Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs - No Political Rants -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (174)	3/3/2003 11:55:09 AM
From: lorne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 504

Saudi envoy in UK linked to 9/11 Riyadh's former intelligence chief has been accused in US court documents of helping to fund al-Qaeda, report Paul Harris and Martin Bright Sunday March 2, 2003 The Observer It was another royal function on a cold February evening as Prince Charles mingled with the guests at the opening of an Oxford clinic. Among the doctors were a few celebrities, including the actress Joanna Lumley. Canapés were eaten, a few glasses of wine were drunk. 'I can't tell you all how pleased and glad I am to be here today,' Charles gushed. Charles stopped to chat with the new Saudi ambassador to Britain, the distinguished figure of Prince Turki al-Faisal. The two friends shook hands and exchanged pleasantries. But Turki is not what he seems. Behind him lies a murky tale of espionage, terrorism and torture. For, while Turki has many powerful friends among Britain's elite, he is no ordinary diplomat. Turki has now been served with legal papers by lawyers acting for relatives of the victims of 11 September. They accuse him of funding and supporting Osama bin Laden. The Observer can also reveal that Turki has now admitted for the first time that Saudi interrogators have tortured six British citizens arrested in Saudi Arabia and accused of carrying out a bombing campaign. The revelations throw a stark light on Turki's appointment late last year as Saudi Arabia's new ambassador to Britain. They also cast doubt on the suitability of Charles's relationship with senior Saudis. A year ago Charles had dinner with bin Laden's brother, Bakr bin Laden, and regularly hosted meetings for Turki's predecessor, Dr Ghazi Algosaibi, who was recalled after writing poems praising suicide bombers. The US lawsuit is seeking more than $1 trillion in com pensation from a list of individuals and companies alleged to have supported al- Qaeda. The claimants' head lawyer, Ron Motley, a veteran of successful anti-tobacco suits, has already called it 'the trial of the century'. Now, after papers were served on Turki several weeks ago, the Saudi ambassador will be at the heart of it. Legal papers in the case obtained by The Observer make it clear that the allegations are serious and lengthy. Many centre around Turki's role as head of the Saudi intelligence agency. He held the post for 25 years before being replaced in 2001 just before the attacks on New York. Turki admits to meeting bin Laden four or five times in the 1980s, when the Saudi-born terrorist was being supported by the West in Afghanistan. Turki also admits meeting Taliban leader Mullah Omar in 1998. He says he was seeking to extradite bin Laden at the request of the United States. However, the legal papers tell a different story. Based on sworn testimony from a Taliban intelligence chief called Mullah Kakshar, they allege that Turki had two meetings in 1998 with al-Qaeda. They say that Turki helped seal a deal whereby al-Qaeda would not attack Saudi targets. In return, Saudi Arabia would make no demands for extradition or the closure of bin Laden's network of training camps. Turki also promised financial assistance to Mullah Omar. A few weeks after the meetings, 400 new pick-up vehicles arrived in Kandahar, the papers say. Kakshar's statement also says that Turki arranged for donations to be made directly to al-Qaeda and bin Laden by a group of wealthy Saudi businessmen. 'Mullah Kakshar's sworn statement implicates Prince Turki as the facilitator of these money transfers in support of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and international terrorism,' the papers said. Turki's link to one of al-Qaeda's top money- launderers, Mohammed Zouaydi, who lived in Saudi Arabia from 1996 to 2001, is also exposed. Zouaydi acted as the accountant for the Faisal branch of the Saudi royal family that includes Turki. Zouaydi, who is now in jail in Spain, is also accused of being al-Qaeda's top European financier. He distributed more than $1 million to al- Qaeda units, including the Hamburg cell of Mohammed Atta which plotted the World Trade Centre attack. Finally the lawsuit alleges that Turki was 'instrumental' in setting up a meeting between bin Laden and senior Iraqi intelligence agent Faruq al-Hijazi in December 1998. At that meeting it is alleged that bin Laden agreed to avenge recent American bombings of Iraqi targets and in return Iraq offered him a safe haven and gave him blank Yemeni passports. Turki did not respond to phone calls and a letter sent by The Observer to the Saudi embassy in London. But his lawyers will have to respond in court. The case is expected to begin in May and experts think it could go on for four of five years. If it rules against him, Turki may face enormous compensation payments and the seizure of his financial assets. It would also cost him his post as ambassador. Coupled with the looming court case, Turki last week raised alarming questions over the treatment of six Britons jailed in Saudi Arabia when he admitted that they had been tortured. Turki was head of Saudi intelligence when the men were arrested. Saudi authorities claim the men were involved in a 'bootleggers' feud', despite the attacks continuing after their arrest and bearing the hallmarks of Islamic terrorists. In an astonishing call-in programme, carried on the BBC World Service and unnoticed in Britain, Turki fielded a call from a British resident of Riyadh who knew some of the imprisoned men. The caller confronted him about the torture allegations. Turki said: 'They were tortured and there was a complaint about it and that complaint would have been investigated.' The revelation has angered relatives of the men and campaigners, who have accused the British Government of sacrificing their freedom in the interests of good diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Last week the relatives met Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who told them that Britain would continue its 'softly, softly' approach. However, that news angered many. 'His stance is the same. He said softly, softly is working. But it has been two years. How much longer?' said one relative at the meeting. Lib Dem MP John Pugh has also tabled a series of questions about the men in Parliament, but said that Foreign Office officials had failed to answer them. 'I am being blocked,' Pugh said. Diplomatic sources say Pugh has also been asked 'privately' to stop his questions. Pugh has now applied to have the issue debated in the Commons. observer.co.uk

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (174)	3/3/2003 12:08:38 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 504

Was I That Stupid? by Gerald Posner This past weekend, millions turned out in cities worldwide for antiwar protests, the largest since the Vietnam war, by groups opposed to US military action against Iraq. Tens of thousands in the United States recently braved frigid east coast weather and almost half-a-million people marched through Florence and Paris in what was promoted as one in a series in many Europe-wide anti-war rallies. Many of my fellow Democrats have been gushing about the hordes that have taken to the streets, basking in nostalgia about the street demonstrations over Vietnam that were a factor in changing government policy in Southeast Asia. But the enthusiasm that the protests kindled in some seemed strange, as all they did for me was bring back shameful memories of my own political naiveté thirty years ago. In 1972 I was a freshman at UC Berkeley, then proud to boast it had the only city council in America that refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Carrying around baby-doctor Benjamin Spock?s leftist manifesto on Vietnam, I quickly became an activist during the next two years in immense antiwar protests that seemed almost daily occurrences at Berkeley. As a political science major I thought I had all the answers. The North Vietnamese were merely freedom fighters trying to liberate their country from the shackles of western imperialism. The US war was unjust and being waged against innocents. And Governor Ronald Reagan, who kept badmouthing us and sending in the tough Alameda sheriff's department to disburse the crowds, was somewhere right of Attila the Hun. Three decades later I have no pride in the memory of those protests. Rather, I wonder how it was possible to be so mistaken about real politics and world events. My political gullibility is an embarrassment. The so-called peace movement had completely deluded itself, conveniently ignoring any evidence that countered its agenda. How was it not possible to have seen that the North was a convenient tool for the Soviets to bleed the US and that it represented one of the most repressive old-line communist dictatorships since Stalin? What were we marching for three decades ago? Certainly not for the right of North Vietnam to invade neighboring Cambodia, killing tens of thousands of civilians in a brutal war of submission. Nor did we raucously protest so that two million Cambodians could be exterminated under the Khmer Rouge. Not many of us would have been so enthusiastic in Sproul Plaza had we known that the North Vietnamese secret police would imprison, torture, and kill tens of thousands of political prisoners in a futile, but barbarous, attempt to ?cleanse? the country of western influence. None of the tragedies that happened after the US withdrawal from Southeast Asia should have come as a surprise. But they did to those of us in the antiwar movement because we had blinded ourselves to any reality. Will today's current peace protestors eventually feel as foolish as I do? I think even more so. Weapons of mass destruction, a war declared on America by Islamic extremists, and a leader in Saddam who rivals the most thuggish dictators in recent history, changes the entire equation. Thirty years ago there was never a question of North Vietnam attacking America or its civilians around the globe. Our often-misguided peace demonstrations inadvertently assisted the communists in brutally reuniting the country. But today?s peaceniks, who seem to be more interested in protecting Saddam than in trying to prevent the massive loss of life on American soil if terrorists get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, are playing with much more dangerous consequences. They are deluding themselves to the post 9.11 realities, and in so doing, their success would put the country at considerable risk. Saddam must be delirious with joy to think that not a shot has been fired, and the same old suspects ? Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Ramsey Clark - are taking to the streets and leading many impressionable and idealistic young Americans in trying to stop a war that is, unfortunately, a necessity. Such demonstrations give Saddam the false hope that peace sentiment on the street will weaken the resolve of Western leaders, and the vacillation of allies like Germany and France only rekindle the shameful specter earlier European weakness when it came to dealing with its own fascist dictators a generation ago. The loose collaboration of leftists, anti-war activists, and anti-globalization proponents, must wake up. There are fundamentalists who would kill them without a second thought merely because they are Westerners. Appeasement gets you nowhere, as Europe learned from Hitler. I looked at the recent television images of thousands, almost in a party atmosphere, as they chanted their rhyming protests against a possible war. Was I that stupid? I hope not. Gerald Posner is a Miami and New York based journalist. His book, 'Why America Slept,' an investigation into what led to 9/11, will be published this fall. accessnorthgeorgia.com