UK refuses to share Bin Laden info because...

[EvilMonkey]

Too bad it happened while CLINTON was President. But yet, somehow the Guardian manages to turn that into Bush's problem, even though he was still governor of Texas at the time. I wonder how come that isn't mentioned?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2136651,00.html

 

UK wanted US to rule out Bin Laden torture

 

 

Richard Norton-Taylor

Saturday July 28, 2007

The Guardian

 

 

Ministers insisted that British secret agents would only be allowed to pass intelligence to the CIA to help it capture Osama bin Laden if the agency promised he would not be tortured, it has emerged.

MI6 believed it was close to finding the al-Qaida leader in Afghanistan in 1998, and again the next year. The plan was for MI6 to hand the CIA vital information about Bin Laden. Ministers including Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, gave their approval on condition that the CIA gave assurances he would be treated humanely. The plot is revealed in a 75-page report by parliament's intelligence and security committee on rendition, the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured.

 

The report criticises the Bush administration's approval of practices which would be illegal if carried out by British agents. It shows that in 1998, the year Bin Laden was indicted in the US, Britain insisted that the policy of treating prisoners humanely should include him. But the CIA never gave the assurances."In 1998, SIS [MI6] believed that it might be able to obtain actionable intelligence that might enable the CIA to capture Osama bin Laden," the committee says in its report. It adds: "Given that this might have resulted in him being rendered from Afghanistan to the US, SIS sought ministerial approval. This was given provided that the CIA gave assurances regarding humane treatment." British intelligence made a similar request in 1999, and obtained the same response from Whitehall, but in the event MI6 did not provide the information.

 

But 1998 and 1999 were not the only times Britain had Bin Laden in its sights. In January 1996 the Home Office wrote to him when he was in Sudan. The letter, seen by the Guardian, advised him that Michael Howard, then home secretary, had "given his personal direction that you be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that your presence...would not be conducive to the public good."

 

mods, since my typing sucks, can someone fix the name in the title please.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Alpha Dog

[southsider2k5]

Which begs the question... if the US had someone in custody whose silence could lead to the deaths of thousands of people, who would be in favor of torture, and who would be in favor of that person still having rights? Would it make a difference if it was a US citizen or not?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Which begs the question... if the US had someone in custody whose silence could lead to the deaths of thousands of people, who would be in favor of torture, and who would be in favor of that person still having rights? Would it make a difference if it was a US citizen or not?

The fact remains that it is no longer 'eliminate bin Laden' = eliminate al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has become much more of an amorphous, loose ideology for people with a highly decentralized structure.

 

And AlphaDog, --while I won't defend this poorly written Guardian article (perhaps they are talking about a recent report in regards to the Bush regime's use of rendition and also mentioned this 1998 instance as well? I'm trying to figure out a logical reasoning for it outside of the ones already mentioned in the thread) -- it is more a testament to the activities of the CIA since their inception more than any Presidential administration (although leaving the CIA unchecked since their inception does squarely fall on the executive branch throughout all people who have been in the Oval Office seat) -- KUBARK, their funding of psychological ops inside the US universities psychology programs (they paid for testing), their usage of illegal drugs to elicit confessions/try to develop a truth serum and numerous other activities related to torture activities. You can find more in a book called "A Question of Torture". The author's name is McCoy. It's an interesting read from a historian who unearthed documents related to the CIA history of interest in psychological operations.

 

The British learned with the H Block hunger strikes and their use of torture against Irish/IRA members that it doesn't end an opposition in any substantive fashion. Hence, they wanted to disallow the use of CIA torture tactics/techniques.

[EvilMonkey]

Yes, I will agree that it was poorly written. My intent was to show that due to the way it is written, they make an attempt to put the CIA's unwillingness to promise no torture as Georgie's fault. Half the people who read newspapers as their main source of info tend to believe whatever they read, and often don't get past the first few paragraphs. So Joe London reads this and blames Bush for not having the British cooperate in getting rid of Osama, when in fact, bush had nothing to do with it. The only logic involved is BDS, you know it. Oh, and the policy of rendition was also started by Clinton. I guess georgie just made it famous.

[Soxy]

Yes, I will agree that it was poorly written. My intent was to show that due to the way it is written, they make an attempt to put the CIA's unwillingness to promise no torture as Georgie's fault. Half the people who read newspapers as their main source of info tend to believe whatever they read, and often don't get past the first few paragraphs. So Joe London reads this and blames Bush for not having the British cooperate in getting rid of Osama, when in fact, bush had nothing to do with it. The only logic involved is BDS, you know it. Oh, and the policy of rendition was also started by Clinton. I guess georgie just made it famous.

Believe me, they're too busy bashing Blair to worry too much about us.

[Gregory Pratt]

Bill Clinton, you idiot. The solution is simple: promise you won't torture him, and break that promise "behind their backs". That's why it's a covert action.

 

Same advice for Bush.

 

It's not like they'd do a ton of snooping anyway into what happened of bin Laden after his arrest.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[Balta1701]

Bill Clinton, you idiot. The solution is simple: promise you won't torture him, and break that promise "behind their backs". That's why it's a covert action.

 

Same advice for Bush.

 

It's not like they'd do a ton of snooping anyway into what happened of bin Laden after his arrest.

Um, yeah, because no one ever, anywhere, ever has any interest in the treatment of high-level prisoners. And there are no standing laws and treaties requiring us to give those people access to them. And no one would ever expect to see that man on trial anywhere. These bruises? Oh, yes, he fell down some stairs.

[Rex Kickass]

Yes, I will agree that it was poorly written. My intent was to show that due to the way it is written, they make an attempt to put the CIA's unwillingness to promise no torture as Georgie's fault. Half the people who read newspapers as their main source of info tend to believe whatever they read, and often don't get past the first few paragraphs. So Joe London reads this and blames Bush for not having the British cooperate in getting rid of Osama, when in fact, bush had nothing to do with it. The only logic involved is BDS, you know it. Oh, and the policy of rendition was also started by Clinton. I guess georgie just made it famous.

 

I rarely believe the Guardian.

[Gregory Pratt]

Um, yeah, because no one ever, anywhere, ever has any interest in the treatment of high-level prisoners. And there are no standing laws and treaties requiring us to give those people access to them. And no one would ever expect to see that man on trial anywhere. These bruises? Oh, yes, he fell down some stairs.

 

I am looking at it strictly from the President and CIA's point of view.

 

When Al Gore was asked by Clinton whether or not they should go after BLANK TERRORIST in a Snatch, Clinton pointed out it was illegal and Gore said, "Of course it's illegal -- that's why it's a covert action."

 

Yeah, those bruises are from the stairs. Or, better yet, that's why his capture was a covert action and no, you can't see him yet [ever?].

 

I just can't believe you can't say, "No, he won't be tortured," and wink to the British. They're the British. They're just like CIA, only sexier.

[Balta1701]

I am looking at it strictly from the President and CIA's point of view.

 

When Al Gore was asked by Clinton whether or not they should go after BLANK TERRORIST in a Snatch, Clinton pointed out it was illegal and Gore said, "Of course it's illegal -- that's why it's a covert action."

 

Yeah, those bruises are from the stairs. Or, better yet, that's why his capture was a covert action and no, you can't see him yet [ever?].

 

I just can't believe you can't say, "No, he won't be tortured," and wink to the British. They're the British. They're just like CIA, only sexier.

If you actually capture UBL, you'd be insane not to brag about it. You don't capture the leader of your enemy, the guy who's been the face of that organization, and then not tell anyone. Hell, especially if you're an administration with 25% approval ratings, but that's beside the point. Capturing him is pretty much the biggest trophy victory we could claim in the fight against AQ.

[Gregory Pratt]

If you actually capture UBL, you'd be insane not to brag about it. You don't capture the leader of your enemy, the guy who's been the face of that organization, and then not tell anyone. Hell, especially if you're an administration with 25% approval ratings, but that's beside the point. Capturing him is pretty much the biggest trophy victory we could claim in the fight against AQ.

 

We're talking during the Clinton years, 98, not now.

 

I think at that time he'd have been interrogated and all that then sent over to Fitzgerald who had a warrant out for him. Who knows, though. At that time, you might want him quiet and dead.

[EvilMonkey]

We're talking during the Clinton years, 98, not now.

 

I think at that time he'd have been interrogated and all that then sent over to Fitzgerald who had a warrant out for him. Who knows, though. At that time, you might want him quiet and dead.

Back then, quiet and dead would have probably been the best thing. However, if you got him now, you bet your ass it would be broadcast everywhere, and he would probably get better healthcare than the Pres.

[Gregory Pratt]

Back then, quiet and dead would have probably been the best thing. However, if you got him now, you bet your ass it would be broadcast everywhere, and he would probably get better healthcare than the Pres.

 

Well, yeah, completely different circumstances.

[southsider2k5]

Which begs the question... if the US had someone in custody whose silence could lead to the deaths of thousands of people, who would be in favor of torture, and who would be in favor of that person still having rights? Would it make a difference if it was a US citizen or not?

 

No one is willing to step out on this limb?

[Gregory Pratt]

No, not to me. Not in that situation.

 

Yes, my friend, I'd step out onto that limb. Not completely easily, but if I'm the man in charge of such a decision, and torturing is the only thing left, absolutely, and I wouldn't be the first Good Man to ever make that call.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[Mplssoxfan]

Which begs the question... if the US had someone in custody whose silence could lead to the deaths of thousands of people, who would be in favor of torture, and who would be in favor of that person still having rights? Would it make a difference if it was a US citizen or not?

 

Only if Jack Bauer's in charge.

 

Other than the fact that torture doesn't exactly work a majority of the time, that's a great plan. Of course, I guess it depends on how torture is defined.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Mplssoxfan