US says it wants access to 3 bin Laden widows

[steve2470]

Source: AP

ISLAMABAD (AP) — The United States says it wants to talk to the three widows of Osama bin Laden, who are in Pakistani custody.

National security adviser Tom Donilon says information from them could help answer questions about whether Pakistani authorities helped hide the al-Qaida leader while he was on the run.

He made the comments in an interview broadcast on Sunday NBC's "Meet the Press."

Bin Laden was shot dead in a large house in the town of Abbottabad close to a military academy after decade-long hunt

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iQ3_Gh_GgVqMXe9tzNpgTdUyO0Pw?docId=a26a46fa16f443109e7a4ab2f592ba96

[FreakinDJ]

1. Just to prove to the world Pakistan won't cooperate

[cosmicone]

3. Brilliant n/t

[sabrina 1]

14. Why is it brilliant? All Pakistan has to do is to refuse

as Canada did recently when the US asked for an accused terrorist to be brought here, that they cannot expose these women or anyone else to the threat of US torture policies.

They are protected by International Law on this. Any extradition agreements are null and void if there is there is any chance of abuse or torture of the individual. Since our torturers are all over TV right now, touting torture as the way to get terrorists, Pakistan has an even better case to refuse while at the same time exposing to the world why torture doesn't work, why the US cannot be trusted not to torture these women, and expose the Bush torturers for what they are, all at the same time. And this is all aside from the morality of torture.

[JI7]

15. this is Pakistan , not Canada

[sabrina 1]

16. International treaties such as extradition agreements, are the

same no matter what country signed them. Canada will not be the only country to fear placing detainees in the hands of the US until we get serious about prosecuting torturers. Right now our torturers are teaching college courses, on law! They are given a platform on our media to promote the use of torture. Those women should never be handed over to this country until we have proven to the world that we are serious about ending this vile and illegal practice, and start prosecuting those who put us in this position.

China and Canada so far have used our torture policies for their individual purposes. This is the legacy of policies that this current administration believes we should just move forward on. I hope it is becoming clear that that is not possible. Crimes were committed, the Wikileaks revelations show that this administration protected the accused criminals, AND attacked the most respected organization on Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and its highly respected judges. That doesn't make it sound like this administration is serious about ending torture, rather it sounds like they are annoyed at the world for trying to get justice for our victims.

Pakistan should ensure safe passage for these women to some country which will protect them from US interrogators. Perhaps they should appeal to the European Court of Human Rights for protection. Or some other Human Rights entity.

[FreakinDJ]

17. Pakistan has High Ranking Al Quaida sympathisers

Why do you think Clinton's missiles hit "Empty" tents

And they will never hand them over either - so do we leave those folks - the ones sympathetic to Al Quaida and have access to Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal in place ????

Remember - we have the data from the computer drives - names places and dates

[sabrina 1]

24. Musharaff was sympathetic to Al Queda, so was Bhutto

but neither one of these people were crazy enough to use nukes. Pakistan helped create the Taliban after the US left Afghanistan devastated after its secret war with the Soviet Union. All this is blowback to US Cold War Policies. Do you think we should continue with the same policies, never expecting consequences?

The Arab Spring is taking care and has taken care of Al Queda far more effectively than all our bombs and drones and torture and death. The brutal US backed Arab Regimes created a breeding ground for extremists like Bin Laden. But today's Arab youth are not interested in the kind of lifestyle offered by Bin Laden and Al Queda, they want what we all want, and they are dying to get it. Democratic governments that do not oppress their people or torture them or kill them for speaking out.

Bin Ladenism was already dead where we were told it was most likely to gain recruits. That was all BS, not a single Bin Laden photo was seen throughout the Arab world during the Arab Spring uprisings. He's old history to most of the world, and Pakistan is not different. They have their own peace movements demanding equality and a better life also, like everyone else.

I think the US needs to stop using violence as a solution to everything and take a lesson from those young Arabs all over the region, including in Iraq, who despite being shot at and arrested and tortured, still insist on unarmed and peaceful protests.

When will the US realize that our policies of war and violence are viewed now by the rest of the rest of the world as a far bigger threat to world peace than any terrorist organization?

How about we stop bullying people, recognize the difficulties of the Pakistani Govt in dealing with the remnants of their extremist movements, they also have lots of peaceful movements, and stop provoking them by sending in drones, making the extremists appear to be right??

How about some of that 'change' were promised in the election? As of now, all the world sees from the US is more of the same. While the rest of the world is moving towards real democracy, WITHOUT US as we cling to war as our solution to everything.

[FreakinDJ]

34. All sides of the equation use "Diplomatic Saber Ratteling"

and that is exactly how I view this

All be it should there be an actual threat of a High Ranking Pakistan Officer holding nuclear material and ready to hand it over to radical fundamentalist groups such as Al Quaida, I would expect my president to order a similar demise to that of Osama.

The Arab Spring is truly a wonderful thing but as seen in Libya, Syria, and even Egypt to some extent, the world ain't so "Rosie" as you would like to imagine

The Bush Administration was all about neutralizing America's abilities to track and contain nuclear proliferation as seen in the outing of Victoria Plame. Mainly because Dick Cheney's former employer Haliburton, was caught "Red Handed" selling nuclear detonators to Pakistan in violation of American Laws. Lets hope some of the change Obama was talking about was fully restoring our ability to track and contain nuclear materials

[sabrina 1]

36. Well, I do not think anyone, least of all the revolutionaries

thought everything was going to be rosy just because they toppled two dictators. As many of them said in Egypt and Tunisia, the revolution was just the first step. But it was a very significant step. Tunisia eg, has already rescinded the vile 'emergency law' making them freer now than we are, since we are still living under a similar state of emergency law, renewed by this president when it was due to expire. Something most people don't realize.

It will take many years to undo the harm done by those regimes over the past decades, but it had to begin somewhere, and all I'm saying is, it did NOT begin, as we have been told, with Bin Laden's/Al Queda's way. That would have been a road to nowhere, and I believe the people of those countries understood that very well, in fact they spoke about it and emphasized that violent extremism had nothing to do with their movements.

The Western media in the beginning of course, did ignorantly attempt to tie the uprisings to 'terror' but even with all their propaganda tools still in place, they simply could not do it. Too many people were watching this time.

As for Libya, I deliberately left them out as the situation there is different to the others. For one thing it quickly turned into an armed conflict, which neither Egypt, Tunisia nor most of the others, have done.

If you read about Egypt eg, you will see that many of these young people had been preparing for a revolution and were reading NOT Bin Laden, but Martin Luther King, Gandhi and other philosopher's on unarmed, peaceful revolution.

So, we've been lied to, about people who never were our enemies. The West has lost its boogie man, not Bin Laden, but Bin Ladenism, the latest one, that justified its own violence. However with the death of Bin Laden and the 'intelligence' that 'he was orchestrating more attacks', it almost seems sad to see them still clinging to that old script to continue to justify what the world is rejecting. Perhaps they really don't realize how irrelevant he was, maybe they, who make decisions in this country, came to believe their own propaganda?

We'll see how it succeeds in the US, the only place left where it might. But the world is weary of war and Bin Laden was actually outdated long before he died. Trying to resurrect his ghost to justify more violence? I hope wiser heads prevail, for everyone's sake.

There is an opportunity now to actually change the brutal script the US has played by for decades, a script that resulted in the blowback that was 9/11 and the creation of the extremism they childishly rail against. But will they? I guess the world is waiting to see ....

[FreakinDJ]

58. OK - I call BS - show me where they said they were reading MLK / Gandhi

this is the first I've heard of this and frankly goes against what I seen transpire in the Mid-East. Sure sounds great and I'm sure plays well on Western Media but totally wreaks of propaganda and by no means passes the smell test when compared to the time line

[sabrina 1]

60. That's surprising. It was reported fairly widely

that after the failed attempt in Egypt to topple Mubarak, Egyptians were looking for more successful ways to conduct a peaceful revolution. They discovered Gene Sharp who based his theories on how to overthrow an oppressive government peacefully, were based on Gandhi eg.

Both Tunisians and Egyptians studied his theories and some of his methods were obvious during the revolutions.

What transpired in Tunisia and Egypt were two non-violent revolutions that toppled two brutal oppressive regimes without guns. I don't know what you are referring to " frankly goes against what I seen transpire in the Mid-East". What did you see transpire? What I saw and millions of others around the world, was two longtime brutal dictators finally removed without violence even after the regimes resorted to killing unarmed protestors.

[cosmicone]

22. Read the OP

The US is not asking for extradition. The US is only wanting access. I think it is futile to defend Pakistan at this point.

[sabrina 1]

27. You can think whatever you want. I am concerned about those

women and other innocent people who are being killed on a regular basis by this country. As is the rest of the world. The only way the US should be trusted anywhere near those women, is in the open with representatives from the UN, the Red Cross and other Human Rights organizations present to ensure their safety.

It's a sad thing, but this is what the US has come to. Pakistan would be absolutely correct to insist that those women are protected from any kind of interrogation by US forces.

Pakistan should immediately respond by demanding these conditions. Then we will see how sincere the US is about just 'wanting access' to them.

So, I see nothing brilliant about the US demanding this. All they are doing is raising the issue of our torture policies and our continued slaughter of innocent civilians in other people's countries.

As a matter of fact, Pakistan should add that to the conditions under which they will permit any kind of access to the women. End the illegal drone attacks on their soil.

[JI7]

31. those women were married to a piece of shit who murdered people from around the world

how do you know they are innocent ? and as said they only want to ask questions.

[sabrina 1]

37. Lots of women have been married to pieces of shit killers.

Last I knew, we do not assume that wives are guilty of the crimes committed by their husbands. Is this a new concept?

They can ask questions in writing, the women can respond, in writing. If there is evidence of crimes, then produce the evidence. We used to do things that way here.

It should seriously concern Americans how easily our system of justice is being ignored. Far more than the threat of a terror attack, which we can survive as a nation, as other nations have and do. What we will not survive as a nation is the destruction of what makes this country worth fighting for. And THAT is what is and has been since 9/11, the most serious threat to this nation.

[JI7]

45. yeah, and usually they are questioned about their piece of shit husband

[No Elephants]

49. In the U.S. no spouse has to answer questions about his or her spouse.

There's a spousal privilege, much like attorney client.

Besides, you're mixing apples and oranges. Questioning someone within your own borders is not comparable to having another sovereign nation deliver someone to you for questioning, especially when one of the reasons given is to see if that sovereign nation "harbored" Osama. We suspected Iraq and Afghanistan of doing that, and look what we did about our suspicions.

According to the OP, we're asking Pakistan to deliver people to us so we can find out if Pakistan did something we bombed two other countries for.

Pakistan may turn these women over, but it would be within its rights as a sovereign nation to refuse.

[JI7]

50. i thought that was only during trial

[No Elephants]

52. Agree as to our Constitutional VALUES being ignored. However, I don't

know to what extent our laws govern our questioning Saudi(?)citizens in Pakistan (assuming that's where we want to question them).

The rule of law and a number of our Constitutional provisions certainly have been ignored as to U.S. citizens abroad and people within our own borders, though. So, I couldn't agree more with the following part of your post in that regard:

"It should seriously concern Americans how easily our system of justice is being ignored. Far more than the threat of a terror attack, which we can survive as a nation, as other nations have and do. What we will not survive as a nation is the destruction of what makes this country worth fighting for. And THAT is what is and has been since 9/11, the most serious threat to this nation."

I blame both government and everyone else who seems able to rationalize away almost anything if they approve of either the action or omission itself, or of the person responsible for the action or omission.

(Typo edits)

[sabrina 1]

57. Well, I'm sure we have agreements with other nations,

including Pakistan, regarding having access to witnesses in crimes against the US. If we respect Pakistan's laws, and negotiate legally with them, with the women have legal representation also, I don't see where there should be a problem. If people abide by the laws, these issues are simpler. But when we disrespect other nations, invade them, detain their citizens, torture them and generally act like the law doesn't apply to us, it becomes more complicated.

And that goes for other countries as well. And I agree totally with your last sentence.

[FreakinDJ]

35. Right - and Pakistan has an "Excellent record on Human Rights"

Shit - if you were a citizen in Pakistan you wouldn't dare write such inflammatory statements in fear for your life

Save the Grandiose Righteousness speech for some thing a little more reality based

[sabrina 1]

38. So now, it's 'righteous' to defend human rights on the

left? Each day I am shocked more and more by the total flip flop the 'left' is doing on the very issues they most claimed to be fighting for just a couple of years ago. Were we just pretending, because it was Bush? Was it all about politics after all? No principles involved? I wish I had known that if so.

Pakistan's record was something we USED to be able to criticize, but we are no longer in that position. As for being able to speak out, they do speak out, they have protests, peace organizations etc. And yes, sometimes they are attacked for doing so. Just like here. Have you seen the photos from the Repub and Dem Conventions here, the beatings and arrests that have taken place?

Please stop pointing fingers elsewhere until this country starts acting like a civilized nation that doesn't just TALK about democracy but actually practices it.

I'm sorry if you're offended that some of us have not changed our views on this country's human rights record and yes, I applaud this president for stating that we don't do torture. But I do NOT applaud his adaptation of Bush's Unitary Executive policies. And I'm not going to pretend to because he's a democrat.

[erikdane]

56. I totally agree

While Bush was President the big argument here was whether the War on Terror was a war or a police action. The opinion of DU used to be it was not a war, since Bush could claim the whole world as a battlefield and everyone, no matter where, could be killed as the enemy on the battle field. Now we have a Democratic President and all of a sudden there is no Rule of Law, the whole world is a battlefield and the President can order American citizens executed without a trial. Strange world.

[No Elephants]

51. The OP does not say where the U.S. wants to do the questioning. Defend Pakistan?

Pakistan hasn't even responded yet. However, if it does say "no," it would be within its rights.

[cosmicone]

55. It would be within its rights but

it will also reveal to the world that Pakistan is hiding and harboring a terrorist apparatus it governs.

[cosmicone]

18. Canada didn't refuse, Canadian court did

and it is on appeal.

Canada has laws. Pakistan is lawless.

Canada is refusing to hand over a Canadian citizen. Pakistanis would be refusing to hand over Yemeni and Saudi widows of bin Laden.

Lastly, the US only wants "access" -- i.e. an ability to interrogate. The US doesn't want them extradited.

It is brilliant because it proves Pakistan's guilt by refusal in the eyes of the world. Those who have nothing to hide will not stop the "access."

[sabrina 1]

25. Pakistan took these women into custody, they are now responsble

for their protection. A court in Pakistan can rule against allowing the US access to them just as a court in Canada did. And that is what should happen.

The US is not trusted anywhere when the word 'interrogation' is being used. I suspect Human Rights Organizations will back Pakistan on this should they decide to protect the women from any kind of interrogation by US forces.

I feel sorry for you in a way. Clearly you are unaware of how the world views the US at this point. Pakistan would be applauded for protecting those women from Abu Ghraib like tactics. The world is horrified by the US' torture policies, and does not trust that they have stopped since they will not prosecute their war criminals.

It would be a mistake for Pakistan to risk the safety and well-being of these women. The US just sent a drone to kill a man who has never had a trial and once again killed two innocent people. If you think the world has any sympathy left for this country, you are sadly mistaken. Pakistan will risk the anger of the civilized world IF they hand those women over to the US.

[cosmicone]

26. Responsible for protection?

hahahaha. The US only wants to INTERROGATE them -- not kill, injure or molest them. They will still remain in Pakistani custody.

[sabrina 1]

30. Yes, Pakistan is responsible for their protection.

They need to lay down conditions under which the US can speak to them. They need to have third parties present, we know that Blackwater thugs and the CIA 'interrogators' are in Pakistan, so no chances should be taken that these war criminals have any chance to abuse these women. The Red Cross should be present, Amnesty Int. the UN etc. and an additional condition should be the end of the illegal drone attacks on Pakistan's soil.

[cosmicone]

33. Pakistan is hardly in a position to make demands ... n/t

[sabrina 1]

39. Really? Pakistan is a sovereign nation. All sovereign nations

are in poisitions to make demands. They do it all the time. You're not questioning Pakistan's sovereignty are you?

[cosmicone]

54. Once a country is dependent on foreign aid and is caught

red handed harboring terrorists, sovereignty is iffy

[leftynyc]

59. Watch how fast

they either turn over or allow access to those women when the US threatens to turn off the aid. They don't give a shit about those women except for what they can bargain their access with.

[No Elephants]

5. Even Dummya stopped notifying Pak. of drone attacks. However as a DUer pointed out,

Pakistan has nukes it could give Al Qaeeda and/or the Taliban.

[lunatica]

11. Why in the world would they do that?

The problem with having nuclear weapons is that they can't ever be used unless a country wants to be wiped off the face of the planet. No country would be suicidal enough to give rogue government nuclear weapons.

[cosmicone]

23. +1000 Precisely n/t

[No Elephants]

41. ? Many nuclear bombs have been detonated with wiping countries off the face of the planet.

Besides, having nuclear weapons does not mean you have to use them. You get a certain leverage-and bravery--just by having them.

[cosmicone]

19. This fear of nukes going to Al Q'aeda/Taliban is overblown

and started by Pakistanis themselves for material gain.

If a Pakistani nuke falls into the wrong hands, it is more likely to be used against Pakistan itself rather than anywhere else.

[No Elephants]

42. Disagree as to Pakistan, but using nuclear weapons is not always the point of having them.

Only one nation has used them in war, but a number of nations have them without using them (apart from testging) and many nations want them without having any plan to use them.

[LiberalFighter]

2. I would think amongst all the documents and computer data they took

there should be some indication that Pakistan did or did not have bin Laden in their custody or otherwise knew about his presence.

[sharesunited]

7. It does, and we do already know. We just need to bump that intel up against the responses.

It is how we plumb the depths of the treachery.

[No Elephants]

4. Has any nation asked the U.S. for a perp's family members?

Then again, I guess not many nations give us direct foreign aid, labeled as such.


Edit for typo.

[JDPriestly]

10. We are asking to have access to them, to talk to them and question them.

They have information that will help us assess what was going on in the compound. It would be a simple courtesy to allow US representatives to talk to them. There is no harm in our talking to them.

They may have information that could save lives. They are identified as his wives, but we do not know what roles they played in his life or organization. Of course, we want to talk to them, and, of course, Pakistan should provide our government access to talk to them as much as we want.

They are potential suspects in a conspiracy to commit terrorism on top of it all. If not, if they were just wives who organized the household, they may want to talk to the world so that they can get on with their lives and not be branded as terrorists.

If they were political or ideological supporters of Bin Laden, we need to know where they are and perhaps request that they be prevented from committing terrorist acts or encouraging others to commit them.

So, I think that our request is legitimate and should be respected. If it isn't, then it suggests that Pakistan is hiding something.

[atreides1]

12. Didn't answer the question

Has any other country asked for access to families of Americans who might have commited crimes overseas...like the Blackwater mercs who were accused of killing Iraqi citizens?

I'm sure the wives and girlfriends had information that may have helped in the investigation...

[JDPriestly]

13. I wouldn't know, but I would guess that the Interpol offices in

different countries work together to investigate crimes like 9/11 and Al Qaeda's other crimes or acts of terrorism, however you may prefer to characterize them.

[No Elephants]

46. Apples and oranges.

[EFerrari]

20. Given that the US has an ongoing torture problem

it's not accurate to say there is no harm in our talking to them.

[fujiyama]

28. Much of the torture was done by client states

including Pakistan. The ISI is no stranger to torture. That would be a very disingenuous excuse. Besides, Osama's wives are not even Pakistani citizens.

[EFerrari]

29. They don't need an excuse. Pakistan is a sovereign nation

not a colony of the United States.

Regardless, we have no claim to being on the side of the angels and we won't until we deal with the torture program.

[JI7]

32. they get money from the united states

and are supposed to cooperate with us on these issues.

[sabrina 1]

40. They don't get money for nothing. How arrogant we

on the left have become. They are giving far more than that money is worth to them, such as, have you any idea how many of their own troops have died fighting OUR WOT?? How many of their innocent civilians, men women and especially children we've slaughtered with our cowardly drones landing on their soil? Do you consider that money to be worth more than the lives of those innocent civilians to the average Pakistani citizens? They have given you the answer, by their peaceful protests, their lawsuits, their demands that we stop killing their women and children. We Americans, we are always so right, so wronged by everyone, such victims! And we never see anyone else's pov.

No wonder Pakistan is rethinking its cooperation with our great, wasteful, WOT. That is what I fault them for, for ever cooperating with the wars this country started. When there are no takers anymore for those who view war as a solution to every problem, then maybe we'll have a better chance of resolving issues like grown-ups. The way Europeans have finally had to do amongst each other after centuries of violent conflicts. It can be done.

[JI7]

43. it's not all about us ,

[No Elephants]

53. I would not use " the left" as a blanket term. Posting here is no guaranty of being a

Democrat and being a Democrat is no guaranty of being "left."

Some are center right Democcrats; some seem more loyal to one or more individuals or to almost anyone whose name precedes a (D) than they are to any set of "left" principles. (Not saying their loyalties are right or wrong: People make different choices.)

I know you know all that. I am just explaining why I object to your characterizing "the left" as having become arrogant simply because you disagree with a few posters on this thread on this issue.

[No Elephants]

48. Define "cooperate" and "issues." No one has even alleged these women are terrorists

and "cooperate" doesn't mean "Do whatever I want." Accepting foreign aid does not mean you lose your sovereignty.

Do you think Obama would turn over Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Cheney? How about the wives of the Seals who entered Pakistan's sovereign borders without Pakistan's permission and shot several people besides Osama who were unarmed?

That may look like justice and, at most, collateral damage to us. To people in other nations, it may look a lot like murder and/or terrorism.

[No Elephants]

47. We tortured and had other nations torture on our behalf.

If Pakistan wants to torture on its soil on its own behalf for whatever reason or on our behalf for money and arms, that's between Pakistan, God and international law.

Nothing you've said has anything to do with Pakistan turning over people within its sovereign borders to us.

[No Elephants]

44. Strongly disagree that it would be simple courtesy.

Everyone understands perfectly why we want them: no one needs that explained.

I disagree with everything else in your post.

I'm not saying Pakistan won't or shouldn't turn them over, just saying this is a much more extraordinary "request" than you are portraying.

[msongs]

6. Our government can just go there and kidnap the wives. No problem right? nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. And announcing this request just put a bull's eye on their back.

[geckosfeet]

9. So are they all Mrs.bin Laden? Or is one the senior Mrs.bin Laden?

Or is it just Mrs.bin Laden #1, Mrs.bin Laden #2 and Mrs.bin Laden #3.

How would the interrogators address them?

Incurious minds want to know.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. So does Hustler and Penthouse.

Come on. You KNOW they would do it.