Secret US plot to kill Al-Sadr
The Bush regime attempted to kill Muqtada al-Sadr after luring him into a house for peace negotiations and then attacking it, according to a senior Iraqi government official.
The revelation of this extraordinary plot, which would probably have provoked an uprising by outraged Shia if it had succeeded, has left a legacy of bitter distrust in the mind of Mr Sadr for which the US and its allies in Iraq may still be paying. "I believe that particular incident made Muqtada lose any confidence or trust in the [US-led] coalition and made him really wild," the Iraqi National Security Adviser Dr Mowaffaq Rubai'e told The Independent in an interview.This is yet another example of the recklessness with which this administration pursues it's aims.
It is not known who gave the orders for the attempt on Mr Sadr but it is one of a series of ill-considered and politically explosive US actions in Iraq since the invasion. In January this year a US helicopter assault team tried to kidnap two senior Iranian security officials on an official visit to the Iraqi President. Earlier examples of highly provocative actions carried out by the US with little thought for the consequences include the dissolution of the Iraqi army and the Baath party.
It goes without saying that any attempts at negotiations between the US and al-Sadr will now prove almost impossible to bring about.
It appears that it 2004, when the US and the Mehdi Army were battling in Najaf, that the meeting was set up in the house in Najaf of Muqtada's father Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr who had been murdered by Saddam's gunmen with two of his sons five years before.
However, US Marines opened fire on the house before al-Sadr had even arrived and he was able to make his escape. It is hard to believe that an order to engage in this kind of treachery and double dealing could have come from anywhere but the very heights of the Bush administration. To allow an enemy to attend peace talks at which you attempt to kill them has got to be the lowest of the low. How could anyone ever again agree to attend any conference or negotiations that these people attempt to set up?
When parties agree to meet to discuss peace, both sides have given their word that they are attending on good faith. The location is known to both. To attack peace talks almost beggars belief. And yet, the news that the US did so is coming from a highly qualified Iraqi source:
This is also not without precedent as the US also attempted to kidnap Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, in a botched raid in Arbil whilst they were on an official visit to meet with Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, and Massoud Barzani, the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).Although Dr Rubai'e, as Iraqi National Security Adviser since 2004 and earlier a member of the Iraqi Governing Council, is closely associated with the American authorities in Baghdad, he has no doubt about what happened.
He sees the negotiations as part of a charade to lure Mr Sadr, who is normally very careful about his own security, to a house where he could be eliminated.
"When I came back to Baghdad I was really, really infuriated, I can tell you," Dr Rubai'e said. "I went berserk with both [the US commander General George] Casey and the ambassador [John Negroponte]." They denied that knew of a trap and said they would look into what happened but he never received any explanation from them.
As Patrick Cockburn said in the Independent newspaper at the time, the only equivalent action to put this into perspective is to imagine what the US would say if the Iranians swept into Pakistan or Afghanistan and arrested the head of the CIA and MI6 whilst they were on official business.
This is all further proof that the Bush administration are determined to operate out of the accepted norms, although all indications are that this will increase rather than diminish their problems in the region.
It's also a further indication of the Bush regime's contempt for negotiation and their willingness to rely almost exclusively on military solutions to all of their problems.
But to attack peace talks has to be a new low, even for these guys.
Click title for full article.
11 comments:
This is all further proof that the Bush administration are determined to operate out of the accepted norms
You seem to have an ongoing problem with the concept of proof. What this is here is a combination of supposition, heresay, and allegation, none of which constitute proof.
I find it interesting (but not surprising) how quick you are to support and accept any anti-American position, yet unwilling to accept any American position that flies in the face of your preconceived notions.
You seem to have an ongoing problem with the concept of proof. What this is here is a combination of supposition, heresay, and allegation, none of which constitute proof.
I know that people like you insist on evidence that would stand up in a court of law to prove what is admittedly hearsay and accusation - although there's a bloody lot of it and much of it corroborates - however, you have no difficulty with your government holding people in Guantanamo Bay with evidence that, likewise, would not stand up in a court of law.
You seem to demand a level of proof from detractors of your government which you are happy to dispense with when it is your government who are doing the accusing.
I know that people like you...
People like me? I'm not the one making unprovable statements and then claiming them as proof of whatever strikes my fancy at the time.
If you're going to cite something as matter-of-fact, such as your statements that somebody is definitively lying or any other accusation you are leveling as fact, then you have to back it up. Otherwise it's either supposition, opinion, hearsay, or just flat out inaccurate. It's hard to appear even remotely credible otherwise.
I note that you are sidestepping the Guantanamo analogy completely.
Using your ever varying definitions of what constitutes "proof" depending on whether a particular allegation suits your prejudices or not.
I would say a higher standard of proof should be set for whether someone is denied their liberty or not, you seem to find criticising your President as something that deserves only the strictest proof before any allegation can be assumed to have merit.
I don't recall citing anything as proof of anything without backing it up with a factual source. As per your mischaracterization of me having some kind of shifting definition of proof, again, that would be not true. I'm quite consistent in that regards. I don't care who you criticize as long as you don't try to masquerade opinion for fact, or flat out get your facts wrong.
And excuse me if I'm not sure what your attempt to shift the conversation from your inaccuracies to Guantanamo has to do with anything. When you have a post about that issue I may address it then.
Do you agree with Bush holding suspects at Guantanamo Bay with very little evidence against them?
After all, most have been held for up to five years and then simply released which implies that they certainly never had any "proof" of wrongdoing.
Do you agree with Bush's tactics here?
And I've already provided you with copious amounts of accusations -albeit it hearsay - from some very highly regarded sources such as Amnesty and Human Rights watch and you have dismissed this as not good enough.
So why do you back Bush when he acts with so little evidence and yet demand that I am not allowed to come to conclusions based on evidence that is not fully conclusive? Why do you cut Bush so much slack and not his critics?
Do you agree with Bush holding suspects at Guantanamo Bay with very little evidence against them?
First of all, Bush isn't holding anybody anywhere. The United States is holding enemy combatants at Guantanamo.
Second, I don't know what evidence they may or may not have, and I suspect neither do you.
Third, as I have some level of first-hand knowledge from my military days concerning LOAC, the Geneva Conventions, and the UCMJ, I don't have any problem with people being held in Guantanamo. I do not believe they are or should be subject to the protection of the US Constitution.
If you see the issue as a law enforcement problem, then it is understandable that you expect these individuals to be adjudicated. However, it is not a law enforcement issue, it is a military one.
The job of the military regarding the detainees is to determine what if any intelligence value they have, ensure that they are held until they are no longer a threat or the conflict ends (whichever comes first), and then to see that they are tried if they want seek to have them punished for any crimes they have committed. Along the way they need to make sure that the people they have are in fact enemy combatants, and if not, release them.
You claim that releasing people without trying them is "proof" that there was no proof to charge them of any crimes. For one, there is no obligation to charge them as long as the conflict continues, and therefore no burden of proof required once it has been established that they are in fact enemy combatants. Secondly, I would like to think they let them go only once they determined that the prisoners no longer pose a significant threat, or failing that, that the country of origin has made suitable arrangements for their disposition.
Instead of rehashing the same issues though, I will point you to this online debate between David Rivkin and Karen Greenberg (start reading from the bottom). David Greenberg's argument is in line with my understanding of LOAC, the Geneva Conventions, and the UCMJ (although of course I am not a legal expert).
from some very highly regarded sources such as Amnesty and Human Rights
Highly regarded by who?
So why do you back Bush when he acts with so little evidence and yet demand that I am not allowed to come to conclusions based on evidence that is not fully conclusive?
First, I'm not backing Bush because he is not "acting with so little evidence". The attempt by the ultra-left to characterize everything they don't like about the US as some machination of Bush, and then state that their not anti-American they're just anti-Bush, is as tiresome as it is transparent. It is the United States that is letting these people go, and I am backing that system, not the all powerful and omnipotent Bush who many like you imagine is pulling all the strings on every single minute function of my government that you find distasteful.
But I digress... I have pointed out in my previous post how the US is not obligated to charge these people with anything and in fact can detain them for as long as the conflict continues. So therefore, I have no need to demand any burden of proof from the United States in this case.
That aside, I'm not sure what if anything it has to do with me pointing out that many claims you insist as presenting as fact are anything but.
If you see the issue as a law enforcement problem, then it is understandable that you expect these individuals to be adjudicated. However, it is not a law enforcement issue, it is a military one.
This is, of course, where we differ. I do not believe in the war on terror and certainly not as it is currently being defined. Terrorists are criminals. Nothing more. They should be put on trial, as we put members of the IRA on trial and, if convicted, they should be jailed.
However, I realise that we will never see eye to eye on this.
That aside, I'm not sure what if anything it has to do with me pointing out that many claims you insist as presenting as fact are anything but.
I said the Bush regime was operating outside of accepted norms. They are. You have a Vice President who describes waterboarding as "a dunk in the water" He has also admitted that such techniques have yielded "enormously valuable information."
That is an admission that the US has waterboarded people and tortured them. And this is outside of the norm as I stated:
"In September the Pentagon issued a new field manual on intelligence interrogation that explicitly forbids the use of water boarding. On that occasion General Jeff Kimmons, the US Army's top intelligence officer, said that "no good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that".
The manual states that "torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment is never a morally permissible option, even in situations where lives depend on gaining information". Those who do use them, "lose moral legitimacy"."
So Cheney is admitting this administration are using techniques which the Pentagon's own field manual forbids. What is that, if not outside of the accepted norm?
This is, of course, where we differ. I do not believe in the war on terror and certainly not as it is currently being defined. Terrorists are criminals. Nothing more. They should be put on trial, as we put members of the IRA on trial and, if convicted, they should be jailed.
It's immaterial whether or not anyone believes in it, it is US policy. The United States was attacked by an international group that openly declared war on it and was in many cases benefited by state sponsors. Let me repeat that it sinks in, they have declared war on us. These are people who have not only shown the desire to carry out attacks aginst us but the capability as well. This is so clearly a military issue that it begs sanity to insist otherwise.
They can't declare war on you as they are not a state. Only states can declare wars.
Which is why your war on terror has no more chance of succeeding than your war on drugs or your war on bad fashion sense. It's a simply idiotic notion that a bunch of guys in an Afghan cave can declare war on the United States and even more ludicrous that people like yourself are buying this baloney.
And what capability have they shown? They have carried out one spectacular attack that was only possible because US airport security techniques had been lax. Those loopholes are now closed so that attack was a once only, never to be repeated event. Since then they have been carrying out bog standard IRA type bombings not unlike any other terrorist organisation.
And if your government were so worried about bin Laden and his organisation then your army would be in Afghanistan in huge numbers searching him out. That would have been the administration's number one priority. Bush is since on record as saying he doesn't care where he is and Bush is "not interested". Is that the way to talk about a man with such a supposed global reach?
And, as we know, people like Wolfowitz didn't even want to go into Afghanistan such was their desire to get straight to Iraq.
Iraq is the proof as far as most of us are concerned that the war on terror is a sham. Because if there was genuine worry about what bin Laden and al-Qaeda might do next, Iraq is the last place Bush would have gone.
Indeed the invasion serves as a recruiting poster for al-Qaeda.
I happen to agree with the British Director of Public Prosecutions who stated:
"London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7 2005 were not victims of war. And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, 'soldiers'. They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists. We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a 'war on terror', just as there can be no such thing as a 'war on drugs'.
"The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement."
Post a Comment