PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Top Taliban Commander captured alive. Biggest capture since the war started.


BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 10:04 PM
NYT: Top Taliban commander captured
Secret raid executed by Pakistani, U.S. intelligence forces, paper reports
By Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins
The New York Times
updated 9:02 p.m. CT, Mon., Feb. 15, 2010
<SCRIPT language=javascript> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('634018861696400000');</SCRIPT>
WASHINGTON - The Taliban (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s top military commande
r was captured several days ago in Karachi, Pakistan, in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and American intelligence forces, according to American government officials.

The commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar (http://www.newsweek.com/id/208637), is an Afghan described by American officials as the most significant Taliban figure to be detained since the American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/muhammad_omar/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the Taliban’s founder, and was a close associate of Osama bin Laden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per)before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mullah Baradar has been in Pakistani custody for several days, with American and Pakistani intelligence officials both taking part in interrogations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/cia_interrogations/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), according to the officials.

It was unclear whether he was talking, but the officials said his capture had provided a window into the Taliban and could lead to other senior officials. Most immediately, they hope he will provide the whereabouts of Mullah Omar, the one-eyed cleric who is the group’s spiritual leader.
Disclosure of Mullah Baradar’s capture came as American and Afghan forces were in the midst of a major offensive in southern Afghanistan.
His capture could cripple the Taliban’s military operations, at least in the short term, said Bruce O. Riedel, a C.I.A. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org)veteran who last spring led the Obama administration’s Afghanistan and Pakistan policy review.
Details of the raid remain murky, but officials said that it had been carried out by Pakistan’s military spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/interservices_intelligence/index.html?inline=nyt-org), or ISI, and that C.I.A. operatives had accompanied the Pakistanis.
The New York Times learned of the operation on Thursday, but delayed reporting it at the request of White House officials, who contended that making it public would end a hugely successful intelligence-gathering effort. The officials said that the group’s leaders had been unaware of Mullah Baradar’s capture and that if it became public they might cover their tracks and become more careful about communicating with each other.

New Pakistani cooperation?
The Times is publishing the news now because White House officials acknowledged that the capture of Mullah Baradar was becoming widely known in the region.

Several American government officials gave details about the raid on the condition that they not be named, because the operation was classified.
American officials believe that besides running the Taliban’s military operations, Mullah Baradar runs the group’s leadership council, often called the Quetta Shura because its leaders for years have been thought to be hiding near Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan Province in Pakistan.
The participation of Pakistan’s spy service could suggest a new level of cooperation from Pakistan’s leaders, who have been ambivalent about American efforts to crush the Taliban. Increasingly, the Americans say, senior leaders in Pakistan, including the chief of its army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/ashfaq_parvez_kayani/index.html?inline=nyt-per), have gradually come around to the view that they can no longer support the Taliban in Afghanistan — as they have quietly done for years — without endangering themselves. Indeed, American officials have speculated that Pakistani security officials could have picked up Mullah Baradar long ago.

The officials said that Pakistan was leading the interrogation of Mullah Baradar, but that Americans were also involved. The conditions of the questioning are unclear. In its first week in office, the Obama administration banned harsh interrogations (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23obama.html)like waterboarding (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/torture/waterboarding/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier)by Americans, but the Pakistanis have long been known to subject prisoners to brutal questioning.

American intelligence officials believe that elements within Pakistan’s security services have covertly supported the Taliban with money and logistical help — largely out of a desire to retain some ally inside Afghanistan for the inevitable day when the Americans leave.

The ability of the Taliban’s top leaders to operate relatively freely inside Pakistan has for years been a source of friction between the ISI and the C.I.A. Americans have complained that they have given ISI operatives the precise locations of Taliban leaders, but that the Pakistanis usually refuse to act.

The Pakistanis have countered that the American intelligence was often outdated, or that faulty information had been fed to the United States by Afghanistan’s intelligence service.

For the moment it is unclear how the capture of Mullah Baradar will affect the overall direction of the Taliban, who have so far refused to disavow Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org)and to accept the Afghan Constitution. American officials have hoped to win over some midlevel members of the group.

Mr. Riedel, the former C.I.A. official, said that he had not heard about Mullah Baradar’s capture before being contacted by The Times, but that the raid constituted a “sea change in Pakistani behavior.”


Codof conduct to improve image
In recent weeks, American officials have said they have seen indications that the Pakistani military and spy services may finally have begun to distance themselves from the Taliban. One Obama administration official said Monday that the White House had “no reason to think that anybody was double-dealing at all” in aiding in the capture of Mullah Baradar.

A parade of American officials traveling to the Pakistani capital have made the case that the Afghan Taliban are now aligned with groups — like the Pakistani Taliban — that threaten the stability of the Pakistani government.

Mullah Baradar oversees the group’s operations across its primary area of activity in southern and western Afghanistan. While some of the insurgent groups active in Afghanistan receive only general guidance from their leaders, the Taliban are believed to be somewhat hierarchical, with lower-ranking field commanders often taking directions and orders from their leaders across the border.

In an attempt to improve the Taliban’s image both inside the country and abroad, Mullah Baradar last year helped issue a “code of conduct” for Taliban fighters. The handbook, small enough to be carried in the pocket of each Taliban foot soldier, gave specific guidance about topics including how to avoid civilian casualties, how to win the hearts and minds of villagers, and the necessity of limiting suicide attacks to avoid a backlash.
In recent months, a growing number of Taliban leaders are believed to have fled to Karachi, a sprawling, chaotic city in southern Pakistan hundreds of miles from the turbulence of the Afghan frontier. A diplomat based in Kabul, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said in an interview last month that Mullah Omar had moved to Karachi, and that several of his colleagues were there, too.

The leadership council, which includes more than a dozen of the Taliban’s best-known leaders, charts the overall direction of the war, assigns Taliban “shadow governors” to run many Afghan provinces and districts, and chooses battlefield commanders. It also oversees a number of subcommittees that direct other aspects of the war, like political, religious and military affairs.

According to Wahid Muzhda, a former Taliban official in Kabul who stays in touch with former colleagues, the council meets every three or four months to plot strategy. As recently as three years ago, he said, the council had 19 members. Since then, six have been killed or captured. Others have since filled the empty seats, he said.
Among the council members killed were Mullah Dadullah, who died during a raid (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/world/asia/14afghan.html)by NATO (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/north_atlantic_treaty_organization/index.html?inline=nyt-org)and Afghan forces in 2007. Among the captured were Mullah Obaidullah (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/world/asia/02taliban.html), the Taliban defense minister, who reported to Mr. Baradar.
“The only man more powerful than Baradar is Omar,” Mr. Muzhda said. “He and Omar cannot meet very often because of security reasons, but they have a very good relationship.”

Western and Afghan officials familiar with the workings of the Taliban’s leadership have described Mullah Baradar as one of the Taliban’s most approachable leaders, and the one most ready to negotiate with the Afghan government.

Few details of life before Taliban
Mediators who have worked to resolve kidnappings and other serious issues have often approached the Taliban leadership through him.
As in the case of the reclusive Mullah Omar, the public details of Mullah Baradar’s life are murky. According to an Interpol alert, he was born in 1968 in Weetmak, a village in Afghanistan’s Oruzgan Province. Terrorism experts describe him as a skilled military leader who runs many high-level meetings of the Taliban’s top commanders in Afghanistan.

In answers to questions (http://www.newsweek.com/id/208638)submitted by Newsweek (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/newsweek_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org)last summer, Mullah Baradar said that he could not maintain “continuous contacts” with Mullah Omar, but that he received advice on “important topics” from the cleric.
In the same interview, Mullah Baradar said he welcomed a large increase in American troops in Afghanistan because the Taliban “want to inflict maximum losses on the Americans, which is possible only when the Americans are present here in large numbers and come out of their fortified places.”

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mullah Baradar was assigned by Mullah Omar to assume overall command of Taliban forces in northern Afghanistan. In that role, he oversaw a large group of battle-hardened Arab and foreign fighters who were based in the northern cities of Kunduz and Mazar-i-Sharif.

In November 2001, as Taliban forces collapsed after the American invasion, Mullah Baradar and several other senior Taliban leaders were captured by Afghan militia fighters aligned with the United States. But Pakistani intelligence operatives intervened, and Mullah Baradar and the other Taliban leaders were released, according to a senior official of the Northern Alliance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/northern_alliance/index.html?inline=nyt-org), the group of Afghans aligned with the United States.

Mark Mazzetti reported from Washington, and Dexter Filkins from Kabul, Afghanistan. Carlotta Gall contributed reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan.
This article, 'Secret Joint Raid Captures Taliban's Top Commander,' (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/world/asia/16intel.html?emc=na)first appeared in The New York Times.

Copyright © 2010 The New York Times
<SCRIPT>var url=location.href;var i=url.indexOf('/did/') + 1;if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('/print/1/') + 1;}if(i==0){i=url.indexOf('&print=1');}if(i>0){url = url.substring(0,i);document.write('URL: '+url+' (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/'+url+')
');if (typeof FDCPUrl == 'function'){FDCPUrl();}else if(window.print){window.print()}else{alert('To print his page press Ctrl-P on your keyboard \nor choose print from your browser or device after clicking OK');}}</SCRIPT>URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35413971/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35413971/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/)

BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 10:07 PM
Washington (CNN) -- The Taliban's top military leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, has been captured, a senior administration official told CNN late Monday.
This is a "huge deal," CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen said. "This guy ... is the number two political figure in the Taliban" in addition to being the group's top military commander.

Baradar was captured several days ago in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and American intelligence forces in Karachi, Pakistan, according to American government officials, the New York Times reported.

whatsmynameagain
02-15-2010, 10:15 PM
left wing liberal media, this has to be a lie, dick cheney said the country is less safe, i saw it on the liberal left wing media outlets
Posted via Mobile Device

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2010, 10:15 PM
How many times are they going to catch the #2 guy?

BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 10:18 PM
left wing liberal media, this has to be a lie, dick cheney said the country is less safe, i saw it on the liberal left wing media outlets
Posted via Mobile Device
It's clearly a communist plot.

BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 10:19 PM
How many times are they going to catch the #2 guy?huh? Never been done. This is the biggest one we have ever caught.

KC Dan
02-15-2010, 10:21 PM
"You have the right to remain silent...." Glad they caught him. Hope they now treat him as a enemy combatant

BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 10:25 PM
"You have the right to remain silent...." Glad they caught him. Hope they now treat him as a enemy combatantYeah those Pakistani jails are famous for following the due process of the rights in the U.S. constitution.

KC Dan
02-15-2010, 10:27 PM
Yeah those Pakistani jails are famous for following the due process of the rights in the U.S. constitution.c'mon, can't I have a late night laugh here???:)

wazu
02-15-2010, 10:29 PM
How many times are they going to catch the #2 guy?

My thoughts exactly. Not a complaint. I'd rather get the #2 guy than nothing, but being the #2 bad guy in Afghanistan/Pakistan has to be the worst job on earth. It's Yeoman Johnson bad.

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2010, 10:29 PM
huh? Never been done. This is the biggest one we have ever caught.

So we can leave Afghanistan now?

BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 10:30 PM
c'mon, can't I have a late night laugh here???:)Yeah, we know whats going on, the whole world knows. If we were concerned about his "rights" he'd already be in gitmo or some prison in Afghanistan. The fact he is in Pakistani custody being interrogated by the CIA and Pakistani forces says all we need to know what is happening to this dude. Long time coming. :clap:

BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 10:33 PM
My thoughts exactly. Not a complaint. I'd rather get the #2 guy than nothing, but being the #2 bad guy in Afghanistan/Pakistan has to be the worst job on earth. It's Yeoman Johnson bad.When have we ever got the #2 guy? Never. This is the first. No one is higher than this guy except the mullah, the religious leader of the taliban. This guy we captured was an ally of Bin-Laden before 9/11. We got this asshole alive. He's having pleasant conversations with the CIA and Pakistani forces right now.

Why are you trying to ho hum this? No big deal?

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2010, 10:38 PM
When have we ever got the #2 guy? Never. This is the first. No one is higher than this guy except the mullah, the religious leader of the taliban. This guy we captured was an ally of Bin-Laden before 9/11. We got this asshole alive. He's having pleasant conversations with the CIA and Pakistani forces right now.

Why are you trying to ho hum this? No big deal?

If it's such a big deal why aren't we withdrawing? The fact is we can catch all the Taliban officals (who've we bought and paid for). There will always be terrorism as long as theres US Intervention.

BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 10:47 PM
If it's such a big deal why aren't we withdrawing? The fact is we can catch all the Taliban officals (who've we bought and paid for). There will always be terrorism as long as theres US Intervention.Hey dude, I'm the one who said we needed to GTFO out of Afgahanistan. But, this isn't about Afghanistan.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=213880&highlight=GTFO

I'm firmmly convinced that we should hunt down and kill every single AL-Quaeda SOB that exsists in the world. And if you provide aid and comfort like this asshole did....we are coming for you too.

Norman Einstein
02-15-2010, 10:48 PM
If it's such a big deal why aren't we withdrawing? The fact is we can catch all the Taliban officals (who've we bought and paid for). There will always be terrorism as long as theres US Intervention.

I think you have it wrong, there will be terrorism as long as there is a U.S.

Silock
02-15-2010, 10:52 PM
I think you have it wrong, there will be terrorism as long as there is a U.S.

This. Of course, some of our foreign policy doesn't help, but it's too late to change that now.

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2010, 10:53 PM
I think you have it wrong, there will be terrorism as long as there is a U.S.

We did a pretty good job until our "leaders" got us involved with the middle east. I could give a fuck about the middle east lets get alternative fuels and let those morons blow eachother up.

wazu
02-15-2010, 10:58 PM
When have we ever got the #2 guy? Never. This is the first. No one is higher than this guy except the mullah, the religious leader of the taliban. This guy we captured was an ally of Bin-Laden before 9/11. We got this asshole alive. He's having pleasant conversations with the CIA and Pakistani forces right now.

Why are you trying to ho hum this? No big deal?

Not ho-humming it. Glad to see a win. Can we go home now?

And maybe we haven't caught the #2 Taliban guy, but it seems like we used to get the #2 Al Qaeda guy every other month. Or we would have a story where we thought he was dead, or something. And by the way the #2 Al Qaeda guy is a bigger deal than the #1 Taliban guy in my book. While we're at it I'd trade capturing the entire Taliban organization for one dead Bin Laden.

wazu
02-15-2010, 11:02 PM
Okay just realizing that sounded kind of ho-hum. Enough of that. U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 11:02 PM
Not ho-humming it. Glad to see a win. Can we go home now?When every last Al-Quaeda SOB is dead or laid down their arms and went back to their rock piles.

wazu
02-15-2010, 11:07 PM
When every last Al-Quaeda SOB is dead or laid down their arms and went back to their rock piles.

So we're fighting Al Qaeda again, now? Or Taliban? Or are they the same thing? Or are the Taliban just the meat shields that we have to cut through to get to Al Qaeda?

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2010, 11:08 PM
If we're fighting the Taliban howcome we pay off the moderates?

Norman Einstein
02-15-2010, 11:12 PM
We did a pretty good job until our "leaders" got us involved with the middle east. I could give a **** about the middle east lets get alternative fuels and let those morons blow eachother up.The bad thing is that they totally disagree with our way of life, it's not just terrorism but the Islamic fundamentals that causes the radicals angst, they want to rid the world of infidels. We are a good portion of those they want to be gone.

BigRedChief
02-15-2010, 11:12 PM
So we're fighting Al Qaeda again, now? Or Taliban? Or are they the same thing? Or are the Taliban just the meat shields that we have to cut through to get to Al Qaeda?You asked when we could go home. I answered.

We are at war with Al-quaeda. They might not be a country, they are a terriost organization. And if you supply, corrdinate, provide aid and comfort to Al-Quaeda like this asshole, you deserve to die also.

Norman Einstein
02-15-2010, 11:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WubEFsN5pk8

Chocolate Hog
02-15-2010, 11:14 PM
The bad thing is that they totally disagree with our way of life, it's not just terrorism but the Islamic fundamentals that causes the radicals angst, they want to rid the world of infidels. We are a good portion of those they want to be gone.

Yet we don't even defend our own borders so how serious is America about terrorism?

Norman Einstein
02-15-2010, 11:23 PM
Yet we don't even defend our own borders so how serious is America about terrorism?

I'm just another person on a website, but I have started writing my congressmen and senators regarding the need for action. If nothing is done soon I suggest those that are putting us at risk just may find themselves back at home with new people in DC trying to straighten out the cluster flop we are currently living with.

Saggysack
02-15-2010, 11:24 PM
Not ho-humming it. Glad to see a win. Can we go home now?

And maybe we haven't caught the #2 Taliban guy, but it seems like we used to get the #2 Al Qaeda guy every other month. Or we would have a story where we thought he was dead, or something. And by the way the #2 Al Qaeda guy is a bigger deal than the #1 Taliban guy in my book. While we're at it I'd trade capturing the entire Taliban organization for one dead Bin Laden.

Huh?

Since when have we captured Ayman al-Zawahiri? Have you made up captures in your mind?

Do you always have to bitch about something? Even while in our success? Is that what real conservatives do?

Direckshun
02-16-2010, 12:25 AM
If we're fighting the Taliban howcome we pay off the moderates?

Because we're only fighting some of the Taliban.

stumppy
02-16-2010, 02:01 AM
Wow, definately sounds like they may have thrown a wrench into the workings of the taliban.
Hopefully he gets a first class education on the finer points off Pakastani prison torture.

mlyonsd
02-16-2010, 05:22 AM
While I applaud the efforts of the Pakistan and American intelligience agencies I do have a problem with the thread title.

I'd say Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the biggest actual terrorist capture since the war started.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 06:01 AM
Great news, but what war are you talking about? It's certainly not the biggest capture since the GWoT started. That would be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. If you're talking about the biggest capture since Obama's surge started, I'd agree.

The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8518127.stm) calls it the most important catch since... March 2007.

The capture of top Taliban militant commander Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar in the Pakistani city of Karachi is the most important catch for the American CIA and the Pakistani intelligence service since March 2007.

Back then, operatives of the two intelligence services collaborated to arrest Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, a former Taliban defence minister and a close aide of the Taliban's supreme leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 06:02 AM
left wing liberal media, this has to be a lie, dick cheney said the country is less safe, i saw it on the liberal left wing media outlets
Posted via Mobile Device

Dick Cheney explicitly supported the increased pressure that the Obama administration is applying to Afghanistan/Pakistan. In other words, Dick Cheney was right again. Sorry, I know how much this news must hurt you.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 06:09 AM
Hey dude, I'm the one who said we needed to GTFO out of Afgahanistan. But, this isn't about Afghanistan.
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=213880&highlight=GTFO

I'm firmmly convinced that we should hunt down and kill every single AL-Quaeda SOB that exsists in the world. And if you provide aid and comfort like this asshole did....we are coming for you too.

This guy isn't al Qaeda.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 06:12 AM
Not ho-humming it. Glad to see a win. Can we go home now?

And maybe we haven't caught the #2 Taliban guy, but it seems like we used to get the #2 Al Qaeda guy every other month. Or we would have a story where we thought he was dead, or something. And by the way the #2 Al Qaeda guy is a bigger deal than the #1 Taliban guy in my book. While we're at it I'd trade capturing the entire Taliban organization for one dead Bin Laden.

It was the #3 al Qaeda guy over and over. The #2 guy is Ayman al-Zawahiri and as far as we know he's still alive and running free. We did get at least a couple of #1 al Qaeda in Iraq guys though.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 06:20 AM
If we're fighting the Taliban howcome we pay off the moderates?

There's a conspiracy theory in that BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8518127.stm) I linked.

The obvious possibility is that we captured this guy through good intelligence which would be awesome because he will have knowledge of not only Taliban military plans, but also of connections to rogues within the Pakistani ISI who have continued to support the Taliban.

The conspiracy theory alternative is this:

Some quarters here indicate that the arrest may have been "orchestrated" by elements within the Pakistani establishment to facilitate back-channel talks with "willing" Taliban commanders.

This line of thinking presupposes a scenario in which the Pakistanis "brought in" Mullah Baradar under a pre-arranged pact with the CIA to pave the way for negotiations.

If true, this may indicate a serious move towards a negotiated settlement of the Afghan imbroglio.

It may also mean a fundamental shift in Pakistani strategy - from promoting its own proxies in Afghanistan to seeking an arrangement that can have wider acceptance.

Radar Chief
02-16-2010, 07:00 AM
Huh?

Since when have we captured Ayman al-Zawahiri? Have you made up captures in your mind?

Do you always have to bitch about something? Even while in our success? Is that what real conservatives do?

I’m tired of the whole thing. Al Qeada, Al Jazera, if your names Al screw you too. /Ralphie May

wild1
02-16-2010, 07:23 AM
Was he Mirandized immediately like the Christmas Day bomber?

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 08:12 AM
This guy isn't al Qaeda.As I said. You support, provide aid and comfort to Al-quaeda you deserve a one way trip to a Pakistani jail followed by a "fair" trial and then a dirt nap.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 08:18 AM
There's a conspiracy theory in that BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8518127.stm) I linked.

The obvious possibility is that we captured this guy through good intelligence which would be awesome because he will have knowledge of not only Taliban military plans, but also of connections to rogues within the Pakistani ISI who have continued to support the Taliban.

The conspiracy theory alternative is this:Would make sense. The surge in Iraq worked not because of some great military plan but a major part was just paying the tribes to quit killing us and coroperate with the central government. I'm sure they are at least trying the same thing in Afghanistan. Maybe some Taliban want to go along with this but this guy didn't and maybe got snitched on by his own troops that want to make a deal.

We may never know the truth. But, in every scenerio this is good for us and bad for the bad guys.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 08:25 AM
left wing liberal media, this has to be a lie, dick cheney said the country is less safe, i saw it on the liberal left wing media outlets
Posted via Mobile DeviceIt should be pointed out that the NY times has been called a socialist paper, full of lies with an agenda that counter productive to american interests. They sat on this story. They were perfectly within their 1st amendment rights to publish the story. They instead chose to do the right thing for America. Props are due. :clap:

The New York Times learned of the operation on Thursday, but delayed reporting it at the request of White House officials, who contended that making it public would end a hugely successful intelligence-gathering effort. The officials said that the group’s leaders had been unaware of Mullah Baradar’s capture and that if it became public they might cover their tracks and become more careful about communicating with each other.

Donger
02-16-2010, 08:26 AM
When have we ever got the #2 guy? Never. This is the first. No one is higher than this guy except the mullah, the religious leader of the taliban. This guy we captured was an ally of Bin-Laden before 9/11. We got this asshole alive. He's having pleasant conversations with the CIA and Pakistani forces right now.

Why are you trying to ho hum this? No big deal?

:spock:

KSM ring a bell?

That being said, this is a good victory.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 08:30 AM
:spock:

KSM ring a bell?

That being said, this is a good victory.I was talking about the Tailban, not Al-Quaeda. KSM = Al-Quaeda.

Donger
02-16-2010, 08:35 AM
I was talking about the Tailban, not Al-Quaeda. KSM = Al-Quaeda.

Really? I didn't know that...

You think capturing a Taliban leader is somehow better than capturing a leader of al-Qaeda?

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 08:40 AM
Really? I didn't know that...

You think capturing a Taliban leader is somehow better than capturing a leader of al-Qaeda?of course not, why are you still talking about this, what are you not clear on? I said, or meant to say the biggest Taliban fish we have caught to date. How much more clear do you want it? And whats your point of arguing about it? Whats your end game here?

Donger
02-16-2010, 08:44 AM
of course not, why are you still talking about this, what are you not clear on? I said, or meant to say the biggest Taliban fish we have caught to date. How much more clear do you want it? And whats your point of arguing about it? Whats your end game here?

You weren't clear. Now you are.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 08:46 AM
You weren't clear. Now you are.now, where are the props for the liberal media that did the right thing for America?:rolleyes:

Donger
02-16-2010, 08:48 AM
now, where are the props for the liberal media that did the right thing for America?:rolleyes:

Huh? What does the media have to do with this?

fan4ever
02-16-2010, 08:50 AM
It should be pointed out that the NY times has been called a socialist paper, full of lies with an agenda that counter productive to american interests. They sat on this story. They were perfectly within their 1st amendment rights to publish the story. They instead chose to do the right thing for America. Props are due. :clap:

The New York Times learned of the operation on Thursday, but delayed reporting it at the request of White House officials, who contended that making it public would end a hugely successful intelligence-gathering effort. The officials said that the group’s leaders had been unaware of Mullah Baradar’s capture and that if it became public they might cover their tracks and become more careful about communicating with each other.

Kind of the opposite of what they did when they published how we were gathering intelligence about a year ago; even when senators like Lieberman specifically requested them not too? That NY Times? Glad to see they cooperate with the White House when it's a candiate they endorsed.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 08:52 AM
Huh? What does the media have to do with this?You just want to argue today? jeeezzzz :facepalm:

Donger
02-16-2010, 08:55 AM
You just want to argue today? jeeezzzz :facepalm:

No, I hadn't read the entire thread. So, you're pleased that they held the story?

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 08:56 AM
No, I hadn't read the entire thread. So, you're pleased that they held the story?how about you catch up or quit commenting until your caught up.

Donger
02-16-2010, 08:57 AM
how about you catch up or quit commenting until your caught up.

I am caught up. So, you're pleased that they held the story?

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 08:57 AM
I am caught up. So, you're pleased that they held the story?yes

Donger
02-16-2010, 08:59 AM
yes

Okay. Where you the opposite when The Washington Post exposed our black sites in 2005?

mlyonsd
02-16-2010, 09:12 AM
It should be pointed out that the NY times has been called a socialist paper, full of lies with an agenda that counter productive to american interests. They sat on this story. They were perfectly within their 1st amendment rights to publish the story. They instead chose to do the right thing for America. Props are due. :clap:

The New York Times learned of the operation on Thursday, but delayed reporting it at the request of White House officials, who contended that making it public would end a hugely successful intelligence-gathering effort. The officials said that the group’s leaders had been unaware of Mullah Baradar’s capture and that if it became public they might cover their tracks and become more careful about communicating with each other.

So they cooperate with a democratic administration but not a republican one.

Got it.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 09:22 AM
Okay. Where you the opposite when The Washington Post exposed our black sites in 2005?No, that was the wrong thing to do. Who's going to support that?

FishingRod
02-16-2010, 09:24 AM
I'm just going to enjoy some good news for a change and leave it at that. It would seem our intelligence people did good. Thank you, now carry on.

Donger
02-16-2010, 09:25 AM
No, that was the wrong thing to do. Who's going to support that?

Well, the liberal Washington Post for one. Many liberals praised it at the time, too.

King_Chief_Fan
02-16-2010, 09:48 AM
well, they will have to show me a picture of the guy in chains if I am going to believe it. The dems haven't been trusted yet in this new adminisatration

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 10:25 AM
well, they will have to show me a picture of the guy in chains if I am going to believe it. The dems haven't been trusted yet in this new adminisatration:hmmm: let me guess, you think Obama wasn't borin the USA. he's a muslim and a commuinst out to destroy america from within?

Chief Henry
02-16-2010, 10:43 AM
Kind of the opposite of what they did when they published how we were gathering intelligence about a year ago; even when senators like Lieberman specifically requested them not too? That NY Times? Glad to see they cooperate with the White House when it's a candiate they endorsed.

qft




I hope we get some actionable intelligence from this catch. If he is the #2 guy, we NEED to get good information from him.

King_Chief_Fan
02-16-2010, 11:01 AM
:hmmm: let me guess, you think Obama wasn't borin the USA. he's a muslim and a commuinst out to destroy america from within?

hmm, born in US, the supposed experts say yes
Muslim, it was how he was raised
Destroying America? convince me he isn't

Norman Einstein
02-16-2010, 11:27 AM
:hmmm: let me guess, you think Obama wasn't borin the USA. he's a muslim and a commuinst out to destroy america from within?

Nobody really knows where he was born. He spent nearly $2 Mil to make his personal records private. Is he a Muslim? And about destroying America, when will you see that what he is doing is detrimental to the country?

Which freedom does he have to wipe out before you realize that it's too late if he is?

wild1
02-16-2010, 12:01 PM
We have a pretty good idea that this fellow knows about major operations against our military forces there.

I wish we had an executive branch that would do what it takes to extract every bit of information from him. Unfortunately we have one that is taking options off the table and as of recently, Mirandizing captured combatants.

Hopefully he will provide us with some actionable intel in spite of our less-than-full commitment to getting it.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 12:11 PM
We have a pretty good idea that this fellow knows about major operations against our military forces there.

I wish we had an executive branch that would do what it takes to extract every bit of information from him. Unfortunately we have one that is taking options off the table and as of recently, Mirandizing captured combatants.

Hopefully he will provide us with some actionable intel in spite of our less-than-full commitment to getting it.
Just what was taken off the table with this guy? please enlighten us....

Bush mirandized every single terriost but two. Over 300. Obama is not doing anything different. Wise up.

Obviously we are getting actionable intelligence. The friggin NY times said thats why they were asked to wait on the story.

Donger
02-16-2010, 12:12 PM
Bush mirandized every single terriost but two.

Link?

bkkcoh
02-16-2010, 12:17 PM
It seems like being #2 man in AQ is like being the oldest person in the world, it may be quite and honor for some, but don't get used to the position because it wont last very long.

How many #2 have we killed or captured from AQ according to the press.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 12:19 PM
Link?google it yourself. You should already know this. It's a long standing well known fact.

wild1
02-16-2010, 12:36 PM
Just what was taken off the table with this guy? please enlighten us....

Enhanced techniques. Perhaps you should read their stated policies.

Chief Henry
02-16-2010, 12:38 PM
google it yourself. You should already know this. It's a long standing well known fact.

Exactly what date did the Bush ADMN. have the military tribunals available
after all the court decisions ?

Donger
02-16-2010, 12:38 PM
google it yourself. You should already know this. It's a long standing well known fact.

I already did before responding to you. I don't see any returns that back-up your claim.

wild1
02-16-2010, 12:40 PM
I already did before responding to you. I don't see any returns that back-up your claim.

Perhaps you don't get the daily emails from Axelrod

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 12:40 PM
I already did before responding to you. I don't see any returns that back-up your claim.yeah well tough. I'm not doing fact check for you. It's a fact.

wild1
02-16-2010, 12:43 PM
yeah well tough. I'm not doing fact check for you. It's a fact.

I want to see your source that it was 9 hours until the Christmas Day bomber was mirandized. The news reports at the time claimed it was less than one hour.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 12:43 PM
Enhanced techniques. Perhaps you should read their stated policies.waterboarding? torture? That doesn't work on motivated and committed idealogues. Never has, never will. Did waterboarding KSM 178 times get us anything? No, nada, not a damn thing. You are watching too much Jack Bauer.

Donger
02-16-2010, 12:43 PM
yeah well tough. I'm not doing fact check for you. It's a fact.

As far as I can tell, it is not a fact at all. In fact, it's seems to be grossly inaccurate.

wild1
02-16-2010, 12:44 PM
waterboarding? torture? That doesn't work on motivated and committed idealogues. Never has, never will. Did waterboarding KSM 178 times get us anything? No, nada, not a damn thing. You are watching too much Jack Bauer.

KSM never gave us any actionable intelligence? Link?

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 12:44 PM
I want to see your source that it was 9 hours until the Christmas Day bomber was mirandized. The news reports at the time claimed it was less than one hour.WTF? When did I say how long it was before merandizing? The shoe bomer was meranidized within 5 minutes of arreat with prior authorization of the Bush administartion.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 12:45 PM
KSM never gave us any actionable intelligence? Link?not while he was being waterboarded, before and after, not during waterboarding.

wild1
02-16-2010, 12:47 PM
WTF? When did I say how long it was before merandizing? The shoe bomer was meranidized within 5 minutes of arreat with prior authorization of the Bush administartion.

I swore I saw that number in the posting. My apologies.

As usual, the "But Bush...." comes out. I am not interested in what some other president did a decade ago. We're discussing the current policy of a Kenyan attempting to destroy an airliner in American airspace admitting he was AQ, and being treated as a common criminal.

wild1
02-16-2010, 12:48 PM
not while he was being waterboarded, before and after, not during waterboarding.

Mr. Gibbs, do you seriously want to hide behind that?

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 12:49 PM
Mr. Gibbs, do you seriously want to hide behind that?Been publically posted many times.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 12:51 PM
I swore I saw that number in the posting. My apologies.

As usual, the "But Bush...." comes out. I am not interested in what some other president did a decade ago. We're discussing the current policy of a Kenyan attempting to destroy an airliner in American airspace admitting he was AQ, and being treated as a common criminal.BS. The past does matter. How we treated a criminal in the past does matter.

REID WAS MIRANDIZED, TOO.... It's rare to get two cases of attempted terrorism that have as many parallels as the Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab plot last year and the Richard Reid plot in 2001. It's a straight-up apples-to-apples comparison.
Reid and Abdulmutallab used the same chemical, the same target, the same intended consequence, in same month of the year, with the same twisted ideology. They were both stopped by civilians. Reid's attempt happened when Bush was away from the White House; Abdulmutallab's attempt happened when Obama was away from the White House. (The only difference between the presidential responses was Obama reacting to the attempted attack (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021828.php) more forcefully, more seriously, and with more depth than his predecessor.)
And the closer we look at the similarities, the dumber Republican talking points appear (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32399.html).
Republicans may have a hard time keeping up their talking point about how reading Miranda rights to the Christmas Day bomber represented a dangerous new direction under President Barack Obama. It turns out that that back in December 2001, Richard Reid -- the "shoe bomber" -- was read or reminded of his Miranda rights four times in two days, beginning five minutes after being taken into custody.
Furthermore, the Bush administration specifically rejected the idea of a military tribunal.

Donger
02-16-2010, 12:51 PM
BS. The past does matter. How we treated a criminal in the past does matter.

REID WAS MIRANDIZED, TOO.... It's rare to get two cases of attempted terrorism that have as many parallels as the Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab plot last year and the Richard Reid plot in 2001. It's a straight-up apples-to-apples comparison.
Reid and Abdulmutallab used the same chemical, the same target, the same intended consequence, in same month of the year, with the same twisted ideology. They were both stopped by civilians. Reid's attempt happened when Bush was away from the White House; Abdulmutallab's attempt happened when Obama was away from the White House. (The only difference between the presidential responses was Obama reacting to the attempted attack (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021828.php) more forcefully, more seriously, and with more depth than his predecessor.)
And the closer we look at the similarities, the dumber Republican talking points appear (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32399.html).
Republicans may have a hard time keeping up their talking point about how reading Miranda rights to the Christmas Day bomber represented a dangerous new direction under President Barack Obama. It turns out that that back in December 2001, Richard Reid -- the "shoe bomber" -- was read or reminded of his Miranda rights four times in two days, beginning five minutes after being taken into custody.
Furthermore, the Bush administration specifically rejected the idea of a military tribunal.


That's one guy, not 300.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 12:52 PM
That's one guy, not 300.find it yourself. I'm not doing it for you. Look up how many terriosts were tried in civilian courts under Bush. Every single one of those were merandized. You need to quit watching Beck and Hannity and get your own facts.

Donger
02-16-2010, 12:53 PM
find it yourself. I'm not doing it for you.

Of course you won't, because you can't.

wild1
02-16-2010, 12:56 PM
Been publically posted many times.

Unless he gurgles actionable intelligence in those precise moments, his being waterboarded almost 200 times had no effect whatsoever in wearing him down?

Is that the fig leaf you've chosen?

patteeu
02-16-2010, 12:59 PM
Bush mirandized every single terriost but two.

:spock:

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 12:59 PM
Of course you won't, because you can't.:LOL: rightttttt Wanna bet some cold hard cash that the Bush administration didn't mirandize the 300+ terriosts that it convicted in civilian courts?

patteeu
02-16-2010, 01:00 PM
waterboarding? torture? That doesn't work on motivated and committed idealogues. Never has, never will. Did waterboarding KSM 178 times get us anything? No, nada, not a damn thing. You are watching too much Jack Bauer.

:spock:

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 01:00 PM
:spock:I'm talking about the ones tried and convicted in civilian courts.

Donger
02-16-2010, 01:00 PM
:LOL: rightttttt Wanna bet some cold hard cash that the Bush administration didn't mirandize the 300+ terriosts that it convicted in civilian courts?

Sure. I'll bet all my casino cash. If I'm wrong, you can have it. If you're wrong, I get the same amount from you.

Deal?

patteeu
02-16-2010, 01:02 PM
It seems like being #2 man in AQ is like being the oldest person in the world, it may be quite and honor for some, but don't get used to the position because it wont last very long.

How many #2 have we killed or captured from AQ according to the press.

Zero. See posts 29 and 36.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 01:06 PM
Sure. I'll bet all my casino cash. If I'm wrong, you can have it. If you're wrong, I get the same amount from you.

Deal?No, thats useless. Just think about it for a second....you ready....They convicted over 300 terriosts in civilian courts. how did they do that without mirandizing them?

I'm done with this subject and will not respond to any more posts about Bush mirandizing terriosts like it didn't happen. We going to argue about the sun setting in the west now? It's a fact. The administration admitted to it, it was the policy. cheney admitted to it on the Sunday talk shows this friggin week. This is fact. there is no debate that it happened.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 01:06 PM
find it yourself. I'm not doing it for you. Look up how many terriosts were tried in civilian courts under Bush. Every single one of those were merandized. You need to quit watching Beck and Hannity and get your own facts.

Where did "civilian courts" enter the discussion? Certainly not when you originally made the breathtaking and false claim about all but 2 terrorists being mirandized.

Are you aware that Obama is not required to try enemy combatants in civilian courts? He has another option pioneered by the administration you like to cite repeatedly. If you're interested, I guess you can google it.

wild1
02-16-2010, 01:07 PM
I'm talking about the ones tried and convicted in civilian courts.

You said "Bush mirandized every single terriost [sic] but two. "

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 01:10 PM
You said "Bush mirandized every single terriost [sic] but two. "I will clarify....That statement is true about every single terriost tried in civilian courts under the Bush administration.

Norman Einstein
02-16-2010, 01:10 PM
Link?

google it yourself. You should already know this. It's a long standing well known fact.

I want to know too. The burden of proof lies in your court.

Brock
02-16-2010, 01:11 PM
I will clarify....That statement is true about every single terriost tried in civilian courts under the Bush administration.

LMAO

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 01:13 PM
I don't have a problem trying this person in civilian court, once we're confident we've squeezed every possibly useful bit of information from him. Until that time, we should treat him as what he is - a captured enemy soldier, not a common criminal.We talking about the Taliban commander now? If so fu$& that. He's an enemy combatant in my book. A POW now. But, its a moot point. Pakistan is going to deal with him, not us.

wild1
02-16-2010, 01:13 PM
I will clarify....That statement is true about every single terriost tried in civilian courts under the Bush administration.

So what you're saying is, of a miniscule fraction of all captured terrorists he mirandized all of those but two.

Donger
02-16-2010, 01:14 PM
They convicted over 300 terriosts in civilian courts.

They did? I'm only aware of one: Reid.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 01:20 PM
They did? I'm only aware of one: Reid.First google result. I'm not doing the work for you. Bi-partisan website


Obama claims Bush administration got 190 terrorism convictions in federal court

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-barelytrue.gif Bookmark this story:

<!-- YAHOO BUZZ BADGE BEGIN --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>yahooBuzzArticleHeadline = "Statement: Obama claims Bush administration got 190 terrorism convictions in federal court";yahooBuzzArticleSummary = "As the debate rages over whether Guantanamo detainees ought to be tried in federal court, a lot of numbers are flying around that may appear confusing or conflicting.Often, the numbers are attached to one of two positions: You've got the Obama administration arguing that many of the detainees ...";yahooBuzzArticleCategory = "politics";yahooBuzzArticleType = "text";yahooBuzzArticleId = window.location.href;</SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://d.yimg.com/ds/badge2.js" type=text/javascript ____yb="1"></SCRIPT>Buzz up! (http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?targetUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politifact.com%2Ftruth-o-meter%2Fstatements%2F2010%2Ffeb%2F12%2Fbarack-obama%2Fobama-claims-bush-administration-got-190-terrorism%2F)
<!-- YAHOO BUZZ BADGE END --><!-- ADDTHIS BUTTON BEGIN --><SCRIPT src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=1eeb7db4-025e-41e4-b02d-a953558aab67&type=website&post_services=facebook%2Ctwitter%2Cdigg%2Cstumbleupon%2Cdelicious%2Creddit" type=text/javascript ____yb="1"></SCRIPT>ShareThis (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0))
<!-- ADDTHIS BUTTON END -->


As the debate rages over whether Guantanamo detainees ought to be tried in federal court, a lot of numbers are flying around that may appear confusing or conflicting.

Often, the numbers are attached to one of two positions: You've got the Obama administration arguing that many of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ought to be tried in federal courts on American soil; while Republicans generally argue that the detainees ought to be treated as enemy combatants and tried in military courts in Guantanamo.
The debate has put one statistic front and center: Just how many terrorists have been tried and successfully convicted in federal courts in recent years? It's a more difficult number to track than you might think.
Consider these citations:
• "We know that we can prosecute terrorists in our federal courts safely and securely because we have been doing so for years. There are more than 300 convicted international and domestic terrorists currently in Bureau of Prisons custody including those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the attacks on embassies in Africa." -- Attorney General Eric Holder before a Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18, 2009.
• "Since the Sept. 11 attacks, and as of Aug. 31, 2006, 288 defendants have been convicted or have pleaded guilty in terrorism or terrorism-related cases arising from investigations conducted primarily after Sept. 11, 2001." -- a September 2006 Justice Department "Terror Fact Sheet."
• "Since 9/11, more than two dozen terrorists and supporters have been convicted in the United States of terrorism-related crimes." -- "Fact Sheet" issued by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2008.
And then this from President Barack Obama in a Feb. 7, 2010, pre-Super Bowl interview with Katie Couric, who asked if he had ruled out trying confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in New York City.
"I have not ruled it out, but I think it's important for us to take into account the practical, logistical issues involved," Obama said. "I mean, if you've got a city that is saying no, and a police department that's saying no, and a mayor that's saying no, that makes it difficult. But I think that the most important thing for the public to understand is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush administration handled them all through 9/11.
"They prosecuted the 190 folks in these Article III (federal) courts," Obama said. "Got convictions. And those folks are in maximum security prisons right now."
So 300, "two dozen," 190. How many Islamic-extremist terrorists have been convicted in federal courts?
"Everyone is cherry-picking their numbers," said Karen Greenberg, executive director of New York University's Center on Law and Security, which has compiled a comprehensive study of terrorism-related cases.
It depends, for example, if you are talking about domestic and international terrorists; whether terrorism-related cases should include only charges of terrorism or also terrorism-related crimes that might include financing a terrorist organization or immigration fraud; or whether you're talking only about Islamic jihadist terrorists. In other words, there are a lot of ways to slice the numbers.
For the purposes of this fact-check, we are specifically looking at Obama's statement. And while there are several organizations that track terrorism cases, administration officials said Obama got his 190 figure from a report by Human Rights First, a nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington, D.C. The report, issued in July 2009, analyzes "criminal cases arising from terrorism that is associated — organizationally, financially, or ideologically — with self-described 'jihadist' or Islamic-extremist groups like al-Qaida" and concludes that 195 people who fit that description have been convicted in federal courts since 9/11.
The report concludes that "federal courts, while not perfect, are a fit and flexible resource that should be used along with other government resources — including military force, intelligence gathering, diplomatic efforts and cultural and economic initiatives — as an important part of a multipronged counter-terrorism strategy."
That figure of 195 jihadist terrorism convictions has been vociferously challenged as overinflated — particularly when compared to Guantanamo detainees — by Dana M. Perino, a former press secretary to President George W. Bush, and Bill Burck, a former federal prosecutor and deputy counsel to President Bush. It has also been picked apart in a series of stories from Andrew McCarthy of National Review.
The Human Rights First report explains that it includes "prosecutions that seek criminal sanctions for acts of terrorism, attempts or conspiracies to commit terrorism, or providing aid and support to those engaged in terrorism. We have also sought to identify and include prosecutions intended to disrupt and deter terrorism through other means, for example, through charges under 'alternative' statutes such as false statements, financial fraud and immigration fraud."
Those kinds of parameters, McCarthy notes, take in a lot of cases that aren't international terrorists, but often are would-be terrorists who have, for example, been convicted of relatively minor offenses such as immigration fraud or giving false information to federal authorities, or who have helped to finance a terrorist organization. Those may be important prosecutions in combating terrorism, but they aren't on the order of Guantanamo detainees.
Human Rights First isn't the only group tracking terrorism cases.
New York University's Center on Law and Security has been tracking such cases for years and throws a wide net. In its "Terrorist Trial Report Card: September 11, 2001-September 11, 2009," it finds that the Department of Justice has indicted 828 defendants on terrorism-related charges. Of the 593 that have been resolved, 523 were convicted on some charge either at trial or by plea.
Terrorism-related can be a broad definition, though, and can include immigration violations, giving false statements and other relatively minor charges. And so the report breaks out cases in which defendants are charged under core terrorism or national security statutes. Those are bona fide, serious charges. Now you're talking about 174 people convicted under those statutes; plus another 24 charged with those statutes, but convicted on lesser crimes. That also gets to the president's figure.
But it's misleading for Obama to cite that 190 number as if the cases are equivalent to those faced by Guantanamo detainees, said Greenberg, editor of the report. For one, most of those cases do not involve people affiliated with a radical Islamist organization, but rather with such groups as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, a group of Marxist guerrillas.
There are probably less than a dozen cases against people in the Islamic jihadist framework who have been convicted in federal court of serious terrorism-related crimes comparable to many of the Guantanamo detainees, Greenberg said.
Nonetheless, there are some, she said, including Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber"; Bryant Neal Vinas, an American convicted of supporting al-Qaida plots in Afghanistan and the United States; Mohammed Jabarah, a Canadian who was active in al-Qaida and convicted of terrorism-related offenses; Shahawar Matin Siraj, a Pakistani-American who plotted to bomb Herald Square in New York; and Mohammed Junaid Babar, a Pakistani-American convicted of terrorist-related offenses in New York, and who testified in 2006 against a group of men accused of plotting bomb attacks in London.
These cases, although far fewer than those cited by Obama, provide powerful evidence that federal courts can appropriately handle many cases involving Guantanamo detainees, Greenberg said.
"The trend lines demonstrate convincingly that federal courts are capable of trying alleged terrorists and securing high rates of conviction," Greenberg wrote in the report. "Federal prosecution has demonstrably become a powerful tool in many hundreds of cases, not only for incapacitating terrorists but also for intelligence gathering. Much of the government’s knowledge of terrorist groups has come from testimony and evidence produced in grand jury investigations, including information provided by cooperators, and in the resulting trials."
In summary, Obama cited a legitimate figure for terrorism-related convictions in federal court. And we note that Bush administration officials cited even bigger numbers in some of their reports at the time. But when Obama cites this number in the same breath as Guantanamo detainees, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. We agree with Greenberg that only a fraction of those 190 cases cited by Obama could rightly be equated to the Guantanamo detainees. And while even that much smaller number might provide a powerful argument for Obama, that's not the number he used. And so we rate his statement Barely True.
Buzz up! (http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?targetUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chiefsplanet.com%2FBB%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D6536791%23post6536791)S hareThis (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0))
Buzz up! (http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?targetUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chiefsplanet.com%2FBB%2Fshowthread.php%3Fp%3D6536791%23post6536791)S hareThis (javascript:void(0))

Donger
02-16-2010, 01:23 PM
First google result. I'm not doing the work for you.

Did you even read that?

But it's misleading for Obama to cite that 190 number as if the cases are equivalent to those faced by Guantanamo detainees, said Greenberg, editor of the report. For one, most of those cases do not involve people affiliated with a radical Islamist organization, but rather with such groups as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, a group of Marxist guerrillas.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 01:26 PM
Did you even read that?

But it's misleading for Obama to cite that 190 number as if the cases are equivalent to those faced by Guantanamo detainees, said Greenberg, editor of the report. For one, most of those cases do not involve people affiliated with a radical Islamist organization, but rather with such groups as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, a group of Marxist guerrillas.again I found results easily. Its a friggin fact. I'm not debating it with you. Terriosts were tried in civilian courts and were mirandized by the Bush admininstration. The attorney general testfying under oath to Congree used the 300+ #. Give it a rest jeeezzz

Donger
02-16-2010, 01:30 PM
again I found results easily. Its a friggin fact. I'm not debating it with you. Terriosts were tried in civilian courts and were mirandized by the Bush admininstration.

No one is disputing that a terrorist was tried by Bush in a civilian court.

In fact, at your suggestion, I did look it up. Here are the results:

1) Richard Reid
2) Jose Padilla
3) John Walker Lindh
4) The Lackawanna Six
5) Zacarias Moussaoui

So, if my math is correct, that's 10 attempted terrorists. Now, what do all but number five have in common?

Donger
02-16-2010, 01:47 PM
The attorney general testfying under oath to Congree used the 300+ #. Give it a rest jeeezzz

Here you go:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Who-are-the-300-terrorists-held-in-U_S_-prisons_-83588677.html

"The Bush administration used the criminal justice system to convict more than 300 individuals on terrorism-related charges," writes Attorney General Eric Holder in a new letter to Republican critics in Congress. The letter is part of the Obama administration's aggressive defense of its decision to grant full American constitutional rights to al Qaeda soldier Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the accused Christmas Day bomber. That defense boils down to one sentence: Bush did it, too.

Republicans on Capitol Hill object. They argue that one of the reasons some terrorists were handled in the criminal justice system is that it took George W. Bush and Congress years to establish a military tribunal system that satisfied constitutional requirements -- a process that was lengthened by legal challenges filed by some of the same lawyers who now work in Holder's Justice Department.

You can argue about that forever. But there's one serious factual debate going on about Holder's letter, and that concerns those "300 individuals." Just who are they?

It turns out some lawmakers have been trying for months to get an answer. They're not saying the claim is false -- they just want to see what it's based on. But so far they haven't been able to find out.

It started back in May 2009, when President Obama gave his famous National Archives speech outlining the plan to close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center. "Bear in mind the following fact," Obama said. "Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal 'supermax' prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists." Although the president did not put a number on it, various figures, ranging up to 300, have been tossed around in the months since.

To Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, something didn't sound right. Are there really that many convicted terrorists in U.S. prisons? And are they really comparable with the inmates at Guantanamo?

"It's a disingenuous argument," says Kyl. "There haven't been 300 high-profile, dangerous terrorism cases in the United States -- if there were, we would have heard about them."

A few days after the president's speech, Kyl sent a letter to Holder asking for the names and crimes of the terrorists held in federal prisons. "It is not my understanding that there are 'hundreds' of federal inmates who have been convicted of a level of terrorism comparable to that of Guantanamo detainees," Kyl wrote.

The senator got no response. Then, on June 17, Holder appeared at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Kyl is a senior member. Kyl asked again. Holder didn't have the information at hand, so Kyl sent another written request.

Weeks passed, and then months, with no response. Then, last October, Kyl got an answer, of sorts, from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich. Citing federal regulations, Weich said he "cannot provide ... a list of Bureau of Prisons inmates," although he said the department could give Kyl "briefings about terrorism suspects housed in federal prisons generally."

As for whether the inmates' crimes are comparable with those of high-value prisoners at Guantanamo, Weich responded, "A number of individuals with a history of, or nexus to, international or domestic terrorism are currently being held in federal prisons, each of whom was tried and convicted in a [civilian] court. The attorney general considers all crimes of terrorism to be serious."

Weich's words raised all sorts of red flags. "History of, or nexus to" -- what did that mean, precisely? "International or domestic terrorism" -- what about that? Just who was the Justice Department including in the 300 figure?

On Nov. 18, Holder appeared again before the Judiciary Committee. Asked yet again, he was perfectly agreeable. "I will supply you with those 300 names and what they were convicted of," Holder said. "I'll be glad to do that."

Now, two and a half more months have passed, with no answer. And in Holder's new letter, he repeats the "300 individuals" claim.

Republicans aren't accusing the attorney general of making anything up. But they want to know the evidence behind the claim, which is, after all, key to the Obama administration's case that the civilian justice system is the best way to handle Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

But the fight is also about something bigger. It's about a minority party struggling to find out what the administration is doing on an issue critical to national security. So far, it's been a hard slog. "What do you do," asks Jon Kyl, "with an administration that hides the ball, won't answer questions and makes up reasons as it goes along?"

patteeu
02-16-2010, 01:53 PM
again I found results easily. Its a friggin fact. I'm not debating it with you. Terriosts were tried in civilian courts and were mirandized by the Bush admininstration. The attorney general testfying under oath to Congree used the 300+ #. Give it a rest jeeezzz

The Gospel according to Holder in your Obama Bible? :shrug:

Inspector
02-16-2010, 02:11 PM
Hooray for our military!!

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 02:34 PM
The Gospel according to Holder in your Obama Bible? :shrug:No, it was just the first result in a google search. He is the attorney general testifying under oath to a formal Congessional hearing. If he lies can't he go to jail?

Doesn't matter though. My point was valid. We have mirandized and convicted over 300 terriosts under the Bush admininstration.

Your hero Cheney lost the battle to mirandize and use civilian courts back in 2001 in the roosevelt room to the justice dept. It was Bush's decision, not Cheney's. He is still fighting that battle.

Donger
02-16-2010, 02:35 PM
Doesn't matter though. My point was valid. We have mirandized and convicted over 300 terriosts under the Bush admininstration.

No, we haven't.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 02:36 PM
No, we haven't.:facepalm:

Donger
02-16-2010, 02:37 PM
:facepalm:

Did you read that article I posted?

patteeu
02-16-2010, 02:50 PM
No, it was just the first result in a google search. He is the attorney general testifying under oath to a formal Congessional hearing. If he lies can't he go to jail?

Doesn't matter though. My point was valid. We have mirandized and convicted over 300 terriosts under the Bush admininstration.

Your hero Cheney lost the battle to mirandize and use civilian courts back in 2001 in the roosevelt room to the justice dept. It was Bush's decision, not Cheney's. He is still fighting that battle.

Your point was completely wrong. Then you revised your point and it became somewhat less wrong. Then you posted a long article that explained why it was wrong and you ignored it because Eric Holder said something else.

Do you at least acknowledge that we detained hundreds if not thousands of suspected enemy combatants, both legal and illegal, who we never mirandized?

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 02:54 PM
Do you at least acknowledge that we detained hundreds if not thousands of suspected enemy combatants, both legal and illegal, who we never mirandized?of course. That doesn't mean we didn't mirandize 300 terriosts, which is my point.

And the core issue is the wrongly held assumption by some on this board that torture is the only way to get actionable intelligence from a captured soldier/terroist.

patteeu
02-16-2010, 03:01 PM
of course. That doesn't mean we didn't mirandize 300 terriosts, which is my point.

I'm not sure why you'd even bother making that point since it has so little to do with how the Bush administration got their actionable intelligence for the GWoT, particularly since most of those 300 didn't have anything to do with islamist radicalism of the type we are fighting in Af/Pak.


And the core issue is the wrongly held assumption by some on this board that torture is the only way to get actionable intelligence from a captured soldier/terroist.

Nobody in this thread has been calling for torture. And you've completely missed the point if you think that criticism of taking enhanced interrogation techniques off the table is the same as saying that enhanced interrogation techniques are the ONLY way to get intelligence. A hammer isn't the only useful tool in a toolbox, but a carpenter is going to be a better carpenter if his toolbox includes a hammer that he can use when the job calls for it.

wild1
02-16-2010, 03:05 PM
of course. That doesn't mean we didn't mirandize 300 terriosts, which is my point.

Your "point" was in reply to my objection to the underwear bomber being Mirandized. You attempted to claim that this was what Bush always did and that the Obama administration has changed nothing. At best, your argument of the supposed 300 is a minority report, not at all representative over the overall Bush policy.

Norman Einstein
02-16-2010, 03:12 PM
of course. That doesn't mean we didn't mirandize 300 terriosts, which is my point.

And the core issue is the wrongly held assumption by some on this board that torture is the only way to get actionable intelligence from a captured soldier/terroist.

Who and when was that said?

I think torture/waterboarding is a viable tool when you have a detainee that will not talk. If I had my choice between mussing up a terrorist and letting an action go that would kill Americans I'd chose the torture, even if it were to benefit someone that I detested.

In my opinion we are not able to pussyfoot around with these guys, they are hell bent on destroying anyone that does not fit their definition of a Muslim. They don't get the name of radical because they have funny clothing.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 03:50 PM
Who is Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar?
Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar is regarded as the No.2 figure in the Afghan Taliban behind Mullah Mohammed Omar and is described as a close associate of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. But with Omar staying out of sight, Baradar is "basically the de facto leader" of the Taliban, said Muhammad Amir Rana, director of the Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies, a Pakistani think tank.
CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen called Baradar "arguably more important than Mullah Omar from a military point of view," because Omar is more of a religious figure than an operational commander of the Taliban.
Rana called Baradar a "very skilled military tactician." "When the Taliban were in government in Afghanistan, he was the supreme commander of the army and was heading the charge against the Northern Alliance holdouts at that point in time." Rana said Baradar's capture is significant because he was was actively directing the Taliban's activities in Afghanistan.
Interpol believes Baradar was born in 1968 in Afghanistan's Uruzgan Province and says he held the role of the Taliban's deputy minister of defense until the regime was toppled in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
Baradar has been with the Taliban since the beginning, Rana said, and is a member of its Quetta Shura, or leadership council. Profile: More details on Baradar's life (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/16/barandar.profile/)

Is it significant that Baradar was caught in Karachi, Pakistan?
Baradar's arrest in the southern Pakistani city of Karachi illustrates both the strong presence of the Afghan Taliban in Pakistan and the growing cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistan.
The Afghan Taliban's political leadership is known as the "Quetta Shura" because it has been known to seek sanctuary from forces in Afghanistan by hiding in Pakistan's Quetta area. U.S. officials believe several high value targets have recently moved from Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province to Karachi, including Taliban leader Mullah Omar.
Baradar was arrested during a joint raid between the U.S. and Pakistan and is currently being held in joint custody and interrogated by both the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency. This suggests a new level of cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistan.
Until recently the U.S. has accused Pakistani security service of supporting the Taliban and allowing them to move freely throughout the country, which has been a source of tension between the CIA and ISI. Pakistan has long sought influence in Afghanistan to counter perceived threats from its nuclear neighbor, India.
The U.S. has complained that the Pakistanis have refused to act on informaton about the location of key Taliban leaders that was shared with Pakistan's intelligence service. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Pakistan in October, she charged that the Pakistani leadership could have gone after senior Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in the country if it wanted to. Pakistan responded that the American information was inaccurate or outdated.
The U.S. has also shored up its support in Pakistan, including sharing more intelligence and going after Pakistani Taliban targets like Baitullah Mehsud, a former leader of the Pakistani Tablian who was killed in a a drone attack last year (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/09/pakistan.meshud.dead/index.html). The U.S. has also pledged billions of dollars in aid and counterintellgience training. Pakistan has taken significant actions over the past year to go after the Taliban Pakistan, a faction that has been at war with the Pakistani government. But it has rarely targeted Afghan Taliban leaders. Baradar's arrest suggests Pakistan has gradually accepted the view it's support of the Taliban in Afghanistan is not helpful to its own survival.

What does the capture of Abdul Ghani Baradar mean for U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan including current operations in the Helmand district?
While the arrest of the senior Taliban leader is good news in terms of removing a combatant from the battle, at least one senior U.S. official with knowledge of Taliban operations inside Afghanistan brings a sober note to the story saying, "I don't think this will have a direct impact on the Central Helmand operation."
The official says the U.S. is uncertain how deep the Taliban bench is so it is unclear how Baradar's replacement will function.
But another U.S. official says his capture will do some immediate good for the U.S. fighting in Afghanistan. "Having him (Baradar) off the battlefield means the near-term disruption of plotting against Coalition forces in Afghanistan," the official said.
But it is still unclear how Baradar's arrest will impact Taliban operations around Afghanistan in the long run and U.S. officials are taking a wait and see approach on whether he will give up any useful information.
"But no one should think the Taliban are down and out for good. This is an outfit that has suffered serious losses in recent years–and they'll almost certainly face similar losses in the future–but they've proven resilient before," according to the official.

Will Baradar's arrest be a break for the U.S. in terms of finding senior Taliban and al Qaeda leaders including Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden?
A senior U.S. official with knowledge of Taliban operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan tells CNN Baradar's arrest "may well have lasting impacts on the Quetta Shura Taliban –the Taliban's leadership council– because he ran day to day operations for the Afghan Taliban."
But it remains to be seen how his arrest in Karachi will affect the hunt for senior Taliban and al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"I guess it depends on how talkative he becomes," the senior official said.
Reva Bhalla, the director of analysis at Stratfor, an intelligence think-tank, doubts Baradar could lead the CIA straight to its most-wanted. "It's not like you have one guy and that immediately opens the door to everyone else," she argued, saying that the Taliban guards information carefully because it knows its members could be captured.
And in an interview with Newsweek via email last year Baradar himself said he was in contact with Mullah Omar, but, "continuous contacts are not risk free."
But it is another indication of the pressure the U.S. and Pakistan are putting on the Taliban. Since the beginning of the year, their has been a steady increase of drone strikes against the Taliban hiding out on the Pakistan side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
Such a prominent capture could help another part of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, getting mid and lower-level Taliban to transition into regular society. The Afghan government is willing to help these Taliban do this by not punishing them, but to help them integrate them into the population with offers jobs.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates draws the re-integration line at the top, however. He has said he has no interest in negotiation with the top Taliban leadership.
But with successful captures like that of Baradar the U.S. hopes that will send a message to the lower Taliban echelons and move them toward assimilating into the regular population.
"Since Mullah Omar has been close to him (Baradar) for a long time, it must also be a severe psychological blow to the group's senior ranks," according to a U.S. government official.

Chief Henry
02-16-2010, 04:00 PM
not while he was being waterboarded, before and after, not during waterboarding.

You are saying that waterboarding didn't help to get info out of KSM ?

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 04:02 PM
Mullah Baradar: In His Own Words

NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 25, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Aug 3, 2009


Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar has been in day-to-day command of the Afghan insurgency ever since the Taliban's founder and leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, disappeared from view roughly three years ago. NEWSWEEK hand-delivered a list of questions for Baradar to a senior Taliban source. Within days, the Taliban's chief spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, telephoned NEWSWEEK asking for an e-mail copy of the questions. A few weeks later Mujahid e-mailed to NEWSWEEK what he said were Baradar's answers in Pashto. Excerpts:
How would you describe the Taliban's current position on the ground in Afghanistan?
Our losses are very few. It has become transparent to all Afghans that foreigners have come to our country as invaders and not for the welfare of Afghans. In every nook and corner of the country, a spirit for jihad is raging.
<!--AD BEGIN--><SCRIPT language=javascript type=text/javascript>placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')</SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript1.1 src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/nwswk.printthis;dir=printthis;ad=bb;del=js;ajax=n;dcopt=ist;heavy=n;pageId=nwswk-id-208638-output-print;poe=no;u=o*_5bCS_5dv1_7c254E10178515BD16_2d4000016F800001F1_5bCE_5d;rs=B09806_10001;fromrss=n; rss=n;front=n;pos=bigbox;sz=300x250;tile=1;ord=672057824485447400?"></SCRIPT><!-- Template ID = 4439 Template Name = Image Banner - Open in New Window --><CENTER>http://s0.2mdn.net/2179615/300x250_4free.jpg (http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3943/3/0/%2a/r%3B221761718%3B0-0%3B0%3B32930029%3B4307-300/250%3B35198735/35216553/1%3Bu%3Do%2A_5bCS_5dv1_7c254E10178515BD16_2d4000016F800001F1_5bCE_5d%3B~sscs%3D%3fhttp://www.newsweeksubscriptions.com/riskfree/index.php?off2on_login_url=/promo&off2on_code=riskros1)</CENTER>

<!--AD END-->
What is your reaction to the large increase in U.S. forces this year?
Statements about the increase in troops do not affect the mujahedin at all. In fact, Americans are demoralized in Afghanistan, and they don't know what to do. [The Taliban] want to inflict maximum losses on the Americans, which is possible only when the Americans are present here in large numbers and come out of their fortified places.
How long are you prepared to fight?
The history of Afghanistan shows that Afghans never get tired of struggling until they have freed their country. We shall continue our jihad till the expulsion of our enemy from our land.
Who is leading the Taliban movement?
Respected Amir-ul-Momineen [leader of the faithful] Mullah Mohammed Omar. We are acting on his instructions.
Are you in direct contact with Mullah Omar?
Continuous contacts are not risk-free because of the situation. get his advice on important topics.
[B]What about his health?
He is hale and healthy and is not only taking part in, but currently leading, the jihad.
The United States and Afghan president Hamid Karzai say you and your commanders are largely operating from Quetta in Pakistan. Is that true?
This is baseless propaganda. The Shura's area of operations is inside Afghanistan.
Are some Taliban involved in secret talks with the Karzai government?
Not a single member of the Taliban is involved in talks.
Would you support talks at some time?
What would be the topic of the talks and what would be the result? Our basic problem with the Americans is that they have attacked our country. They are offering talks, hoping that the mujahedin surrender before them. We see no benefit for the country and Islam in such kind of talks.
What would be your conditions for talks if they were to take place?
The basic condition is the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan.
If breaking ties with Al Qaeda were a condition of a peace accord, would you do that?
Our decisions are made on the basis of our national interests.
Is Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency giving you support or advice?
This is venomous propaganda that has no facts behind it.
What about reports that Pakistani intelligence is advising you not to enter into peace talks at this time?
The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is independent and sovereign in its decisions and agreements. It is not taking any dictation from any group or government.
Do you fear that Pakistan would stop you from using its soil?
They have not given us permission to use their land even now.
<!-- Omniture --><SCRIPT language=javascript type=text/javascript> <!-- var nw_page_name = "nw - article - 208638 - Mullah Baradar: In His Own Words"; var nw_section = "world"; var nw_subsection = "world - international"; var nw_content_type = "article"; var nw_source = "newsweek mag"; var nw_search_result_count = "0"; var nw_content_id = "208638"; var nw_headline = "Mullah Baradar: In His Own Words"; var nw_page_num = "print format"; var nw_application = "gutenberg"; var nw_hierarchy = "world|international|articles"; var nw_pub_date = "Saturday July 25, 2009"; --> </SCRIPT>Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/208638

ChiefaRoo
02-16-2010, 05:47 PM
Pakistani security forces + US/Obama "we don't see nuthin" + electrical device attached to genitalia = Intelligence extravaganza for US and a couple billion in aid for the Pakis.

BigRedChief
02-16-2010, 05:55 PM
Pakistani security forces + US/Obama "we don't see nuthin" + electrical device attached to genitalia = Intelligence extravaganza for US and a couple billion in aid for the Pakis.ROFL I think thats probably a pretty good assumption about right now...USA throws its hands up....It's not us, we don't mettle in internal Pakistani security forces interrogations....reporter, but, you said its a joint interregation.......uhhhh look whats that,,,points behind the reporter....quickly exits out the back door to a black suburban...

ChiefaRoo
02-16-2010, 06:16 PM
ROFL I think thats probably a pretty good assumption about right now...USA throws its hands up....It's not us, we don't mettle in internal Pakistani security forces interrogations....reporter, but, you said its a joint interregation.......uhhhh look whats that,,,points behind the reporter....quickly exits out the back door to a black suburban...

"Oh, here you go guys we don't use these anymore" hands over waterboard equipment, exit to Black Suburban LMAO

Chief Henry
02-17-2010, 10:43 AM
"Oh, here you go guys we don't use these anymore" hands over waterboard equipment, exit to Black Suburban LMAO

He also doesn't think water boarding KSM helped get valuable information either.

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 10:59 AM
He also doesn't think water boarding KSM helped get valuable information either.It didn't help. Please provide the link that waterboarding KSM got actionable intelligence?

and if it worked why was he waterboarded 78 times?

wild1
02-17-2010, 11:06 AM
Your "point" was in reply to my objection to the underwear bomber being Mirandized. You attempted to claim that this was what Bush always did and that the Obama administration has changed nothing. At best, your argument of the supposed 300 is a minority report, not at all representative over the overall Bush policy.

---

patteeu
02-17-2010, 11:27 AM
It didn't help. Please provide the link that waterboarding KSM got actionable intelligence?

and if it worked why was he waterboarded 78 times?

OK, here's one of many reports to that effect, this one from ABCNews' Brian Ross (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/cia-bans-water-.html):

Its most effective use, say current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.

A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 12:33 PM
Exclusive: Another Taliban Leader Captured in Pakistan
Newsweek
By Sami Yousafzai and Mark Hosenball
Another leader of the Afghan Taliban has been captured by authorities in Pakistan working in partnership with U.S. intelligence officials. Taliban sources in the region and a counterterrorism officials in Washington have identified the detained insurgent leader as Mullah Abdul Salam, described as the Taliban movement's "shadow governor" of Afghanistan's Kunduz province.

Taliban sources told NEWSWEEK's Sami Yousafzai that Salam was grabbed by Pakistani security forces in the city of Faisalabad about a week ago—close to the same time that Pakistani forces, again with American support, captured the Afghan Taliban's No. 2 leader (http://www.newsweek.com/id/233655), Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, in Karachi. The Taliban sources said that Mullah Salam was arrested with three other militants.
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'');</SCRIPT><SCRIPT language=JavaScript1.1 src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/nwswk.news/declassified;dir=news;dir=declassified;ad=bb;del=js;ajax=n;heavy=n;pageId=nwswk-blogs-declassified-archive-2010-02-17-another-taliban-leader-captured-in-pakistan;poe=yes;u=o*_5bCS_5dv1_7c254E10178515BD16_2d4000016F800001F1_5bCE_5d;rs=B09806_10001;fromrs s=n;rss=n;front=n;pos=bigbox;sz=300x250;tile=5;ord=911221673529509700?"></SCRIPT><!-- Iframe Only -->

According to the Taliban sources, at the time of his capture Mullah Salam was preparing to travel to meet Mullah Baradar. Some sources suggested that the arrests of the two insurgent leaders might be linked, though this could not be confirmed in Washington.

Mullah Salam was one of the Taliban's most effective commanders in northern Afghanistan and therefore one of the men most wanted by U.S. and NATO forces fighting there. Salam's soldiers are reputed to have been particularly deadly in their attacks on German troops fighting in northern Afghanistan.

A U.S. counterterrorism official confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Mullah Salam had been captured. "Thanks to solid intelligence work and some courageous partners in Pakistan, this hasn't been a good time for the leadership of the Afghan Taliban," said the official, who, like others cited in this story, asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information. "While these kinds of operations aren't the whole answer, you can't succeed against an enemy like this until you prove he can't win on the battlefield. Taking out [the] top guys is part of that."

Both the Afghan and Pakistani branches of the Taliban appear to have suffered significant leadership losses recently. Mullah Baradar's capture last week (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/world/asia/16intel.html?hp%20) is regarded as a major breakthrough, although there are still questions about how much access U.S. officials will have to Mullah Baradar, who is being held by Pakistan. A source close to Pakistan's leadership indicated that Mullah Baradar is under the control of Pakistan's Interior Ministry, and noted that Pakistani authorities may not treat him gently.
<!-- Iframe Only -->
<!-- Iframe Only -->
<!-- Iframe Only -->
<!-- Rubicon Project tag --><!-- Site: Newsweek Zone: ROS-Auto Refresh Size: Medium Rectangle (300x250) --><SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://optimized-by.rubiconproject.com/a/6351/9674/21772-15.js?cb=0.238837549357938" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><!-- end Rubicon Project tag -->

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 12:35 PM
A source close to Pakistan's leadership indicated that Mullah Baradar is under the control of Pakistan's Interior Ministry, and noted that Pakistani authorities may not treat him gently.
<!-- Iframe Only -->
<!-- Iframe Only -->
<!-- Iframe Only -->ROFL may not treat him gently...
<!-- Iframe Only -->

patteeu
02-17-2010, 12:54 PM
ROFL may not treat him gently...
<!-- Iframe Only -->

Isn't Obama being a hypocrite for turning a blind eye to any harsh treatment these guys might be getting from our partners, the Pakistanis? What happened to his high minded moralizing and the sermons about how harsh techniques are counterproductive?

Brock
02-17-2010, 12:58 PM
Oh my goodness, they might waterboard him.:deevee:

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 01:05 PM
Isn't Obama being a hypocrite for turning a blind eye to any harsh treatment these guys might be getting from our partners, the Pakistanis? What happened to his high minded moralizing and the sermons about how harsh techniques are counterproductive?We don't get to dictate how other countries treat their priosoners.

He is allowing renedition to continue isn't he? You think he doesn't know whats going to happen to them when the are in those other countries jails?

But, yes there is some knee deep hypocritical BS in the whole GWOT.

Brock
02-17-2010, 01:11 PM
We don't get to dictate how other countries treat their priosoners.

He is allowing renedition to continue isn't he? You think he doesn't know whats going to happen to them when the are in those other countries jails?

But, yes there is some knee deep hypocritical BS in the whole GWOT.

Can we figure on any intelligence gathered from this prisoner being worthless, since it will be extracted by whatever means they determine necessary?

mlyonsd
02-17-2010, 01:14 PM
Can we figure on any intelligence gathered from this prisoner being worthless, since it will be extracted by whatever means they determine necessary?

Ouch.

patteeu
02-17-2010, 01:14 PM
We don't get to dictate how other countries treat their priosoners.

He is allowing renedition to continue isn't he? You think he doesn't know whats going to happen to them when the are in those other countries jails?

But, yes there is some knee deep hypocritical BS in the whole GWOT.

Can't you just admit in a clear manner that your guy is clearly a hypocrite here instead of (a) making excuses for him and (b) trying to spread the blame around?

I don't believe for a minute that we couldn't stop the Pakistanis from using harsh techniques on these guys if we wanted to. Hell, they never would have bothered to arrest them if we hadn't leaned on them to do it. For that, at least, Obama deserves some credit even if he's an insincere snake oil salesman when it comes to our own interrogation policies.

wild1
02-17-2010, 01:18 PM
Isn't Obama being a hypocrite for turning a blind eye to any harsh treatment these guys might be getting from our partners, the Pakistanis? What happened to his high minded moralizing and the sermons about how harsh techniques are counterproductive?

That's true. He should be giving them a stern talking to, that they should be fed all the finest foods and have their bums powdered on the half-hour.

After all, negative techniques are counterproductive. Maybe if we treat them like Paris Hilton they'll suddenly like us and start singing.

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 01:18 PM
Can't you just admit in a clear manner that your guy is clearly a hypocrite here instead of (a) making excuses for him and (b) trying to spread the blame around?

I don't believe for a minute that we couldn't stop the Pakistanis from using harsh techniques on these guys if we wanted to. Hell, they never would have bothered to arrest them if we hadn't leaned on them to do it. For that, at least, Obama deserves some credit even if he's an insincere snake oil salesman when it comes to our own interrogation policies.Obama is a hypocrite when it comes to torture. Allowing others to torture because you don't torture is BS.

Good enough for ya?

BigRedChief
02-17-2010, 01:28 PM
<CITE class=vcard>By ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer Rohan Sullivan, Associated Press Writer </CITE>– <ABBR class=recenttimedate title=2010-02-17T11:24:09-0800>1 hr 3 mins ago</ABBR>
<!-- end .byline -->ISLAMABAD – Pakistan confirmed for the first time Wednesday that it has the Afghan Taliban's No. 2 leader in custody, and officials said he was providing useful intelligence that was being shared with the United States.
The confirmation came as the Pakistani government defused a political crisis that threatened to distract from the fight against militancy by backing off on judicial appointments opposed by the Supreme Court.
The Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, was arrested earlier this month in a joint operation by CIA and Pakistani security forces in the southern port city of Karachi, U.S. and Pakistani officials said on condition of anonymity Tuesday. The army on Wednesday gave the first public confirmation of the arrest.
"At the conclusion of detailed identification procedures, it has been confirmed that one of the persons arrested happens to be Mullah Baradar," chief army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said in a written message to reporters. "The place of arrest and operational details cannot be released due to security reasons."
The White House also confirmed the capture for the first time Wednesday. Spokesman Robert Gibbs praised Pakistan and told reporters the arrest "is a big success for our mutual efforts in the region."
Gibbs confirmed Baradar is being interrogated but wouldn't divulge any of the results.

Brock
02-17-2010, 01:32 PM
Can we figure on any intelligence gathered from this prisoner being worthless, since it will be extracted by whatever means they determine necessary?

.

wild1
02-17-2010, 01:36 PM
I wonder if he really wouldn't authorize torture. He would not have his presidency wrecked in a ticking time-bomb situation by a campaign promise. As some are fond of saying, everything he promises has an expiration date anyway. And they could always preserve PD after the fact by saying someone acted on their own and were not authorized in using enhanced techniques.

So in my opinion, either he's lying in saying he would never authorize it or - if it's really true he never would - he's incompetent to have the final say on this matter.

Amnorix
02-17-2010, 01:42 PM
Can't you just admit in a clear manner that your guy is clearly a hypocrite here instead of (a) making excuses for him and (b) trying to spread the blame around?

I don't believe for a minute that we couldn't stop the Pakistanis from using harsh techniques on these guys if we wanted to. Hell, they never would have bothered to arrest them if we hadn't leaned on them to do it. For that, at least, Obama deserves some credit even if he's an insincere snake oil salesman when it comes to our own interrogation policies.

If operating by proxy makes someone a hypocrite or a snake oil salesman, then I've got some realllly bad news for you about every President in our history...

mlyonsd
02-17-2010, 01:51 PM
I wonder if he really wouldn't authorize torture. He would not have his presidency wrecked in a ticking time-bomb situation by a campaign promise. As some are fond of saying, everything he promises has an expiration date anyway. And they could always preserve PD after the fact by saying someone acted on their own and were not authorized in using enhanced techniques.

So in my opinion, either he's lying in saying he would never authorize it or - if it's really true he never would - he's incompetent to have the final say on this matter.

Of course he would. And if it ever happened and then leaked there would be all sorts of justification posts by almost every poster on the board that thought waterboarding at Gitmo a disgrace.

Norman Einstein
02-17-2010, 01:56 PM
Of course he would. And if it ever happened and then leaked there would be all sorts of justification posts by almost every poster on the board that thought waterboarding at Gitmo a disgrace.


This +

If one of his kids were being held hostage and he had one of the suspects under arrest you can bet there would be some form of torture to get his kid home. We are all in that same situation, nothing under the sun would be off limits in that case.

Those tasked with protecting the U.S. from terrorism, I feel, have the same drive to protect, in this case, the American public.

What lengths does the Secret Service go to interrogate suspects when it comes to the safety of the president?

patteeu
02-17-2010, 03:49 PM
If operating by proxy makes someone a hypocrite or a snake oil salesman, then I've got some realllly bad news for you about every President in our history...

I don't think it would be news to me on this front, but some of the self-righteous, Obama-supporting critics of GWBush could probably stand to hear a few of those stories.

BigRedChief recognizes the hypocrisy, but others may be in denial.

HonestChieffan
02-17-2010, 03:58 PM
I dont care if they feed this asswipe his testicles. Get every bit of info we can to save the lives of US soldiers then announce he escaped and we cant find him. So sad too bad.