Topic: US has no proof to get Osama convicted: Chomsky

topic by
Someone
11/26/2001 (9:27)

US has no proof to get Osama convicted: Chomsky

By Intikhab Hanif

LAHORE, Nov 25: US scholar Dr Noam Chomsky on Sunday said America wanted Osama bin Laden dead and not alive because it did not have any proof to get him convicted in a court of law.

'If captured alive it will be difficult for America to try Osama in a court of law and that is why it considers it better to kill him,' he said while replying to questions at a forum of a local newspaper.

The Sept 11 plane attacks on America did not mark a beginning of its end. The happening merely changed the history, as it involved the first-ever massive attack this time on a major developed country in hundreds of years. But it will not change the social and economic and political system of America and the world, he said.

Prof Chomsky said it was true that all past empires fell. But the peak of the US power was in 1945 when it possessed half of the world's wealth and a huge military force. But by 1970 this wealth was reduced to 25 per cent.

Now, he said, there were three major power centres, the US based west, the German based West and the Japan and China based South East Asia. The events on Sept 11 will not change this set up.

Prof Chomsky said the Kashmiri people had the right to self- determination but the dispute could be resolved only by Pakistan and India through the sympathetic recognition of each others stand point.

'America is not favouring any of the parties to the conflict. It wants to go its own way and is showing one side of the picture to Pakistan and another to India. It merely wants both the countries to be nice subordinates, desiring that Islamabad must stop support to violence in the held Kashmir,' the US scholar said.

He termed the attack on Afghanistan merely an act of establishing the power and credibility of America and its allies. Even bombing Taliban soldiers was a crime, an illegal act and sheer exercise of power, he said.

Prof Chomsky said the CIA, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries created mercenaries in Afghanistan. 'Yes, Afghans had the right to defend the USSR invasion but America and Muslim countries had no right to raise mercenaries in Afghanistan,' he said

He said the USSR invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, which was a crime, but the US started supporting the Mujahideen there six months earlier to fight against their government and to 'invite and trap' the USSR in Afghanistan. 'The plan was successful,' he said.

Prof Chomsky said China and Iran too were playing their game in the region before 1978. Pakistan also got involved and they all destroyed Afghanistan, he claimed.

He said both the USSR and the US used the cold war as a pretext to establish their hegemony in the world and to block each other. But the same policy continued even after the demise of the USSR as the US invaded Panama using this time not to defend the country against 'Moscow but against Spanish drug lords'. The cold war was an illusion and the Third World was its victim.

The US scholar said the Central Asia had oil reserves but these were much less than those in the Gulf region. The Central Asian states were not the major source of attraction for their oil reserves as the cold energy (technology) will soon replace the hot energy.

He said sarcastically referred to the pro-establishment intellectuals as wise men and said they were the associates of policy makers. 'If you don't support the power, you are not considered intellectual,' he said.

Prof Chomsky said people in the US were not given full information but still there were occasions when public opinion led to a change in the policy. To prove his point he quoted the examples of the Kennedy and Reagan administrations which made military experiments in Vietnam and Central America and had to worry about the public reactions against it.

He said the long war in Vietnam had created strong public opinion against the US administration but it stopped the aggression when the business community, which matters and not the people, said that the conflict had become costly. 'A delegation of the business community went to Washington and asked the president to resign, stop bombing and start withdrawing army as the war is costing too much,' he said.

Prof Chomsky said the Reagan administration tried to duplicate the action of the Kennedy administration in Vietnam and the media supported both the regimes. 'But, the US action against weaker nations must end rapidly because the public support erodes quickly,' he said.

America raised the slogan of the star war to eliminate nuclear weapons whereas it was meant to accelerate the arms race and was opposed by the people. 'They do respond to public voice, but as they defend the power, it happens occasionally,' he said.

Prof Chomsky said those who press for democracy were not serving the West because this was the last thing the West would want. 'The West want subordinate system no matter it is being run by military dictator,' he said.

reply by
Mark Dirks
11/26/2001 (23:15)

reply top

Sorry, don't need proof. I knew instantly who was responsible. All you have to do is listen to Osama's own words for the past ten years. Another antiChrist wannabe soon to be greased.

reply by
Paul Andrews
11/26/2001 (24:31)

reply top

The argument that there is not proof to convict Bin Laden in a court of law is ridiculous. First, I don't believe that is true - one only has to read the pages and pages of information released by the British government in October to realize that there is a strong case. This, supplemented by other information such as the fact that airliner flight manuals and advertisements for Florida flight schools were found in his Kabul headquarters makes a powerful case. However, that is missing the point. This is not a criminal investigation. It is a war. A war that Bin Laden declared long ago.

Here are the facts:

1)Bin Laden clearly and publicly declared war on the US nearly four years ago. In fact, at the time he said it was the duty of every muslim to kill Americans. He explicitly said that included civilians. These threats have resulted in numerous attacks and attempted attacks against the US which have killed hundreds even before 9/11.

2) Bin Laden has admitted responsibility for directing the attack which left 18 US service men dead in Somolia in 1993. He gloats over 'forcing the US out'. In reality, the US was engaged for humanitarian reasons. If the people they were trying to help were only going to attack them, the US had no reason to remain.

3)Bin Laden was behind the destruction of two US embassies in East Africa in August, 1998 which left 12 American diplomats and over 200 (mostly muslim)Africans dead. Detailed communications and threats going back months prior to the attacks were powerfull evidence that led to the conviction of some of the key participants of this attack. One of them, a close Bin Laden aid, also confessed to the crime and indicated that he was working for Bin Laden. If that was not enough, Bin Laden openly took responsibility for the attack. He has been indicted and would be convicted if he showed up to court.

4)In October, 2000 the USS Cole was bombed killing 17 US Sailors. Bin Laden has been implicated in this from the begining and released an internal training video in which he took credit for the attack.

5)Attacks planned against US Airliners in 1995, US Tourists in Jordan for Millenium Celebrations, and an attempt to destroy Los Angelos International Airport in January, 2000 have all been linked to Bin Laden.

6)There is also evidence that Bin Laden may have been involved with, or at least had knowledge of the first bombing of the WTC and the subsequent attemted attacks on the United Nations Headquarters, NYC's Holland and Lincoln Tunnels and the George Washington Bridge. He also was probably involved in the attack on Kobhor Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 which left 20 US servicemen dead.

7)Finally, he has declared, and witnesses have confirmed, that he is seeking weapons of mass destruction to use against the West. His behavior and his own statements demonstrate that if he got such weapons, he would use them.

Even if Bin Laden could pull off an 'OJ defense' for each and every one of those previous attacks, his threat to use weapons of mass destruction by itself warrants a strike against him in self defensive.

The bottom line: the guy is as guilty as hell and is the most evil person the world has known since WWII. Anyone who would make excuses for him is either quite ignorant or just as evil as he is.

reply by
Someone
11/27/2001 (9:39)

reply top

These all are valid point of views and I respect each one of them.

Here are few other points to consider:

1) We in US are always for human rights. By declaring war on a country that has not fired a single bullet, i.e. Afghanistan, we are following the same line as Bin Ladin. He did not provided any proof what US troops are doing wrong in Saudi Arabia. He just declared war on US. Bush did the same.

2) I would like to know more what this term 'link, linked, have links' mean. When we say XYZ has links with Osama what this means. Also, is it a crime to have a link with a criminal like Osama. If he ever gets to a trial, he will get a lawyer who would have links to him. Are we going to kill him too or may be jailed him for those links?
3) Circumstantial evidence are not considered enough to justify killing a person let alone declared war. Be careful before you answer this: In our own backyard, we have 'School of Americas', training mercenaries to spread terror in South America. In addition, we have trained terror forces of Shah of Iran, King of Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Are we willing to give any country to declare war on us for these actions?

4) Last but not least, the million dollar fact is that we trained, financed, encouraged, and supported both Osama and Taliban. This year March I think) we paid Taliban $45 million or so for seeking their help in stopping drug trafficking. Taliban forced women into homes, destroyed TV/VCRs, and blasted Buddha statues long before that. Why we did not took steps then.

What Osama did, if he actually did it, was wrong no arguments about that. But what we have done in past and are doing now needs to be examined with the same zeal.

Also, our media is not discussing one very BIG questions: why our government is not pressing Saudi Arabia to hand over their militants. After all, 15 or so hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, none from Afghanistan.

If we stop asking critical questions then I am afraid that even after the victory in Afghanistan, we would have learned what went into the minds to those who brought down WTC towers.

Peace.

reply by
Barb
11/27/2001 (24:07)

reply top

You are a refreshing breath of fresh air on this site, Paul. You really needn't have said much more after 'this isn't a criminal investigation, it's a war.'