them.
No, actually it wouldn't be. Bush didn't take Office until January of 2001 so with out a more precise date, it doesn't seem to be.

PS: November 2000. That's definitely during Clinton's term, and possibly even before the election.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-06-04 08:08pm

For some reason I read "almost a year before..." as "shortly before...". Apologies.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-06-04 09:01pm

How the fuck does that make any sense? Al Queda would simply allow the Taliban to extradite him? They were a pretty significant militia in that country and they'd rollover dead before their leader would be seized up.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-06-04 10:35pm

Probably why the US didn't say 'okay, hand him over', they didn't want a civil war in Afganistan and Al Qaeda taking over

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-05 01:27am

The Taliban wanted recognition from the United States in return for handing over Bin Laden, and they weren't willing to hand him directly to us. Even if they could deliver, that's an intolerable condition. I can't blame either administration for turning down their offer.

And by early 2001, the September 11 wheels were already in motion. Bin Laden could have been killed and it wouldn't have prevented the attacks.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-05 01:57am

RedImperator wrote:TAnd by early 2001, the September 11 wheels were already in motion. Bin Laden could have been killed and it wouldn't have prevented the attacks.

Not if we'd been able to break him during questioning.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-06-05 01:24pm

Durandal wrote:
RedImperator wrote:TAnd by early 2001, the September 11 wheels were already in motion. Bin Laden could have been killed and it wouldn't have prevented the attacks.
Not if we'd been able to break him during questioning.

Assuming we could, and assuming Bin Laden knew anything more than "something is going to happen". The way AL Quaeda is (was?) structured, the individual cells run their operations with little or no coordination from the top. Bin Laden was a spiritual leader and, in the beginning anyway, the moneyman. There's no reason for him to know the operational details of a planned attack--in fact, telling him creates a security risk, because every time information moves, it gives us a chance to hear it.

J · Post by J » 2004-06-05 01:44pm

Durandal wrote:
RedImperator wrote:TAnd by early 2001, the September 11 wheels were already in motion. Bin Laden could have been killed and it wouldn't have prevented the attacks.
Not if we'd been able to break him during questioning.

Too many "ifs" i think, if Bin Laden knew about it, if the interrogators believe him, if there's enough time to do anything, if people could be made to do something. Even if he knew and blabbed to the interrogators, would they believe him or just write it off as the delusional jabberings of a fundamentalist nutcase, and even if they did believe him, could they actually force their findings up through the bureaucractic chain to someone who has the power to do something about it? And more importantly, could the do it in time to prevent the attacks?

I admit I'm basing this more on gut feeling than anything else, but I just don't think anything could've been done in time to prevent the tragedy of 9/11.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-05 01:49pm

RedImperator wrote:
Durandal wrote:
RedImperator wrote:TAnd by early 2001, the September 11 wheels were already in motion. Bin Laden could have been killed and it wouldn't have prevented the attacks.
Not if we'd been able to break him during questioning.
Assuming we could, and assuming Bin Laden knew anything more than "something is going to happen". The way AL Quaeda is (was?) structured, the individual cells run their operations with little or no coordination from the top. Bin Laden was a spiritual leader and, in the beginning anyway, the moneyman. There's no reason for him to know the operational details of a planned attack--in fact, telling him creates a security risk, because every time information moves, it gives us a chance to hear it.

The videotape of him discussing the results of the attacks and how they exceeded expectations in terms of damage and loss of life implies that he had detailed knowledge of them.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-07 08:57am

Durandal wrote:
RedImperator wrote:TAnd by early 2001, the September 11 wheels were already in motion. Bin Laden could have been killed and it wouldn't have prevented the attacks.
Not if we'd been able to break him during questioning.

Break him during questioning? Are you suggesting the Abu Gharib method perhaps?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-07 10:11am

I've made it clear in the torture thread in SLAM that I'd have no problem with torturing a known terrorist to extract vital information. Don't delude yourself into thinking that what happened at Abu Gharib is anywhere near analogous.