POLITICS: Congressman Suggests Bush Hiding Osama

Well, if it ended up being true, and he had been in US custody for a period of time, it sheds some doubts on the terror warnings he has supposably been giving to al jazeera/CNN/BBC for the past 3 years.

The last one i saw included a full page statment and rant about...well everything, which was posted in the "Sunday Telegraph" last month.

I'm sure it would boost Bush's popularity. This chart pretty much says it all:

BUSH APPROVAL RATING

Bin Laden was last known to be in one of the base's over in china. To be pre-captured sometime between now and the election.

Various news sources alledging the US has intentionally held prisoners without assigning them prisoner identification numbers or notifying anyone they were in custody. Basically, they fell off the face of the Earth once in US's custody.

news.bbc.co.uk...

abcnews.go.com...

www.reuters.com...


If this is true, then the US can have Osama Bin Ladden hidden anywhere.


Here's a link to the International Committee of the Red Cross's findings on the treatment of coalition forces of prisoner's of war and other protected persons, by the Geneva Convention during arrest, internment and interrogations (read the section 4.2)

www.globalsecurity.org...

Wasn't it around this time someone was trying to challange the Geneva Convention's protections , and Humanitarian Law, for terrorists/suspected terrorists so the US wouldn't be held liable for misconduct to detainee's?


Rumsfield statement:

usinfo.state.gov.../wf-latest.html

Ari Fleischer's statement:

www.whitehouse.gov...


So, they are technically justified in detaining a prisoner "secretly" without notification to families, or anyone, without being in violation of any code, or consequences.

On the flip side, many people discount anything the news tells us, choosing instead to believe any conspiracy theory that is put on the table.

Very true, thats why I just analyze things.

I guess it was put best in Signs when Mel Gibson said, "There are two types of people, 1. People that believe that events occur at random, are coincedence....2. People that believe everything happens for a reason..."

So, I'm going to make a prediction for a month from the election. I well then analyze the details surrounding the announcement. But, most likely, I will say sure they come out with him now right before the election...

Personally, I think if I captured Osama that it would be better to keep it under wraps. Osama was just the "terrorist name of the moment". There are bound to be many others just as determined and powerful as him, and he probably knows a majority of the major terrorists throughout the world. Bringing Osama to the light would only hinder any interrogation efforts on the U.S.'s part. Interrogation that could take place only if select people knew of the capture.

I dont think they will capture Osma alive if they have anything hidden waiting for the right time I think its evidence of his death. I dont see Osama pulling a Saddam and just give up I think he will shoot it out with special forces and get get killed.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I dont think they will capture Osma alive if they have anything hidden waiting for the right time I think its evidence of his death. I dont see Osama pulling a Saddam and just give up I think he will shoot it out with special forces and get get killed.

Agreed, finally someone making sense (as did the prior post). But if captured there is not a chance any interrogation would garner much. It's not like he would cooperate. Besides, what would we do with him afterwards? There just doesn't seem to be any point in the game that is suggested by this thread and seems to me such a game would cause more harm than good.

Has it occurred to anyone what could happen if Bin Laden was captured and this was announced? It seems to me there would be an immediate wordwide backlash from the sleeper cells and the repercussions would ultimately do far more harm to Bush than the benefits of the capture. In fact, this has worried me from the get go regarding a capture. No one has a grip on this worldwide network of sleeper cells and I would think there are directives in place for them in the event of Bin Laden's capture. I just can't imagine how bad it could get. Think about it.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I dont think they will capture Osma alive if they have anything hidden waiting for the right time I think its evidence of his death. I dont see Osama pulling a Saddam and just give up I think he will shoot it out with special forces and get get killed.

Agreed. I remember a while back, there was a report that he had given orders to those who travel with him to kill him if capture was imminent.

[edit on 2004-7-7 by Teknik]

The whole point of my above post was to show if a terrorist/suspected terrorist was captured, the US is not obligated to notify anyone of their capture as the Geneva Convention article does not offer protection for terrorists.

If Bin Ladden was captured, he would be classified as terrorist status and thus, his detainment wouldn't be protected under the Geneva Convention.

The articles alledges the US had over 100 "high value detainee's" in custody, "ghost" detainee's. The International Committee of the Red Cross has addressed the issue in their (my prior post) referenced report, in section 4.2, on "High Value Detainee's".

The US, has stated through Rumsfield and Fleischer's statement's these detainee's wouldn't be protected under the Geneva Convention article.

Legally, the US isn't obligated to treat these prisoners as they would treat "normal" POW's (including notification of their capture) based on their classification as terrorists.

Due to the fact that there hasn't been any media broadcast's by Bin Ladden, in quite some time, this has led to the speculation of his capture. The silence is deafening as it appears Bin Ladden is out of the loop.

Zarqwi appears to be the active forerunner these days.

Originally posted by mako0956
The whole point of my above post was to show if a terrorist/suspected terrorist was captured, the US is not obligated to notify anyone of their capture as the Geneva Convention article does not offer protection for terrorists.

Hmmmm... not really sure why that was directed at me unless for the fact that I didn't mention you were making sense too.

My statements were directed at the people who seem to feel Bush would pull Bin Laden out of a hat for political gain, and I find this to be ridiculous since it would more likely cause a backlash (not because people would suspect him of doing this but really because it would risk an escalation of the attacks.

Oh, and thanks for all those links BTW.

Well, let's play this out.

Suppose Usama was in custody, secertly. And suppose Zarqawi was calling the shots.

Why would he not call for all out worldwide strikes against the west in retaliation for his capture?

Believe me, I agree that the stuff would hit the fan were he to be captured and it was known by the jihadis

Then there's Zawahari. If he were still on the run, would he let it be known UBL had been captured/killed? If he were to assume the mantle, would he also not call for all out jihad?
Or would he be laying so low, that he wasn't able to communicate with the network for fear he was next.

It would seem to me, that both men are out of commision, and that they are being used as inspiration for the jihadis. It seems that at this point they are more useful as enigmatic figure heads by a lack luster leader (Zarqawi). Their capture is less inspirational then their martyrdom to the jihadis, so that fact is not being told by the network.

The Bush administration is just fine with that, as they know that were it to get out at this point all hell would break loose.

Is the news being saved for the October surprise? Tough call. I wouldn't put it past them, but releasing it close to the election could be counter productive as the $h!t storm that would cause right before the election would be less then effective.

Yes, I can see Bush puling Bin Ladden out of a hat for political gain merely because I can see the forthcoming backlash from announcing Bin Ladden's capture. This could work to his advantage and give the Bush administration some leverage in the election.

If Bush were to pull Bin Ladden "out of a hat" as you say, and the aggressiveness towards the US increases, the majority of US citizens aren't going to want the current administration to change hands and will vote for Bush. Fear will be this election's keyword. The media has already laid the groundwork on this one.

(Do you remember after 9-11 the majority of New Yorker's didn't want Guilliani to leave office despite his term expiration, they wanted him to continue on until things were straightened out at ground zero putting a damper on Bloomberg taking over?)

Originally posted by mako0956
(Do you remember after 9-11 the majority of New Yorker's didn't want Guilliani to leave office despite his term expiration, they wanted him to continue on until things were straightened out at ground zero putting a damper on Bloomberg taking over?)

Excellent point! I did forget this.

We do have a tendency to rally round the leader, regardless of who that is, in times of crisis.

We, as US citizen's are afforded the information on what the media deems as newsworthy. What appears to be the situation in Iraq from our standpoint will be totally different than from what someone, who is over there, is witnessing and actively involved with.

If they found Hussien in a foxhole, certainly, with US intelligence, they should have located Bin Ladden. I would be disappointed in the US military if the US didn't locate him and have him under wraps until the election.

Originally posted by mako0956
If Bush were to pull Bin Ladden "out of a hat" as you say, and the aggressiveness towards the US increases, the majority of US citizens aren't going to want the current administration to change hands and will vote for Bush. Fear will be this election's keyword. The media has already laid the groundwork on this one.

(

You make a very good point, but I don't see it at this stage of the game. I do think people would be fed up this time if they felt Bush had directly caused the backlash, and I do think they would see it that way. Too risky politically in my opinion.

If we're hiding Bin Laden for an opportune moment, I think the moment has passed.

...the "highly unlikely" category for me.

Note that McDermott said only that there were "already rumors" and Albright merely asked a conservative pundit a question. Anyone holding him would have to count on bin Laden's associates not finding out he'd been captured AND UBL himself not spilling the beans once it was revealed.

However, if you're looking for the best time to reveal something like this, think August: close enough to the election to have an impact; far enough away to avoid looking suspicious.

When it became clear Ken Starr was delaying a deal with Monica Lewinski, I predicted her deal would be approved in August with Clinton's testimony soon to follow. Actual deposition date: August 17

I hardly think Bin Ladden's crew needs to find out weither he's been taken captive. I'm sure if he was, they are informed as many of them would've been taken prisoner as well.

McDermitt has just as many news sources available to him as we, Joe Public do. I hardly think Bush and his administration would make a Congressman privy to issues of national security.

It appears Congressman Jim McDermott is not in a position to know what he is talking about.

Congresman Jim McDermott is a Psychiatrist from the state of Washington and is a member of the House Ways & Means comitee.

He is not in a position to have access to the intelligence information that would let him know whether or not bin Laden had been captured.

www.congress.org...