WORLD  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 37

As New Afghanistan Commander Sails Toward Confirmation, Key Torture Questions Go Unasked

Gen. Stanley McChrystal testified before the Senate this week, but no one asked him about the skeletons in his closet.
June 3, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

General Stanley McChrystal, the media darling/special ops ogre of the Bush era is no stranger to movement. During his yearlong fellowship at the Council on Foreign Relations in 2000, he would rise at the crack of dawn every morning to run 12 miles from his home in Brooklyn to his office in Manhattan. Before that job, he bounced from West Point to Fort Bragg to South Korea to Saudi Arabia, building his military credentials and sharpening an intellect so intense, colleagues dubbed him "scary smart." As he prepares to dart out of the special ops shadows and into the boots of Gen. David McKiernan, the recently fired head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, it's worth listening for the rattle of skeletons McChrystal will be dragging behind him.

First up is the issue of torture. McChrystal has been linked to an operation called the Terrorist Screen Center (TSC), which was located at Camp Nama in Iraq. The institution was one of several Saddam-era torture centers converted into U.S. "interrogation facilities" by special ops forces under the general's command. A 2006 Human Rights Watch report documents extensive prisoner abuses at Nama, including sleep deprivation, the use of extreme heat and cold, sexual humiliation and simulated drowning. One soldier quoted in the report describes the torture of a detainee believed to be an Al-Qaeda financier:

He was stripped naked, put in the mud and sprayed with the hose, with very cold hoses, in February. At night it was very cold. They sprayed the cold hose and he was completely naked in the mud, you know, and everything. [Then] he was taken out of the mud and put next to an air conditioner. It was extremely cold, freezing, and he was put back in the mud and sprayed.
This happened all night. Everybody knew about it. People walked in, the sergeant major and so forth, everybody knew what was going on, and I was just one of them, kind of walking back and forth seeing [that] this is how they do things.

Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, McChrystal was vague about his stance on prisoner abuse. Though he initially said, "I do not, and never have condoned mistreatment of detainees, and never will," he added later that he was pleased with the interrogations he had witnessed. "The constant improvement took us from what I believe was acceptable and legal to something I became much more proud of over time in terms of the operation," he said.

Additionally, McChrystal's assertion that he "stayed within the legal framework" of detainee treatment "as it improved" is tangled in its own set of peculiarities: The framework of which he spoke -- authorized by none other than Donald Rumsfeld -- is likely the same template of state-sponsored torture handed down by the Bush Administration during that time. Though McChrystal said he punished soldiers guilty of mistreatment "if the fact was substantiated," the set of laws against which he measured his actions were not, as he said, improving; they were becoming more brutal.

Finally, there's evidence to suggest that McChrystal knowingly violated international law. In an article published in the August 2006 issue of Esquire, the same soldier interviewed in the 2006 Human Rights Watch report points out that McChrystal denied Red Cross workers access to prisoners at Nama -- a violation of Geneva provisions.

"Once, somebody brought it up with the colonel. 'Will they ever be allowed in here?' And he said absolutely not. He had this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there's no way that the Red Cross could get in -- they won't have access and they never will. This facility was completely closed off to anybody investigating, even Army investigators."

The Pentagon eventually disciplined 34 American soldiers for their actions at sites like Nama. But after 70 percent of the computer records necessary to carry out other litigation were "lost," many cases had to be dropped.


Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email


Comments are closed-

Yes, the press avoids the hard questions. Would Alternet ask Richard Myers about 9/11?
Posted by: pfgetty on Jun 4, 2009 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The press is obedient to these big commanding men of the military. They are kept on a pedestal, above reproach by the msm. You are right, Alternet, the real questions remain unasked.

But Alternet, you are just as bad. The REALLY important questions aren't asked by you either.
Does this guy know anything about 9/11? Does anyone in the Pentagon know the real story of 9//11. Did you ever ask? NO. You don't want the truth to come out.

Has Alternet ever investigated Richard Meyers who was the head of the Joint Chief of Staff at the time of 9/11?
Cynthia Mckinney did. Here is the link to her questioning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr5np6SD8oo
Meyers has never adequately answered the question of how four commercial jets could have evaded US air defense on 9/11......something that even one aircraft has ever done. The system is almost perfect and works efficiently, but not on 9/11. Why? Meyers just won't say, and DOESN'T HAVE TO BECAUSE THE MEDIA, ALTERNET INCLUDED DOES NOT ASK!!!!

http://www.911truth.org/downloads/fact_sheets/NORAD.htm

3000 people died because of the failure of the air defense system, and nobody cares to get a decent answer.

Alternet, YOU don't do the job. Don't complain about the media not asking the right questions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's a big one. Posted by: pfgetty

Comments are closed-

I listened carefully to the part about Afghanistan in the president's speech
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Jun 4, 2009 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He says it is necessary.

I think the question to ask him is why, why is it necessary? He talks about 9/11 and theoretical enemies plotting in the desert, when we all know they could plot anywhere, it is not a reason to invade and bomb a country.

So he was lying about the reason, but I believe he does think it is necessary, so what is the real reason? The Drug War? Geopolitical politics? Oil resources? What?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Obamabots say: move on, OBAMA ISN'T BUSH so don't question our
Posted by: MeyravLevine on Jun 4, 2009 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
supreme leader.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Progressives say try, convict, hang, incarcerate BushCo, fire Summers and Geithner, get out of Iraq
Posted by: thekidde on Jun 4, 2009 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and Afghanistan, kick Wall Street and bankers' asses, trash the Fed, nationalize health care, energy, etc. Obama was the alternative to the asshole McCain, but he still answers to the people. Let him know that along with the cowardly Dems who don't get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

It's strange how often this quote has become appropriate . . .
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jun 4, 2009 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands -- even for beneficial purposes -- will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the ende avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish."

I trust that for anyone who recognizes the smorgasbord of logical fallacies here, to say nothing of the ideology-serving opportunism, no further comment is necessary.

It might also profit those who would otherwise tend to lend credence to this harangue to research the purpose for which the U.S. Special Forces were organized. You might also research the history of the Peace Corps, in order to realize that the same man created both the Special Forces and the Peace Corps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Torture? Tomato?
Posted by: peterjkraus on Jun 4, 2009 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the old song all over again: You call it tomato, I call it tomahto. Same thing. The guy is responsible for a regimen of torture and murder, and he's now the Obama pick to head the carnage in Afghanistan. Change we can believe in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Scary, yes; smart, bullshit.
Posted by: Jaffe on Jun 4, 2009 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The army colleagues who described McChrystal as "scary smart" got their categories confused. In the US it is easy to confuse an over-confident sociopath, like G. Gordon Liddy, or General Patton, or McChrystal with "smart." Especially when the sociopathy is functional-seeming, equated with patriotism, intensity, workaholism.

As if Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and the rendition camps never happened, the congress will gape in awe at the decorated, rail-thin, torture-crazy, functional sociopath and give him what he wants to wage a war against an unseen enemy in a terrain that is impermeable, in the process killing innocent Afghans, Pakistanis, and American troops.

And just what will our "progressive" President be thinking?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

If this were Mccain doing it, imagine how many comments would be on this thread.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 4, 2009 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or do I get the feeling that we've been so outraged before see all this that it's hard to be outraged anymore?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

makaainana
Posted by: Makaainana on Jun 4, 2009 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two reasons why smart men don't ask questions:

1. They already know the answer.
2. They don't want to know the answer.

No questions??? The public is left out again.

How did we arrive at a place where our elected officials have to keep the truth from its citizens?

Sounds like a long slow decline of Democracy into imperialism/elitism. Or maybe not so slow.

We just saw a good example of how the elite survived in the financial sector.

Now we can watch how the politicians engineer theirs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Well, isn't that special!
Posted by: willymack on Jun 4, 2009 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're so superior to any other country in the world, at this or any other time, that we can safely ignore the lessons of history:
Lesson one; Afghanistan has NEVER been conquered.
Alexander the Great couldn't do it
The mighty British Empire couldn't do it
The huge Soviet army couldn't do it
There will be no lesson two until lesson is LEARNED and benefitted from.
In the meantime, we're expected to believe that our nation is composed of superbeings who can do no wrong and can create our own reality, while innocent civilians are being slaughtered, and another bumper opium crop is well on the way.
Seems to me that this "philosophy" and mindset has been used before, some little guy in Europe with a wierd moustache and a mean looking face, seventy or so years ago....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

You want to see something really scary
Posted by: solrev on Jun 4, 2009 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is only one reason to put McChrystal in Afghanistan and that is to win the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan people. This is a military game plan that first failed in Nam. We are in a war, but we can not tell the good guys from the bad guys. So if we buy or assassinate as many tribal or regional leaders as we can identify, then we can put people in these positions that are more sympathetic to our position. The problem with this tactic is that it would only work if you were fighting Americans. There are just too many of the locals that will take your money, but they will not sell their soul at the company store. Those who do sell their souls get assassinated by other locals, fragem if you gotem. Talk about a never-ending story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

bin laden has been dead for a long time
Posted by: pfgetty on Jun 4, 2009 7:13 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bin Laden has been dead for a long time.



OBL: The Eight-Year-Long Psychological Operation
( Home » blogs » Tod Fletcher's blog » OBL: The... )
Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.
Submitted by Tod Fletcher on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 9:42am.
Book Review | David Ray Griffin | Osama Bin Laden
a review of David Ray Griffin's new book, OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE?

http://www.amazon.com/
Osama-Bin-Laden-Dead-Alive/dp/1566567831/ref=sr_1_...

by Tod Fletcher

OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a crucially important and timely examination of the whole range of evidence bearing on the question, is Osama bin Laden still alive? The importance of this question for the present comes from the fact that the United States under its new president is escalating its offensive in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan, and has claimed that the "hunt for bin Laden" is one of its principal motivations for doing so. Either explicitly or implicitly, the US government and major media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post continue to assert that bin Laden is alive, hiding in the tribal territories on the "AfPak" border, posing an undiminished threat to US security.

In his gripping new book, Griffin strikes at the root of this pretext for war by closely examining all the evidence that has come out since September 11, 2001, either indicating that bin Laden is still alive or that he is in fact dead. His conclusion is that bin Laden is certainly dead, and that in all likelihood he died in very late 2001. Griffin shows that many US experts in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency came to this very same conclusion long ago, but their views, which do not support the continuation of what President Obama, borrowing the term from Dick Cheney, calls "the long war," have received very little media attention. Were they to do so, one of the main props for the war regime would be undermined.

In Chapter 1, "Evidence that Osama bin Laden is Dead", Griffin surveys in detail the many different indications published in the major media in late 2001 and early 2002 that bin Laden had been very ill and had died. These included a December, 2001 video in which he appeared to be at death's door (as admitted by a Bush administration spokesperson), analyses by medical experts of the grave state of his health, the sudden and total cessation in December, 2001 of any surveillance intercepts of communications from him, and even reports of his funeral. In this early period, various high-level officials in the US and Pakistani governments, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Pervez Musharraf, speculated that he was dead. By mid-2002 many experts had concluded that he was dead, including FBI counterterrorism official Dale Watson, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and Israeli intelligence officials. The conviction that he died in 2001 is held today by former intelligence operatives Robert Baer and Angelo Codevilla.

There is more at the website

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

MCCHRYSTAL IS ONE SCARY GUY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 6, 2009 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's not about winning hearts and minds. He's a master strategist. I'm not sure of the purpose of ratcheting up the war in Afganistan. It's been so many years, 6-7. I know, getting rid of the Taliban. But we seem to be getting rid of more civilians, (women and children). These horrible remote unmanned planes and other robotics can't make any distinctions. McChrystal is no where near any of this. Our soldiers are beginning to die over this. They are becoming irrelevant to McChrystal's game plan. Innocent Afgans AND American soldiers are dying. Very few Taliban, because there aren't that many to begin with. But their ranks grow by the day. Unlike George Bush, Barack Obama is a brilliant man. All due respect, there are NO good wars sir and this one belongs to you. Granted, it's inherited. But I don't believe you were limited to one choice. We part company on this one very important matter. You're on a well desrved roll but you're about to blow it. In a week or so unemployment will hit the big 10%, more bodies will come home from Afganistan. It's gonna take one hell of a speech. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Yes, the press avoids the hard questions. Would Alternet ask Richard Myers about 9/11?
Posted by: pfgetty on Jun 4, 2009 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The press is obedient to these big commanding men of the military. They are kept on a pedestal, above reproach by the msm. You are right, Alternet, the real questions remain unasked.

But Alternet, you are just as bad. The REALLY important questions aren't asked by you either.
Does this guy know anything about 9/11? Does anyone in the Pentagon know the real story of 9//11. Did you ever ask? NO. You don't want the truth to come out.

Has Alternet ever investigated Richard Meyers who was the head of the Joint Chief of Staff at the time of 9/11?
Cynthia Mckinney did. Here is the link to her questioning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr5np6SD8oo
Meyers has never adequately answered the question of how four commercial jets could have evaded US air defense on 9/11......something that even one aircraft has ever done. The system is almost perfect and works efficiently, but not on 9/11. Why? Meyers just won't say, and DOESN'T HAVE TO BECAUSE THE MEDIA, ALTERNET INCLUDED DOES NOT ASK!!!!

http://www.911truth.org/downloads/fact_sheets/NORAD.htm

3000 people died because of the failure of the air defense system, and nobody cares to get a decent answer.

Alternet, YOU don't do the job. Don't complain about the media not asking the right questions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's a big one. Posted by: pfgetty

Comments are closed-

I listened carefully to the part about Afghanistan in the president's speech
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Jun 4, 2009 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He says it is necessary.

I think the question to ask him is why, why is it necessary? He talks about 9/11 and theoretical enemies plotting in the desert, when we all know they could plot anywhere, it is not a reason to invade and bomb a country.

So he was lying about the reason, but I believe he does think it is necessary, so what is the real reason? The Drug War? Geopolitical politics? Oil resources? What?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Obamabots say: move on, OBAMA ISN'T BUSH so don't question our
Posted by: MeyravLevine on Jun 4, 2009 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
supreme leader.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Progressives say try, convict, hang, incarcerate BushCo, fire Summers and Geithner, get out of Iraq
Posted by: thekidde on Jun 4, 2009 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and Afghanistan, kick Wall Street and bankers' asses, trash the Fed, nationalize health care, energy, etc. Obama was the alternative to the asshole McCain, but he still answers to the people. Let him know that along with the cowardly Dems who don't get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

It's strange how often this quote has become appropriate . . .
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jun 4, 2009 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands -- even for beneficial purposes -- will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the ende avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish."

I trust that for anyone who recognizes the smorgasbord of logical fallacies here, to say nothing of the ideology-serving opportunism, no further comment is necessary.

It might also profit those who would otherwise tend to lend credence to this harangue to research the purpose for which the U.S. Special Forces were organized. You might also research the history of the Peace Corps, in order to realize that the same man created both the Special Forces and the Peace Corps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Torture? Tomato?
Posted by: peterjkraus on Jun 4, 2009 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the old song all over again: You call it tomato, I call it tomahto. Same thing. The guy is responsible for a regimen of torture and murder, and he's now the Obama pick to head the carnage in Afghanistan. Change we can believe in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Scary, yes; smart, bullshit.
Posted by: Jaffe on Jun 4, 2009 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The army colleagues who described McChrystal as "scary smart" got their categories confused. In the US it is easy to confuse an over-confident sociopath, like G. Gordon Liddy, or General Patton, or McChrystal with "smart." Especially when the sociopathy is functional-seeming, equated with patriotism, intensity, workaholism.

As if Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and the rendition camps never happened, the congress will gape in awe at the decorated, rail-thin, torture-crazy, functional sociopath and give him what he wants to wage a war against an unseen enemy in a terrain that is impermeable, in the process killing innocent Afghans, Pakistanis, and American troops.

And just what will our "progressive" President be thinking?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

If this were Mccain doing it, imagine how many comments would be on this thread.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 4, 2009 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or do I get the feeling that we've been so outraged before see all this that it's hard to be outraged anymore?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

makaainana
Posted by: Makaainana on Jun 4, 2009 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two reasons why smart men don't ask questions:

1. They already know the answer.
2. They don't want to know the answer.

No questions??? The public is left out again.

How did we arrive at a place where our elected officials have to keep the truth from its citizens?

Sounds like a long slow decline of Democracy into imperialism/elitism. Or maybe not so slow.

We just saw a good example of how the elite survived in the financial sector.

Now we can watch how the politicians engineer theirs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Well, isn't that special!
Posted by: willymack on Jun 4, 2009 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're so superior to any other country in the world, at this or any other time, that we can safely ignore the lessons of history:
Lesson one; Afghanistan has NEVER been conquered.
Alexander the Great couldn't do it
The mighty British Empire couldn't do it
The huge Soviet army couldn't do it
There will be no lesson two until lesson is LEARNED and benefitted from.
In the meantime, we're expected to believe that our nation is composed of superbeings who can do no wrong and can create our own reality, while innocent civilians are being slaughtered, and another bumper opium crop is well on the way.
Seems to me that this "philosophy" and mindset has been used before, some little guy in Europe with a wierd moustache and a mean looking face, seventy or so years ago....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

You want to see something really scary
Posted by: solrev on Jun 4, 2009 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is only one reason to put McChrystal in Afghanistan and that is to win the hearts and minds of the Afghanistan people. This is a military game plan that first failed in Nam. We are in a war, but we can not tell the good guys from the bad guys. So if we buy or assassinate as many tribal or regional leaders as we can identify, then we can put people in these positions that are more sympathetic to our position. The problem with this tactic is that it would only work if you were fighting Americans. There are just too many of the locals that will take your money, but they will not sell their soul at the company store. Those who do sell their souls get assassinated by other locals, fragem if you gotem. Talk about a never-ending story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

bin laden has been dead for a long time
Posted by: pfgetty on Jun 4, 2009 7:13 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bin Laden has been dead for a long time.



OBL: The Eight-Year-Long Psychological Operation
( Home » blogs » Tod Fletcher's blog » OBL: The... )
Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.
Submitted by Tod Fletcher on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 9:42am.
Book Review | David Ray Griffin | Osama Bin Laden
a review of David Ray Griffin's new book, OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE?

http://www.amazon.com/
Osama-Bin-Laden-Dead-Alive/dp/1566567831/ref=sr_1_...

by Tod Fletcher

OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a crucially important and timely examination of the whole range of evidence bearing on the question, is Osama bin Laden still alive? The importance of this question for the present comes from the fact that the United States under its new president is escalating its offensive in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan, and has claimed that the "hunt for bin Laden" is one of its principal motivations for doing so. Either explicitly or implicitly, the US government and major media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post continue to assert that bin Laden is alive, hiding in the tribal territories on the "AfPak" border, posing an undiminished threat to US security.

In his gripping new book, Griffin strikes at the root of this pretext for war by closely examining all the evidence that has come out since September 11, 2001, either indicating that bin Laden is still alive or that he is in fact dead. His conclusion is that bin Laden is certainly dead, and that in all likelihood he died in very late 2001. Griffin shows that many US experts in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency came to this very same conclusion long ago, but their views, which do not support the continuation of what President Obama, borrowing the term from Dick Cheney, calls "the long war," have received very little media attention. Were they to do so, one of the main props for the war regime would be undermined.

In Chapter 1, "Evidence that Osama bin Laden is Dead", Griffin surveys in detail the many different indications published in the major media in late 2001 and early 2002 that bin Laden had been very ill and had died. These included a December, 2001 video in which he appeared to be at death's door (as admitted by a Bush administration spokesperson), analyses by medical experts of the grave state of his health, the sudden and total cessation in December, 2001 of any surveillance intercepts of communications from him, and even reports of his funeral. In this early period, various high-level officials in the US and Pakistani governments, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Pervez Musharraf, speculated that he was dead. By mid-2002 many experts had concluded that he was dead, including FBI counterterrorism official Dale Watson, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and Israeli intelligence officials. The conviction that he died in 2001 is held today by former intelligence operatives Robert Baer and Angelo Codevilla.

There is more at the website

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

MCCHRYSTAL IS ONE SCARY GUY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 6, 2009 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's not about winning hearts and minds. He's a master strategist. I'm not sure of the purpose of ratcheting up the war in Afganistan. It's been so many years, 6-7. I know, getting rid of the Taliban. But we seem to be getting rid of more civilians, (women and children). These horrible remote unmanned planes and other robotics can't make any distinctions. McChrystal is no where near any of this. Our soldiers are beginning to die over this. They are becoming irrelevant to McChrystal's game plan. Innocent Afgans AND American soldiers are dying. Very few Taliban, because there aren't that many to begin with. But their ranks grow by the day. Unlike George Bush, Barack Obama is a brilliant man. All due respect, there are NO good wars sir and this one belongs to you. Granted, it's inherited. But I don't believe you were limited to one choice. We part company on this one very important matter. You're on a well desrved roll but you're about to blow it. In a week or so unemployment will hit the big 10%, more bodies will come home from Afganistan. It's gonna take one hell of a speech. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS