Why Bush Can’t Allow Habeas Corpus – And Why we Need to Leave Afghanistan

[Time for change]

The whole rationale for our war in Afghanistan probably would be exposed to the world as the farce that it is if the Bush administration allowed its “War on Terror” prisoners to use the writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detentions. That appears to be a major reason, if not the major reason, why the Bush administration has for several years fought tooth and nail to deny its prisoners the habeas corpus rights that are guaranteed under our Constitution. And it is also probably a major reason why whenever our courts have over-ruled the Bush administration in specific cases, Bush has released the respective prisoners rather than allow them a fair and open trial.

The whole rationale for our Afghanistan war is based on the presumed refusal of the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden, whom George Bush claimed to have perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on our country, to U.S. custody. But there are enough holes in that story to drive a truck through.

The ultimate rationale behind the indefinite imprisonment without charges of many or most of our “War on Terror” prisoners is rooted in the claim that they fought for the Taliban or al Qaeda against our country (when we invaded it). Since we accuse the Taliban of harboring bin Laden, whom we claim perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, and since we also claim that the Taliban knew of bin Laden’s role in the 9/11 attacks and yet refused to hand him over to us, therefore the Taliban is guilty of terrorism, and so is anyone who fought for the Taliban when U.S. troops invaded their country.

Since that scenario provides the rationale for our imprisonment of the so-called “terrorists”, and would therefore provide the basis for any formal charges that were to be brought against them in a fair and open trial, and since the underlying scenario can be so easily disproven, obviously the defendants’ lawyers would attempt to expose that scenario for the fraud that it is if they were given the chance to do so in a fair and open trial. And then the whole house of cards that we call the “War on Terror” would come tumbling down. And then of course, quite a few high level officials would be vulnerable to war crimes charges.

That’s it in a nutshell. Let’s look at some of the evidence:


THE FRAUDULENT BASIS FOR THE U.S. INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN

Bin laden denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks from the beginning

I’ll start out with bin Laden’s denials of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. That of course means little by itself – except for the fact that our news media have been such cheerleaders for war that most Americans probably believe that bin Laden admitted his responsibility for the attacks from the beginning. But he didn’t. To the contrary, six days following the attacks, CNN published the following statement by bin Laden, which he had made to al Jazeera:

The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations.

Lack of evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11

To support their claims of bin Laden’s guilt, the British and U.S. governments published a dossier of “evidence”. That dossier was lambasted by numerous critics, including Bronwen Maddox in the Times of London, as:

a puzzling and worrying piece of work with so many puzzling omissions that the document begins to undermine itself… more significant for what it leaves out than for what it leaves in, with few clues even to the form of evidence for September 11… It seems lame – to the point of advertising a deficiency – to say that a signature of an al Qaeda attack is the absence of a warning.

One of the points of evidence was the claim that bin Laden warned his closest associates to return to Afghanistan by September 10th. But since there were no known incidents of bin Laden associates actually returning to Afghanistan shortly before September 11th, the evidence for that claim is quite weak.

Another of the major points of evidence was that three of the hijackers were said to be “associates” of bin Laden. But the nature of the alleged association with bin Laden was not very well spelled out.

And there was the claim that no other organization than al Qaeda is known to have both the motivation and the capability of carrying out such an attack. That claim has been widely disputed. But even if no such organizations were known to have had the motivation and capability of carrying out such attacks, that hardly constitutes evidence of al Qaeda involvement in 9/11.


Bush administration and Taliban interaction prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan

But whether or not bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks on our country is not the primary issue. The more relevant issue is what the Taliban – whom we declared war upon – had to do with it.

The Taliban never demonstrated the kind of intransigence on the issue that the Bush administration and the U.S. news media accused it of. To the contrary, The Taliban Information Minister, Qudrutullah Jamal, said from the beginning:

Anyone who is responsible for this act, Osama or not, we will not side with him. We told (the Pakistan delegation) to give us proof that he did it, because without that how can we give him up?'

But the Bush administration never provided that proof. It claimed to have secret information beyond the “dossier of evidence” described above, but it refused to share that secret information with the Taliban.

Then on October first, the Taliban went a step further. They agreed to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan – an American ally – to stand trial for charges of participation in 9/11. They agreed that if the court found sufficient evidence that bin Laden would then be extradited to the United States. And bin Laden even agreed to that. But President Musharraf turned the deal down, for the absurd reason that he could not guarantee bin Laden’s safety.

George Bush turned down all Taliban offers, saying “We know he’s guilty. Turn him over”. Bush later elaborated further on that, saying, “When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations”.


U.S. obligations under international law

One of the major purposes of the United Nations is to prevent unnecessary wars. Therefore, it is not surprising that its charter says: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered”. Clearly, George Bush’s actions with respect to his invasion of Afghanistan fall well outside of that mandate. Maher Osseiran explains the implications of that:

The Bush administration, with premeditation, ignored its international obligations in deference to war. If the Bush administration had supplied the evidence to the world and specifically the Taliban who were requesting such evidence in exchange for bin Laden, the war might not have taken place and bin Laden would very likely be in custody.

Not pursuing that route makes the Afghanistan war an illegal war under the UN Charter and The Geneva Convention; thereby, the majority of the Guantanamo detainees can no longer be classified as enemy combatants, but (rather) victims of war crimes.

That, of course, is what fair and open trials of Bush’s detainees are likely to show – which of course is why he can’t allow that to happen.


FBI finds no hard evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11

If all that isn’t enough (and it should be), several years later the FBI admitted that there is no substantial proof of bin Laden’s involvement in 9/11.

The FBI website lists Osama bin Laden as one of its 26 most wanted terrorists. However, it says nothing about his involvement in 9/11. The Muckracker Report, an investigative group, looked into this oddity in an attempt to find the reason for it:

The Muckraker Report contacted Rex Tomb, who serves as Chief of Investigative Publicity with the FBI. Tomb's response? “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11… He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

BUSH ADMINISTRATION EFFORTS TO DENY HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS TO ITS PRISONERS

The following examples show the great extent to which the Bush administration has repeatedly gone to deny its prisoners their rights under international law and our Constitution, and to manipulate the law for their own nefarious ends.


Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Yasir Esam Hamdi was captured by the Northern Alliance in November 2001 and turned over to the U.S. military in Afghanistan (probably for a large bounty), then sent to Guantanamo Bay as an “enemy combatant” and a suspected terrorist. After the U.S. military discovered that Hamdi was a U.S. citizen (having been born in Louisiana), he was transferred to a U.S. Navy brig in Norfolk, Virginia, still classified as an “enemy combatant”, where he remained, in isolation, for the next two and a half years. His father claimed that he was a humanitarian relief worker, not a terrorist.

Several criminal defense attorneys, concerned about the trashing of our Constitution by the Bush administration, filed suit on Hamdi’s behalf. After working its way through lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case on June 28, 2004. Though the Bush administration tried to spin the decision as a victory for them, eight of the nine justices agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the right to indefinitely hold a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections. Constitutional lawyer Cass Sunstein summarizes the main finding in his book, “Radicals in Robes”, by noting that the court

said that an enemy combatant must be supplied with notice of the factual basis for his classification and a fair opportunity to rebut the government’s factual assertions before a neutral decision maker. The plurality did not deny the possibility that the constitutionality could be met by a military tribunal.

Explaining the decision, Justice O’Connor, writing for the majority, said that “… We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens.”

What this meant was that now the Bush administration had to either provide Hamdi with access to a lawyer and some sort of hearing on his case or else release him. Faced with that choice, three months later it decided to release him back to Saudi Arabia.

Deliah Lithwick comments on the absurdity of the situation:

So the Bush administration's decision to release Hamdi is stunning, given that only months ago he was so dangerous that the government insisted in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and the world that he could reasonably be locked up for all time, without a trial or criminal charges….

He was slammed into solitary on some flimsy assertions contained in what's known as the two-page "Mobbs Declaration." … swearing that Hamdi was an enemy combatant, because, according to his captors from the Northern Alliance, he was "affiliated with a Taliban military unit." Any other American suspect, including serial killers and Timothy McVeigh, would have been given an opportunity to dispute that bare claim; to tell his side of the story – which, according to Hamdi's father, was that Hamdi was in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons. But we never heard that story and we never will. Yaser Esam Hamdi was evidently too dangerous even to set foot in a courtroom.

Rumsfeld v. Padilla

On May 8, 2002, Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was taken into custody by the FDA and locked up as a “material witness”. On June 10, four days after Colleen Rowley testified to Congress about the failure of the FBI to respond to her pre-9-11 warnings of an impending attack, Attorney General John Ashcroft made an announcement to the nation about Padilla. Referring to him as “a known terrorist” who had been plotting to explode a radioactive bomb in the United States, Ashcroft announced that the FBI foiled the plot by capturing Padilla. The previous day, George Bush had classified Padilla as an “enemy combatant” and had him sent to a Navy brig in South Carolina, where he remained for three and a half years and was repeatedly tortured.

As with the Hamdi case, lawyers concerned about the abrogation of Padilla’s Constitutional rights took up his case. On September 9, 2005, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Padilla’s detention without charge was legal. The author of that ruling was J. Michael Luttig, who was considered to be a potential Bush Supreme Court nominee. Padilla’s lawyers then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but before the Supreme Court made a decision on whether or not to take the case the Bush administration made the case moot by rescinding Padilla’s “enemy combatant” status and agreeing to prosecute him in a civilian court. But the charges had nothing to do with the original allegations about plots to explode a “dirty bomb” on U.S. soil. Rather the new charges were “providing – and conspiring to provide – material support to terrorists, and conspiring to murder individuals who are overseas.”

Luttig, the 4th Circuit Court judge who had made the prior ruling, was incensed at this about face by the Bush administration. Charlie Savage, in his book, “Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy”, describes Luttig’s reaction:

Luttig – one of the most conservative and executive power-friendly judges on the federal bench – accused the Bush-Cheney administration of manipulating the judicial process to make sure that the Supreme Court would have no opportunity to evaluate the precedent that Luttig himself had just written. The Padilla indictment, he said, raised serious questions about the credibility of the government’s statements on which the judge had relied when crafting that precedent, and “left the impression that Padilla may have been held for all these years, even if justifiably, by mistake”.

Hamden v. Rumsfeld

Salim Ahmed Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 and brought to Guantanamo as an “enemy combatant”. He was the personal driver of Osama bin Laden, but he claimed not to be a terrorist or even a member of al Qaeda.

In November 2004 a federal district court ruled, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that the Bush administration’s military commission trials violated the Geneva Conventions. But that decision was overturned on July 15, 2005, by the D.C. Circuit Court, in a 2-1 decision ruling that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to war time detainees suspected of terrorism.

John Roberts cast the deciding vote in that decision, just 5 days before he was nominated as Chief Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court by George Bush. Furthermore, it later emerged during Roberts’ Senate confirmation hearings that Roberts had: met with Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez 6 days prior to hearing oral arguments in the Hamdan case; in the midst of deciding the case, met secretly with Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Andy Card, Harriet Miers and Gonzalez, and; met with Bush himself on July 15, the same day that the court handed down its decision.

In the end, the ridiculous D.C. Circuit Court decision was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-3 decision. Roberts, though Chief Justice of the USSC by that time, had to recuse himself because the Court was ruling on his own previous decision. Two of the USSC justices who voted in the minority on the Hamdan decision (Scalia and Thomas) were two of the same scumbags who had voted in 2000 to hand Bush the Presidency by stopping the vote counting in Florida.

In the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld USSC decision, Justice Stevens, speaking for the majority, explained that the petitioner Hamdan was “entitled to the full protection of the Geneva Convention”, and that the “military commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Universal Code of Military Justice and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention”. Justice Kennedy further elaborated on the Geneva Convention that the USSC determined the Bush administration to have violated:

The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law… moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered “war crimes,” punishable as federal offenses…

The Military Commissions Act and its overturn by the U.S. Supreme Court

Consequently, the Bush administration pushed through Congress the Military Commissions Act, in an attempt to ensure that detainee trials remained secret. However, on June 12, 2008, the USSC determined that this law too was not Constitutional, primarily because the Act was not sufficient to restore habeas corpus:

Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . .

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of George Bush’s “War on Terror” detainees are never charged with or tried for a crime. On the rare occasions when they are charged with a crime, the American people are afforded the opportunity to learn, if they care to, what George Bush’s “War on Terror” is really about, and to what extent he will go to manipulate our judicial system for his own political purposes: In the case of Hamdi we find, after holding him in isolation for two and a half years, that George Bush would rather set him free than give him a hearing to present his case, as demanded by our Supreme Court; In the case of Padilla we find, when faced with the possibility of an adverse ruling from our Supreme Court, that Bush would rather drop his “enemy combatant” status and try him on vague charges rather than on the spectacular charges (plot to explode a “dirty bomb” on U.S. soil) that he originally used to scare the American people with, and; In the case of Hamdan, Bush found it necessary for he and his administration to secretly and repeatedly meet with the justice who was trying the case while simultaneously dangling before him the possibility of being nominated as Chief Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court – assuming that he ruled correctly, of course.

All of this because an open and fair trial of any one of George Bush’s so-called “illegal enemy combatants” could expose his “War on Terror” for the fraud that it is.

What does all this say about our war in Afghanistan? In the first place, the war has been illegal from start to finish, and those who perpetrated it should be subject to criminal charges. But even if we had a decent reason for our original involvement, what are we accomplishing by our continuing presence there? This is what the editors of The Nation have to say about escalating our war in Afghanistan:

The United States and its NATO allies are losing the war in Afghanistan not because we have had too few military forces but because our military presence, along with the corruption of the Hamid Karzai government, has gradually turned the Afghan population against us, swelling the ranks of Taliban recruits. American airstrikes have repeatedly killed innocent civilians. Sending thousands of additional troops will not secure a democratic and stable Afghanistan, because the country is not only deeply divided but also fiercely resistant to outside forces. Indeed, more troops may only engender more anti-American resistance and cause groups in neighboring Pakistan to step up their support for the Taliban in order to stop what they see as a US effort to advance US and Indian interests in the region…

Second, securing Afghanistan is not necessary to US security and may actually undermine our goal of defeating Al Qaeda…. American safety thus depends not on eliminating faraway safe havens for Al Qaeda but on common-sense counterterrorist and national security measures – extensive intelligence cooperation, expert police work, effective border control and the occasional surgical use of special forces.

[seemslikeadream]

1. Bin laden denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks from the beginning

Thank you

[HeresyLives]

2. If bin Laden had done it,

if he'd even known about it, he'd have been there with bells on claiming responsibility for it, and crowing about it.

[Time for change]

9. That's what I think

There would be no point in doing it if he didn't plan to take credit for it.

But even if he did do and and Bush had proof that he did it, the invasion of Afghanistan was still a war crime. Bush never wanted bin Laden handed over to him. If he had the evidence he could have showed it to the Taliban, but he was intent upon war.

[sam sarrha]

3. i think we need to leave the Muslims to themselves, whatever the consequences, because ..

in Islam God is Great, the wisest, infallible.. what the Muslims do to each other is obviously Allah's grander plan.

we should not intervene. when we interfere we are saying that out western ways/ideas/concerns are better than Allah's will/plan/grace. which is the greatest of insults.

leave them alone, what we see as horrific, inhuman is simply missguided observation without faith. we arent qualified to judge them

[Flatulo]

40. I do not give a flying fuck in the Afghans eat each others' children

and pray to a gourd and leas their women around on leashes. But when their government allows its honored guests to launch attacks on civilized people, it's daisycutter time.

[wildbilln864]

51. but we need evidence to support that assertion....

http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801

[Flatulo]

53. Bill, read your own link... there is no mis-translation of the admission of guilt.

The only mis-translations identified are as follows:

"We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy", translator Dr. Murad Alami finds that: "'In advance'" is not said.

"We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day." Dr. Murad Alami: "'Previous' is never said.

Neither of these translation errors changes the context of the tape in any way.

Only in a very small corner of the universe known as the "9/11 Truth Movement" is there any doubt that al Qaeda, and by implication its titular head UBL planned and carried out the attacks.

[reinvestigate911]

126. eyes only

http://vodpod.com/watch/419704-secrets-of-the-cia?pod=p...

[JohnyCanuck]

4. "Not a "Good War" Gone Bad"

Afghanistan: Not a Good War Gone Bad

By LARRY EVEREST

SNIP

One thing that’s not been up for debate in the Presidential campaign is Afghanistan: both candidates (not to mention George W. Bush) agree on the urgent need to escalate – and win – that war. This stance has overwhelmingly gone unchallenged – even by most who opposed the invasion of Iraq. But the war in Afghanistan is not the proverbial "good war," now gone bad. It was an unjust, imperialist war of conquest and empire from the start. And it continues to be an unjust, imperialist war of empire today.

The war in Afghanistan was never simply a response to 9/11. It was conceived of by the Bush administration as the opening salvo in an unbounded war for greater empire under the rubric of a "war on terror." This war’s goal was to defeat Islamic fundamentalism, overthrow states not fully under U.S. control, restructure the Middle East and Central Asian regions, and seize deeper control of key sources and shipment routes of strategic energy supplies. All this grew out of over a decade of imperialist planning, strategizing and intervention. And from the beginning all of it was part of an overall plan to expand and fortify U.S. power—to create an unchallenged and unchallengeable global imperialist empire.

All this is shown by what the U.S. rulers were doing—and planning—in these regions and globally during the decade of the 1990s, including in Afghanistan itself. It can be shown by the plans the U.S. had for destabilizing, perhaps overthrowing, the Taliban government of Afghanistan even before 9/11. It can be demonstrated by the actual discussions and decisions taken by the Bush regime in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and by the U.S.’s war objectives in Afghanistan and the Middle East as a whole, which it is still pursuing. And it can be shown by the U.S.’s conduct of the war and the impact it has had on the people of Afghanistan.

SNIP

Right after the Soviet collapse, a core of imperial strategists—the neoconservatives or neocons—began arguing that the U.S. should lock in this unipolar world and prevent any rivals from emerging to challenge the U.S.

This was articulated in the Defense Department’s 1992 "Defense Planning Guidance"—written by Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad under the direction of then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney—all later top officials in the Bush II administration. This document argued that the U.S. should insure "that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territory of the former Soviet Union" and that the United States remain the world’s predominant power for the indefinite future. The Defense Guidance envisioned accomplishing these far-reaching objectives by preemptively attacking rivals or states seeking weapons of mass destruction, strengthening U.S. control of Persian Gulf oil, and refusing to allow international coalitions or law to inhibit U.S. freedom of action.

http://www.counterpunch.org/everest10172008.html

[Aragorn]

18. 1 other reason/factor

Apparently the DEA assists the growth of record amounts of opium in Afghanistan, to insure continued cooperation from them. Much as in Iran-Contra this factor seems to be overlooked. Meanwhile the DEA is considered, by many, to be the "new CIA" around the globe.

[JohnyCanuck]

19. True

Britain is protecting the biggest heroin crop of all time
By CRAIG MURRAY

SNIP

Our economic achievement in Afghanistan goes well beyond the simple production of raw opium. In fact Afghanistan no longer exports much raw opium at all. It has succeeded in what our international aid efforts urge every developing country to do. Afghanistan has gone into manufacturing and 'value-added' operations.

It now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with Nato troops.

How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government, the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.

When we attacked Afghanistan, America bombed from the air while the CIA paid, armed and equipped the dispirited warlord drug barons, especially those grouped in the Northern Alliance, to do the ground occupation. We bombed the Taliban and their allies into submission, while the warlords moved in to claim the spoils. Then we made them ministers.

SNIP

My knowledge of all this comes from my time as British Ambassador in neighbouring Uzbekistan from 2002 until 2004. I stood at the Friendship Bridge at Termez in 2003 and watched the Jeeps with blacked-out windows bringing the heroin through from Afghanistan, en route to Europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469983/Britain-...

[G_j]

62. "..an unjust, imperialist war of empire,.." should be a no-brainer,

9-11 just opened the door.

[aquart]

5. Another reason Afghanistan is NOT our "good" war.

Nothing created by Bush is good. Nothing.

[gratuitous]

6. The Bush administration promised we the people

Shortly after the attacks of September 11, the Bush administration claimed it had irrefutable proof tying Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to their planning and execution. The white paper has never come out.

After all that's happened in the past eight years, has the Bush administration earned anything even remotely resembling trust from us?

[Traveling_Home]

7. WOW - Does Obama Know????? nt

[Oregone]

8. He knows or he's ignorant.

Take your pick. The Democrats support this was because it is still publicly perceived as just and not a complete failure (compared to Iraq). But be sure, they do not support it because *they* perceive it as just. That war is a political football game, and the Democrats are about to make a touchdown. Sad but true.

We are in Afghanistan because of an overall resource strategy, and the nation's post 9/11 bloodlust never stopped the people from seeing different.

[Karenina]

Ah yes, PIPELINES..

[theboss]

178. Jesus Christ. Is it 2002 again?

Are we really back to this pipeline in Afghanistan shit?

[Karenina]

13. Ah yes, PIPELINES..

[RufusTFirefly]

22. Indeed. The pipelines

Granted, these guys always try to scratch more than one itch at a time and in this case they definitely did, but the pipeline to the Caspian was an especially big itch.

[Karenina]

23. A carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs...

[Time for change]

25. I don't see how he could not

I am very much hoping that he will reconsider his campaign rhetoric about "winning" the Afghanistan war. I think he's too smart for that.

[wildbilln864]

10. Thank you for this and k&r!

We know Bin Laden didn't really do 9/11. The question is who did! Who was involved in the murders of those three thousand that day and why doesn't the country demand to know the whole truth?

[illuminaughty]

12. Yes and I always think the answer to that question is

the Jack Nicholson moment. "YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

If the public ever gets close to some real truth about 9/11, what will they do with that knowledge?

[SpiralHawk]

17. "Smirk." - Commander AWOL & cabal of corrupt republicon cronies

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Thanks for so clearly laying this out.

K&R from me too!

Although it has not been a popular stand and I do not justify any actions of the Taliban or of bin Laden (our own CIA-trained and funded operative, after all), I have always maintained that our launching a war against Afghanistan after 9-11 was not justified. But both Congress and our brain-washed media went along, with the media leading the charge.

Gitmo is a manifest stain on our international legal credibility (as you so rightly state, it's war crimes territory). The fact that it has been maintained for seven years without major national outcry on our part makes us all complicit, I'm afraid. The tens of thousands of "disappeared" individuals who are in even worse circumstances ... or dead ... is an even greater stain and an even worse complicity.

[JohnyCanuck]

15. "I have always maintained that our launching a war against Afghanistan after 9-11 was not justified"

But note also how quickly the US invaded Afghanistan, within a month or so of 9/11. Now sure the US might have contingency plans to invade every country on earth, but is it reasonable to believe they could have carried out the Afghanistan invasion as they did on a month's notice without some preparation for this beforehand?

US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
By Patrick Martin
20 November 2001

Insider accounts published in the British, French and Indian media have revealed that US officials threatened war against Afghanistan during the summer of 2001. These reports include the prediction, made in July, that “if the military action went ahead, it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” The Bush administration began its bombing strikes on the hapless, poverty-stricken country October 7, and ground attacks by US Special Forces began October 19.

It is not an accident that these revelations have appeared overseas, rather than in the US. The ruling classes in these countries have their own economic and political interests to look after, which do not coincide, and in some cases directly clash, with the drive by the American ruling elite to seize control of oil-rich territory in Central Asia.

The American media has conducted a systematic cover-up of the real economic and strategic interests that underlie the war against Afghanistan, in order to sustain the pretense that the war emerged overnight, full-blown, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.

The pundits for the American television networks and major daily newspapers celebrate the rapid military defeat of the Taliban regime as an unexpected stroke of good fortune. They distract public attention from the conclusion that any serious observer would be compelled to draw from the events of the past two weeks: that the speedy victory of the US-backed forces reveals careful planning and preparation by the American military, which must have begun well before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

SNIP

This account of the preparations for war against Afghanistan brings us to September 11 itself. The terrorist attack that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon was an important link in the chain of causality that produced the US attack on Afghanistan. The US government had planned the war well in advance, but the shock of September 11 made it politically feasible, by stupefying public opinion at home and giving Washington essential leverage on reluctant allies abroad.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtm...

[DUlover2909]

14. Wow man. Mind blowing. Bush-Co never ceases to amaze me.

It figures. Everything Bush does sucks. I bet even the aid he's giving to Africa is somehow corrupt.

[indepat]

49. The Gipper in effect threw us a $1 trillion party: junior's policies and actions/inactions

will have created total destruction exceeding $10 trillion when the counting is done, devastating two countries, the environment, the economy, the stock markets, the capital markets, the job markets, the value of the dollar, and letting the infrastructure rot. Amazingly, 66% of the white folk in my native state voted to stay the course with McShame.

edited to remove a superfluous have

[Dover]

16. And what IS the incentive for the "War On Terror" and presence in Afghanistan (and all the Stans)?

Afghanistan and Eurasia in general have been in our sites for some time. And it's definitely a
bipartisan project. Obama seems to be on that same page.

Primarily it's about economic development, competition with Russia, etc, oil/gas and pipelines, as well as a U.S. presence for geopolitical reasons. Similar to Iraq. We're just relocating the emphasis back to Eurasia instead of the Middle East. Energy independence? Not anytime soon, apparently.

Check this out: Our Silk Road Strategy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Orwellian_Ghost]

76. Excellent bit

Please re-post your link which it seemed none commented on.

Let me know when you do.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. A Timeline Of Oil And Violence Afghanistan

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

[Dover]

32. Interesting link, thanks. Wish they would update it to present.

We can trace almost all of our foreign wars/disputes along planned or existing pipeline routes.
In fact that premise would make an interesting study...a web page that tracked our foreign
wars/invasions along these proposed and existing pipeline routes. The unrest in Chechnya, for instance, is/was in part about a pipeline route. And there are several deals in the Middle East surrounding pipelines that haven't gotten much press (involving Israel, Syria, Iraq, etc.)

[malaise]

21. Another great thread

K & R

[nashville_brook]

24. TFC, you're one of the main reasons I stay tuned to DU!

what an excellent piece.

[Time for change]

60. Thank you very much nashville

It's very nice to hear that.

[jillan]

26. T/C - you do know that Obama plans to send more troops to Afghanistan - right?

He spoke alot about that during his campaign.

[Time for change]

59. Sure

I very much hope he reconsiders that. It certainly wouldn't be unreasonable for him to explore methods of dealing with this short of escalating the war in Afghanistan.

[Odin2005]

27. Twoofer BS

I want Osama's head on a pike and think Obama's positions on Afganistan are exactly want we need.

[wildbilln864]

28. you want Usama's head on a pike but Bush does not! nt

[Phred42]

31. No contry in history has ever survived the occupation of Afganistan

Neither will the US

[Flatulo]

55. Comparing the Soviet occupation to the American's is a facile analogy.

The Soviets were fighing a proxy war with another superpower (us).

The Soviets were trying to convert a deeply religious fundmentalist state to a Communist system. We are not.

[Mithreal]

71. Your assumptions puzzle me. What evidence do you have that

we are not fighting a proxy war there now?

What evidence do you have that the US is not trying to convert a deeply religious fundamentalist state to a Free Market Capitalist system?

I am not saying I disagree with you, just skeptical.

[Flatulo]

78. We're not fighting a proxy war with a *superpower*. We are fighting

a proxy war with a worldwide network of Islamic charities that funnel money to the Taliban, as well with rogue elements of Pakistan's own ISI service.

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/08/uk-british-mu...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158861

My guess is that the Russians would love to see us fail there, but their military is still reeling from manpower and cash shortages. Despite their recent drubbing of the Georgian military, they simply can't afford to intervene in any meaningful way. I also suspect that the thumping they took there is still fresh in their collective memory.

Afghanistan is already a free-market capitalist state. Corruption and lawlessness are rampant. It is the number one exporter of opiates in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Production_in_Afghan...

[Swede]

84. The Russians had their hands full in Georgia.

Here's a pretty good article on that.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1010/p01s01-woeu.html

[Flatulo]

89. Good article - so it really wasn't a cakewalk at all. nt

[Time for change]

38. Why?

Assuming that the Afghanis don't want us there, and that to escalate the war there would probably result in the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, as has been the case in Iraq, and as occurred during the Vietnam War, what reason would you give for doing that?

And do you think that bin Laden is in Afghanistan?

[Odin2005]

42. Afgansitan needs to be stablized so it can't be a haven for A-Q and the Taliban.

And Pakistan needs to get it's act together in clean the Taliban out of the tribal areas.

[Time for change]

43. What makes you think that Afghanistan won't turn out to be another Iraq or Vietnam

if we escalate there?

[Politicalboi]

29. So if Bin Laden didn't do 9/11

Who did? I've known for years he didn't do it. Better be careful with your facts. You could get labeled a conspiracy nut here by those who think the laws of physics changed on 9/11. Or there's no airport in NY to take and hijack a plane and turn it around and smash into the WTC. A lot easier to leave out of Boston I guess.

[Phred42]

30. False Flag. It was an inside job

[Time for change]

58. I agree

Some variation of LIHOP/MIHOP.

[Occam Bandage]

33. "bin Laden didn't do it" is not a convincing reason to abandon Afghanistan,

even if that were true.

[Time for change]

34. What reason would you give to stay there and

try to "win the war" in Afghanistan?

Assuming that the Afghanis don't want us there, and that to escalate the war there would probably result in the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, as has been the case in Iraq, and as occurred during the Vietnam War, what reason would you give for doing that?

[Occam Bandage]

35. You might want to re-examine "Assuming that the Afghanis don't want us there."

The people of Afghanistan are not opposed to the NATO presence.

You then might want to re-examine "to escalate the war there would probably result in the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands." In Afghanistan, death is caused not by the presence of NATO troops, but rather by the chaos and narco-warlordism that fills power vacuums wherever NATO is unable to offer its support. More people will die, both immediately and down the road, if we abandon Afghanistan to drugs and thugs, than if we were to bolster the NATO mission.

Afghanistan was badly unsupported for years. We had better troop coverage in the post-invasion period in Haiti and Bosnia than we did in Afghanistan. Comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam is absolutely ridiculous.

[Dover]

36. Why ARE we in Afghanistan to begin with?

Assuming, for the moment, that bin Laden is not reason enough.

What's our purpose there, and what is our intended outcome and gain?

[Occam Bandage]

66. Because failed states result in worldwide proliferation of

drugs, crime, and terror.

[KoKo]

87. I hope you are being sarcastic.....you are actually quoting Busholini in your statement..

must have forgotten this

[Time for change]

37. Here's a re-examination:

Afghanistan’s 30 million people today are no more content with U.S. rule than a smaller population was with the failed British attempt to extend its empire there in the 19th century. While the “surge” was supposed to be taming Iraq, the resistance movement inside Afghanistan was growing...

In May and June more U.S.-NATO “coalition” forces were killed by the resistance in Afghanistan than were killed in Iraq. In mid-July the U.S. was forced to abandon a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan after resistance fighters killed nine U.S. troops and briefly seized the area...

NATO slaughter of civilians continues. The United Nations estimates that 698 civilians were killed in the first six months of this year in Afghanistan; this compares with 430 killed during the same period last year. Of those 698, some 255 were killed by NATO forces. Human Rights Watch says air strikes alone have been responsible for killing 119 civilians in 2008.

http://www.workers.org/2008/world/afghanistan_0807 /

The civilian deaths are currently relatively light compared to the case in Iraq, but what would happen if the war was escalated? The opinion described here is similar to what the editors of The Nation had to say about it, which I describe in the OP. Admittedly, those opinions could be wrong. But what information do you have that would warrant a rosier assessment?

[Occam Bandage]

67. Oh, wow, "Worker's World." I trust their opinion, especially when it's offered without any support

for any of their claims, nor with any context for their figures.

Beyond that: it's late, I'm tired, and I'm a depressed lout who doesn't really feel like painstakingly attempting to completely change a reluctant and intellectually insulated internet poster's world-view.

[Time for change]

83. Talk about intellectually insulated

You make unsubstantiated claims that the Afghani people are not opposed to our presence and that attempting to occupy their country will not cause civilian deaths, and the only thing you have to say is that you don't trust the source that I gave you -- though you don't have any sources to present yourself.

[Flatulo]

56. Absolutely spot-on in every point. Thanks. nt

[Flatulo]

39. It never ceases to amuse (and amaze) me that people who

believe that 'Bush done it' somehow heard the initial denial and then mysteriously went deaf and blind for every other occasion on which he admitted responsibility for the attacks.

Let's start here... November 2001

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanis...

<snip>

OSAMA BIN LADEN has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Telegraph can reveal.

In a previously undisclosed video which has been circulating for 14 days among his supporters, he confesses that "history should be a witness that we are terrorists. Yes, we kill their innocents".

<snip>

And then there is this tape captured in Afghanistan from December 2001...

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation...

And another bin Laden broadcast from 2004...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.h...

<snip>

Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.

"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind."

<snip>

Then there were the suicide videos of the hijackers themselves...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/11/binlade-tape.h...

<snip>

The video began with a still photo of bin Laden in front of a brown backdrop. A voiceover says: "This talk of mine consists of some reflections on the will of a young man who personally penetrated the most extreme degrees of danger and is a rarity among men: one of the 19 champions (may Allah have mercy on them all)."

Then, the videotape appears of Sept. 11 hijacker Walid al-Shehri, who was aboard American Airlines Flight 11 that hit the World Trade Center.

"We shall come at you from your front and back, your right and left," al-Shehri said in the tape, asserting that the United States would suffer the same fate as the Soviet Union.

<snip>

I can do this all day long. You can play too... all you need is a Web browser and Google.

Now, I know for a fact that SLaD and WildBill, who spend as much time as anyone around here reading Dungeon posts, have seen all this data before. But given their pathalogical hatred of the BFEE and their ability to rearrange reality to suit their worldview, I expect that this post will have absolutely no effect on them.

But if anyone reading this has a shred of objectivity, you can research this yourself.

[Time for change]

41. Those tapes are very controversial

I don't have the expertise to evaluate them, but many have put forth reasons to believe that they are phony.

And furthermore, what sense does it make that bin Laden would initially deny involvement and then accept responsibility?

[Flatulo]

52. Look at the bigger picture... al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1998

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/19/terror.tape.main/...

"By God's grace," bin Laden says on the tape, "we have formed with many other Islamic groups and organizations in the Islamic world a front called the International Islamic Front to do jihad against the crusaders and Jews."

"And by God's grace," he says at another point in the tape, "the men ... are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them."

Look at the timeline of al Qaeda attacks against the US...

1993 - American forces are attacked and retreat from Somalia
1993 - WTC bombing
1998 - al Qaeda bombs US embassies in Africa
1999 - Millenium bombings (thwarted)
2000 - USS Cole is bombed

Here's a good timeline on bin Laden and al Qaeda...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/etc/...

None of these attacks were responded to in any significant way. Sometimes you can't rationalize with religious fanatics. Try telling a fundie Christian about evolution (at least they don't blow people up). You can't reason with people who have lost the ability to reason. You have to kill them. Leaving them alone will do no good when they are unable to accept others who do not share their beliefs. You put them down like the mad dogs they are.

I sincerely hope that as many Islamic fundamentalists as possible are hastened along in their journey to Allah in any manner we can facilitate.

I place absolutey no value whatsoever on the lives of religious lunatics who treat their mules better than their women, and brainwash their children to memorize religious dogma and forsake critical thinking. I honestly do not care if every single human being in Afghanistan is incinerated if it saves the life of even one US citizen.

Look, I believe that Bush has fucked up virtually everything he has touched in his eight-years. But bombing and invading Afghanistan was the one right thing he did, which he then promptly fucked up by invading Iraq. In my opinion, we should have nuked Afghanistan on September 12, 2001.

Barack Obama believes that bin Laden and al Qaeda is a real threat, and he is a very smart guy who is surrounding himself with other very bright people who feel the same way. I don't know how they are going to address this problem, but it has now become geopolitical instead of military, thanks to Bush letting him escape into Pakistan.

[Time for change]

57. The bigger picture

I agree that bin Laden and al Qaeda should be considered real threats.

But I don't think that invading a sovereign nation is the way to deal with it. If Bush had the slightest interest in finding a way to deal with al Qaeda short of going to war with another nation, he would have sat down and talked to the Taliban about it. They offered to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan to stand trial. They even offered to extradite him to the U.S. if we provided evidence of his involvement in 9/11. Bush had no interest in negotiating on any of that -- any more than he had any interest in avoiding war with Iraq.

I have (at least some) confidence that Obama will try to find a way to deal with this short of escalating the war in Afghanistan.

[Flatulo]

65. I respectfully disagree - the Taliban were playing games.

They would never have handed UBL over. Their culture requires them to grant sanctuary to any Muslim for any reason. Every single Talib would gladly die protecting their guest, as would the militant Pakistani Talibs occupying the Federated areas where he is now (allegedly) hiding.

I suspect that BO will work behind the scenes with the Pakistani government (which is teetering on the brink of an Islamic fundie takeover) while letting them publically howl over Predator strikes and Special Forces ops, just like the Bush regime has done. As I mentioned earlier, the problem is not a military one, but rather a geopolitical one. We could easily carpet bomb the Federated region into rubble but that would push Pakistan over the brink. The last thing we need is a nuclear-armed Islamic militancy.

Bush really, really screwed up by not capturing bin Laden when we had him at Tora Bora. This failure made the whole problem virtually unsolvable.

[arikara]

45. Which Bin Laden?

The fat one or the skinny one?

[Flatulo]

47. Are you aware of the PAL to NTSC conversion issue?

When you convert PAL video to NTSC format, everything gets vertically squashed. Heads get fatter.

The original format of the video was 50 Hz PAL format.

[wildbilln864]

50. not very persuasive! nt

[Flatulo]

54. It's only non-pesuasive if one is ignorant of the technical issue.

Once one understands that PAL format has 625 lines of resolution and NTSC has 525 lines, it becomes simple arithmetic and indisputable fact that converting PAL to NTSC compresses images vertically by a factor of 625/525 or 1.2.

[EOTE]

74. Ridiculous. What about line doubling?

By similar logic, using a line doubler/scaler would cause 50% vertical compression when converting signals from 480p to 720p? Or that we'd all look like squat little elfs when upscaling to 1080p? All that matters is the aspect ratio. A 4:3 picture is going to remain a 4:3 picture so long as both formats utilize square pixels. I've converted many videos from NTSC to PAL and vice versa. Your arithmetic and indisputable fact is pretty pathetic. Whatever you need to convince yourself, I guess.

[Flatulo]

77. Simple PAL to NTSC converters just throw away every fifth line.

But seriously, use your brain... if this video were faked, would it not be easier to just digitally remaster it to make it look exactly like UBL?

[EOTE]

79. Both vertical and horizontal resolution is tossed.

If you're throwing away every fifth line, then you're also losing 20% of the horizontal resolution as well, which leaves the aspect ratio intact. You're forgetting that in each case, you're dealing with square pixels. If you're displaying a 720p image on a display only capable of 480p, you need to throw away 1/3 of the vertical lines of resolution. However, because you're only capable of displaying 854 pixels instead of 1280, you need to toss 1/3 of the horizontal resolution as well. You obviously no as little about video conversion as you do about the events on 9/11. Please, use YOUR brain.

[Flatulo]

80. You're full of beans. Analog video does not contain pixels, only

lines of resolution. Do you disagree with this?

Throwing away horizontal lines has no effect on the width of the image, just the aspect ratio.

I suspect you've been doing digital image conversion and are unfamiliar with how analog video works.

[EOTE]

81. And what are those lines comprised of?

You're full of something, but beans it ain't. By your standard, each line comprising either an NTSC or PAL image would contain one discrete color, that's ridiculously stupid. In analog television, they're not called pixels, but each line can display a fixed resolution. As for your assertion that analog video doesn't contain pixels, that's 100% wrong. Are you familiar with VGA? VGA is analog, yet has a fixed resolution of 640x480. And to suggest that anyone dealing with video like this would use conversion techniques that would throw away vertical resolution but leave the horizontal resolution alone is ridiculous. And what happened with the future videos? Did they all of a sudden get it right? Did someone in the CIA take some community college classes? And you talk about how easy it would be to digitally manipulate the video so it looked more like the real Osama. You're suggesting they can't even get simple video conversion right, but they'd be able to manipulate the image without any digital artifacts left over? Is there anything you won't do to delude yourself?

[Flatulo]

85. What is the resolution of an analog TV set?

If your answer uses the word 'pixel' then you are completely and utterly full of shit and have no idea what you are talking about. You may be too young to even understand the NTSC standard. If you did, you would realize that there was a whole world of analog video before there was even the concept of VGA.

> Are you familiar with VGA? VGA is analog, yet has a fixed resolution of 640x480.

VGA has exactly, precisely nothing to do with the NTSC and PAL standards. You're confusing the nature of the video signal with the nature of the display device.

First of all, raw analog video is just that, analog. It knows absolutely nothing about pixels. Analog video is composed of a combined luminace and chroma signal that is defined by the NTSC standard in terms of scan rate and colorburst frequency. Analog TVs take the analog composite video sigmal off the analog tape and then amplitude modulates it and rasterize it to form 525 horizontal scan lines. There is no horizontal resolution. Repeat after me. There is no horizontal resolution. Did I mention that there is no horizontal resolution?

NTSC verticle resolution was limited to 525 lines due to bandwidth limitations in CRTs 60 years ago. PAL was able to go to 625 lines because the 50 Hz verticle refresh rate gave them the ability to juggle the available bandwidth around.

Now, if you want to talk digital video encoding and conversion, I'm all ears. Perhaps this is where your expertise lies. But there are some serious gaps in your knowledge about the older analog technology that videotape used.

[EOTE]

88. The NTSC standard is 480x720.

Of course, not all analog televisions are capable of displaying that fully. And you say that VGA has nothing to do with this, yet you said that analog video NEVER has any pixels. VGA is analog, completely analog yet has a resolution of 640x480. You are wrong, extremely wrong. I've proven you wrong time after time, yet you just bring up more crap to change the subject.

[Flatulo]

91. You should quit while you're behind.

> yet you said that analog video NEVER has any pixels.

I most assuredly did not state this.

I said that analog TV sets and the analog NTSC standards do not have a fixed horizontal resolution. You state that they do. You are wrong.

VGA content can be transmitted over an analog or digital interface, but it has a fixed horizontal resolution. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Unless you are using HDMI for your interface, all communication between your DVD player and your TV set is analog. Whether your TV is analog or digital (plasma or LCD) is where the difference comes in.

A digital display (fixed resolution) can only display video in the display's native format, so every single signal that comes in needs to be scaled and interpolated unless it is an exact match (unlikely). This is why every single digital TV sold today has a scaler/interpolator.

An analog set connected to a DVD player takes the fixed resolution (480 X 720) of the MPEG2 encoded image and displays it in standard NTSC format, ie 525 horizontal lines.

Sorry, there's just no way around that.

[EOTE]

93. Analog video does not contain pixels, only lines of resolution.

Those were your words, not mine. I suppose you're going to say I force fed those words to you or something? And I never said that NTSC standards have a fixed horizontal resolution, only that it has resolution, PERIOD. That's you trying to put words in my mouth. 480x720 is the max for NTSC, but there are many others depending upon the source. In fact, I even provided you a link explaining why horizontal resolution typically isn't listed for NTSC. And all this other stuff you're spouting off, I'm quite aware. But it has nothing to do with the myriad errors you've made and the corrections that I've made to them. And fixed resolution and digital are not the same thing. How else would you explain the many CRT HDTVs (while they still made them) that included DVI/HDMI inputs? And all this to defend your points that I've already proven wrong. As well as the points I made that you haven't even addressed yet.

[EOTE]

90. And read this if you want to find out why horizontal resolution typically isn't listed.

It's NOT because it doesn't exist, it's because it varies from signal to signal and display device to display device. Once again, if there was no horizontal resolution, each line would be comprised of a single color. That wouldn't make for a very good picture, would it?

http://www.lyberty.com/encyc/articles/tech/vid_horizont...

[Flatulo]

92. Well, thanks for proving my point. This is what I have been trying to explain to you.

When you go to a digital display device, the resolution is always, always, always the same.

Analog TVs (and by association, analog sources like VHS tapes) do not have a fixed horizontal resolution.

[EOTE]

94. Output resolution, not input resolution.

I never even brought up digital display devices (and by that, I assume you mean fixed pixel displays, NOT the same thing). Of course it goes without saying that if you've got a fixed pixel display that you'll need to scale resolutions to the native resolution if they're not the same. As to why you're bringing up fixed pixel displays, that's beyond me. But you seem to keep mixing up input and output display resolutions. Assuming that a CRT is capable of displaying a particular resolution, it will display it as is, without any scaling. For analog televisions, that includes an array of NTSC signals that include both vertical lines as well as horizontal resolution. To say that NTSC, PAL or other analog standards don't include horizontal resolution is just ridiculous.

[Flatulo]

101. At this point you're just arguing with yourself. nt

[EOTE]

104. I'll take that as a concession.

After all, there are still a dozen or so points of yours that I've refuted that you haven't even touched or have responded with non-sequiters. It's a shame you won't keep going, I thought for sure that you were going to steer the conversation into the field of ballistics next.

[Flatulo]

106. OK, please explain for us how a cheap analog converter handles

the PAL to NTSC conversion.

Do the output images get squashed vertically or not?

This is the essence of the debate.

[EOTE]

111. They "squash" the image horizontally just as it is done vertically.

It's extremely simple to keep the image in the same aspect ratio that it was originally recorded in, you just remove the same proportion of horizontal data as you do vertical data. And since you've ignored just about every question I've asked, I'll ask you this one again. Why was this issue only present in one of the videos? Did AQ make the transition to NTSC? Or did the CIA finally find someone who was capable of converting video properly? Why would OBL bother to send out a video denying his involvement in the attacks originally? Is THAT tape manipulated?

[Flatulo]

117. Oh, I understand that it can be done correctly using a digital

editor, but can it be done incorrectly? That is what I am interested in. Supposedly there are $30 analog converters that just squash the image.

Now, on to your questions...

The original video was found in Afghanistan, where PAL is the standard. In order to copy it for distribution to the media, it would have to have been converted to NTSC. We don't know who did the conversion, so that will probably remain unknowable.

As to why bin Laden would originally deny involvement, I have no idea. Probably just fucking with us. His writings indicated that he hoped the US would indeed invade Afghanistan where his Mujahadeen would dispatch them as they had the Russians.

Now back to you... why do you believe only the denial video and reject all the admission audios and videos?

[EOTE]

118. Because once he denied it, the cat is out of the bag.

While Bin Laden may be an evil man, he's not the type to 'fuck' with us. If he spent those ridiculous man hours and money planning something so symbolic like this, it wouldn't make any sense for him to deny involvement with it. Him taking credit for it is essential for the symbolism. And everything that has come to light since then has suggested that he didn't have any involvement. Where is the smoking gun that shrub promised? Why doesn't the FBI believe that he had anything to do with 9/11? Do you not think that these are HUGE issues?

Now, might there exist rather cheap and shitty converters that fuck with an image like that. I suppose they might exist, but I certainly haven't even seen cheap ones that do that. But the point is that AQ would have distributed the video in its native PAL because all the media around them would use PAL as well. As for converting for the North American audience, that would have been wholly unnecessary because any North American television studio would have decent conversion hardware. Do you think they were thinking to themselves "Well, we better convert this to NTSC because otherwise Americans are NEVER going to see this. They just won't put the effort forward, so we better do it for them." Of course not. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that if AQ sends us a video, it doesn't matter which damn format it's in, we're going to see it.

[wildbilln864]

127. EOTE, Thanks for the info regarding video....

I have always believed UBL is long dead. The videos are faked to keep the boogy man alive. They argued the same thing in the dungeon about the video conversion and this the first knowledgeable answer I've seen to that argument.
UBL's Funeral
.

[EOTE]

128. No problem.

I don't know whether he's alive or not. It would certainly make sense that he were dead now. What I am fairly sure of is that he wasn't behind 9/11. Even disregarding his own denial, the evidence just isn't there. And I don't know why so many people are so willing to give shrub the benefit of the doubt after he said that there was "smoking gun" evidence that he was so close to revealing, yet never did.

[wildbilln864]

129. I'm in complete agreement on that also. thanks for the response. nt

[Flatulo]

138. You continue to ignore data that conflicts with your pre-conceived notions.

Here I posted links that I found in 20 seconds where OBL admits that al Qaeda planned and carried out the attacks. No, OBL did not hijack or fly the airplanes, but he bears and accepts responsibility.

Can you refute these?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[EOTE]

142. You've got some nerve talking about ignoring data.

This discussion started with me defending why I thought at least one of the tapes by OBL was faked. You unsuccessfully try to refute that and try to change the course of discussion several times throughout. Then, you ignore every one of my questions including: Why does the FBI not believe that OBL was involved with the attacks? Why did Bush promise the world smoking gun evidence that Bin Laden was behind the attacks and then provide NOTHING? And why is it that you believe these subsequent tapes, but not the original tape where Bin Laden says that he's NOT responsible for the attacks? Why on earth would I even bother to refute any of that when you still have yet to admit that you were wrong even once?

[Flatulo]

150. Semantics 101

Rex Tomb said "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Nowhere in this statement does the FBI spokesman claim that the FBI doesn't *believe* that bin Laden was complicit. It simply says what it says. No hard evidence. What's 'hard' evidence? I dunno - fingerprints, eyewitnesss, DNA, etc. Of course they don't have any hard evidence. He was nowhere near the crime scene.

That means that all the bin Laden audio/video is not being taken as 'hard evidence', including the first denial video and the subsequent 'confession' videos.

In their zeal to prove that anyone but the actual terrorists are guilty, the Truth Movement chooses to present this single statement as somehow exonerating bin Laden completely, and by implication, blaming ... BushCo. This is quite dishonest, but typical, and consistent with other statements that are used as Proof that 9/11 was an inside job, like Rumsfield's statement that a 'missile' hit the Pentagon.

OK, now on to our little discussion. You have utterly and totally failed to prove that the confession video is a fake, and I have utterly and completely failed to prove that it is not. I don't expect this will change soon, and the 'confession' video will continue to be quite controversial. One theory that I have not heard spoken of is that perhaps bin Laden *had* gained fluid weight due to his failing kidneys. Perhaps he was on steroidal medicine that causes the head to swell. What I don't see the Truth Movement addressing is the identities of his confederates in the video. There seems to be no dispute that al-Zawahiri is present at the meeting. Why would the al Qaeda #2 sit down with a fake and pose for the camera?

> Why does the FBI not believe that OBL was involved with the attacks?

This statement is utterly unsupported. It is quite a leap to go from 'no hard evidence' to 'we think he's innocent'. If you have any official FBI statements that actually proclaim bin Laden's innocence, please present them.

Now, I told you earlier that I believed that bin Laden was fucking with us in the initial denial tape. I would further postulate that the Taliban did not share his zeal over a potential US invasion of their country and probably pressured him to issue a denial.

Would you be so kind as to share with me why you think all the subsequent post-October '01 audio and video where bin Laden claims responsibility are unimportant?

[EOTE]

152. You are some piece of work.

So once again, you refuse to admit that any of your bullshit claims were wrong, you just move on to the next subject that obstinately you'll refuse to budge on no matter what evidence has been provided. So basically, your response to the FBI having no hard evidence for Bin laden's connection to 9/11 (they have plenty of hard evidence for the other crimes that he's committed) is "so what"? Yes, so what that we've invaded a sovereign nation to "smoke him out of his cave" when we have no hard evidence he was involved in the crime to begin with. I mean, it's just an illegal invasion, right? International law is soooo passe. I'm convinced that Flatulo has been stealing my power tools. The FBI assures me that this isn't the case, but what the hell do they know? I'll be invading your household just in case. Once again, your hypocrisy is outstanding. You accuse me of playing the semantics game, what a joke! Let me ask you this. Does the FBI believe that Bin Laden is connected with the 9/11 attacks? No, you say? Well, then would it be proper to say that the FBI DOESN'T believe that Bin Laden is connected with the attacks? Wow, that wasn't so difficult, was it? I guess I really should have counted on having to explain that to you in as simple terms as possible. Are you familiar even slightly with a concept called "burden of proof"? Silly question, I should assume not. Then after that, you tell me that I've failed to prove that the confession video is a fake. Well, no shit sherlock, I never attempted to. I simply said that your assertion that Bin Laden was fat because of the PAL to NTSC conversion is a bullshit one. I never attempted to do anything more than that, yet you continued to bring up one point after another that had nothing to do with the issue at hand. Perhaps to cover for your epic fails? As for the subsequent tapes, I think they're fake or manipulated. Either that, or Bin Laden decided it would be in his best interest to claim responsibility for something he didn't do. Now, as for the myriad other questions I've asked that you seem so intent to ignore? I guess I'll be waiting for those answers for quite some time.

[Flatulo]

156. You are incapable of understanding a simple concept...

I'll try again...

The FBI admitting that they have no hard evidence does not mean that they think he's innocent. It means exactly what they said. It does not mean that they think he is innocent. You cannot possibly be this stupid, so I must assume that you are deliberately being obtuse so that your belief system is not violated.

Do you think that the presense of 'hard evidence' is a prerequisite for an FBI investigation?

I'm not sure why you cannot understand this.

> I'm convinced that Flatulo has been stealing my power tools. The FBI assures me that this isn't the case,

This is exactly what the FBI has NOT done. Please show me where they have stated that bin Laden is not responsible for 9/11. If you cannot understand the difference between this statement and what they actually said, then your reading comprehension is in need of a tuneup.

The FBI has in no way shape or form indicated in the slightest that they believe that bin Laden is innocent. They have been investigating bin Laden since long before 9/11.

I have given you several chances not to provide this information, and you have declined. You then lambaste me for not answering your questions. What have I not answered?

You're the one playing games.

[EOTE]

159. Why has Bush not provided any evidence of Bin Laden's involvement?

That's just one of the questions you haven't answered. And you still insist that just because there's no evidence of his involvement, it's okie dokey to go ahead and attack a country for it. What can't you understand about this? Are you so completely and insanely daft that you think it's OK to attack a country without any 'hard evidence'? Why can't you get it through your incredibly thick skull that you need EVIDENCE to do these kinds of things. I know you just love the Bush Doctrine, but in the real world, you can't just say something is so and expect everyone to go along with you. I never said the FBI thinks that Osama is innocent, they've just investigated the matter and they can't find a lick of evidence connecting him to 9/11. You do know that in the real world, the burden of proof resides on the country who'll be invading the foreign country, right? In a court of law, you can't have a forensic investigator investigate someone for a crime, come up with no evidence linking that person and then say "Oh, just lock the fucker up. The investigator might not have found anything, but what does he know? As the prosecutor, I say the guy is guilty so lock him up." You have the same mindset as a psychopath. Once again I'll ask you, do you know what burden of proof is? Of course you don't. If you did, we wouldn't be having this ridiculously stupid conversation. I have proven you wrong time and time again, yet you've refused to own up to anything. Not only that, but now you're really displaying the attitude of a psychopath. I now know where you stand in terms of the Bush Doctrine. If we even THINK that another country is plotting against us or harboring terrorist, get ready for some shock and awe, fuckers.

[Flatulo]

160. Self-delete

I shouldn't let people piss me off for calling me names.

[Flatulo]

167. There was a strong chain of evidence of al Qaeda attacks on US interests going

back to the '90s. Don't believe me - read a book. We were attacked on 9/11 precisely because we never responded to the previous attacks in any meaningful way. With each successive attack, al Qaeda became convinced that they could chip away at American interests with no consequences.

Now your position that the US needed 'hard evidence' to proceed with action against bin Laden is one position, but it is a distinctly minority position. Clinton tried mightily to kill the fucker. Dick Clarke tried vainly to get Bush to kill him prior to 9/11. The American people overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and the guy you (presumably) voted for for POTUS is determined to kill the man, quite possibly by invading yet another country. All without the FBI's 'hard evidence'. Imagine that.

9/11 was not some junkie knocking over a liquor store. International law has not kept pace with the evolution of international terrorists. If bin Laden's left nut had been found dangling from the landing gear of Flight 11, people like you would claim that it was planted. Anyone fucked-up enough to let religious lunatics pick off their fellow citizens willy-nilly is fucked-up up enough to never be able to acknowledge that the bad man actually did it, regardless of what evidence was available.

You have demonstrated to me that you are determined to ignore any and all evidence that bin Laden is guilty. I have given you plenty of links, and your response was this...

> As for the subsequent tapes, I think they're fake or manipulated.

Wow, that was thought-provoking. You've got cognizant dissonance on your sleeve.

No, Bush will never be able to produce evidence that would satisfy you. And you know what? I don't give a flying fuck. Bush did the right thing - the only right thing - that he ever did, and I'm hopefully optimistic that Obama is smart enough to finish the job.

[EOTE]

168. Once again you launch into the non-sequitors.

Good job bringing up a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Do you really think that I'm not aware that AQ has attacked us in the past? I guess that means that we can invade in the future any country that we believe might be harboring any AQ member, right? Listen, I'm through with you. You've been pwned, seriously. I'm not going to continue this discussion with you knowing that every time I refute one of your bullshit claims, you're going to bring something up completely irrelevent to the discussion, or perhaps relevent, but certainly not what we've been discussing. I'm not going to bother going through great lengths explaining myself when you won't even acknowledge that I've torn to pieces all of your previous arguments. I've been reading through this thread and it's nice to know that I'm in good company. You've done the same thing to many others in this thread. Here's how it goes: You try to start some stupid argument, someone corrects you and smacks you down handily, then rather than admit how incredibly wrong you are, you bring up something completely different and force them to address your new argument. So I'm through with you. Let me say it again, YOU'VE BEEN PWNED. You've been proven wrong time after time and I'm not going to waste any more of mine. You are not saving face, you are just making yourself look like even more of a close minded ass. I hold out no hope that you're capable of learning anymore. Good bye.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

171. Have yourself another big helping of fail.

First of all, the Bush Doctrine includes the policy of preventive or preemptive war. It states that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represent a potential or even perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat is not immediate. That's EXACTLY what you advocate in terms of Afghanistan. Even you admit that there's no evidence linking OBL to 9/11 (I'll give you a hint, saying that he's done bad things in the past is NOT evidence), yet you still support this doctrine of preemption. So, you may not KNOW that you support the Bush Doctrine, but you certainly do. Which makes you even less intelligent than I originally thought. You are wrong. Then you accuse me of me of lying when I went on to say that a PAL to NTSC converter as you described MIGHT exist. I was attempting not to be as close minded as you are when I allowed for the possibility for such a device to exist, it would be foolish to say that it can't. Hell, maybe the Professor made one for Gilligan. It's hardly anymore difficult to preserve the aspect ratio of the original source even in an analog device, it doesn't require any sophisticated electronics. Sure, television studios have converters that cost thousands of dollars, but they cost so much because quality is paramount and lesser converters don't do nearly as good a job in terms of color integrity. But you also never explained to me why AQ would bother using this steam powered device to convert the video to NTSC for the sole benefit of the North American audience when all local media is in PAL and any television studio would be a