GITMO Show Trials

[Winstonm]

The best advice is to listen to those who lived under and knew firsthand the consequences of warfare to a democracy:

 

James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned that, "No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." Alex de Tocqueville echoed: "No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic society." If the United States Supreme Court neglects to reverse Al-Marri, the case will stand as a judicial sacrilege not only to the Constitution's understanding of "war," but also to twin truths of the Declaration of Independence: that all men are born with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that do not depend on the sufferance of the president; and, that legitimate governments are established to secure those rights, not to build empires or to go "abroad in search of monsters to destroy," in the words of President John Quincy Adams

 

And if you think allowing the executive sole authority to hold "enemy combattants", you may consider the following.

Foreign-owned hotels in China face the prospect of "severe retaliation" if they refuse to install government software that can spy on Internet use by hotel guests coming to watch the summer Olympic games, a U.S. lawmaker said Tuesday.

 

 

Rocky Mountain News, October 11, 2007:

The National Security Agency and other government agencies retaliated against Qwest because the Denver telco refused to go along with a phone spying program, documents released Wednesday suggest. .

 

The "exceptionalism" of America is its form of government - change that and there is only a presidential monarchy engaged in empire building, little different than King George.

[PassedOut]

Even during a "public trial" it can be difficult to understand what is really going on: Trial Enters Secret Session to Hear Defense Testimony

 

Harry H. Schneider Jr., a defense lawyer, held up a book and said he wanted to ask Mr. McFadden a question based on it.

 

There was a stir at the prosecution table.

 

“I’m told it’s classified, so I can’t ask you,” Mr. Schneider said.

 

The book was the 9/11 Commission Report, a former best seller.

Yes, a Kafka-esque trial for sure.

[PassedOut]

The New York Times has reviewed a new book documenting how the Bush administration -- under Cheney's direction -- pushed the US into lawlessness, false imprisonment, and torture: The Dark Side

 

The tactics the president denounced were precisely those he had authorized and encouraged in the growing network of secret prisons around the world. The detainees in these scattered sites — many of them innocent — have been held for months and years without charges, without lawyers, without notification to their families and often without respite from torture for weeks and months at a time. The Bush administration’s response to the Abu Ghraib scandal was not to stop the behavior, but to try to hide it more effectively.

Reaction to the criminality of the Bush administration does not reflect liberal or conservative thinking. It simply reflects one's reaction to evil.

 

Among the most courageous opponents of the use of torture was a small group of lawyers working within the Bush administration — conservative men, loyal Republicans, who in the face of enormous pressure to go along attempted to use the law to stop what they considered a series of policies that were both illegal and immoral: Alberto Mora, the Navy general counsel, who tried to work within the system to stop what he believed were renegade actions; Jack Goldsmith, who became the head of the Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 and sought to revoke the Yoo memo of 2002, convinced that it had violated the law in authorizing what he believed was clearly torture; and Matthew Waxman, a Defense Department lawyer overseeing detainee issues, who sought ways to stop what he believed to be illegal and dangerous policies. Waxman summoned a meeting of high-ranking military officers and Defense Department officials (including the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force), all of whom supported the restoration of Geneva Convention protections. Waxman was quickly hauled up before Addington and told that his efforts constituted “an abomination.” All of these lawyers, and others, soon left the government after being deceived, bullied, thwarted and marginalized by the Cheney loyalists. [italics mine.]

Dick Cheney explained the precise nature of the dangers of releasing many of those he caused to be imprisoned and tortured:

 

Even releasing detainees whom they knew to be entirely innocent was dangerous, since once released they could talk. “People will ask where they’ve been and ‘What have you been doing with them?’” Cheney said in a White House meeting. “They’ll all get lawyers.”

In my opinion, apologists for the Bush-Cheney regime can no longer hide behind claims of simple ignorance. There is something morally deficient in anyone who continues to support either man.

[blackshoe]

While I doubt I (or anyone else who is simply a member of the electorate, not privy to "government secrets") has anywhere near complete information, the previous post makes it look to me like Cheney is out of control, and Bush may or may not be an active participant. It may be that he simply isn't trying to rein Cheney in. I'm not a Bush apologist - not hauling Cheney up short is nearly as bad as actively participating in Cheney's rampage - but it's not clear to me exactly what Bush's involvement is.

 

If Cheney's "explanation" was accurately reported, it clearly does not justify continuing to hold those to whom it refers.

 

I found this interesting, in view of the current situation:

According to The Daily Princetonian, after the 2000 presidential election, "post-election polls found that, in the wake of Clinton-era scandals, the single most significant reason people voted for Bush was for his moral character."

See "Political Ramifications" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Clinton

[Winstonm]

In my opinion, apologists for the Bush-Cheney regime can no longer hide behind claims of simple ignorance. There is something morally deficient in anyone who continues to support either man.

 

More and more I lay the blame at the doorstep of Cheney's office, and once again I wonder where are the investigations and impeachment hearings when Sy Hersch writes that Cheney held a meeting in his office at which time the idea of a true "false flag" operation to build Iranian look-a-like boats in the U.S. and have Navy Seals dressed as Iranians attack a U.S. ship to provoke war with Iran, and Salon runs an article that questions the ABC News sources who pronounced totally without merit that Iraq had been tied to the anthrax letter attacks after 9-11.

 

Are these really the people to whom you want to grant more unchecked power, or is it time to rethink who should hold the powers already usurped by the executive branch by the claims of national security need?

[blackshoe]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

It would be interesting to see the outcome of a suit brought before the Supreme Court on the grounds that the current administration has violated this Amendment. B)

[Winstonm]

I am fairly certain that Kafkaesque is the correct term, because I woke up one morning in January of 2001 and the vice-president of these United States had changed into a monstrous vermin.

[PassedOut]

And the verdict is in: Guilty: 5 months left in sentence

 

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — Rejecting a prosecution request for a severe sentence, a panel of military officers sentenced the convicted former driver for Osama bin Laden to five and a half years in prison on Thursday. The sentence means that the first detainee convicted after a war crimes trial here could complete his punishment by the end of this year.

 

The military judge, Capt. Keith J. Allred of the Navy, had already said that he planned to give the driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, credit for at least the 61 months he has been held since being charged, out of more than six years in all. That would bring Mr. Hamdan to the end of his criminal sentence in five months.

NEXT?

[jtfanclub]

And it cost the government how much to prosecute him?

 

Can we get our money back?

 

For those of you who don't know, the original prosecutor refused to prosecute Hamdan because the prosecutor thought Hamdan was a small fish and not worth his time and effort. The government replaced him.

[Al_U_Card]

He may also have failed the "I don't recall being able to remember that, if indeed it ever happened." Justice dept. test. :ph34r:

[kenberg]

And it cost the government how much to prosecute him?

 

Can we get our money back?

 

For those of you who don't know, the original prosecutor refused to prosecute Hamdan because the prosecutor thought Hamdan was a small fish and not worth his time and effort. The government replaced him.

I don't think I want my money back here. I see it as a trial successfully concluded. Now we can argue about whether the crime of "aiding in the commission of terrorism", if committed on foreign soil by a foreign person aiding someone who regards himself as being at war with us, should be a crime punishable in the US. In fact, that was Mike's original question here.

 

I very much believe we need a serious discussion of how to deal with terrorists. We have little experience with it. If we believe we can make planning/aiding/supporting terrorism a US crime when the planning is abroad and the action is here, then the trial seems proper enough. We do plan on shooting Osama, do we not? Obviously this is a lesser fish, and that can be dealt with by imposing a lesser sentence. Why exactly is this wrong?

[Winstonm]

It is difficult to address all these misconceptions in one post but I shall try. :P

 

Obviously this is a lesser fish, and that can be dealt with by imposing a lesser sentence. Why exactly is this wrong?

 

First of all, being held without charges and subject to torture for coerced confessions is against U.S. law and international law. The fact that we are simply mimicking Stalin show trials in order to validate a criminal "war on terror" should not make one "Proud to be an American".

 

 

I don't think I want my money back here. I see it as a trial successfully concluded.

 

Then the concept of the rule of law must not hold has much sway with you as the law of vengeance and obfuscation of truth.

 

Now we can argue about whether the crime of "aiding in the commission of terrorism", if committed on foreign soil by a foreign person aiding someone who regards himself as being at war with us, should be a crime punishable in the US. In fact, that was Mike's original question here.

 

I very much believe we need a serious discussion of how to deal with terrorists. We have little experience with it.

 

Terrorism It is not a war or an act of war. Terrorism is a crime - simple as that.

If you don't believe me, here is the government's own think tank - RAND - and their study on how to fight terrorism:

 

The study, "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al-Qaeda," written by terrorism experts Seth Jones and Martin Libicki, followed more than 600 terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, over the long-term. The report concluded that the administration's war on terrorism has not significantly degraded al-Qaeda and that the group has morphed into a more formidable enemy. In fact, al-Qaeda has perpetrated more attacks after September 11, 2001 than before it.

 

RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders. This task is best carried out, according to the study, by law enforcement, intelligence, and, if needed, troops from the local country. Instead of giving terrorists the exalted status of warriors, they should be deemed criminals. In other words, the authors conclude that in most past cases in which terrorist groups have been defeated by getting their leaders, local law enforcement did the job. They say that when troops are needed, local troops have a better understanding of the culture and terrain and thus have more legitimacy than do U.S. forces. In fact, the study says that the presence of U.S. forces on Muslim soil can create more terrorists to fight; thus the authors argue that the U.S. military should confine itself to training the locals.

 

It is nice when government-paid researchers can provide empirical data to confirm what should have been obvious to any informed citizen years ago! After a major terrorist crime, such as the one on 9/11, the objective should be to get the perpetrators. The U.S. government should not militarily invade countries and try to change their form of government, economic system or money-making activities (for example, growing opium). This applies to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

I've been saying this all along and now that RAND agrees I rest my case.

[jtfanclub]

Obviously this is a lesser fish, and that can be dealt with by imposing a lesser sentence. Why exactly is this wrong?

Because we spent millions of dollars and five years of work for nothing. If he'd been found not guilty, it still would have been December until we released him. He simply wasn't worth prosecuting.

[pigpenz]

Obviously this is a lesser fish, and that can be dealt with by imposing a lesser sentence. Why exactly is this wrong?

Because we spent millions of dollars and five years of work for nothing. If he'd been found not guilty, it still would have been December until we released him. He simply wasn't worth prosecuting.

but he was found not guilty of the more serious charges...bascially he was found guilty of being Bin Ladens driver.

[kenberg]

It is difficult to address all these misconceptions in one post but I shall try. B)

 

Obviously this is a lesser fish, and that can be dealt with by imposing a lesser sentence. Why exactly is this wrong?

 

First of all, being held without charges and subject to torture for coerced confessions is against U.S. law and international law. The fact that we are simply mimicking Stalin show trials in order to validate a criminal "war on terror" should not make one "Proud to be an American".

 

 

I don't think I want my money back here. I see it as a trial successfully concluded.

 

Then the concept of the rule of law must not hold has much sway with you as the law of vengeance and obfuscation of truth.

 

Now we can argue about whether the crime of "aiding in the commission of terrorism", if committed on foreign soil by a foreign person aiding someone who regards himself as being at war with us, should be a crime punishable in the US. In fact, that was Mike's original question here.

 

I very much believe we need a serious discussion of how to deal with terrorists. We have little experience with it.

 

Terrorism It is not a war or an act of war. Terrorism is a crime - simple as that.

If you don't believe me, here is the government's own think tank - RAND - and their study on how to fight terrorism:

 

The study, "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al-Qaeda," written by terrorism experts Seth Jones and Martin Libicki, followed more than 600 terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, over the long-term. The report concluded that the administration's war on terrorism has not significantly degraded al-Qaeda and that the group has morphed into a more formidable enemy. In fact, al-Qaeda has perpetrated more attacks after September 11, 2001 than before it.

 

RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders. This task is best carried out, according to the study, by law enforcement, intelligence, and, if needed, troops from the local country. Instead of giving terrorists the exalted status of warriors, they should be deemed criminals. In other words, the authors conclude that in most past cases in which terrorist groups have been defeated by getting their leaders, local law enforcement did the job. They say that when troops are needed, local troops have a better understanding of the culture and terrain and thus have more legitimacy than do U.S. forces. In fact, the study says that the presence of U.S. forces on Muslim soil can create more terrorists to fight; thus the authors argue that the U.S. military should confine itself to training the locals.

 

It is nice when government-paid researchers can provide empirical data to confirm what should have been obvious to any informed citizen years ago! After a major terrorist crime, such as the one on 9/11, the objective should be to get the perpetrators. The U.S. government should not militarily invade countries and try to change their form of government, economic system or money-making activities (for example, growing opium). This applies to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

I've been saying this all along and now that RAND agrees I rest my case.

You address no misconceptions whatsoever.

 

You address: This is a lesser fish. This is not a misconception.

 

You address: It can be dealt with by a lesser sentence. Not a misconception either.

 

You address: I don't think I want my money back. I am better qualified than you to say whether or not I want my money back. You are qualified to say if you want your money back.

 

 

You address my assertion: We can argue about whether his actions should be a crime. I believe we can, and should, argue about that. I have no misconception here. I regard it as important to decide what constitutes a crime in this area.

 

You disagree with my views, that's fine. To call my views misconceptions is rhetoric rather than logic, to say you are addressing any misconceptions that I have is false. Disagreeing with you is not the same as having misconceptions. Not at all.

[kenberg]

Obviously this is a lesser fish, and that can be dealt with by imposing a lesser sentence. Why exactly is this wrong?

Because we spent millions of dollars and five years of work for nothing. If he'd been found not guilty, it still would have been December until we released him. He simply wasn't worth prosecuting.

I don't see it as nothing.

 

The government wanted a huge sentence, preferably life imprisonment. He was given five and a half years. This could well stimulate, and perhaps has stimulated, exactly the discussion that I think is very much needed. What constitutes a crime here? One could argue, perhaps with some logic, that the actions he performed are no crime at all. Mike so argues in his post. One could argue, as the government did, that his actions are very serious. I imagine there will be some debates about this, and I regard that as a very good thing. People will disagree here.

[Al_U_Card]

I don't see it as nothing.

 

The government wanted a huge sentence, preferably life imprisonment. He was given five and a half years.

Where are they to be incarcerated?

 

Who will care for them?

 

Who will pay for that care?

 

Who will receive payment?.....The Carlyle Group (Bin Laden and Bush crime families) ??

 

The largest "growth" industry in the US in the past five years has been prison/incarceration services. The graft that keeps on giving....

[Winstonm]

You address no misconceptions whatsoever

.

See below - a successful trial?

 

You address: This is a lesser fish. This is not a misconception.

Agreed.

 

You address: It can be dealt with by a lesser sentence. Not a misconception either.

 

Yes, but not via this military "show" trial that makes a mockery of justice.

 

You address: I don't think I want my money back. I am better qualified than you to say whether or not I want my money back. You are qualified to say if you want your money back.

Agree

 

You address my assertion: We can argue about whether his actions should be a crime. I believe we can, and should, argue about that. I have no misconception here. I regard it as important to decide what constitutes a crime in this area.

Agree

 

You disagree with my views, that's fine. To call my views misconceptions is rhetoric rather than logic, to say you are addressing any misconceptions that I have is false. Disagreeing with you is not the same as having misconceptions. Not at all.

 

Ken, this is the statement with which I strongly disagree:

 

I see it as a trial successfully concluded.

 

I do not view such kangaroo trials as successful. I don't think a discussion of any of the other points is relevant when these "military tribunals" and coerced confessions are accepted as "justice".

 

A former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Col. Morris Davis, highlighted the rigged nature of the process when he testified that senior Pentagon officials made clear to him that only guilty verdicts would be acceptable and that some high-profile convictions were needed to boost Republican electoral prospects.

[1eyedjack]

And the verdict is in: Guilty: 5 months left in sentence

 

GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — Rejecting a prosecution request for a severe sentence, a panel of military officers sentenced the convicted former driver for Osama bin Laden to five and a half years in prison on Thursday. The sentence means that the first detainee convicted after a war crimes trial here could complete his punishment by the end of this year.

 

The military judge, Capt. Keith J. Allred of the Navy, had already said that he planned to give the driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, credit for at least the 61 months he has been held since being charged, out of more than six years in all. That would bring Mr. Hamdan to the end of his criminal sentence in five months.

NEXT?

Did he get any remission for good behaviour?

[kenberg]

Winston, my calling it a successful trial does, no doubt, gloss over surrounding issues. To put it mildly, you may well say.

 

Some thoughts, not fitting into a complete picture.

 

The US, myself included, tend to ignore problems until they are thrust in our faces. Examples abound, but the issue here is terrorism and what to do about it. We were no more prepared for 9/11 than we were for Pearl Harbor. I think the starting place might well be "I'm not sure what the hell we should do".

 

Let's consider this guy. It is often mentioned that his education is minimal. So was my father's. At 12 my father was an immigrant and an orphan. He did not grow up to take a job driving for Al Capone. This "Gee, I didn't know nothing and was shocked, just shocked, to find that Uncle Osama was a terrorist" is a bit much. You lie down with dogs you wake up with fleas, maybe the five and a half year itch.

 

Still, giving him his day in court, such as it was, so late in the day is not cool. It has at least crossed my mind, and no doubt many minds, that the length of the sentence was chosen so that it would be slightly longer than time served.

 

So RAND thinks that it should be treated like a criminal matter? Then the guy gets life. Or death. Nobody involved in Oklahoma City got off with five and a half years as far as I know.

 

When Bush gave his first speech after 9/11, my suggestion was that he begin "The Great Satan is really pissed." But that is only one reason I am not president.

 

As you can see, I have conflicting thoughts. I have mentioned this before. I value proper respect for the role of law, I do. But the sons of bitches are trying to kill us. I don't favor letting them.

 

Last suggestion: I hope, but don't hold your breath, that each of our presidential candidates will address the issue of whether they believe the trial was fair and the sentence appropriate. They will probably do this right after they give a full accounting of their thoughts on social security.

[Winstonm]

I think the starting place might well be "I'm not sure what the hell we should do".

 

 

Ken,

 

I think this is a reasonable starting point.

 

As you can see, I have conflicting thoughts. I have mentioned this before. I value proper respect for the role of law, I do. But the sons of bitches are trying to kill us. I don't favor letting them.

 

I certainly understand and can empathize with these feelings; however, my take is that there can not be an excuse to ignore the rule of law - else we are no different that those we oppose; and lastly, the terrorists are a vast minority - granting them "warrior" status by holding a "war on terror" aids their cause. It is much better to treat them as what they are - criminal scumbags.

[mike777]

RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This task is best carried out, according to the study, by law enforcement, intelligence, and, if needed, troops from the local country. Instead of giving terrorists the exalted status of warriors, they should be deemed criminals. In other words, the authors conclude that in most past cases in which terrorist groups have been defeated by getting their leaders, local law enforcement did the job. They say that when troops are needed, local troops have a better understanding of the culture and terrain and thus have more legitimacy than do U.S. forces. In fact, the study says that the presence of U.S. forces on Muslim soil can create more terrorists to fight; thus the authors argue that the U.S. military should confine itself to training the locals.

 

It is nice when government-paid researchers can provide empirical data to confirm what should have been obvious to any informed citizen years ago! After a major terrorist crime, such as the one on 9/11, the objective should be to get the perpetrators. The U.S. government should not militarily invade countries and try to change their form of government, economic system or money-making activities (for example, growing opium). This applies to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

I've been saying this all along and now that RAND agrees I rest my case.

"u]RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders[/u]."

 

 

Winston in this quote RAnd says it wants to 1) kill a terrorist group,2) capture or kill its leaders......

 

 

But this is just what the world is screaming at us about.

 

Note you quote them saying nothing about gathering evidence in some legal way and giving them a trial. You quote nothing about due process or chain of evidence or ever bringing them into a court.

 

"In other words, the authors conclude that in most past cases in which terrorist groups have been defeated by getting their leaders, local law enforcement did the job. They say that when troops are needed, local troops have a better understanding of the culture and terrain and thus have more legitimacy than do U.S. forces. In fact, the study says that the presence of U.S. "

 

 

In fact we do try and do this, what more does Rand want us to do?

[Winstonm]

Winston in this quote RAnd says it wants to 1) kill a terrorist group,2) capture or kill its leaders

 

Mike, as usual your post neglects critical words in order to make something appear real that is not so.

 

The actual quote:

 

RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders.

 

In this sense, the interpretation for most would be that "to kill a terrorist group" would mean "taking the life from" or "destroying" a terrorist group and not the mass homicide of every single human in the group.

 

And this is done by capturing or killing its leaders.

 

Capturing its leaders in order to destroy a terrorist group is a far cry from the blood lust you cite....

[mike777]

Winston in this quote RAnd says it wants to 1) kill a terrorist group,2) capture or kill its leaders

 

Mike, as usual your post neglects critical words in order to make something appear real that is not so.

 

The actual quote:

 

RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders.

 

In this sense, the interpretation for most would be that "to kill a terrorist group" would mean "taking the life from" or "destroying" a terrorist group and not the mass homicide of every single human in the group.

 

And this is done by capturing or killing its leaders.

 

Capturing its leaders in order to destroy a terrorist group is a far cry from the blood lust you cite....

 

No one used the word blood lust but you..no one talks about mass homicide of every single group member but you..why do you keep making this stuff up..

 

Just have a civil conversation..

 

 

 

Winston as usual you seem to miss the main and really only point I made sigh pls read my posts in full. In fact you seem to ingnore it in full and make up your own strawman of a post.

 

I copied your quote and repeated it accurately.

 

"RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders."

 

Rand used the word kill twice, not me.

 

I will repeat my point since you do not address it at all. Your Rand quote says nothing about or even if they will have a trial. It said nothing about how to gather legal evidence or if they will even bother. It only says capture or kill.......the leaders and....kill the group.....

 

Assuming they do have trials I am concerned, gravely concerned they will be nothing more than show trials just as Mother Russia used to have...Guilty...now lets have the trail....

 

 

 

No one is stopping local law enforcement from going after terrorists. No one is stopping Pakistan or Afghan police from capturing Laden. In fact everyone is for this, are not you?

 

No one is claiming that foreign soldiers know the culture or terrain better, no one is claiming that having foreign soldiers invade your country will not cause or increase anger.....everyone agrees with this.....

 

 

"They say that when troops are needed, local troops have a better understanding of the culture and terrain and thus have more legitimacy than do U.S. forces. In fact, the study says that the presence of U.S. forces on Muslim soil can create more terrorists to fight; thus the authors argue that the U.S. military should confine itself to training the locals".

[Winstonm]

Note you quote them saying nothing about gathering evidence in some legal way and giving them a trial. You quote nothing about due process or chain of evidence or ever bringing them into a court.

 

How can someone quote "nothing being said"?

 

However, this was quoted:

 

The report concluded that the administration's war on terrorism has not significantly degraded al-Qaeda and that the group has morphed into a more formidable enemy. In fact, al-Qaeda has perpetrated more attacks after September 11, 2001 than before it.

 

RAND deduced that the best way to kill a terrorist group is to capture or kill its leaders.

 

So if you want to believe in the necessity for a "war on terror", at least use techniques that have a history of having worked instead of listening to the Bush/Cheney crowd:

 

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."

- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

 

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

 

"I am truly not that concerned about him."

- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,

3/13/02 (The New American)/