[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Who Turned Off The Gaslight?

Head Of Chase Bank Warns Customers: Era Of Free Checking Is Likely Over

Bob Dylan - Hurricane [Scotty mar10]

Replacing Biden Won't Solve Democrats' Problems - Look Who Will Inherit His Campaign War Chest

Who Died: Late June/Early July 2024 | News

A top Russian banker says Russia's payment methods should be a 'state secret' because the West keeps shutting them down so fast

Viral Biden Brain Freeze During Debate Sparks Major Question: Who’s Really Running the Country?

Disney Heiress, Other Major Dem Donors: Dump Biden

LAWYER: 5 NEW Tricks Cops Are Using During DWI Stops

10 Signs That Global War Is Rapidly Approaching

Horse Back At Library.

This Video Needs To Be Seen By Every Cop In America

'It's time to give peace another chance': Thousands rally in Tel Aviv to end the war

Biden's leaked bedtime request puts White House on damage control

Smith: It's Damned Hard To Be Proud Of America

Lefties losing it: Rita Panahi slams ‘deranged rant’ calling for assassination of Trump

Stalin, The Red Terror | Full Documentary

Russia, Soviet Union and The Cold War: Stalin's Legacy | Russia's Wars Ep.2 | Documentary

Battle and Liberation: The End of World War II | Countdown to Surrender – The Last 100 Days | Ep. 4

Ethereum ETFs In 'Window-Dressing' Stage, Approval Within Weeks; Galaxy

Americans Are More Likely To Go To War With The Government Than Submit To The Draft

Rudy Giuliani has just been disbarred in New York

Israeli Generals Want Truce in Gaza,

Joe Biden's felon son Hunter is joining White House meetings

The only Democrat who could beat Trump

Ukraine is too CORRUPT to join NATO, US says, in major blow to Zelensky and boost for Putin

CNN Erin Burnett Admits Joe Biden knew the Debate questions..

Affirmative Action Suit Details How Law School Blackballed Accomplished White Men, Opted For Unqualified Black Women

Russia warns Israel over Ukraine missiles

Yemeni Houthis Vow USS Theodore Roosevelt 'Primary Target' Once it Enters Red Sea


National News
See other National News Articles

Title: Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted [BeAChooser is Heartbroken]
Source: Washington Post
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy ... /04/05/AR2007040502263_pf.html
Published: Apr 5, 2007
Author: R. Jeffrey Smith
Post Date: 2007-04-05 22:50:34 by ...
Keywords: None
Views: 333
Comments: 43

Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials, and said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the one Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."

The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.

The CIA was not alone, the defense report emphasized. The Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that year that "available reporting is not firm enough to demonstrate an ongoing relationship" between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda, it said.

But the contrary conclusions reached by Feith's office -- and leaked to the conservative Weekly Standard magazine before the war -- were publicly praised by Cheney as the best source of information on the topic, a circumstance the Pentagon report cites in documenting the impact of what it described as "inappropriate" work.

Feith has vigorously defended his work, accusing Gimble of "giving bad advice based on incomplete fact-finding and poor logic," and charging that the acting inspector general has been "cheered on by the chairmen of the Senate intelligence and armed services committees." In January, Feith's successor at the Pentagon, Eric S. Edelman, wrote a 52-page rebuttal to the inspector general's report that disputed its analysis and recommendations for Pentagon reform.

Cheney's public statements before and after the war about the risks posed by Iraq have closely tracked the briefing Feith's office presented to the vice president's then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. That includes the briefing's depiction of an alleged 2001 meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence official and one of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers as one of eight "Known Iraq-Al Qaida Contacts."

The defense report states that at the time, "the intelligence community disagreed with the briefing's assessment that the alleged meeting constituted a 'known contact' " -- a circumstance the report said was known to Feith's office. But his office had bluntly concluded in a July 2002 critique of a CIA report on Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda that the CIA's interpretation of the facts it cited "ought to be ignored."

The briefing to Libby was also presented with slight variations to then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley. It was prepared in part by what the defense report described as a "junior Naval Reservist" intelligence analyst detailed to Feith's office from the DIA. The person is not named in the report, but Edelman wrote that she was requested by Feith's office.

When a senior intelligence analyst working for the government's counterterrorism task force obtained an early account of the conclusions by Feith's office -- titled "Iraq and al-Qaida: Making the Case" -- the analyst prepared a detailed rebuttal calling it of "no intelligence value" and taking issue with 15 of 26 key conclusions, the report states. The analyst's rebuttal was shared with intelligence officers on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but evidently not with others.

Edelman complained in his own account of the incident that a senior Joint Chiefs analyst -- in responding to a suggestion by the DIA analyst that the "Making the Case" account be widely circulated -- told its author that "putting it out there would be playing into the hands of people" such as then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, and belittled the author for trying to support "some agenda of people in the building."

But the inspector general's report, in a footnote, commented that it was "noteworthy . . . that post-war debriefs of Sadaam Hussein, [former Iraqi foreign minister] Tariq Aziz, [former Iraqi intelligence minister Mani al-Rashid] al Tikriti, and [senior al-Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shaykh] al-Libi, as well as document exploitation by DIA all confirmed that the Intelligence Community was correct: Iraq and al-Qaida did not cooperate in all categories" alleged by Feith's office.

From these sources, the report added, "the terms the Intelligence Community used to describe the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida were validated, [namely] 'no conclusive signs,' and 'direct cooperation . . . has not been established.' "

Zarqawi, whom Cheney depicted yesterday as an agent of al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war, was not then an al-Qaeda member but was the leader of an unaffiliated terrorist group who occasionally associated with al-Qaeda adherents, according to several intelligence analysts. He publicly allied himself with al-Qaeda after the U.S. invasion, in early 2004.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.

#7. To: nolu_chan, aristeides, bluedogtxn, Brian S, robin, christine, Diana, kiki, rowdee, Mekons4, AGAviator, Neil McIver, SKYDRIFTER, Burkeman1, angle, randge, Fred Mertz (#0) (Edited)

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials, and said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the one Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

It's Doug Feith and his Office of Special Plans that begs Congressional investigation. It's a President who blamed "faulty" CIA intel for the Iraq invsion that begs Congressional investigation.

The CIA did not give the White House bad intel. That was a flagrant lie by the President.

It was Doug Feith who knowingly gave the WH MANUFACTURED intel, and the WH ran with it inspite of the fact that the CIA disputed Feith's allegations.

Forget about the 8 fired political appointee lawyers. They represent "background music." True evil exists on the front stage. The Democrats have been given a mandate that they should not squander. They should go for the jugulars of these known traitors and they should bring them down. Put impeachment on the front burner, Nancy. America wants it, demands it.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-06   0:18:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: scrapper2 (#7)

The CIA did not give the White House bad intel. That was a flagrant lie by the President.

It was Doug Feith who knowingly gave the WH MANUFACTURED intel, and the WH ran with it inspite of the fact that the CIA disputed Feith's allegations.

For all intents and purposes, the WH ginned up its own intel. They created their own office of propaganda intel and said what they wanted to hear.

I'm not sure there is a great deal left to investigate. They lied the nation into war and the whole world knows it.

It would appear that the Intelligence Creator-in-Chief was Cheney.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-04-06   16:37:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: nolu_chan (#21)

For all intents and purposes, the WH ginned up its own intel. They created their own office of propaganda intel and said what they wanted to hear.

I'm not sure there is a great deal left to investigate. They lied the nation into war and the whole world knows it.

It would appear that the Intelligence Creator-in-Chief was Cheney.

The whole world may know what was done, but no one has been held to account for their actions. The Iraqi peoples and American soldiers have suffered mortal consequences due to the manufactured intel that caused the Iraq invasion, yet the people who manufactured the false intel as well as the leadership who acted on what they knew to be lies walk freely and have suffered no negative consequences for their actions.

IMO, GWB and Cheney should be impeached and Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz as directors of the Office of Special Plans should be tried for treason.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-06   19:56:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: scrapper2 (#22)

MO, GWB and Cheney should be impeached and Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz as directors of the Office of Special Plans should be tried for treason.

An attempted impeachment that cannot be sustained is counter-productive. The votes in the Senate are simply not there.

While not usual, a person may be impeached after they leave office. Secretary of War William W. Belknap was impeached in 1876 a month after he left office. By a vote of 37-29, the Senate decided it had jurisdiction to proceed despite Belknap's resignation.

There is a zero chance of sustaining a charge of treason against Feith and Wolfowitz. Treason is the one crime defined and limited by the Constitution. Treason can consist only of waging war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to her enemies. There must be at least two witnesses to the same overt act. The Framers intentionally made it extremely difficult to sustain a charge of treason, mindful of excesses regarding the charge as used by the British monarch.

There have been seven treason convictions in the history of the U.S. Two [John Brown/Thomas Dorr] were for treason against a state [Virginia/Rhode Island]. Two were subsequently granted presidential pardons. The three remaining Federal convictions are from World War 2.

Following the Civil War, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were indicted but neither case ever went to trial. Aaron Burr was tried for treason but not found guilty.

Well known cases (Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Jonathan Pollard, et al) have relied upon other charges such as espionage or sedition. An actual charge of treason is narrowly defined, generally not applicable, and usually cannot be made.

What some deserve and what is reasonably attainable may be different things. While it may be impossible to get hold of the jugular, death by a thousand cuts is still death.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-04-06   22:30:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: nolu_chan (#23) (Edited)

a. Even trying to start impeachment proceedings would guarantee a Democratic Party sweep in 2008. Some might call that result productive.

b. Treason - giving aid and comfort to the enemy - if a foreign nation wants our military to fight and die in a war for its security benefit,then that nation is our enemy and its agents who headed a department to manufacture intel for such a war are guilty of treason.

Regarding the 2 witnesses - I'm sure there are people who would testify that they personally witnessed this treasonous activity - Feith and Wolfowitz didn't make a secret of it and this arrogance caused them to preen in front of many people - possible witnesses off the top of my head might be Colin Powell or perhaps Karen Kwiatkowski or maybe someone from the CIA who was forced to falsify his reports about WMD in Iraq that did not exist ...I'm sure there'd be no shortage of witnesses to come forward to help take those 2 bastard foreign agents down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49647- 2004Dec8.html

scrapper2  posted on  2007-04-06   23:06:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: scrapper2 (#24)

b. Treason - giving aid and comfort to the enemy - if a foreign nation wants our military to fight and die in a war for its security benefit, then that nation is our enemy and its agents who headed a department to manufacture intel for such a war are guilty of treason.

I would have to respectfully disagree. For example, if Israel wanted our military to fight and die in a Middle East war which provided a benefit to Israel, legally speaking that would not make Israel our enemy, and there would be no alleged adherence to the third nation, for example Iraq or Iran.

There are few Supreme Court cases on treason because it is so difficult a case to make. Acts may satisfy criminal statutes which provide the death penalty, such as in the Rosenberg case.

Link

CRAMER v. UNITED STATES, 325 U.S. 1 (1945)

Treason of adherence to an enemy was old in the law. It consisted of breaking allegiance to one's own King by forming an attachment to his enemy. Its scope was comprehensive, its requirements indeterminate. It might be predicated on intellecutal or emotional sympathy with the for, or merely lack of zeal in the cause of one's own country. That was not the kind of disloyalty the framers thought should constitute treason. They promptly accepted the proposal to restrict it to cases where also there was conduct which was 'giving them aid and comfort.'

'Aid and comfort' was defined by Lord Reading in the Casement trial comprehensively, as it should be, and yet probably with as much precision as the nature of the matter will permit: '... an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemies of the King in the conduct of a war against the King, that is in law the giving of aid and comfort' and 'an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the King and of the country to resist or to attack the enemies of the King and the country ... is ... giving of aid and comfort.' Lord Reading explained it, as we think one must, in terms of an 'act.' It is not easy, if indeed possible, to think of a way in which 'aid and comfort' and be 'given' to an enemy except by some kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation.
Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy - making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength - but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

* * *

Every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses. The two-witness principle is to interdict imputation of incriminating acts to the accused by circumstantial evidence or by the testimony of a single witness. The prosecution cannot rely on evidence which does not meet the constitutional test for overt acts to create any inference that the accused did other acts or did something more than was shown in the overt act, in order to make a giving of aid and comfort to the enemy.

* * *

It may be that in some cases the overt acts, sufficient to prove giving of aid and comfort, will fall short of showing intent to betray and that questions will then be raised as to permissible methods of proof that we do not reach in this case. But in this and some cases we have cited where the sufficiency of the overt acts has been challenged because they were colorless as to intent, we are persuaded the reason intent was left in question was that the acts were really indecisive as a giving of aid and comfort. When we deal with acts that are trivial and commonplace and hence are doubtful as to whether they gave aid and comfort to the enemy, we are most put to it to find in other evidence a treacherous intent.

* * *

The history of treason in this country down to the Constitution has been recently developed in Hurst, Treason in the United States, (1944) 58 Harv.L.Rev. 226. We do not stop to explore that field. But Professor Hurst's researches make plain that prior to the revolution the influence of 25 Edw. III was strong in the colonies and that, if anything, the scope of the offense was somewhat broadened. The Revolution changed matters. The Continental Congress recommended more restrictive legislation to the colonies which limited treason to levying war and adhering to the enemy, giving him aid and comfort. Id., p. 247. No form of treason by compassing was retained. Id., p. 252. Distrust of constructive treason was beginning to be voiced ( id., pp. 253, 254) though in some colonies treason was so broadly defined as to include mere utterances of opinions. Id., pp. 266 et seq.

============

Link

EX PARTE BOLLMAN, 8 U.S. 75 (1807)

'Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.'

To constitute that specific crime for which the prisoners now before the court have been committed, war must be actually levied against the United States. However flagitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, the distinct offences. The first must be brought into operation by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that, in a case reported by Ventris, and mentioned in some modern treatises on criminal law, it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying war. It is true that in that case the soldiers enlisted were to serve without the realm, but they were enlisted within it, and if the enlistment for a treasonable purpose could amount to levying war, then war had been actually levied.

It is not the intention of the court to say that no individual can be guilty of this crime who has not appeared in arms against his county. On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.

Crimes so atrocious as those which have for their object the subversion by violence of those laws and those institutions which have been ordained in order to secure the peace and happiness of society, are not to escape punishment because they have not ripened into treason. The wisdom of the legislature is competent to provide for the case; and the framers of our constitution, who not only defined and limited the crime, but with jealous circumspection attempted to protect their limitation by providing that no person should be convicted of it, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court, must have conceived it more safe that punishment in such cases should be ordained by general laws, formed upon deliberation, under the influence of no resentments, and without knowing on whom they were to operate, than that it should be inflicted under the influence of those passions which the occasion seldom fails to excite, and which a flexible definition of the crime, or a construction which would render it flexible, might bring into operation. It is therefore more safe as well as more consonant to the principles of our constitution, that the crime of treason should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases; and that crimes not clearly within the constitutional definition, should receive such punishment as the legislature in its wisdom may provide.

nolu_chan  posted on  2007-04-07   4:49:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 32.

        There are no replies to Comment # 32.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]