Revolt in Paradise

CHECK THIS OUT, YOU GUYS..

9/11 ORIGINS
Why protect the Saudi royal family and Pakistani military?
BY GERALD POSNER
posner@posner.com
On Wednesday, President Bush admitted officially for the first time that the CIA held some foreign terror suspects abroad. In his remarks, he spoke about Abu Zubaydah, whom I discussed at length in Chapter 19, ``The Interrogation,`` of my 2003 book, Why America Slept.

Bush acknowledged some of the information I disclosed, that Zubaydah was wounded when captured, that he did not initially cooperate with his interrogators and that eventually when he did talk, his information was, according to Bush, ``quite important.``

Bush credits Zubaydah with helping, in part, to capture terror kingpin Khalid Sheik Mohammed, giving information that stopped a previously unknown terror strike from happening, and providing details about other al Qaeda operatives.

But Bush did not mention what I had disclosed -- that Zubaydah had also named three Saudi princes -- one of whom was the king`s nephew -- and the chief of Pakistan`s air force, as his chief contacts in those two countries. Moreover, Zubaydah told American investigators that two of those he named -- and for which he provided their private telephone numbers -- had advance knowledge about the 9/11 attacks.

It would be nice to pursue the investigation of these men, but all four named by Zubaydah are now dead. As for the three Saudi princes:

• The king`s 43-year-old nephew, Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz, died of either a heart attack or blood clot, depending on which report you believe.

• The second, 41-year-old Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, died the following day in a one-car accident.

• And the third Saudi prince named by Zubaydah, 25-year-old Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, died, according to the Saudi Royal Court, ``of thirst.``

The head of Pakistan`s Air Force, Mushaf Ali Mir, died together with his wife and fifteen of his top aides when his plane blew up -- suspected as sabotage -- in February 2003.

Bush did not refer to any of this in his comments. Not surprising, since the 9/11 Commission did not mention the dead men named by Zubaydah. Moreover, as I revealed nearly three years ago, the CIA extracted the information from Zubaydah by pulling off a ``fake flag`` operation, in which Zubaydah thought he was in Saudi custody and gave the names of the princes in an attempt to get himself freed.

Moreover, U.S. interrogators used pain killers to induce Zubaydah to talk -- they gave him the meds when he cooperated, and withdrew them when he was quiet.

Bush did not give particulars, but did say, ``We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful.

``I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful and necessary.``

Why does Bush, and the CIA, continue to protect the Saudi royal family and the Pakistani military, from the implications of Zubaydah`s confessions? It is, or course, because the Bush administration desperately needs Pakistani and Saudi help, not only to keep Afghanistan from spinning completely out of control, but also as counterweights to the growing power of Iran.

The Sunni governments in Riyadh and Islamabad have as much to fear from a resurgent Iran as does the Bush administration. But does this mean that leads about the origins of 9/11 should not be aggressively pursued? Of course not. But this is precisely what the Bush administration is doing.

The president should not be allowed to selectively trot out parts of Zubaydah`s ``confessions`` to support the CIA`s interrogation techniques, without talking about Zubaydah`s naming of Saudi royals and Pakistani military officers. The victims of 9/11 deserve no less than the complete truth as the fifth anniversary draws near.

Gerald Posner is a journalist and author of Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11.

...but that harkens back to Plato`s republic. Indeed, the gaps can be bridged.

#164 by masadi

Therefore, we can conclude that an Islamic society would have a counsel where the public consults with the decision makers, the decision makers would be the ones ``who know`` (as deduced above) i.e. are qualified in the area in which they are making decisions. The decision makers would be numerous, unless one person claims to know everything in all fields, which is impossible. A counsel of intellectuals with no limit to their numbers that are in constant touch with the public and consult with them is thus the Islamic form of government.

Thanks. I fully agree.

At the same time I want to acknowledge your bringing into attention the following verse, which W. Somerset Maugham repeated (or realized) centuries later in the words that ``the most widely held opinions are most likely to be wrong than anything else``.

6:116 Were you to follow the common run of those on earth, they will lead you away from the way of Allah. They follow nothing but conjecture: they do nothing but lie.

Zeemax <<< So what is the means of Governance as mandated by Quran? >>>
Actually I did an article on it which can be read here

Why are the people of Thailand, who are not even oppressed except in the South, accepting a military coup and rejecting democracy? This image is from Bangkok. Noone knows what`s happening in the South. It is under a journalistic blackout.

#160 by masadi

Masadi, I`m a bit perplexed with your answer.

You have rejected my thesis of governance i.e it is only to be by the person ``Who is the best in deeds`` as being the Quranic injunction. You have said that it is not for man to judge who is the best in deeds but ``best of you in the sight of God`` so it has nothing to do with either rulers or governance.

I also hear you when you say ``Quran says consult with them on the conduct of affairs ~ who gets to decide affairs on various levels is also an `affair`.`` Absolutely correct.

At the same time you appear to agree with me about conventional democracy not being representative of the `people` which is actually ``consulting with them on the conduct of affairs.`` as you pointed out above.

So what is the means of Governance as mandated by Quran? I could give you a dozen examples of how the four caliphs governed successfully a vast empire but you wouldn`t accept those arguments in light of your rejection of Islamic history. If Quran is a complete mode of existence, which I do believe it to be, what about Governance?

#160 the same arguments can be given in favour of Dictatorship. Did not Mushy give a similar set of reasons, zia before him, and several others before them.

Never knew youcould end up supporting dictatorships.

Zeemax <<< My purpose was to highlight the difference between ``Who amongst you is the best in deeds`` as against `` Who amongst you has the most votes``. >>>

Voting is presented as an indicator of democracy but it certainly is not. Democracy implies in its essence that people whose lives are affected by decisions have a say in those decisions, as the Quran says ``consult with them on the conduct of affairs``~ who gets to decide affairs on various levels is also an ``affair``, and if they are programmed to think in certain ways, as in the US, manipulated by the media or are uneducated then democracy cannot exist regardless of the voting that takes place. Being `best in deed` is for God to determine where humans become invoved in that it is quite subjective and success in one position cannot easily translate into success in another and of course all this leads to sectariansim and divisions. Also nobody is best in everything so he will be going beyond his ``bestness`` on most major issues, power therefore should not be centralized in the person of one man or a group of elites, and the verse on the ``best of you in the sight of God`` when related to the system of governance is a wide stretch from what the verse is saying, which has nothing to do with either rulers or governance.

#156 by masadi

My purpose was to highlight the difference between ``Who amongst you is the best in deeds`` as against `` Who amongst you has the most votes``.

I maintain democracy does not work because it cannot work due to inherent flaws in its basic makeup i.e. numerical superiority regardless of how achieved amongst not even the entire adult population but only the registered ones, and from those too only amongst those who turned out to cast their votes. That results in tyranny of a few since it is no problem for oligarchs to get the most votes. However when the duly elected oligarchs themselves begin to work against vital interests of the state or the tide of widespread public opinion, the military steps in as in case of the Thailand coup or even the judiciary as may perhaps be the case in India. While judicial intervention can be counted as `system of checks & balances`, military interventios certainly cannot be termed as such.

As for ``...how are you going to determine which one is best ...``, the answer should not be difficult. Past performance is a good indicator of future performance. In the early days this was determined by a council of prominent opinion leaders; in the present days an example is the candidacy of Ahmedinijad based on his performance as mayor of Tehran. However, the `supreme` leader there remains the top spiritual figure and not the elected President.

Above model works in Shia Iran, but should evolve in other Muslim states as well since this eliminates oligarchies.

#157 Chavez marketing the Chomsky book. Bush marketing the Mush book. Friends marketing books for friends. So what is the problem with that?? :-)

Re: # 136 {``...Mush`s saying this at this particular time requires analysis. Why did he need to announce this at this point? ...``}

Again, you ask a timing question. You are implying political timing in your question. But have you considered the matter of market timing? Yes, follow the money. Who knows the general may have generated this limelight to sell his book. After all, Bush endored its sale, ``BUY the book`` he said into the TV camera.

Some people have neither principles nor shame. Read Ayaz Amir to see what I mean.

...SR

Zeemax writes <<< Both the instances which you mentioned i.e. people imploring judiciary or welcoming military coups, most recent in Thailand, is because democracy doesn`t work. Period. People want a higher morality which mere politicians cannot deliver. There are too many pressures on them for votes.

That is what Islam has been saying all along. The ruler can be the only one ``who is the best in Deeds``. >>>

If the military (which is just as corrupt) or the economic (which is super corrupt) interferes with the political it ensures that the political institution will never mature and will produce just such problems as you mention. This does not mean that ``democracy does not work``, it means, it is not allowed to work.

Further, the verse in the Quran that talks about the ``best`` in the sight of God being the one with most Taqwa or social consciousness does not refer to the ruler but is addressed to everyone and it refers to the judgment of God, how are you going to determine which one is best, anyone can claim that for political purposes for himself or herself, know that only Allah is aware of the hidden and he does not liberally communicate with Mullah regardless of what Pat Robertson claims.

Re: # 153
[...That is my opinion. ..]

and your opinion sucks...:)... If politicians are bad - then people don`t have to vote for them... they have a choice...

It`s not about ``higher morality``... paki military has proved to be a greater evil than any politician could ever be... yet you pakis welcome them - that`s because you pakis have always welcomed such people througout history... it has nothing to do with morality...

Be as that may - supporting judicial ``activism`` is whole different thing than supporting a coup... because judiciary is very much the part of democratic setup... they are one pillar imprtant of the whole setup... they have a legitimate case to step in when required... that`s what is checks and balances all about... judiciary activism strengthens democracy by filling the void...

Military is not part of the democratic setup - it subverts democracy rather than strengthening it...

Does your islamic brain get it?... :)

as this case in UK prives judges can be corrupt as any other institution.

``











`Chilli-hot Brazilian found sex videos of judge snorting coke`
BY JENNY PERCIVAL AND PA








A ``chilli-hot`` Brazilian cleaner told a blackmail trial today of the moment she discovered a home made video of two judges having sex while the female snorted cocaine.



Roselane Driza, 37, told the Old Bailey that she discovered two videos made by her lover, an immigration judge known as Mr I.
One showed him having sex with a blonde woman. The other showed him and her former employer, another judge known as Miss J. According to Miss Driza the video, filmed in Thailand, showed Miss J snorting the class A drug and having intimate relations with Mr I.
She said: ``Because of what I saw in the video made me frightened. It seemed to me that she was using cocaine apparently and he (Mr I) was close to her. So I paused and put it away and I did not see any more.``
Earlier in the week Miss J denied being filmed having sex or taking cocaine.
Miss Driza said she offered to return the video featuring the blonde woman but not the other tape. She destroyed them after her arrest in October 2005 on blackmail charges.
The cleaner described how Miss J was so angry when she found out that she was sleeping with her former lover, Mr I, that she told him she was worthless and always drunk.
The prosecution claims that Miss Driza blackmailed Miss J by threatening to tell Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, that she worked as her cleaner for almost five years without a work permit.
She is also accused of blackmailing Mr I, to live rent-free at his home, and of stealing two home-made sex videos from him. She denies all the charges.
Miss Driza, who was dressed in a white lacy dress, black and white jacket, and long earrings, spoke through an interpreter.
Giving evidence on the fourth day of the trial, she recounted a telephone conversation she overheard between Miss J and Mr I as she sat on his lap.
She said: ``She knew I was with him. She asked if I was going to remain with him, if he was going to have a serious relationship with me, that I was just a f****** cleaner, I was interested in his position, in money.``
Asked how she had reacted to this, Miss Driza said: ``Very bad... even today.`` She added: ``It was very difficult for me sitting on his lap or at his side and he was calling me names.``
Asked what else Miss J said, Miss Driza said: ``That when I was at her flat when we were friends I used to say to her that I used to sleep with two men at the same time.
``So she said to Mr I that I was worthless. She said I was always drunk and I drink only cola juice.``
Miss J and Mr I both worked as asylum and immigration tribunal judges and lived together for five years before separating in 2000. They remained friends.
Miss Driza began cleaning Mr I`s house in 2001 and three years later they started a relationship and she moved in with him.
Their relationship continued until Miss Driza was arrested, at his house. In e-mails to Miss Driza, the court heard yesterday, that Mr I described her as ``real chilli-hot stuff`` and ``a lovely shag``.
Miss Driza claims that she was unfairly sacked by Miss J, so she could be alone with her new lover. ``I was working in the afternoon and J arrived early with him. They went straight to the bedroom and she was curious I was there. I do not think she expected me to be there. She said to me ‘Go, go, go’. She almost threw me out of the window.``
After the incident she received a telephone call terminating her employment. ``She said she didn’t require me any more and requested her keys back.``
She rang Miss J after listening to her message. ``I asked her what was happening and she told me she did not have to say what was happening. She said there was not a reason.
``I said I had been working for her five years - I wanted a reason, an explanation. She did not want to say anything and terminated the call.``
When Miss Driza rang her again, she said Miss J started shouting. ``She had lost control. She shouted ‘F****** Brazilian b****. F****** dirty woman’ and switched off.``
The Brazilian said she that believed that Miss J owed her an explanation and money after she was sacked. She never received an explanation and later asked for £20,000 compensation.
Miss Driza`s counsel, Frances Oldham, QC, asked: ``Compensation for what were you owed?`` The Brazilian replied: ``For the way I had been treated. Racism and discrimination. My distress and the calling of names and the bad words. All the damage - psychological. There is no money that could pay.``
She added she had worked for several people ``and she was the only one I had a problem with``.
Miss Driza told the court that Mr I had suggested the £20,000 figure to her. ``He said it was more than fair. At that time I took his suggestion because I always listened to him. But if I had to ask her without his opinion I do not think it would be less than £100,000 because there is no price for what she has done to me.``
She was paid £5 an hour when she started working for Miss J in 1999 which increased to £7. She was paid for one month`s holiday a year and expected one month`s notice if the agreement was terminated, Miss Driza told jurors.
She had also been dismissed by Mr I but when she went to his house just before Christmas to give him a card he said they could still be friends. A week later they were intimate.
According to Miss Driza, Mr I said he had to spend Christmas with Miss J because ``she was very depressive and is going to kill herself``.
Miss Driza described how Miss J discovered that the pair were lovers. On Boxing Day, she was at Mr I’s flat after 10pm when Miss J arrived ``like a volcano`` and started ringing the bell and looking through the kitchen window.
Miss Driza said she was sitting on Mr I’s lap in the corridor. He was pale and trembling but Miss Driza said: ``I was not afraid of her... she was furious.``

#148 by GT

GT,

Is there a pattern here? People, initially, supporting Mush. in Pakistan; support for fundamentalists almost everywhere and support for judicial fundamentalism especially in India. Can we learn something from this?

Of-course there`s a pattern in this.

Both the instances which you mentioned i.e. people imploring judiciary or welcoming military coups, most recent in Thailand, is because democracy doesn`t work. Period. People want a higher morality which mere politicians cannot deliver. There are too many pressures on them for votes.

That is what Islam has been saying all along. The ruler can be the only one ``who is the best in Deeds``.

That is my opinion.

Delhi`s air is breathable now because of the judges`s timely intervention... Supreme Court has stepped in where other institutions have failed... it`s not judicial fundamentalism - it`s common sense...

This police reform order is another example where the Supreme Court is yet again stepping in to do the right thing where the parliament[citadel of fools] has failed...