Did Bradley Manning Almost Blow The Operation To Capture/Kill Osama Bin Laden?

My it's a small world...

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/did-bradley-manning-almost-blow-the-operation-to-capturekill-osama-bin-laden/

(quote)

.....So the other night, I’m on Twitter and one of my fellow bloggers, who prefers to remain nameless, put up a couple of links in a post. I dutifully clicked on them and saw this short article on The Guardian’s website detailing information from one of the latest Wikileaks of Gitmo files, here is the paragraph and sentence that caught my eye…

According to the document, Libi fled to Peshawar in Pakistan and was living there in 2003 when he was asked to become one of Bin Laden’s messengers. The document says: “In July 2003, detainee received a letter from designated courier, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, requesting detainee take on the responsibility of collecting donations, organising travel and distributing funds for families in Pakistan. stated detainee would be the official messenger between and others in Pakistan. In mid-2003, detainee moved his family to Abbottabad (Pakistan) and worked between Abbottabad and Peshawar.”

<...>

WikiLeaks released the report last week, prompting speculation that the US, afraid that its planned raid might be preempted, brought forward its attack.

.............
here is the article in question...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-abbottabad-hideout

and that the US government has known about it for years.

All it confirms is that we have known *WHO* to find(to get to Osama) for years. And that Osama might have been warned by Wikileaks that we knew about *WHO* and scram.

that the USG has been failing to act on knowledge of OBL's supposed whereabouts for years, and you want to blame Wikileaks instead of the USG for it. Ignorance is bliss.

Plus, it was all the ISI! While taking billions in US aid, they were harboring OBL, and it was all their idea. To blame them alone is logical! To apply the same logic to the USG and see evidence of the ISI collaborating with their sponsor to maintain a useful myth for both sides would be mad, mad I tell you!

I think he was ill and perhaps under someone's protection.

It is also possible that he was killed because Wikileaks would have caused people to question whether, in fact, we had made a deal with someone to just leave his surveillance up to Pakistan.

There are a lot of possible explanations here. Yours is only one.

Think how embarrassing it would be for the US government if we were to learn that the Bush administration found out where Osama was and made a deal that Pakistan would watch him or even take control of him and we would stand by?

I have been trying to understand the reaction of the leaders of the Bush administration. They act as though Obama's killing Bin Laden was a double-cross of some sort, as if they are being cheated out of credit for their work.

I'm looking for an explanation for that reaction.

Of course, we will never know. But I would be cautious about adopting the assumptions you are adopting. There are too many other possible explanations.

More likely they were afraid that the public was about to discover that US intelligence agencies have known Bin Laden's whereabouts for years and, once again, failed to act. This might have lead to a greater awareness of the terrorist/security state symbiosis. In other words, people might have started asking tough questions which could lead to unpleasant answers about where our money is going and why our rights are being eroded.

Rec to 0. This is pretty crazy of a report. The fact that Abbottabad was mentioned directly could have prompted Bin Laden to bail.

and quick link to the paragraph. it's pretty concise.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/87933-interrogation-file-of-abu-faraj-al-libi.html#document/p5/a17091

So far, no evidence whatsoever has been brought against Bradley Manning, only the pronouncement that he is "guilty." For some reason, they choose not to bring the man to trial :eyes:

And, as noted upthread, apparently they've known for 3 years where "Osama bin Laden" was holed up and chose this exact moment in time to "kill" him with no documentation whatsoever of that "death."

And the trial is upcoming.

Do you actually think they would arrest Manning with no evidence, and detain him without any charges?

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Please stop spreading dis-information about Manning; it serves no purpose.

perhaps you think a trial is a "mere formality," but in this country we DID have the tradition of "innocent until proven guilty" (one of our quaint rules of law by which we USED to abide).

I thought he was not (and YES, it's obvious we not only hold people without charging them -- Guantanamo is full of them -- but also kill them -- "OBL" is only one example) -- and I took the poster's word for it that charges had been brought. My bad?

Mant here refuse to, or don't understand that Manning has, indeed been charged with a crime, and that he is being detained until trial.

Manning is no different than thousands of people charged and held pending trial in this country.

He is presumed innocent until then, but he is not allowed to be free on bail under UCMJ.



For everyone that thinks Manning has yet to be charged with a crime...

First set of charges, please note the date:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/releases/army-issues-formal-charges-against-bradley-manning

More charges followed:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/02/national/main20038464.shtml

No evidence to the contrary will change a closed mind.

Guantanamo is full of people who have been basically kidnapped for years (some as long as 10 years) without charges being brought, and many of them have been killed without evidence or trial.

Does it have a name?

Enemy - Al Qaeda
Began - September 11, 2001
End - Full surrender of enemy forces

As a note: Since our enemy is not a signatory party to any of the Geneva Conventions of warfare, we revert back to the rule that existed from the 1500s-on that states that if you do not kill our prisoners of war we will not kill yours. Since all of our soldiers captured in battle have been executed, we have every right to "liquidate" the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. It is merely our kindness and "Western Values" that keeps them alive.

And is he also subject to the summary execution you say can also be visited on everyone in Guantanamo?

And is being held for trial under the UCMJ. Manning is not a prisoner of war from an enemy power. He is a US soldier charged with some serious crimes.

As for revealing - what does it reveal? I believe we should follow the historical precedent that existed prior to the Geneva Conventions if the enemy isn't a signatory party. This is how this nation fought the Revolution, War of 1812, and Civil Wars. It's simple and was very effective in past wars - treat our soldiers you captured well and we will treat yours well. The enemy in our case has killed them all.

You can believe every official story about the enemy, and still see that. AQ is a bunch of independent cells. Extremists often plot without any direction or collaboration with an organized group beyond themselves or their cell. "People who hate you and usually share an ideology" is not an enemy in a war that can be defined or ever put to an end. Calling that a war is a prescription for eternal war against enemies to be named as you go along.

You leave out the mass killings of civilians in the Middle East in which the US has routinely engaged, long before September 11th, and continuing to this day at an enormous number of dead for every US soldier killed.

You also leave out the indisputable fact, to be gleaned from the military's own Guantanamo files that were also perhaps released by this hero, Bradley Manning (who fulfilled his oath by NOT covering up criminality), that the majority of men at Guantanamo landed there in random sweeps, and never committed any hostile action against the US. Which the military is well aware of.

Basically, any barbarism seems justified, long as you can identify the ones doing it as "your" side.

For the record, I don't believe in the GWOT. I just said that because I'm sick and tired of the self-righteousness anti-USA bullshit some here spout. I'm a Democrat because I want to stop the economic Reign of Terror John Boehner and his gang have planned for this country, a nation I love and have served.

"You leave out the mass killings of civilians in the Middle East in which the US has routinely engaged, long before September 11th, and continuing to this day at an enormous number of dead for every US soldier killed."

That's hard to top.

US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are invaders and occupiers. It's wrong to kill them, but in combat you can't call it murder. You want to have it both ways: you claim there is a formal war (not started by the US) that you can define in terms of the supposed rules of war, but anything anyone other than the US side does in response to an invasion of their homeland is illegitimate.

Do you deny that the US has been involved in hostilities against countries in the Middle East long before September 11, 2001?

What would you do if the Iraqi army was occupying your town?

It's not over the top at all. It's the "civilized" rule that existed for hundreds of years. When one side starting killed prisoners, the other was obliged to do so to enforce the rule.

You can go on and on but I'm not listening. I am too busy consoling a good friend who is suffering with the loss of his son from the war. As I said up thread, my focus is on stopping Boehner and his gang from screwing this country over. I'm not going to debate you on the wars. I opposed them when they began, but at this point, I have too many people I know in it to disparage their conduct. Three of them never came home alive.

Hardly.

WikiLeaks Reveals Secret Files on All Guantánamo Prisoners
http://wikileaks.ch/gitmo/

. . . that Manning downloaded classified documents and released them to a third party. But NO evidence or link has yet been made between Manning and Wikileaks.

As to your question, "Do you actually think they would arrest Manning with no evidence, and detain him without any charges?" Manning caused considerable embarrassment for numerous government officials. Do I believe they would go to just about any lengths to stop him from further embarrasi8gn them so? Yes.

So we capture these folks, use what ever means including torture to "extract" information and then aren't following the leads they provide? This detainee was captured in 2005, was assessed on 8 Dec 2006 and again on 10 Sep 2008 and they still hadn't checked out the lead of UBL in Abbottabad? I'd be interested to know when he outed UBL being in Abbottabad. Makes me wonder how many other torture tips we're sitting on.

We never knew 100% that Bin laden was in the compound, so the intelligence community wanted to keep gathering evidence that would justify why they conducted a very high risk raid inside another sovereign country who is technically (trustworthiness is lacking) an ally. This mission had many ways it could have ended up like the one in Mogadishu, Somalia.

I hope that cleared everything up for you.

or story concerning Saddam Hussein GW Bush used to launch the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq?

that the Obama administration stumbled on UBLs possible location last year. With the recent publication of the wikileaked docs on Gitmo it became urgent to get their man and they did. Had the leaked doc not been released, perhaps the UBL mission would have been yet in the distant future. Maybe with a cooperative Pakistan govt. Maybe that's why they hadn't acted yet from August, maybe they wanted Pakistan to bring him in?

I also believe Bush never intended on finding UBL as he needed to continue war after war to ensure his and other's oil wealth. I believe UBL's capture would have been the last thing GW would have wanted.

into English...

More details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden#Name

That has always confused me too. I'm glad I finally found out the answer on Wiki.

Want to see a name with even more spellings?
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/spelling.htm
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/language/roman1.htm

figures anymore.

Unthinking obedience to all authority = bad.
Unthinking resistance to all authority= bad.

Keeping the boy in prison was the right call. Though forcing him to strip was a bad PR move, IMHO.

Here is emptywheel's run down:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/05/03/tracking-the-courier-through-hassan-ghul/

Does propaganda know no shame?

shows that a soft white underbelly has been exposed.

There are those who have their talking points ready. Ann Coulter will find a way to blame "liberals" for the 10 years of OBL mythology leading up to the death announcement. Criminals of the Bush regime will find a way to connect it to their justifications for torture. Fred Phelps will blame gay. And national security and secrecy fetishists will claim Manning must somehow be at fault. Documents from Wikileaks indicate the USG knew about the location of "OBL" five years ago. That should get you worked up about the USG, not Manning! The same logic that blames the ISI leads straight to the idea that the USG also knew where he was (proceeding from the conclusion that people in the ISI must have protected the "OBL" location, the same logic suggests the conclusion that their US sponsors were happy with that). Quick, time to focus on Manning! (Better yet, project emotions on to anyone who disagrees! Sad sophistry.)

As if you didn't.

appear to have much fiction they must maintain for each of their respective citizenries back home that there was no collaboration in these long closing chapters of events. The Raymond Davis saga was an extremely inconvenient example of that.

domestic equivalent of the hit job just done to OBL. Maybe Manning will be shot while "trying to escape." No doubt, half the folks here at DU will be celebrating it and whooping it up (same as they've done for the extra-judicial execution of OBL).

in 2008 and possibly again in 2009.

US troops were yards from Osama bin Laden house in 2008 – WikiLeaks files

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/03/us-bin-laden-hideout

I love this one: "Didn't know it."

CBS
Cables: U.S. near bin Laden in '08, didn't know it
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20059681-503543.html

Yes, as you say, my what a small world.

to entertain the notion that we would not have scouted out the neighborhood a few hundred yards round before we set up camp.

Thought that was supposed to be a real "unusual" lookin structure.

and it took lots of tedious work to find out his actual name, so I don't think wikileaks would have jeaprodized the mission.

After enough time has passed, though, the pseudonyms are probably more identifying than any name a man is born with.

Incidentally, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq literally means "piour scholar, servant to God, the creator of all things." :shrug: