Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| US gov. related articles |
|---|
| amatullah |
| 09/21/01 at 23:22:02 |
| Bismillah and salam Good article on split within Bush Administration on response on WTC Attack. From the Christian Science Monitor the September 18, 2001 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0918/p1s2-wogi.html US calculates a war with little room for error Risk of spawning terrorism, weakening moderates in Mideast By Ann Scott Tyson Special correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON - As President Bush rallies a war-ready American public with talk of winning a "crusade" against evil, quieter calculations are under way here over the tremendous risks to US security of waging an all-out war on terrorism. The risks - especially of using US ground forces in the Middle East - range from destabilizing moderate Arab regimes and turning the region more hostile to America to inciting new terrorist attacks, possibly with weapons of mass destruction, according to a rising chorus of experts and former officials. This is not to mention the grave risk for US soldiers.American military casualties are almost certain in what US officials acknowledge will be a long, open-ended campaign against an elusive enemy capable of continually reinventing itself. Far from the sanitized bombing of Kosovo in1999 - or even the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf - this conflict will require commandos using guerrilla-like tactics. "Antiseptic warfare," says Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "will notwork with this enemy." The upshot is that, behind the rhetoric about ridding the world of "evildoers," the Bush administration must walk a tightrope, balancing the imperative of fighting terrorists with the risk of unleashing new threats, these experts say. Key to staying on the tightrope, they suggest, are a meticulous strategy, prudent planning,and a crystal-clear mission. "There is no margin for error," said Ken Duberstein, a former White House chief of staff, in a television interview Sunday. Public statements over the past week by top American officials suggest that the Bush administration is engaged in an intense internal debate over exactly what the right strategy should be. The voices vying for Mr. Bush's ear On one side are the more hawkish calls - mainly from the Pentagon - for using military force to overturn governments and regimes that back terrorism. Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz, for instance, last week called for "ending states who sponsor terrorism." Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would be a key target for officials such as Mr.Wolfowitz, who pushed for the United States to take over Baghdad during the Gulf War. Critics of this approach point out that the US has not yet determined which nations were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks or other terrorist strikes. Without such information, military action against other countries could constitute a dangerous effort to "settle old scores," rather than to conduct a targeted antiterrorist campaign. In an apparent effort by the Bush administration to rein in its most hawkish members, a newspaper report Monday cited unnamed officials aying Mr. Wolfowitz had misspoken, and meant to say the US should end state support for terrorism - not states. On the other hand are officials, most prominently Secretary of State Colin Powell, who stress the effectiveness of nonmilitary tactics using US diplomatic, financial, intelligence, and legal resources. "We have to attack on all fronts," Mr. Powell said in a broadcast Sunday. Nonmilitary methods are likely to be "just as effective" against terrorists as blunt force, he said earlier. Experts say that stealthy, quiet action may in the end accomplish far more than the kind of large-scale military retaliation that the American public now seems primed for. "There's tremendous pressure for a big, visible response," says Michèle Flournoy, senior adviser at the International Security Program of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "But some of the more effective means of dealing with terrorism are covert in nature. The irony is that the most visible response may not be the most effective - and the most effective may not be as visible." The 'invade Afghanistan' option In terms of military options, experts stress that the use of force must be carefully tailored to the enemy. Take, for example,the case of Afghanistan, where chief suspect Osama bin Laden has built his base of operations. "People talk blithely about invading or sending in ground troops," says Anthony Cordesman, a former defense official now at CSIS. "A ground invasion of Afghanistan makes no sense whatsoever. You'd be invading a country to try to chase down someone who can run and hide almost everywhere." "In reality," Mr. Cordesman says, "only [US] special forces [such as the counterterrorism Delta Force, the Navy Seals, and the Green Berets] may be useful for surveillance and seizing or killing terrorists." Possibly the greatest risk of all for America would lie in moving too quickly and conducting a bungled military operation that could weaken two of its most valuable assets: the support of world allies and of the American public. Mr. Bush, in telling the American people this weekendthat they "must be patient," seems to understand this. Indeed, the US military and intelligence services still have a long way to go in preparing for the struggle against terrorism,according to former US officials. "We have a great deal to do to fit ourselves for the longer-term struggle," former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleberger said on a television panel. Former Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey added that the CIA is currently not ready to do the job. Copyright © 2001 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. |
| Re: war with no room for error? article |
|---|
| amatullah |
| 09/19/01 at 11:32:47 |
| Bismillah and salam, Here is an interesting article from the Manchester Guardian. Relates to the lack of debate in the United States. > "Mark Twain once observed that "there are some natures which never grow > > large enough to speak out and say a bad act is a bad act, until they > > have inquired into the politics or the nationality of the man who did > > it". The left is able to state categorically that Tuesday's terrorism > > was a dreadful act, irrespective of provenance. But the right can't > > bring itself to make the same statement about Israel's new invasions of > > Palestine, or the sanctions in Iraq, or the US-backed terror in East > > Timor, or the carpet bombing of Cambodia.... > > The governments of Britain and America are using the disaster in New > > York to reinforce the very policies which have helped to cause the > > problem: building up the power of the defence industry, preparing to > > launch campaigns of the kind which inevitably kill civilians, licensing > > covert action. Corporations are securing new resources to invest in > > instability." > > > > The need for dissent > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,553766,00.html > > Voices from Britain and the US highlight the risks of a hasty response > > > > Special report: terrorism in the US > > > > George Monbiot > > Tuesday September 18, 2001 > > The Guardian > > > > If Osama bin Laden did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. > > For the past four years, his name has been invoked whenever a US > > president has sought to increase the defence budget or wriggle out of > > arms control treaties. He has been used to justify even President Bush's > > missile defence programme, though neither he nor his associates are > > known to possess anything approaching ballistic missile technology. Now > > he has become the personification of evil required to launch a crusade > > for good: the face behind the faceless terror. > > The closer you look, the weaker the case against Bin Laden becomes. > > While the terrorists who inflicted Tuesday's dreadful wound may have > > been inspired by him, there is, as yet, no evidence that they were > > instructed by him. Bin Laden's presumed guilt appears to rest on the > > supposition that he is the sort of man who would have done it. But his > > culpability is irrelevant: his usefulness to western governments lies in > > his power to terrify. When billions of pounds of military spending are > > at stake, rogue states and terrorist warlords become assets precisely > > because they are liabilities. > > > > By using Bin Laden as an excuse for demanding new military spending, > > weapons manufacturers in America and Britain have enhanced his iconic > > status among the disgruntled. His influence, in other words, has been > > nurtured by the very industry which claims to possess the means of > > stamping him out. This is not the only way in which the new terrorism > > crisis has been exacerbated by corporate power. The lax airport security > > which enabled the hijackers to smuggle weapons on to the planes was, for > > example, the result of corporate lobbying against the stricter controls > > the government had proposed. > > > > Now Tuesday's horror is being used by corporations to establish the > > preconditions for an even deadlier brand of terror. This week, while the > > world's collective back is turned, Tony Blair intends to allow the mixed > > oxide plant at Sellafield to start operating. The decision would have > > been front-page news at any other time. Now it's likely to be all but > > invisible. The plant's operation, long demanded by the nuclear industry > > and resisted by almost everyone else, will lead to a massive > > proliferation of plutonium, and a high probability that some of it will > > find its way into the hands of terrorists. Like Ariel Sharon, in other > > words, Blair is using the reeling world's shock to pursue policies which > > would be unacceptable at any other time. > > > > For these reasons and many others, opposition has seldom been more > > necessary. But it has seldom been more vulnerable. The right is seizing > > the political space which has opened up where the twin towers of the > > World Trade Centre once stood. > > > > Civil liberties are suddenly negotiable. The US seems prepared to lift > > its ban on extra-judicial executions carried out abroad by its own > > agents. The CIA might be permitted to employ human rights abusers once > > more, which will doubtless mean training and funding a whole new > > generation of Bin Ladens. The British government is considering the > > introduction of identity cards. Radical dissenters in Britain have > > already been identified as terrorists by the Terrorism Act 2000. Now > > we're likely to be treated as such. > > > > The authoritarianism which has long been lurking in advanced capitalism > > has started to surface. In these pages yesterday, William Shawcross - > > Rupert Murdoch's courteous biographer - articulated the new orthodoxy: > > America is, he maintained, "a beacon of hope for the world's poor and > > dispossessed and for all those who believe in freedom of thought and > > deed". These believers would presumably include the families of the > > Iraqis killed by the sanctions Britain and the US have imposed; the > > peasants murdered by Bush's proxy war in Colombia; and the tens of > > millions living under despotic regimes in the Middle East, sustained and > > sponsored by the US. > > > > William Shawcross concluded by suggesting that "we are all Americans > > now", an echo of Pinochet's maxim that "we are all Chileans now": by > > which he meant that no cultural distinctions would be tolerated and no > > indigenous land rights recognised. Shawcross appeared to suggest that > > those who question American power are the enemies of democracy. It's a > > different way of formulating the warning voiced by members of the Bush > > administration: "If you're not with us, you're against us." > > > > The Daily Telegraph has set aside part of its leader column for a > > directory of "useful idiots", by which it means those who oppose major > > military intervention. Perhaps the roll of honour will soon include > > families of some of the victims, who seem to be rather more capable of > > restraint and forgiveness than the leader writers of the rightwing > > press. Mark Newton-Carter, whose brother appears to have died in the > > terrorist outrage, told one of the Sunday newspapers: "I think Bush > > should be caged at the moment. He is a loose cannon. He is building up > > his forces getting ready for a military strike. That is not the answer. > > Gandhi said: 'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind' and never a > > truer word was spoken." But when the right is on the rampage, victims as > > well as perpetrators are trampled. > > > > Mark Twain once observed that "there are some natures which never grow > > large enough to speak out and say a bad act is a bad act, until they > > have inquired into the politics or the nationality of the man who did > > it". The left is able to state categorically that Tuesday's terrorism > > was a dreadful act, irrespective of provenance. But the right can't > > bring itself to make the same statement about Israel's new invasions of > > Palestine, or the sanctions in Iraq, or the US-backed terror in East > > Timor, or the carpet bombing of Cambodia. Its critical faculties have > > long been suspended and now, it demands, we must suspend ours too. > > > > Retaining the ability to discriminate between good acts and bad acts > > will become ever harder over the next few months, as new conflicts and > > paradoxes challenge our preconceptions. It may be that a convincing case > > against Bin Laden is assembled, whereupon his forced extradition would > > be justified. But, unless we wish to help George Bush use barbarism to > > defend the "civilisation" he claims to represent, we must distinguish > > between extradition and extermination. > > > > Tuesday's terror may have signalled the beginning of the end of > > globalisation. The recession it has doubtless helped to precipitate, > > coupled with a new and understandable fear among many Americans of > > engagement with the outside world, could lead to a reactionary > > protectionism in the US, which is likely to provoke similar responses on > > this side of the Atlantic. We will, in these circumstances, have to be > > careful not to celebrate the demise of corporate globalisation, if it > > merely gives way to something even worse. > > > > The governments of Britain and America are using the disaster in New > > York to reinforce the very policies which have helped to cause the > > problem: building up the power of the defence industry, preparing to > > launch campaigns of the kind which inevitably kill civilians, licensing > > covert action. Corporations are securing new resources to invest in > > instability. Racists are attacking Arabs and Muslims and blaming liberal > > asylum policies for terrorism. As a result of the horror on Tuesday, the > > right in all its forms is flourishing, and we are shrinking. But we must > > not be cowed. Dissent is most necessary just when it is hardest to > > voice. > > |
| Re: US gov. related article |
|---|
| amatullah |
| 09/19/01 at 15:28:38 |
| Bismillah and salam, Look at the double standard. Irish Times - Tuesday, September 18, 2001 Shameful economy of outrage by Fintan O'Toole You probably don't remember Mirsad Alispahic or Hajrudin Mesanovic or Hamed Omerovic or Azem Mujic or Ismet Ahmetovic. It is, after all, more than six years since July 13th 1995, when Mirsad and Hajrudin were murdered just outside the village of Nezuk. Hamed, Azem and Izmet met the same fate on the banks of the Jadar River. I know their names only because they were among the first. After that, as the bodies piled up, the victims became, for all but their families and friends, anonymous. Six years ago, in the heart of Europe, about 8,000 men and boys were murdered in a small place over a period of 10 days. They had been captured by the Bosnian Serb army as they were trying to escape from the enclave of Srebrenica on the border between Serbia and Bosnia. The enclave, which had been declared a "safe area" under United Nations protection in April 1993, was taken by the Serbs on July 11th 1995. At first the killings were sporadic, with men, women and children being beaten, stoned and stabbed to death. Soon, the massacre became systematic. The men and boys aged 13 and upwards were separated from the women. Near the village of Meces, 150 Bosnian Muslim men were forced to dig their own graves and then executed. By the next day, the army had brought in excavators to dig the graves, making the process more efficient. Special assembly points for prisoners were established, among them a hangar in Bratunac; soccer fields in Kasaba, Konjevic Polje, Kravica and Vlasenica; a meadow behind the bus station in Sandici and other fields and meadows along the Bratunac - Milici road. Here, the mass executions were conducted with greater despatch. For those whose job it was to deal with the aftermath of the Srebrenica massacres, they had a deeply disturbing effect. The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia spoke of "scenes of unimaginable savagery: thousands of men executed and buried in mass graves, hundreds of men buried alive, men and women mutilated and slaughtered, children killed before their mothers' eyes, a grandfather forced to eat the liver of his own grandson. These are truly scenes from hell, written on the darkest pages of human history. Yet, for the world in general, Srebrenica hell was not a seminal event. Normal TV programmes were not suspended to allow for 24-hour coverage of the story. Sporting fixtures were not cancelled. We did not declare a National Day of Mourning. Newspapers like the Sunday Independent did not devote their front pages to calls for "horrific" revenge, using the word not with a shudder but a thrill of anticipation. The international community, which had assumed direct responsibility for the safety of the people of Srebrenica, did not declare war on the perpetrators. Indeed, the perpetrators were subsequently rewarded by being allowed to keep Srebrenica, previously a largely Muslim city, as part of Bosnian Serb territory. One senior figure, the Bosnian Serb general Radislav Kristic has been tried and sentenced for his role in the massacres. But the two men indicted as having "direct responsibility for the atrocities", Radovan Karadic and Ratko Mladic, remain at large and efforts to bring them to justice have been minimal. Why is the quality of our response to the atrocities in the US last week so utterly different? The answer does not lie in the simple mathematics of scale and distance. Srebrenica is physically nearer to us than New York. The number of innocent civilians killed in Srebrenica is probably somewhat larger. The sudden, concentrated time-scale of the murders in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania can be matched in any calibration of evil by the deliberate, intimate viciousness of killing 8,000 people one by one. The only honest answer is that we practice an economy of outrage, giving spoonfuls to some and oceans to others. We have some internal criterion for deciding who deserves what. It tells us that the victims of cold-blooded atrocity in the US are people like us and the victims of cold-blooded atrocity in Bosnia are not. And if a Muslim friend were to put it to me that the main difference is that in Srebrenica, Muslims were the victims and in the US they were the perpetrators, I would be stuck for an answer. I could mutter something about having lived in New York and having dozens of friends and colleagues there, and it would have some validity. But it would still be a pretty shameful admission: compassion that depends on some kind of surface familiarity doesn't have much moral force. I do not raise the issue of Srebrenica as an excuse for what-aboutery or to diminish the moral and historical significance of last week's events. On the contrary, the appalling failure of the international community to protect Srebrenica or to punish those who made it a living hell is the strongest possible example of the moral decrepitude that results from an unwillingness to stand up to bloodthirsty fanatics. But what the relative indifference to Srebrenica does warn us of is the immense danger we now face of adopting an implicit code in which some innocent lives are worth more than others. The murder of Americans is not more horrible than the murder of Bosnians. "Horrific" attacks on Muslim civilians are no more justifiable than horrific attacks on Christians. One of the few good developments of the last 50 years - the notion that human rights are universal - will be utterly compromised if the International response to last week's events does not respect those basic truths. <fotoole@irish-times.ie> |
| Re: US gov. related article |
|---|
| amatullah |
| 09/21/01 at 05:17:35 |
| Bismillah and salam, Justice Drafts New Rules for Deportation Terrorist Suspects Would Be Removed By Dan Eggen and Mary Beth Sheridan Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, September 19, 2001; Page A01 The Justice Department has drafted legislation allowing the U.S. attorney general to lock up foreigners deemed to be terrorist suspects and order them deported without presenting any evidence. The only chance for an appeal would occur when a suspect was facing removal from the country, according to the draft, which has prompted alarm among immigration advocates and civil libertarians. Some said they feared the government was responding to a national tragedy by infringing on constitutional rights. The proposed anti-terrorism legislation came as investigators raced to hunt down suspected accomplices in last week's suicide assaults on New York and Washington, and as Cabinet members warned that more attacks are possible in the days ahead. A U.S. government official said yesterday that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, was seen meeting with an Iraqi intelligence official in Europe earlier this year -- the first hint of possible Iraqi involvement in the plot. Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees also were told by White House officials in a classified briefing that there is reason to believe that further terrorist acts are being planned, a congressional source said. However, the government does not have specific information about targets or dates, according to law enforcement officials. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft confirmed that the FBI was investigating whether other airplanes had been targeted for hijackings, in addition to the four that crashed Sept. 11 into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania countryside. Earlier this week, Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said terrorists could try to contaminate water supplies or destroy bridges. Last week's attacks wera "part of a larger plan with other terrorism acts, not necessarily hijacking of airplanes," he said. As part of a "concerted national assault" on terrorism, Ashcroft announced yesterday that he has created an anti-terrorism task force with representatives from every U.S. attorney's office in the country. He said he also has revised internal rules allowing the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to detain suspected illegal immigrants for 48 hours, instead of one day, before deciding whether to charge them. INS rules already allow any person who does not have legal permission to be in the United States to be detained for an unlimited time in "extraordinary circumstances," which Justice officials said would apply to the terrorism probe. Ashcroft said the INS has detained 75 people in connection with the investigation on suspected immigration violations. In addition, the FBI has assembled a list of more than 190 people it wants to question. At least six people have been arrested as material witnesses, and a federal grand jury has been convened in White Plains, N.Y., to hear evidence in the investigation, sources said. Immigration advocates said the large number of detentions and the proposed legislation being drafted by Ashcroft were troubling. According to the draft, provided by immigration advocates, the director of the INS could recommend to the attorney general that a foreigner here be "certified" as someone who might facilitate acts of terrorism. The person could then be detained indefinitely and deported. The measure would apply both to visitors and to permanent legal residents holding so-called green cards. Jeanne Butterfield, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the proposed deportation rules were more severe than legislation passed in 1996 allowing expanded use of "secret evidence" that does not have to be shown to the suspect. The proposed legislation would not require any evidence to be submitted to a court. "This proposed legislation is basically making a doormat of the Constitution," said Mike Maggio, an immigration lawyer. "It would permit the INS to serve as prosecutor, judge and jury with no judicial review." Although there appears to be broad support on Capitol Hill for Ashcroft's overall package of anti-terrorism proposals, congressional aides cautioned that constitutional concerns would play a role in the debate. "The last thing we want to do is rashly pass something that could be tossed out by the courts," said David Carle, spokesman for Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). Justice Department spokesman Dan Nelson declined to discuss the proposed legislation, which could be sent to Congress as early as today. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that one or more nations provided support for last week's attacks, but he declined to specify the evidence for that conclusion. "I know a lot, and what I have said as clearly as I know how is that states are supporting these people," Rumsfeld said. Senior Bush administration officials have said repeatedly that the prime suspect behind the attacks is exiled Saudi militant Osama bin Laden, who has been given refuge by Afghanistan's ruling Taliban. The administration is not sure what significance to attach to the meeting between Atta -- who is believed to have piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center -- and an Iraqi intelligence officer, a government official said. Former CIA director R. James Woolsey said there is substantial evidence suggesting that Ramzi Yousef, the convicted mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a foiled 1994 plot to blow up a dozen U.S. jetliners over the Pacific, was an Iraqi agent, not merely a Pakistani student. If that is the case, Woolsey said, last week's attacks could have been a continuation of Yousef's earlier assaults sponsored by Iraq. Atta's father told reporters in Cairo yesterday that his son was not a killer. "My son is innocent," Mohammed Amir Atta, 65, a lawyer, said at his home in the Cairo suburb of Giza. In other developments related to the investigation: • Officials at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio said FBI agents have visited the campus three times to copy files and seize computers used by Badr Mohammed H. Hazmi, a radiologist who has been arrested as a material witness. • The FBI said it was examining hundreds of e-mails obtained from Internet providers and personal computers believed to have been used by the hijackers. Some of the 19 suspected hijackers used computers in public libraries to communicate 30 to 45 days before the attacks, a senior FBI official said. • FBI agents searched a Toms River, N.J., gas station where one of the hijackers had worked for several years and where he received numerous packages in the mail for various people, a law enforcement source said. • Detroit authorities arrested three men -- Karim Koubriti, 23, Ahmed Hannan, 33, and Farouk Ali-Haimoud, 21 -- on charges of identity fraud and misuse of visas. The FBI seized documents suggesting the men worked in food preparation for airlines at Detroit Metropolitan Airport and collected information about a U.S. military base in Turkey, an airport in Jordan and a U.S. secretary of state. Staff writers Paul Duggan, Scott Higham, Vernon Loeb, Lois Romano, Susan Schmidt and Lena H. Sun, and special correspondent Pamela Ferdinand, contributed to this report. © 2001 The Washington Post Company |
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.The rest © Jannah.Org |