U.S. preparing to charge Iran with "HARBORING" al-Qaeda suspects who Iran has under ARREST

[bigtree]

Saturday, February 10, 2007; Page A01

U.S. in Bind Over Men Held by Iran

Accusation of 'Harboring' Could Anger Tehran Into Freeing Al-Qaeda Targets

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer

Last week, the CIA sent an urgent report to President Bush's National Security Council: Iranian authorities had arrested two al-Qaeda operatives traveling through Iran on their way from Pakistan to Iraq. The suspects were caught along a well-worn, if little-noticed, route for militants determined to fight U.S. troops on Iraqi soil, according to a senior intelligence official.


The arrests were presented to Bush's senior policy advisers as evidence that Iran appears committed to stopping al-Qaeda foot traffic across its borders, the intelligence official said. That assessment comes at a time when the Bush administration, in an effort to push for further U.N. sanctions on the Islamic republic, is preparing to publicly accuse Tehran of cooperating with and harboring al-Qaeda suspects.


U.S. officials have asserted for years that several dozen al-Qaeda fighters, including Osama bin Laden's son, slipped across the Afghan border into Iran as U.S. troops hunted for the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. U.S. and allied intelligence services, which have monitored the men's presence inside Iran, reported that Tehran was holding them under house arrest as bargaining chips for potential deals with Washington.


But the names of some of the men in Iran have become public, including "high-value" targets such as al-Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith of Kuwait and Saif al-Adel of Egypt. U.S. intelligence officials said they are members of the "al-Qaeda operational management committee." U.S. intelligence officials said there are suspicions, but no proof, that one of them may have been involved from afar in planning an attack in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in May 2003. Intelligence officials said bin Laden's son Saad is also being held with the other men in Iran.


"We are not convinced that the Iranians have been honest or open about the level or degree of al-Qaeda presence in their midst," said one Bush adviser who was instrumental in coming up with a more confrontational U.S. approach to Iran. "They have not made proper accounting with respect to U.N. resolutions, have not been clear about who is in detention and have not been clear as to what is happening to individuals who might be in custody."


Bush administration officials pointed to U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1373, which state that harboring al-Qaeda members constitutes a threat to international peace and security, and authorize force to combat that threat. The resolutions compel nations to share any information on al-Qaeda suspects and give the United Nations authority to freeze the assets of suspects and those who provide them with safe haven.


Two U.S. officials said the administration plans to argue that Iran is violating those resolutions. A team of senior U.S. officials has been holding briefings for visiting European diplomats on the issue while administration lawyers prepare options for holding Iran in violation of U.N. resolutions.


report : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902294_pf.html

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Iran offered Bin Laden's son to the US in a deal in 2003. Bush refused.

They want war so bad and I just don't know how this country will accept it. It will explode here and across the world if he does this pig headed thing.

[bigtree]

4. from August 2003

Bush administration paralysed over Iran

By Jim Lobe
Dawn International- 10 August 2003

WASHINGTON: Does the administration of US President George W. Bush still consider Al Qaeda and its associates the main target in its almost three-year-old "war on terrorism", or has its military victory in Iraq whetted its appetite for bigger game?

That is effectively the question that the powers-that-be in Iran appear to be posing to Washington at a critical moment in the war's evolution.

The administration appears deadlocked over an answer.

According to a series of leaks by US officials, Iran has offered to hand over, if not directly to Washington then to friendly allies, three senior Al Qaeda leaders and might provide another three top terrorist suspects that Washington believes are being held by Tehran.

But its price - for the US military to permanently shut down the operations of an Iraq-based Iranian rebel group that is on the State Department's official terrorism list - might be too high for some hardliners, centred in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office, who led the charge for war in Iraq.

Members of this group see the rebels, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) as potentially helpful to their ambitions to achieve "regime change" in Iran, charter member of Bush's "axis of evil" and a nation that is believed to have accelerated its nuclear weapons programme in recent months.

The question of what to do about the reported Iranian offer is one of the issues being discussed this week in successive visits to Bush's Texas ranch by Secretary of State Colin Powell (who returned from there on Wednesday), Cheney, and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902294_pf.html

[originalpckelly]

2. Um, yeah, Iran = Shi'a al-Qaeda = Sunni...

if you haven't guessed they haven't been getting along too well recently.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Will the proper authorities please convine a war crimes tribunal NOW?

These are the same games these guys have been playing since the misdirected foreign policy for Reagan. The US would not lend money to Nicaragua, so the US screamed bloody murder when Ortega went to the Soviet Union looking for help. Just put them in a rhetorical can't win situation.

The Bushies should sit down and shut up. They have completely lost their credibility with everybody except the 30% of Americans who think Bush is an annoited saint. There is nothing they can do or say to convince the teaming global masses that that their words are true or their intentions honorable or even that have any clue what they are doing.

Bush and Cheney should be locked up before they do anything more -- like exercise a nuclear option against Iran. Global security depaends on it.

[frogcycle]

6. well put, jr

[Edweird]

8. You're dead on,

but it has to happen from within, not from outside our country. Even though others may have the authority, they don't have the ability to arrest dipshit. He's surrounded by too much security. We have to do it. NOW.

[HuffleClaw]

5. MEEEEP

exactly the sort of sinister weaseling to be expected. will it work?

[MetaTrope]

7. Why's Bush complaining? The BFEE doesn't need to pay them now

[lovuian]

9. Bush better be careful here

Who knows who we are harboring

[bigtree]

10. kick

:kick: