-Caveat Lector-
(The whole war was set up by Bush & Big Oil to get a pipeline built. Business
as usual, probably supported completely by the CIA. They probably knew all
about the terrorists' plans for 9/11 and just like Pearl Harbor, knew it was a
sure bet to get the pipeline. There must be a better way (alternative energy
sources including solar, windpower, hydrogen, and warm/cold fusion).- -SW)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 13:32:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Party of Citizens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The Taliban Agreed To Extradite Osama Bin Laden To Another Country
(fwd)
Right up until the day the bombs started falling, the Taliban were saying,
Just give us enough evidence to make an arrest and we will arrest Bin
Laden. Given that there must have been more to the story. They must have
anticipated where he would be put on trial. The story below fills in those
details.
POC
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 23:05:44 -0600
From: Kim Scipes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The Taliban Agreed To Extradite Osama Bin Laden To Another Country
8 October 2001: ARROW anti-war briefing 5
The Smoking Gun
The Taliban Agreed To Extradite Osama Bin Laden To Another Country
In the aftermath of 11 September, we now have a 'smoking gun'. But it is not
evidence of Osama bin Laden's guilt in relation to the atrocities of 11
September. It is evidence of Government lies about the basis for the current
war against Afghanistan. This is an unnecessary war.
According to the Prime Minister, it is impossible by any nonviolent means to
secure the extradition from Afghanistan of the terrorist leader Osama bin
Laden who the British Government holds responsible for the 11 September
atrocities. This is why force has to be used to destroy bin Laden's
infrastructure in Afghanistan, and to retaliate against the Taliban regime
which harbours him. But this argument is completely undermined by a report
in the Daily Telegraph, which appeared on the day Tony Blair set out the
Government's 'evidence' in Parliament. There are three main questions in
this war: What is the evidence against bin Laden? If he is guilty, are there
nonviolent methods of securing him for trial? Is the force being used by the
Government legal?
On the first point, the 70 point dossier produced by the Government has been
described by the Independent on Sunday as little more than 'conjecture,
supposition and assertions of fact' (7 Oct., p. 7; see briefing 6 for more
details). On the third point, it is clear this is neither a war of
self-defence nor an authorised use of force.
On the matter of extradition, the subject of this briefing, the Daily
Telegraph has reported that not only is bin Laden's extradition from
Afghanistan possible in theory, an agreement to extradite has actually been
reached in fact.
THE TALIBAN - AND BIN LADEN - AGREE EXTRADITION
This new evidence came to light on Thurs. 4 Oct., just as the Prime Minister
was setting out his case in Parliament. The Daily Telegraph reported an
extraordinary story under the heading 'Pakistan halts secret plan for bin
Laden trial'. (p. 9) According to this report, leaders of two Pakistani
Islamic parties, the Jamaat-i-Islami and the Jamaat Ulema-e-Islam,
negotiated bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for the 11
September attacks. Bin Laden would be held under house arrest in Peshawar.
The first stage of the negotiations was carried out in Islamabad on Sat. 29
Sept., in Pakistan, when Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, the Taliban Ambassador
to Pakistan, met with Qazi Hussain Ahmad, leader of the Jamaat-i-Islami, and
Hamid Gul, former director of Pakistan's inter-service intelligence agency.
The final stage of the negotiations was in Kandahar, on Mon. 1 Oct., when
Qazi, and Maaulana Fazlur Rahman, head of the Jamaat Ulema-e-Islam, met
Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar.'The proposal, which had bin Laden's
approval, was that within the framework of Islamic shar'ia law evidence of
his alleged involvement in the New York and Washington attacks would be
placed before an international tribunal. The court would decide whether to
try him on the spot or hand him over to America.' (Telegraph, 4 Oct., p. 9)
The British Government says that there is no nonviolent way to secure the
capture or extradition of Osama bin Laden. But the Taliban have agreed an
extradition deal. Amazingly, this extradition deal is reported to have had
'bin Laden's approval'. Admittedly, the deal only guaranteed extradition to
Pakistan, but given Pakistan's new role as a US ally in the so-called "war
on terrorism", the transfer from Afghanistan to Pakistan should have been a
welcome step in bringing bin Laden to trial. Furthermore, the report clearly
states that extradition to the United States would be a real possibility
under this deal.
THE DEAL FAILS
Why did the deal not go ahead? Despite being agreed by Mullah Omar, head of
the Taliban, the extradition was vetoed by Pakistan's President Musharraf.
The ostensible stumbling block 'was that he [Musharraf] could not guarantee
bin Laden's safety'. (Telegraph, 4 Oct., p. 9) This is implausible.
It is intriguing that, according to the Telegraph, the US Ambassador to
Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, was notified in advance of the mission to meet
Mullah Omar. A US official has been quoted as saying that 'casting the
objectives too narrowly would risk a premature collapse of the international
effort if by some lucky chance Mr bin Laden were captured'. (FT, 20 Sept.,
p. 7) Perhaps a US veto killed the deal.
NO JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR
This story blows an enormous hole in the Government's rationale for war. We
are being told that we must go to war because the Taliban have refused
point-blank to hand over bin Laden. Now we know that in fact the Taliban,
far from refusing to contemplate extradition, have agreed in principle to
'hand over' bin Laden for trial in Pakistan and possibly the US. Whether or
not the evidence against bin Laden is 'incontrovertible' and 'compelling',
the fact of the matter is that there is a nonviolent alternative to war -
and it is being rejected not by the Taliban regime, but by the British and
US governments. The nonviolent alternative is to negotiate extradition.
Negotiation of international conflicts is a solemn duty under Article 33 of
the United Nations Charter.
PREVIOUS OFFERS
The Taliban's agreement on extradition is of a piece with its position all
the way through this crisis. The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah
Jamal, said early on, 'Anyone who is responsible for this act, Osama or not,
we will not side with him. We told [the Pakistan delegation] to give us
proof that he did it, because without that how can we give him up?'
(Independent, 19 Sept., p. 1) Three days later, Taliban Ambassador Zaeef
said, 'We are not ready to hand over Osama bin Laden WITHOUT EVIDENCE'
(emphasis added, Times, 22 Sept., p. 1).
When US Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to publish a US dossier of
evidence against bin Laden (an offer subsequently withdrawn), Ambassador
Zaeef responded positively. 'The ambassador said it was "good news" that the
US intended to produce its evidence against Mr bin Laden. This could help to
solve the issue "otherwise than fighting".' (Independent, 25 Sept., p. 3)
On Sun. 30 Sept, the Taliban made another offer which was completely
distorted and misrepresented by the Government and the media. The Taliban
Ambassador to Pakistan said - in a quotation that appeared only in one
newspaper, the Independent, and incompletely even there - 'We say if they
change and talk to us, and if they present evidence, we will respect their
negotiations and that might change things.' ('Bin Laden "hidden by Taleban",
BBC News Online, 30 Sept.)
The Independent's front-page opened with the statement that the Taliban
'gave no indication they were prepared to hand him over.' This was flatly
contradicted by the quotation eight paragraphs later of Mullah Zaeef,
Taliban Ambassador: 'We are thinking of negotiation. [If direct evidence of
bin Laden's involvement were produced] it might change things.'
(Independent, 1 Oct., p.1)
Daniel Lak of the BBC commented that it was 'unlikely' that Mullah Zaeef was
simply saying that bin Laden was under Taliban protection and 'the Americans
can do their worst': 'The ambassador did ask the Americans, and it almost
seems in a pleading tone, to start talks with the Taleban "because this
might produce a good result"' ('Analysis: Decoding Taleban's message', BBC
News Online, 30 Sept., 15:52 GMT)
MEDIA DISTORTION
The most recent reported Taliban offer was noted in the Observer, but in a
typically distorted fashion: 'Although most recent statements by Mullah Omar
have been stridently defiant, there have been hints in recent days that the
relentless diplomatic and military pressure on the Taliban is beginning to
tell. On Friday [5 Oct.], senior [Taliban] officials offered to put Osama
bin Laden, the prime suspect for the 11 September attacks in America, on
trial in an Islamic court if given sufficient evidence.' (Observer, 7 Oct.,
p. 2) In fact, of course, such offers have been made throughout. In the same
issue, it is claimed that whenever Mullah Omar 'detected any possible
weakness in the statements of his envoys in Pakistan or elsewhere he was
swift to countermand them. There would be no surrender'. (p. 17) In the real
world, Mullah Omar had made his position clear earlier (in the Guardian -
the Observer's stable mate): 'We have told America that if it has any
evidence, give it to the Afghan supreme court, or let the clerics from any
three Islamic countries decide his case, or he could be placed under the
observation of the organisation of the Islamic conference [representing 52
countries]. But these offers have all been rejected.' (21 Sept., p. 4)
The Taliban regime has not 'refused to hand over bin Laden'. Up until 1
Oct., the Taliban refused to to 'hand over Osama bin Laden WITHOUT EVIDENCE'
(Mullah Zaeef, Times, 22 Sept., p. 1, emphasis added). On 1 Oct., they
agreed to bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan without evidence of his guilt.
The US has consistently brushed aside such diplomatic feelers. Ari
Fleischer, White House spokesperson has said repeatedly, that there will be
'no negotiations, no discussions' with the Taliban. (Telegraph, 22 Sept,
p.1)
MEDIA PROPAGANDA
President Bush says 'I gave them a fair chance'. (Times, 8 Oct., p. 2) The
reality is that he has rejected negotiations and nonviolent alternatives to
war. Extradition from Afghanistan was possible, and may still be possible if
the war is ended. The media have effectively suppressed evidence of the
Taliban's offers, and have distorted the Taliban's position - thereby making
war seem natural and inevitable. It is neither. Public pressure can help to
force the media into more honest reporting, and help end this illegal and
unnecessary war.
RESTRAINT
'What we need less of is war rhetoric and war against Afghanistan in
particular, and to explore the possibility of a judicial solution. In the
short term, the first priority should be to hunt down and arrest the
criminals with the goal of achieving justice, not revenge. This is a task
left not to the military but to investigative police forces, who can prepare
for a trial. The last thing I wanted was for more widows and fatherless
children to be created in my name. It would only produce a backlash. As the
victim of violence, I'd never want this to happen to another woman again.'
Professor Robin Therkauf is a lecturer in the political science department
at Yale University. She lost her husband Tom in the World Trade Centre on 11
September. (Quotes taken from Radio 4, 2 Oct., and the Friend, 28 Sept.)
http://www.wluml.org/www.wluml.org/english/new%2Darchives/wtc/post%2Dmilitar
y%2Daction/uk%2Darrow.htm
-------- End of forwarded message -------
Steve Wingate, Webmaster
ANOMALOUS IMAGES AND UFO FILES
http://www.anomalous-images.com
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
