Pakistan Arrests CIA Informants In Bin Laden Raid

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/world ... cy.html?hp

Pakistan Arrests C.I.A. Informants in Bin Laden Raid
Muhammed Muheisen/Associated Press

Weeks after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden at this compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan arrested C.I.A. informants who had assisted in the operation.
By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: June 14, 2011

* Recommend
* Twitter
* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
* Single Page
*
Reprints
* ShareClose
o Linkedin
o Digg
o MySpace
o Permalink
o

WASHINGTON — Pakistan’s top military spy agency has arrested some of the Pakistani informants who fed information to the Central Intelligence Agency in the months leading up to the raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, according to American officials.
Related

*
Room For Debate: Should the U.S. Cut Off Aid to Pakistan?
*
Times Topics: Pakistan | The Death of Osama bin Laden

Enlarge This Image
Kuni Takahashi for The New York Times

A casualty of the recent tension between the countries is an ambitious Pentagon program to train Pakistani paramilitary troops to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the northwestern tribal areas.

Pakistan’s detention of five C.I.A. informants, including a Pakistani Army major who officials said copied the license plates of cars visiting Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in the weeks before the raid, is the latest evidence of the fractured relationship between the United States and Pakistan. It comes at a time when the Obama administration is seeking Pakistan’s support in brokering an endgame in the war in neighboring Afghanistan.

At a closed briefing last week, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee asked Michael J. Morell, the deputy C.I.A. director, to rate Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States on counterterrorism operations, on a scale of 1 to 10.

“Three,” Mr. Morell replied, according to officials familiar with the exchange.

The fate of the C.I.A. informants arrested in Pakistan is unclear, but American officials said that the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, raised the issue when he travelled to Islamabad last week to meet with Pakistani military and intelligence officers.

Some in Washington see the arrests as illustrative of the disconnect between Pakistani and American priorities at a time when they are supposed to be allies in the fight against Al Qaeda — instead of hunting down the support network that allowed Bin Laden to live comfortably for years, the Pakistani authorities are arresting those who assisted in the raid that killed the world’s most wanted man.

The Bin Laden raid and more recent attacks by militants in Pakistan have been blows to the country’s military, a revered institution in the country. Some officials and outside experts said the military is mired in its worst crisis of confidence in decades.

American officials cautioned that Mr. Morell’s comments about Pakistani support was a snapshot of the current relationship, and did not represent the administration’s overall assessment.

“We have a strong relationship with our Pakistani counterparts and work through issues when they arise,” said Marie E. Harf, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. “Director Panetta had productive meetings last week in Islamabad. It’s a crucial partnership, and we will continue to work together in the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups who threaten our country and theirs.”

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, said in a brief telephone interview that the C.I.A. and the Pakistani spy agency “are working out mutually agreeable terms for their cooperation in fighting the menace of terrorism. It is not appropriate for us to get into the details at this stage.”

Over the past several weeks the Pakistani military has been distancing itself from American intelligence and counterterrorism operations against militant groups in Pakistan. This has angered many in Washington who believe that Bin Laden’s death has shaken Al Qaeda and that there is now an opportunity to further weaken the terrorist organization with more raids and armed drone strikes.

But in recent months, dating approximately to when a C.I.A. contractor killed two Pakistanis on a street in the eastern city of Lahore in January, American officials said that Pakistani spies from the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, known as the ISI, have been generally unwilling to carry out surveillance operations for the C.I.A. The Pakistanis have also resisted granting visas allowing American intelligence officers to operate in Pakistan, and have threatened to put greater restrictions on the drone flights.

It is the future of the drone program that is a particular worry for the C.I.A. American officials said that during his meetings in Pakistan last week, Mr. Panetta was particularly forceful about trying to get Pakistani officials to allow armed drones to fly over even wider areas in the northwest tribal regions. But the C.I.A. is already preparing for the worst: relocating some of the drones from Pakistan to a base in Afghanistan, where they can take off and fly east across the mountains and into the tribal areas, where terrorist groups find safe haven.

Another casualty of the recent tension is an ambitious Pentagon program to train Pakistani paramilitary troops to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in those same tribal areas. That program has ended, both American and Pakistani officials acknowledge, and the last of about 120 American military advisers have left the country.

American officials are now scrambling to find temporary jobs for about 50 Special Forces support personnel who had been helping the trainers with logistics and communications. Their visas were difficult to obtain and officials fear if these troops are sent home, Pakistan will not allow them to return.

In a sign of the growing anger on Capitol Hill, Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who leads the House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday that he believed elements of the ISI and the military had helped protect Bin Laden.

Mr. Rogers, who met with senior security officials in Pakistan last week, said he had no evidence that senior Pakistani military or civilian leaders were complicit in sheltering Bin Laden. And he did not offer any proof to support his assertion, saying only his accusation was based on “information that I’ve seen.”
Related

*
Room For Debate: Should the U.S. Cut Off Aid to Pakistan?
*
Times Topics: Pakistan | The Death of Osama bin Laden

He warned that both lawmakers and the Obama administration could end up putting more restrictions on the $2 billion in American military aid received annually by Pakistan. He also called for “benchmarks” in the relationship, including more sharing of information about militant activities in Karachi, Lahore and elsewhere and more American access to militants detained in Pakistan.

American military commanders in Afghanistan appear cautiously optimistic that they are making progress in pushing the Taliban from its strongholds in that country’s south, but many say a significant American military withdrawal can occur only if the warring sides in Afghanistan broker some kind of peace deal.

But the United States is reliant on Pakistan to apply pressure on Taliban leaders, over whom they have historically had great influence.

For now, at least, America’s relationship with Pakistan keeps getting tripped up. When he visited Pakistan, Mr. Panetta offered evidence of collusion between Pakistani security officials and the militants staging attacks in Afghanistan.

American officials said Mr. Panetta presented satellite photographs of two bomb-making factories that American spies several weeks ago had asked the ISI to raid. When Pakistani troops showed up days later, the militants were gone, causing American officials to question whether the militants had been warned by someone on the Pakistani side.

Shortly after the failed raids, the Defense Department put a hold on a $300 million payment reimbursing Pakistan for the cost of deploying more than 100,000 troops along the border with Afghanistan, two officials said. The Pentagon declined to comment on the payment, except to say it was “continuing to process several claims.”

Fuck Pakistan, just fuck 'em.

[Lord MJ]

Sorry but I can't find much fault with Pakistan over this action. Regardless of the good of killing Bin Laden, when you supply intelligence to a foreign power without authorization you are going to get your ass thrown in jail.

I can only hope that Pakistan decides to let these guys stew in jail for a while and then let them loose, rather than exact more harsher penalties.

[K. A. Pital]

Fuck Pakistan, just fuck 'em.

Because Pakistan violated something here? Because only the US almighty is worthy of serving? Oh noes, mean Pakistan arrests people who gave out intelligence to a foreign power! Uh-nuh! Oh noes, mean Pakistan kept Bin Laden! As if they weren't, as a sovereign nation, fully within the right to keep Bin Laden and - gasp - even protect him, if they so wanted. Mwahahha. This indignation is really funny.

[Master of Ossus]

Because Pakistan violated something here? Because only the US almighty is worthy of serving? Oh noes, mean Pakistan arrests people who gave out intelligence to a foreign power! Uh-nuh! Oh noes, mean Pakistan kept Bin Laden! As if they weren't, as a sovereign nation, fully within the right to keep Bin Laden and - gasp - even protect him, if they so wanted.

Bullshit. As a signatory of Interpol, Pakistan is obligated by treaty to extradite criminals like bin Laden, who has been wanted by Interpol since the 1990's.

And as for the Eurotrashers who insisted that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty by sending a special forces team into Pakistan to surgically kill bin Laden, where's your willingness and ability, now?

And here's more on Pakistan's utter bullshit with regards to Al Qaeda:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Twice in recent weeks, the United States provided Pakistan with the specific locations of insurgent bomb-making factories, only to see the militants learn their cover had been blown and vacate the sites before military action could be taken, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.

Overhead surveillance video and other information was given to Pakistani officials in mid-May, officials said, as part of a trust-building effort by the Obama administration after the killing of Osama bin Laden in a U.S. raid early last month. But Pakistani military units that arrived at the sites in the tribal areas of North and South Waziristan on June 4 found them abandoned.

U.S. officials say they do not know how the operation was compromised. But they are concerned that either the information was inadvertently leaked inside Pakistan or insurgents were warned directly by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or ISI.

A senior Pakistani military official said Friday that the United States had also shared information about other sites, including weapons-storage facilities, that were similarly found empty. “There is a suspicion that perhaps there was a tip-off,” the official said. “It’s being looked into by our people, and certainly anybody involved will be taken to task.”

In the past, Pakistan has strenuously denied allegations that its security services are colluding with insurgents.

The incidents are expected to feature prominently in conversations between Pakistani officials and CIA Director Leon Panetta, who arrived in Pakistan on Friday. The U.S. argument, one official said, will be: “We are willing to share, but you have to prove you will act. Some of your people are no longer fully under your control.”

U.S. officials said Panetta would also carry a more positive message, reiterating that the United States wants to rebuild a trusting, constructive relationship with Pakistan. Immediately after bin Laden’s death, some administration officials and lawmakers argued that the al-Qaeda leader’s presence in a suburban Pakistani compound was reason enough to withhold U.S. assistance from Pakistan. But the prevailing view has been that the two countries need each other despite their problems.

Pakistan has frequently responded to U.S. entreaties to move against insurgent safe havens in the tribal areas by asking for proof of their presence. Officials said that video of the two installations indicated both were being used to manufacture improvised explosive devices, or IEDs — the roadside bombs that are the principal killers of U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan.

One was located in a girls’ school in the city of Miram Shah, home to the Haqqani network’s North Waziristan headquarters. The other, in South Waziristan, was thought to be an al-Qaeda-run facility, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

While the United States has conducted an aggressive campaign of drone strikes in the tribal areas, both sites were considered poor drone targets because of the high potential for civilian casualties.

The video was handed over to Pakistani army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani and ISI head Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha during a visit last month by Marc Grossman, the Obama administration’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and CIA Deputy Director Michael J. Morell. The classified videos have also been shown to members of the congressional intelligence committees.

After the visit by Grossman and Morell, the administration also demanded in a series of high-level telephone calls that the CIA be given access to the compound in the city of Abbottabad where bin Laden was killed.

That access was granted two weeks ago, leading to a visit by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At that time, Clinton asked about action on the videos. She has since followed up with two telephone calls to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani.

The two installations had been cleared out before Pakistani military units moved against them on June 4, satellite imagery subsequently revealed.

A local security official in North Waziristan confirmed that Pakistani forces had raided the girls’ school after militants had abandoned it. A local tribal official, who, like the security official, spoke on the condition of anonymity, said it is common for insurgent groups to use schools and hospitals to manufacture weapons.

Tense relations

When Clinton visited Pakistan two weeks ago, she said Washington expected to see “decisive steps” from Pakistan “in the days ahead.”

But in recent weeks, Pakistan has seemed only to further distance itself from its U.S. alliance, forcing out most of the 135 U.S. troops who had been here training Pakistani forces.

On Thursday, Kayani issued a pointed statement that called for U.S. military aid for Pakistan to be converted into economic assistance, demanded an end to U.S. drone strikes in the tribal areas and insisted Pakistan would not be pressured into conducting military operations.

The United States has been pushing Pakistan for more than a year to mount an offensive in North Waziristan. But Pakistan has resisted the calls, saying its forces are already stretched too thin.

Tribal leaders in North Waziristan said Friday that a government official had recently visited the area and told residents not to leave their homes, because no military operation was imminent.

In addition to pressure from the United States, Pakistan’s military has faced intense domestic criticism since the May 2 raid.

On Friday, opposition leader and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif accused the army of running “a parallel government” and demanded that it end its “dominance of Pakistan’s foreign policy.” The comments were unusually bold in a country where civilian politicians have long bowed to the military’s authority.

Panetta, who has been nominated to be the next U.S. defense secretary, left for Pakistan soon after confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill concluded Thursday. Pakistan’s army issued a terse statement saying that Panetta had met with Kayani, and the two discussed “the framework for future intelligence sharing.”

Karzai arives for talks

Panetta’s arrival coincided with that of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who traveled to Islamabad on Friday for two days of talks with top Pakistani leaders amid cautious hopes that the two nations can forge a coordinated strategy for reconciling with insurgents.

The two governments have long mistrusted one another, with Afghan officials accusing Pakistan of covertly backing the Taliban and other militant groups. But tensions have eased in recent months, and Afghan officials said Karzai’s visit will help to test Pakistan’s assertions that it is prepared to play a constructive role in ending the war in Afghanistan after more than three decades of conflict.

“There is a change of attitude here,” said Mohammad Umer Daudzai, the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan. “Pakistan has been badly hurt by militants. They are under pressure. So we have to realize that this is an ideal opportunity.”

But Daudzai also acknowledged that any negotiated solution to the war is a long way off. Pressed on a likely deadline, he cited 2014, when foreign troops are slated to hand over security responsibility to the Afghan government.

DeYoung reported from Washington. Special correspondents Haq Nawaz Khan in Peshawar and Shaiq Hussain in Islamabad contributed to this report.

Here was The Onion's take on the issue:

ISLAMABAD—Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency restated Thursday its commitment to the fight against terrorism, pledging full cooperation with U.S. forces during the upcoming strike on an al-Qaeda safe house on June 12 at 5:23 a.m. near the small town of Razmani in the remote tribal region of North Waziristan.

At a hastily convened press conference, ISI chief Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha called Pakistan's long- standing partnership with the United States "stronger than ever," explaining that both countries share an interest in rooting out al-Qaeda before its leaders have time to gather their secret cache of hidden weapons and move to a new location, possibly a tribal area in northwest Pakistan where Pasha said U.S. intelligence is limited in both its sophistication and reach.

"Make no mistake, Pakistan stands shoulder to shoulder with our American allies in hunting down those who threaten our national security," said Pasha, circling the exact location of the safe house on a large satellite photo of the town. "And we will show no mercy in targeting them, whether it be on the battlefield or, perhaps, in a bunker where the walls are thicker and offer better protection from Predator drone attacks."

"These are highly dangerous men," he continued, "who will be taken out at 5:23 a.m. I repeat: The strike begins at 5:23 a.m."

Pasha emphasized the ISI's extensive integration with U.S. forces in planning the attack, saying that the specific time was agreed upon to ensure the terrorists wouldn't try to escape across the porous Afghan border, which he noted is often poorly guarded—especially near the town of Shirhani—at that hour of the morning.

Pasha added that the drones would be coming from the west, targeting the main part of the compound where al-Qaeda operatives would likely be sleeping and not loading all laptops, assault rifles, sensitive documents detailing plans for future attacks, and shoulder-to-air missile launchers into pickup trucks and fleeing as quickly as possible.

In addition, Pasha thanked American CIA operative Aban Changwani, who he said has been working undercover for quite some time. Pasha confirmed that because Changwani had grown a beard to blend in with al-Qaeda members, he more than likely looked different than the picture currently being shown to reporters.

"Throughout the mission, we will be in constant contact with American commanders, providing up-to-the minute intelligence assessments and information on enemy movements," Pasha said. "As the strike unfolds, real-time updates will be transmitted to them via UHF frequency 11.2535."

Added Pasha, "We've also changed the code words we use with the Americans, which is vital to our overall communications strategy."

Specifically, he explained unprompted, Tango, Thunderclap, Pinnacle, Bourbon, Serum, Flinch, Rotary, Wigwam, Crimson, Notebook, and Cask have been replaced by Backpack, Brunette, Icicle, Hallway, Cyclone, Archer, Mustang, Cabin, Velvet, Gambler, Foothold, and Brick.

Pasha said that in addition to U.S. Apache helicopters circling Razmani to prevent the escape of any terrorist operatives, the ISI would be setting up extensive checkpoints on all roads leading north, south, and west out of the town

"I know if I were a member of al-Qaeda, I'd want to cover my tracks very carefully," Pasha said. "Because any evidence that hasn't been carted away through the back alley near the market will be turned over to U.S. special forces, who will arrive approximately one hour later and will have full access to the site."

"And what I definitely wouldn't do is try to escape to one of the other safe houses in town, since the Americans already have them under surveillance, and have been watching them for quite some time," he added.

CIA director Leon Panetta praised Lt. Gen. Pasha's announcement, calling his ISI counterpart an indispensable ally in the ongoing fight against terrorism.

"We've certainly had our differences, but I appreciate the candidness and transparency he brings to our joint operations," Panetta said. "Though there may be some elements within his organization sympathetic to al- Qaeda, I know we have a trustworthy partner at the head of the ISI."

As of press time, the U.S. has given Pakistan more than $20 billion in aid since Sept. 11, 2001.

[K. A. Pital]

Bullshit. As a signatory of Interpol, Pakistan is obligated by treaty to extradite criminals like bin Laden, who has been wanted by Interpol since the 1990's.

You can sue or fine Pakistan for violating Interpol rules, but you can't violate their sovereignity. I didn't know failing Interpol obligations were grounds to violate one's sovereignity. In this case Britain should probably be bombed to dust - it houses quite a few people sought by the Interpol:

The International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) does not have the authority to extradite Boris Berezovsky and Akhmed Zakayev, both UK residents, and both on an international wanted list, the Interpol Secretary Ronald Noble said this in an interview with the ITAR-TASS news agency on Tuesday.

Hey, how about putting a conventional warhead RK-55 into Zakayev and Berezovsky's homes in London? Clearly Britain fucking failed their Interpol obligations.

And as for the Eurotrashers who insisted that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty by sending a special forces team into Pakistan to surgically kill bin Laden, where's your willingness and ability, now?

Where's Britains willingness and ability to find, arrest, and hand over to the Interpol Zakayev and Berezovsky? Idiotic indignation infuriates intelligence, hahah.

[Master of Ossus]

Bullshit. As a signatory of Interpol, Pakistan is obligated by treaty to extradite criminals like bin Laden, who has been wanted by Interpol since the 1990's.

You can sue or fine Pakistan for violating Interpol rules, but you can't violate their sovereignity. I didn't know failing Interpol obligations were grounds to violate one's sovereignity. In this case Britain should probably be bombed to dust - it houses quite a few people sought by the Interpol:

The International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) does not have the authority to extradite Boris Berezovsky and Akhmed Zakayev, both UK residents, and both on an international wanted list, the Interpol Secretary Ronald Noble said this in an interview with the ITAR-TASS news agency on Tuesday.

Hey, how about putting a conventional warhead RK-55 into Zakayev and Berezovsky's homes in London? Clearly Britain fucking failed their Interpol obligations.

And as for the Eurotrashers who insisted that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty by sending a special forces team into Pakistan to surgically kill bin Laden, where's your willingness and ability, now?

Where's Britains willingness and ability to find, arrest, and hand over to the Interpol Zakayev and Berezovsky? Idiotic indignation infuriates intelligence, hahah.

Yawn. Got anything other than bad tu quoque fallacies, Stas?

England explicitly gave these two asylum which was based on the lack of evidence against them, the likelihood that they would be tortured, and the (courtroom) finding that their extradition was politically motivated--all factors that entitle a country to ignore an Interpol warrant and which were built into the Interpol treaties in order to prevent their abuse.

Pakistan has no such excuses. In fact, it has agreed that bin Laden should be extradicted--that finding just doesn't rise to the level where they feel they should get around to doing anything about it.

And entering a foreign country without their permission is perfectly acceptable only if there is an ongoing armed conflict with the legitimate military target (which bin Laden unambiguously was, and which these guys... don't seem to be).

[Serafina]

Actually, Pakistan could very well have argued that Bin Laden would be tortured if he was extradited to the USA. After all there is plenty of evidence that the USA torture their political prisoners.

[Simon_Jester]

Stas, do I actually need a reason other than "this country aided an enemy of mine, who tried to kill great numbers of my countrymen, while promising to help my country track that enemy down" to say "fuck you" to that country? That strikes me as a good enough reason.

Sorry but I can't find much fault with Pakistan over this action. Regardless of the good of killing Bin Laden, when you supply intelligence to a foreign power without authorization you are going to get your ass thrown in jail.

I can only hope that Pakistan decides to let these guys stew in jail for a while and then let them loose, rather than exact more harsher penalties.

It is questionable whether they have the right to do this when the individual in question is an international criminal your government is officially committed to getting rid of.

Fuck Pakistan, just fuck 'em.

Because Pakistan violated something here? Because only the US almighty is worthy of serving?

No, because Osama bin Laden hated Mung Beans and wanted him to die, and therefore bin Laden was an enemy of Mung Beans (and all Americans). And so now the people who made it possible for the US to kill this individual are getting in trouble for doing so... despite the fact that the publically stated policy of the Pakistani government was that bin Laden was an enemy of their state.

Regardless of whether Pakistan has a right to hold international criminals within its borders rather than reporting them to Interpol, this is nonetheless a sign of a treacherous action- Pakistan told the US it wanted to kill bin Laden, while secretly trying to prevent him from being killed, and punishing those who get him killed.

This is a perfectly logical reason for an American to say "fuck Pakistan." Because while promising to help Americans against one of America's enemies, one who was a bad man by any account, they appear to have been trying to protect or avenge that enemy instead of trying to hunt him down.

"I am angry at Pakistan for doing this" is not the same thing as "Pakistan has no right to do this."

Oh noes, mean Pakistan arrests people who gave out intelligence to a foreign power! Uh-nuh! Oh noes, mean Pakistan kept Bin Laden! As if they weren't, as a sovereign nation, fully within the right to keep Bin Laden and - gasp - even protect him, if they so wanted. Mwahahha. This indignation is really funny.

I am annoyed that they chose to shelter international criminals from justice. I am also annoyed that they broke their word. I wouldn't say "indignant," mostly because I'm not at all surprised by this. I have long realized that while Pakistan may keep up a pretense of helping the US against its enemy while it is convenient to do so, they have many important agendas that will lead them to secretly do much less than they say they'll do in public.

[K. A. Pital]

Yawn. Got anything other than bad tu quoque fallacies, Stas?

I thought the rules are the same for everybody.

England explicitly gave these two asylum which was based on the lack of evidence against them, the likelihood that they would be tortured, and the (courtroom) finding that their extradition was politically motivated--all factors that entitle a country to ignore an Interpol warrant and which were built into the Interpol treaties in order to prevent their abuse.

Oh, so giving someone asylum due to lack of evidence and a likelihood of torture (which is clear with the Americans, they tortured KSM a lot) give a right to ignore Interpol warrants. Good. Also, your own courts can rebuff the Interpol warrant, good.

Pakistan never formally granted asylum to OBL, but if it did, it would be perfectly right. The USA would torture OBL (clear, they tortured other terror suspects) and extradiction would be politically motivated. End of story.

Pakistan has no such excuses. In fact, it has agreed that bin Laden should be extradicted--that finding just doesn't rise to the level where they feel they should get around to doing anything about it. And entering a foreign country without their permission is perfectly acceptable only if there is an ongoing armed conflict with the legitimate military target (which bin Laden unambiguously was, and which these guys... don't seem to be).

There is an ongoing armed conflict in Chechnya, and Zakayev clearly was part of the Chechen separatist command chain. He was a legitimate target.

Your call?

[The Romulan Republic]

Pakistan never formally granted asylum to OBL, but if it did, it would be perfectly right. The USA would torture OBL (clear, they tortured other terror suspects) and extradiction would be politically motivated. End of story.

Politically motivated? Are you saying the man wasn't a terrorist responsible for planning mass murder? Are you really that much of a troll?

[weemadando]

Pakistan never formally granted asylum to OBL, but if it did, it would be perfectly right. The USA would torture OBL (clear, they tortured other terror suspects) and extradiction would be politically motivated. End of story.

Politically motivated? Are you saying the man wasn't a terrorist responsible for planning mass murder? Are you really that much of a troll?

Fuck, you guys are hilarious today. Most nations wouldn't have extradited Bin Laden because most nations have qualifiers like: "Cannot extradite someone to where they may face torture, unreasonable treatment or the death penalty."

You can pretty much guaranteed that the US would have failed 3/3 right there.

Which is why the US ran massive extra-legal black operations and rendition networks, precisely to get around things like human rights and due process.

People may be shitbag terrorists, but the US, and sadly many of our other nations have debased themselves in their attempt to fight them.

[The Romulan Republic]

Pakistan never formally granted asylum to OBL, but if it did, it would be perfectly right. The USA would torture OBL (clear, they tortured other terror suspects) and extradiction would be politically motivated. End of story.

Politically motivated? Are you saying the man wasn't a terrorist responsible for planning mass murder? Are you really that much of a troll?

Fuck, you guys are hilarious today. Most nations wouldn't have extradited Bin Laden because most nations have qualifiers like: "Cannot extradite someone to where they may face torture, unreasonable treatment or the death penalty."

You can pretty much guaranteed that the US would have failed 3/3 right there.

Which is why the US ran massive extra-legal black operations and rendition networks, precisely to get around things like human rights and due process.

People may be shitbag terrorists, but the US, and sadly many of our other nations have debased themselves in their attempt to fight them.

I never addressed the issue of torture one way or the other. I addressed the claim that extraditing Bin Laden would have been politically motivated, as opposed to being motivated by him being a fucking mass murderer.

[K. A. Pital]

I addressed the claim that extraditing Bin Laden would have been politically motivated, as opposed to being motivated by him being a fucking mass murderer.

So what? Chechen separatists did their share of mass killings, especially when they invaded Dagestan and Ingushetia. That doesn't mean Zakayev's extradiction is not politically motivated, dumbass. Someone may be a terrorist, but also a political enemy of the state.

See what ando wrote. Most nations do not extradict someone who may be tortured in a nation regardless of whether he's a scumbag or mass murderer, or not.

The USA did not extradict Luis Posada Carilles, the infamous terrorist and killer of civilians. Why should anybody extradict anybody to the USA?

On September 28, 2005 a U.S. immigration judge ruled that Posada cannot be deported, finding that he faces the threat of torture in Venezuela.

Fucking fuck. That's so hilarous, isn't it?

[Simon_Jester]

Pakistan never formally granted asylum to OBL, but if it did, it would be perfectly right. The USA would torture OBL (clear, they tortured other terror suspects) and extradiction would be politically motivated. End of story.

So extradite him to some other country where he killed a lot of people. Like Spain. There are no shortage of people who would be quite happy to punish bin Laden. Nor are there any shortage of countries who would be happy to interrogate him by means short of torture- Britain comes to mind. Or, hell, the Pakistanis could do it themselves.

They have plenty of options other than "hide avowed mass murderer" or "send mass murderer to people who will torture him."

Come to think of it, Pakistan itself was executing people up to 2008, and the current moratorium (not ban) is not viewed without ambiguity within the country. And I have little doubt they knew quite well where bin Laden was then, if they ever knew at all.

They also torture people.

Stas, to be blunt, let's drop the ridiculous pretense that Pakistan was refusing to extradite bin Laden to the US over torture or the death penalty. It was a political decision on their part, and certainly not an admirable one; while I recognize your normal policy of favoring the weak over the strong, there has to be a limit- the beggar who murders a physician is not to be supported over the physician because he is poorer.

At most, at best, Pakistan's decision to withhold information on bin Laden's whereabouts was the result of a renegade faction within their intelligence organs deciding to ignore official policy. It's as likely, I think, that it is the result of Pakistan deliberately making promises in bad faith to help apprehend bin Laden, because they had some ulterior motive for which they wanted him alive.

Now, can you get it through your head that this is something people might legitimately be upset about? That yes, being lied to makes people angry, that yes, deliberately sheltering people who killed thousands of their countrymen makes people angry?

This anger is a human thing which exists in all nations, regardless of whether they are strong or weak, and it is fairly justified for anyone to become angry about such things- a strong man has as much right to be upset that you tried to choke the life out of him as a weak man, because all men must breathe.

So the idea that it's some kind of ridiculous joke for Americans to think Pakistan is playing them false, or that Pakistan should be keeping its promises, or that Pakistan is punishing Pakistanis who helped Americans find and kill a mass murderer... it's simply nonsensical. Likewise, that it's somehow unreasonable for Americans to wonder whether they should be giving money and weapons to a country which secretly protects their enemies- would you expect any other country in history to go on helping a smaller nation that did such a thing? Regardless of whether the nation giving the help was imperialist or non-imperialist or good or evil, it's not like it's a new idea in the world that you do not help the friends of your enemies.

On September 28, 2005 a U.S. immigration judge ruled that Posada cannot be deported, finding that he faces the threat of torture in Venezuela.

Fucking fuck. That's so hilarous, isn't it?

Darkly ironic, yes but do you really want the US to be Mordor? Would it make you happier, your worldview cleaner and simpler?

I'm not at all surprised that the US legal system condemns torture in other nations while failing to address torture inside its own borders. There are very powerful political forces at work to make things operate that way. I don't like them, and I worry tremendously about the consequences, but I don't find it hilarious. Turns out a lot of American judges have higher standards than the US executive branch, but have been unable to do much about it. Big surprise, that's a common problem in countries with a corrupted political order.* I would expect the judiciary to be least affected of all branches of government by the psychosis that's set in over counterterrorism, civil rights, and all these other things; wouldn't you, given how they're selected?

*Corruption in a sense other than bribes, though bribes play a role.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas, to be blunt, let's drop the ridiculous pretense that Pakistan was refusing to extradite bin Laden to the US over torture or the death penalty.

Actually I said they did not, but they could have granted him asylum and it would've been normal, because the US may kill or torture him. Just like they can't extradite Posada or Zakayev, despite the fact both are known criminals, because Russia can torture Zakayev (not kill now that the DP is abolished), and Venezuela can both torture and possibly kill Posada (not sure what the DP status is in Venezuela).

I just thought it was ironic how people rallied against Pakistan, when their own nations harbor known mass murderers, criminals, terrorists and foreign separatist militants without even the slightest desire to extradict them, and the nations seeking extradiction can do shit about it.

Darkly ironic, yes but do you really want the US to be Mordor? Would it make you happier, your worldview cleaner and simpler?

*laughs* You know full well that I lived in the US for a good 4 month, Simon. Would I do so if I really thought the US was Mordor? However, depicting the US as Mordor when people start being all angry and uppity about Interpol failures, non-extradiction is a bit fun. Because they never see that their own nation does the exact same thing. More openly, yes. As an entire nation, not just as a renegade faction.

But this only makes the US worse. This means the US government officially harbors mass murderers. The Pakistani one at least wasn't totally complicit; it was a "renegade faction".

[wautd]

Sorry but I can't find much fault with Pakistan over this action. Regardless of the good of killing Bin Laden, when you supply intelligence to a foreign power without authorization you are going to get your ass thrown in jail.

If only they spent so much time investigating how Bin Laden was able to hide in Pakistan for so long instead of going after the people who found him.

[weemadando]

Sorry but I can't find much fault with Pakistan over this action. Regardless of the good of killing Bin Laden, when you supply intelligence to a foreign power without authorization you are going to get your ass thrown in jail.

If only they spent so much time investigating how Bin Laden was able to hide in Pakistan for so long instead of going after the people who found him.

I'm sure as a deep insider in the intelligence community, you are aware that there is such a disparity in investigations.

[CJvR]

Here was The Onion's take on the issue:

LOL! A very accurate description of ISI cooperation I belive. But then the Pakistani outrage have always felt more like fury over the US fragging their honored guest.

[CJvR]

...when you supply intelligence to a foreign power without authorization you are going to get your ass thrown in jail.

I think that would depend on the information. Unless Bin Laden's whereabouts were classified Pakistani intelligence, which they deny, then that argument falls. They could simply treat it as a common criminal case as in aiding the plot to murder someone and charge him according to that. If they want to nail him for selling the intel on Bin Laden then the ISI will first have to admit they knew all along that Bin Laden was living in the gate house of their prime military accademy.

[Thanas]

And as for the Eurotrashers who insisted that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty by sending a special forces team into Pakistan to surgically kill bin Laden, where's your willingness and ability, now?

What has got this to do with Europe?


Also, I thought you were better than resorting to derogative slurs. Guess I was wrong, too bad standards for simple courtesy have slipped so low.

[Sarevok]

This is evil for the lack of a better word.

This only sends a strong message that if you oppose islamo-fascism the state will throw you into jail.

[Lord MJ]

...when you supply intelligence to a foreign power without authorization you are going to get your ass thrown in jail.

I think that would depend on the information. Unless Bin Laden's whereabouts were classified Pakistani intelligence, which they deny, then that argument falls. They could simply treat it as a common criminal case as in aiding the plot to murder someone and charge him according to that. If they want to nail him for selling the intel on Bin Laden then the ISI will first have to admit they knew all along that Bin Laden was living in the gate house of their prime military accademy.

If I were to do simple Google searches or research news Articles for China's intelligence agency, I would be carted off to jail for espionage. It doesn't matter whether the information is classified or not, the intelligence could be open source or common knowledge, all that matters is that I'm am gathering intelligence and providing it to a foreign government without authorization.

[Simon_Jester]

And as for the Eurotrashers who insisted that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty by sending a special forces team into Pakistan to surgically kill bin Laden, where's your willingness and ability, now?

What has got this to do with Europe?

Also, I thought you were better than resorting to derogative slurs. Guess I was wrong, too bad standards for simple courtesy have slipped so low.

This has to do with people who said bin Laden should have been tracked down and arrested by law enforcement personnel, something that was asserted in the original threads on bin Laden's capture. You yourself said:

Against a force of armed men the size of an army, with a strong territorial base in a remote part of the world where the people are tied to them by strong cultural bonds, that breaks down. We could not have, could never have, sent Interpol to arrest bin Laden.

It seems to me that forces like the Gendarmerie or GSG9 would have been able to accomplish that task.

At the time, I was sort of surprised that you would say this, since it struck me as completely ridiculous. With Pakistani intelligence punishing people who gave the information on bin Laden's whereabouts, it seems more ridiculous in hindsight.

Looking at something like that, I'd bet it was impractical to do anything about bin Laden with Pakistan's consent. Their intelligence organs would not have allowed him to be captured or killed if they'd known the raid was afoot. Looking for cooperation from Pakistani authorities, or going in by law enforcement tactics, even those of SWAT-type organizations (like GSG-9) would have been pointless: nothing but a way to ensure a mass murderer gets away, possibly with a trap left behind for the people who come to arrest him.

Basically, this makes it look like Pakistan was never willing, or never really able, to arrest bin Laden within its own borders- whoever is now punishing those informants wouldn't want it to happen. Indeed, I have to wonder why the informants didn't just go to the Pakistani government, if they actually expected Pakistan to do something about bin Laden if someone told them he was in the country. Again, I'd bet the reason is that Pakistan wouldn't do anything, or at least not anything effective.

You also asked, in the main bin Laden thread near the end:

How is Pakistan considered an unwilling force against Al-Quida?

And now we know. Because Pakistan, or powerful elements within Pakistan, are inclined to avenge bin Laden's death on the people who informed the US about his whereabouts. That's not something that would happen in a country willing and able to kill bin Laden.


Of course, the "Eurotrasher" slur from Ossus is just random bullshit, but that doesn't affect the substance of what Ossus said. That's just him trying to score points by saying "neener neener," as he is prone to do. His failure to be courteous shouldn't distract you from the point he made before making an ass of himself.

[Thanas]

Of course, the "Eurotrasher" slur from Ossus is just random bullshit, but that doesn't affect the substance of what Ossus said. That's just him trying to score points by saying "neener neener," as he is prone to do. His failure to be courteous shouldn't distract you from the point he made before making an ass of himself.

Yes, you're right. Just because Ossus is a little child does not mean I should disregard his arguments. So my apologies to Ossus: You acting like an immature child should not have led to an automatic dismissal of your posts. I am sorry for that.

As for Pakistan's current actions, it remains to seen if the faction that seems to be acting now is in the majority or minority. For the time being however, I think I will however concede that it seems likely that Pakistan seems to be less than willing to have handed him over.

None of that however immediately invalidates any of the other points made in the thread. It was still a breach of sovereignty, it was still an assassination mission, there is no evidence from an unbiased source that he resisted arrest etc.

[Simon_Jester]

It was still a breach of sovereignty, it was still an assassination mission, there is no evidence from an unbiased source that he resisted arrest etc.

Taken in order:

1) Yes it was, but there's the obvious precedent of the invasion of Afghanistan for what happened when another country more openly sheltered the same man and refused to hand him over into custody. I doubt anyone would have criticized the US if they'd satisfied themselves with a helicopter raid to capture or kill bin Laden from Afghanistan immediately after 9/11, instead of launching a full-scale invasion. The full-scale invasion certainly met widespread international approval.

2) Quite possibly it was an assasination mission. Or they may have been willing to capture him if he voluntarily surrendered. I don't know. There is no strong reason to assume he would (did?) surrender when an American commando was kicking his door down.

Would it surprise anyone if bin Laden wanted to die fighting? It's not like that would be out of character given his political and religious views.

Either way, it certainly fit the profile of an assassination attempt, but could equally well have been a case of "kill or capture him, but don't risk your lives trying to capture him if you can kill him instead." Which is common for commando raids staged against enemy leadership figures, even in law enforcement; SWAT teams aren't expected to die trying to disarm someone who wants to die fighting a SWAT team.

3)True; we have no evidence from an unbiased source that he tried to resist. I see no reason to assume he tried to resist, and no reason to assume he didn't try to resist. Many leaders of revolutionary organizations surrendered when confronted in their hideouts; others have died fighting. Bin Laden himself spent a lot of time talking about the glories of martyrdom, so I wouldn't be surprised if he did decide to fight.

But we'll never know, because everyone who was there is either dead or not likely to talk about a military operation that would be classified no matter who'd done it. And everyone present, including the dead, could be considered 'biased' if we could talk to them about it, because they all either hated or loved bin Laden.