Looking Back At The War Against Terror

[ringmasterrob]

I've been reading back over old topics with interest, specifically back to the first days of the forum when I was one of the only people here against the war. Looking at the early comments on the Iraq war topic there was a lot of belief that Iraq was a terrorist hotbed, packed to the gills with Al Qaeda. Now obviously we know that is not the case, but the very fact so many of us believed it without any evidence and, in fact, with a great deal of evidence to the contrary concerns me. Had we become so afraid of the phantom terrorist, the stereotype with the features of Bin Laden and an explosive strapped to him, that we believed the propaganda spoon fed to us by the leaders? In the aftermath of 9/11 the Bush administration managed to get through legislation such as the ‘Patriot Act’ that would never have been allowed during a more peaceful period. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were allowed in the end because of the fear of terrorism. This phantom threat is far more effective than communism in the 60s (and onwards) because terrorism isn’t bound to a country. Communism was a risky enemy because the main advocates of the system were the USSR and China, two of the most powerful nations on Earth, it was an ideal that could be very easily traced to a source. Not that chasing Communist conspiracies wasn’t an idea pursued by the CIA for decades of course. Terrorists can be anyone, anywhere and have no qualms with murdering innocent citizens and destroying national icons to get across their points.

It is probably worth noting that weapons owned by ordinary Americans kill more people every year than any terrorist attack ever has, but what really got people hysterical was the scale. 9/11 was a huge tragedy and a great loss, the fact it happened in the heart of corporate America and destroyed such important buildings was a slap in the face for most average American people. The attack was devastating and a lot better co-ordinated than your average person would have expected. As a result a lot of things happened that may not have happened if the country were not in a state of shock. Now at least people are coming back round, after nearly four years the shock and horror is being replaced by a sense of grief. Here in Britain we were unfortunate enough to have a leader who was willing to comply with Bush every step of the way and give us a very bad international reputation as America’s lapdog. Blair has now had his wrist slapped with a reduced majority as a result and will hopefully be more cautious in the next four years. Either way the ‘war’ is at a quiet period now, though there have been mutterings that Iran could be next, North Korea have declared that they have WMDs but overall it’s gone a little quiet. I think that we can look back at the war in hindsight and discuss what ramifications and repercussions it is likely to have on future generations. I think I’ve done enough talking so I will let someone else take the chair.

[modeski]

One of the most overlooked (by mainstream media at least) aspects of this whole debacle, is the erosion of our civil rights. The policies of the Bush and Blair administrations since 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq have done more to restrict our freedoms than any terrorist has. There are so many lies that are accepted as gospel truth by so many people, it is hard for any thinking person to cope. Indeed, it's far easier to throw your hands up in the air and say "f**k it", than continue to fight.

It is infuriating to the point of rage that we have gotten to the point we have today. If I could go back and tell the modeski of ten years about the following, not only would I have drastically altered the space/time continuum, my younger self would deride me as an old fool. Why is there no widespread debate in the mainstream media about the following issues?

Osama Bin Laden - Bin forgotten?
The fact that most of the 9/11 bombers were all Saudis, yet we invaded Afghanistan
The Bush/Bin Laden business dealings
Bush losing the 2000 election yet claiming the presidency
Guantanamo Bay
Torture now declared an "acceptable" interrogation method
Patriot Acts I and II and the implications for detention without reason

I could go on and on, but in this forum I would be preaching to the converted. We all know the many lies that the mainstream media churned out, and that so many idiots in the general public believe and espouse them to this day. The real challenge is how we can get these issues onto the public agenda.

[TheCritique]

There hasn't been a focus on those issues as they are not considered important - they are the same story. Unless something new is revealed people will not want to hear about it because they already have heard about it.

Bin Laden hasn't been mentioned because he is insignificant. All he does is give a face to Islamic terrorism.

Everyone knows we didn't invade Saudi Arabia because Bush and the Saudi Royal family are good friends, and we rely on Saudi Oil to keep our economies afloat - they are not a hostile regieme. We invaded Afghanistan because they were hostile, because that's where Al Qaeda was largely based (alleged training camps etc.), and because Bush needed to invade someone to show that he was decisive, strong, and intolerant of attacks. As we can't invade Saudi Arabia that was the obvious target.

[ringmasterrob]

Will, that post makes you sound worryingly like a Neo-Conservative, I hope that was the effect you were trying for.

[HStorm]

admin said:

Bin Laden hasn't been mentioned because he is insignificant. All he does is give a face to Islamic terrorism.

He's not insignificant, no, but you're right that his role is very much overstated; especially since the Afghanistan war, as it destroyed what power-base he had. He is very much yesterday's man in Islamic Militant circles.

Everyone knows we didn't invade Saudi Arabia because Bush and the Saudi Royal family are good friends, and we rely on Saudi Oil to keep our economies afloat - they are not a hostile regime.

Ah but neither was Afghanistan before 9/11. And in any case, doesn't the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis (including bin Laden himself of course) suggest that their country is rather more hostile than you're suggesting?

We invaded Afghanistan because they were hostile...

No, they were not. The Taliban's relations with the west were relatively cordial, at least on and off, and the Americans actually supported their overthrow of the 'Northern Alliance' warlords in 1996. We invaded Afghanistan because they were (supposedly) sheltering bin Laden.

because that's where Al Qaeda was largely based (alleged training camps etc.)

I'm afraid that's nonsense. For reasons I will make clear in a moment, there is no way in the world that al-Qaeda was 'based' in Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter.

because Bush needed to invade someone to show that he was decisive, strong, and intolerant of attacks. As we can't invade Saudi Arabia that was the obvious target.

I would agree with the bit about it being a way for Bush to look macho, but I don't see why the US couldn't a) at least demand compensation from Saudi Arabia for 9/11, or b) invade SA altogether and replace the House of Saud with a more humane government. I mean if regime change was justified in Iraq, why not in Saudi Arabia where the ruling elite is as bad as Saddam Hussein ever was?

Now the reason why I say that it's nonsense to suggest that al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan is because, in the terms you're describing, al-Qaeda does not exist. It is a blanket term invented by Washington to describe every fundamentalist terrorist group ever to have done business with, or (most absurdly) even to have negotiated with, bin Laden. Bin Laden and his allies never even used the term 'al-Qaeda' until after Bush did in response to 9/11.

The 'network' is not centralised in any way, and in reality is not even an alliance, as most of the groups it is tenuously supposed to include have nothing whatsoever to do with each other and even have very different aims. Some of them have been defunct for years. The only thing they have in common is that bin Laden sponsored them at some point or other, which is a bit like saying the BBC and Channel 4 are the same company because both have been run by Michael Grade.

Al-Qaeda was not based in Afghanistan at all, as there's no way it could have been. It was bin Laden's hideout, but that does not make it the headquarters of some vast international network . Most of the agents bin Laden has invested in are actually based in... aha... SAUDI ARABIA. (Do we spot a point I made above rearing its head again?)

[TheCritique]

I was trying to describe the reasons why the Americans did what they did and their points of view and reasoning.

Perhaps I'd better clarify - yes, I knew, as did the Americans, that the Saudis are more responsible than Afghanistan. However, the Bush family have connections with the Saudi Royals - they are personal friends, Saudi Arabia has large investments in the US, and Saudi Arabia controls a massive oil industry. Imagine the consequences if we had invaded them - oil going to $50 per barrel would be welcome. That's why Bush didn't invade.

Al Qaeda, as you say, is not a central organisation - there is no central base. However, they allegedly had training camps in Afghanistan and were sponsored by the ruling regieme: the Taliban. The Taliban wouldn't turn Bin Laden over, and so they were the next obvious target after Saudi Arabia to invade and accuse as responsible for 9/11. Additionally, I don't think the Saudis openly sponsored terrorism - in fact they publicly condemned it.

I'll state again - Bush had to look strong and decisive; he had to invade someone; he couldn't invade the Saudis as they were personal friends and controlled an oil industry on which we are dependent, and it would be more detrimental to him than if he invaded someone else; and so he invaded Afghanistan as an alternative.

Any further clarification necessary?

[ringmasterrob]

Sorry, Will, but I don't feel you have answered this point particularly well:

hstorm said:

I don't see why the US couldn't a) at least demand compensation from Saudi Arabia for 9/11, or b) invade SA altogether and replace the House of Saud with a more humane government.

Sure the Bush family is friendly with the Saudis, but at one point the US administration was friendly with the Bin Ladens (in fact with the exception of the black sheep Osama they still ARE) and of course they put Saddam where he was in the first place. As Storm said the Taliban relations with the West were very cordial. The Bush family and the US administration has never been afraid of attacking former allies in the past. The reason they didn't attack Saudi Arabia is purely related to how much of the US economy is dependant on Saudi Arabia and if they were truly trying to get hold of those responsible for the attacks Saudia Arabia should have been the place to look.

[HStorm]

Indeed. The point I was responding to, Will, was your assertion that there was no way the USA could attack Saudi Arabia because it wasn't a hostile regime. If tribal loyalty truly has a worthy place in modern politics then they shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan either. The Taliban were sometimes quite chummy with the USA before 9/11, and even had their fingers in a number of American oil pies (especially in Texas - oh isn't that Dubya's home state?) and while their American holdings were a spit in the sea next to the House of Saud's, it still goes as an act of aggression against a non-hostile, even friendly, sovereign state.

Al Qaeda, as you say, is not a central organisation - there is no central base

Well, the point is more fundamental than that, Will. Al-Qaeda is not really an organisation at all. It would be an exaggeration to say the whole thing is a fantasy, but not much of one.

I'll state again - Bush had to look strong and decisive; he had to invade someone;

No he didn't. He wanted to look tough and so he chose to invade someone in order to achieve this. He didn't have to do it.

For what it's worth, I have always maintained that some kind of military response to 9/11 was the right thing to do, and that bin Laden was a legitimate target, but Saudi Arabia would have been a far more appropriate one. (Bin Laden's demise did not need a full-scale military invasion - which failed to get him anyway.)

It bothers me the way you're expressing this as well, Will. You don't seem to have any problem with a world leader saying "We need to sacrifice a country and slaughter thousands of innocent people to make ourselves look tough, let's flip for it!"

[modeski]

Thank you storm for saying all the things I didn't have time to write as I'm on dialup.

[HStorm]

Dinosaur!!! But you're welcome.

[TheCritique]

Yes, it wasn't compulsory for Bush to invade someone, but you have to remember that Americans were feeling very sore about 9/11 at the time, and they all wanted strong, decisive action from their president. Bush would have been sunk in the opinion polls if he didn't do what his people expected. The obvious action was some sort of military action which would appear to be tackling the threat of terrorism. He therefore invaded Afghanistan for the reasons previously stated.

It bothers me the way you're expressing this as well, Will. You don't seem to have any problem with a world leader saying "We need to sacrifice a country and slaughter thousands of innocent people to make ourselves look tough, let's flip for it!"

I think what you were picking up on is the absence of deploration/the matter of fact way I was saying it. I do deplore what leaders like Bush do, but I see so much of it, and that's just the way things work, so you'll forgive me if I don't take a staunch moral stance every instance I refer to it.


Agreed on all other points.

[HStorm]

admin said:

you have to remember that Americans were feeling very sore about 9/11 at the time, and they all wanted strong, decisive action from their president. Bush would have been sunk in the opinion polls if he didn't do what his people expected.

Well yes, that was obvious but it still wasn't necessary to invade Afghanistan. Considering the way the USA attached unequivocal blame to Bin Laden for 9/11 (which, by the way, he still hasn't admitted responsibility for - he probably did provide funding for it, but he probably wasn't one of the leaders), Bush would have looked quite tough enough if he'd just captured him. And if he truly needed a war as well, he should've had the guts to go for Saudi Arabia. I would've been genuinely impressed with his courage if he'd dared to do that.

I think what you were picking up on is the absence of deploration/the matter of fact way I was saying it. I do deplore what leaders like Bush do, but I see so much of it, and that's just the way things work, so you'll forgive me if I don't take a staunch moral stance every instance I refer to it.

Well okay, but it was more your use of the words, "he had to invade someone" that sounded so approving.

[Naselus]

Not sure whether this belongs here, so feel free to move it to a more suitable topic. It's just so funny it's hard to believe.

John Reid has apparently declared that Al-Qaeda is a bigger threat to the UK than the Nazi's were.

Let's look at that in context, shall we? Before we even get into the whole business of Al-Qaeda's semi-fantasy existence.

The Nazis gased 6 million Jews, plunged the entire planet into an eight-year war, were essentially responsible for the deconstruction of the British Empire, attempted to construct atomic weapons, developed the first guided missile, and devestated large tracts of London.

Al-Qaeda blew up a bus.

Hmmm. 6 million jews murdered, London battered by the earliest attempt at ICBMs, eight years of war... Or the guys who blew up a bus. Bus.... Genocide.... Bus....

No, I'm going to have to say the Nazis were probably a bit more of a threat. They, after all, had the most powerful and advanced army in the history of history itself in 1939, where as Al-Qaeda has thirteen men, a dog, and a kidney dialysis machine. The Nazis owned three-quarters of mainland Europe by mid-1940. Al-Qaeda has a flat in Pakistan.

Is this utter nonsense statement not only an insult to the intelligence, but also very disrespectful to those who fought and died in WW2 and the holocaust?

[HStorm]

Yes.

(Sorry if that seems a sudden and swift end to the debate from me, but it doesn't need much elaboration does it?)

EDIT: One thing I should say is that, even as an ex-Jew myself, I am growing increasingly exhausted with the persecution complex European Jews have; because of the holocaust, they feel they're the ultimate victims of history, when many racial groups have been treated consistently worse. Hideous and unprecedented as the holocaust was, it doesn't automatically justify the Jewish position in perpetuity.

But yes, it's absurd to claim al-Qaeda is a greater threat than, say, the blitz. The increasingly-hysterical way that the Labour party are trying so hard to convince us that we're in imminent danger of mass-destruction is actually making them look less and less convincing, and more and more transparently power-hungry.

[TheCritique]

Out of interest, what length of detention without trial for terror suspects do we think justified?

[Naselus]

24 hours, or two months if there is a reasonable level of circumstantial evidence. Bail should be available, and priced according to how much evidence there is; i.e. a suspect found carrying a load of Semtex would have to pay a couple of thousand quid minimum, a 'suspect' who was picked up on the street unarmed for being unprovokedly muslim would get £2.50.

Alternatively, a 'pre-trial' level of 'terrorist' activity should be cleared by judge in each case, before an arrest can be made. Until the judge is satisfied that there is a case there, nothing can happen.

[TheCritique]

I personally think 24 hours is too little. Remember, with Magistrates' permission, any suspect can be detained for up to 36 hours without charge for purposes of evidence gathering, witness protection, prevention of obstructions of the course of justice etc (under 1984 legislation).

For arrests to be made, there should not have to be judicial involvement. Section 41 Terrorism Act 2000 is perfectly adequate in protecting the rights of suspects - a constable may arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist.

Bail should not be available to those carrying Semtex!

[HStorm]

admin said:

For arrests to be made, there should not have to be judicial involvement. Section 41 Terrorism Act 2000 is perfectly adequate in protecting the rights of suspects - a constable may arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist.

Yes, but the Act was written up in such a way as to shroud the definiton of 'reasonable suspicion' in ambiguity. While I'm prepared to believe that most police officers will never abuse that power, some of them will sooner or later.

[Naselus]

You're prepared to believe most police wouldn't abuse their powers?

Such faith. Is anyone forgetting the lesson of uber-terrorist extrodinaire Walter Wolfgang?

Anyway, while generally I agree that judicial involvement is not required in the arrest process, this has clearly been ruthlessly exploited in terrorism cases to try and completely circumvent the judiciary. Incarceration without trial for any longer than 24 hours should not be allowed, and anyone guilty of doing so (including various current and former Home Secretaries) should be tried for kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment. Only in extreme circumstances should the rule ever be broken, and "I reckon it's possible you might be a terrorist, so there's no bail for you" is NOT enough.

[HStorm]

naselus said:

You're prepared to believe most police wouldn't abuse their powers?

Such faith. Is anyone forgetting the lesson of uber-terrorist extrodinaire Walter Wolfgang?

Walter wasn't arrested by the majority of policemen, just a handful of non-mets. And I do believe that most policemen - not a huge majority of them by any means but still most of them - are fairly honest. But there's still every danger that a large minority of them will happily exploit powers like this to make their jobs easier, or worse to victimise people they just happen to dislike. And even more so, this applies to the average Home Secretary.

[TheCritique]

Is 'reasonable suspicion' defined in this specific Act or others (e.g. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984)? In any event, arrests can be legally challenged as constables have to demonstrate reasonable suspicion. There is a lot of case law that defines reasonable suspicion for various police powers, including arrest. For example, R. v. Castorina, Osman v. DPP (1999) etc.

The police can, and indeed do, abuse their powers, albeit a minority, and I am under no illusions to the contrary. I refer in particular to the miscarriages of justice caused by fabricated confessional evidence relating to IRA bombings. Fortunately safeguards have now been installed to prevent such occurances in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and other legislation e.g. tape recording of interviews.

The police that arrested Walter Wolfgang were under a greater level of alert than would otherwise be the case, due to the Ministers of State present. Such an arrest, were it under Section 41, would be unlawful as reasonable suspicion cannot be demonstrated by heckling.

Anti-terrorist legislation is quite recent and different to previous legislation regarding arrests, searches, and detention, but as I understand it, the police have to make frequent applications for continued detention up to 28 days to a puisne (High Court) judge. In such applications the police have to demonstrate satisfactory reasons why continued detention is justified.

24 hours is often not sufficient to gather the necessary evidence. That is why it stands at 36 hours, with Magistrates' authorisation, for any non-terrorist offence! Please also bear in mind the need for protection of witnesses and the tedious process of gathering evidence in such complex cases necessary for charging a suspect.

If police bail is refused to a charged suspect he is then brought before the courts, who are independent, and they assess bail. I do conceed that the presumption of bail is not adequate, as it is not defined in the Bail Act 1976 for terrorist offences, so I understand.

It is silly to suggest that Ministers should be tried personally for decisions made in their professional ministerial capacity. They act on behalf of the state/Government, and it is therefore the state/Government that should be prosecuted, if we were to accept that the state acted unlawfully. Please also bear in mind that Ministers act on the advice of civil servants.

[HStorm]

naselus said:

John Reid has apparently declared that Al-Qaeda is a bigger threat to the UK than the Nazi's were.

Interestingly, London Airport has been closed today because of an unexploded bomb from World War II. Using the bizarre kind of politicians' logic that John Reid specialises in, this suggests that the Nazis are still a bigger threat than 'al-Qaeda' even today...

[Naselus]

Fair point. There was one in Liverpool a couple of weeks ago, wasn't there? That's two attacks in as many weeks on the British mainland.

We must do something to counter this threat; who's for cutting John Reid's head off as a traitor?

[modeski]

I'm all for cutting John Reid's head off on general principle.