posted on July 13, 2004 11:41:24 AM new
Why do you suppose he surrendered to the Saudis ? Amnesty for an Al Qaeda operative ? Will Bush allow his Saudi personal friends to keep these people ?
Suspected Militant Surrenders, Returns to Saudi
July 13, 2004 — By Sami Aboudi
RIYADH (Reuters) - A suspected Saudi al Qaeda militant, who had appeared in a videotape with Osama bin Laden, was flown back to the kingdom from Iran after he surrendered under a government amnesty, state television said on Tuesday.
It said Khaled al-Harbi, also known as Abu Suleiman al-Makki, had been on the Iranian-Afghan border and had contacted Saudi Arabia's embassy in Tehran in response to the amnesty.
Television showed a wheelchair-bound and bearded Harbi being carried off a plane on arrival in the kingdom with his family. It did not say when he surrendered or returned to Saudi Arabia.
A Saudi security source said Harbi was the man seen talking with Saudi-born al Qaeda leader bin Laden in a videotape in which the two praised the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. cities. He said Harbi had fought in Afghanistan and Bosnia.
"He is big in the sense that he is one of the Saudis that were close to bin Laden," the security source said, adding that Harbi had not been involved in a spate of militant attacks in Saudi Arabia claimed by al Qaeda.
Harbi was the third person to surrender since Saudi Arabia announced on June 23 a one-month government amnesty aimed primarily at militants who have attacked Westerners, government targets and energy sites in the world's biggest oil exporter.
Iran said Harbi was repatriated at his own request.
"Mr. Khaled al-Harbi..., following Saudi Arabia's announcement of an amnesty, entered our country illegally from a neighboring country and asked to be handed over to his own country," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a statement.
For over a year, Saudi Arabia has been battling militants loyal to al Qaeda, which carried out the September 11 attacks.
"I came in obedience to God and the (Saudi) ruler... There is no doubt that this is a gracious initiative by King Fahd and his crown prince," the bespectacled Harbi told Saudi television.
"There is no doubt this is an opportunity which every wise man who has faith in his heart should take advantage of and return to this country," he added.
The Saudi Interior Ministry said in a statement that Harbi did not have any official documents when he arrived at the Saudi embassy in Tehran. The mission had issued the necessary papers for him and his family to fly them home "after coordination with Iranian authorities," the statement said.
The ministry said Harbi had been in the Iranian-Afghan border region and contacted the Saudi embassy in Iran "expressing his readiness to take advantage of the royal amnesty." It said Harbi would be taken directly to hospital.
The security source said that Harbi was not among Saudi al Qaeda militants believed to be in Iranian custody.
Iran is holding several al Qaeda suspects but has not revealed their identities or nationalities. Riyadh has asked Tehran to repatriate any al Qaeda militants it may be holding.
posted on July 13, 2004 12:12:30 PM new
I think that what both you and CNN in it's rather inflammatory as well as facturally incorrect headline are missing is actually two-fold in this case.
1) They were not offered Pardons as CNN is stating and they are not being givien complete amnesty. They are being given amnety from international law and proscution HOWEVER they will still be judged according to Islamic law.
2) The amensty is given, not to international terrorists, but rather to those that have committed acts of terrorism within the Kingdom. He is going to have to prove his involvement in the planning in order to qualify and in so doing, will have to give up information which can be extrememly valuable in the coming months in shutting down fainancial sources as well as other cells.
Bush does not have a choice as to whether or not the Saudis keep him and if he has half a brain in his head, he is not going to say anything. the Saudis have opened up a pipeline to new information, Bush cannot and should not attempt to shut it down. the one thing you can be sure of is that with terrorist cells active within their kingdom, the Saudis are going to tell Bush to shove it before they go back on a publicly made promise for fair treatment forthose that return to their god and their country.
If you don't get that, you really don't have a clue.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 13, 2004 01:28:31 PM new
It doesn't make any difference what the amnesty terms are. If the Saudis take into custody any Al Qaeda big wigs, as this man seems to be, then the US will want them turned over.
The Saudi people will then protest against any turn over to the US. And the Royal family doesn't need anymore distance between them and the people of Saudi Arabia.
It places Bush in the position of either ignoring US wishes to bring these men into our custody or he has to take a stand against his family friends the Saudi rulers.
Regardless of the means by which the Al Qaeda members are brought in by another country, we will want the leaders in our custody to face our justice.
posted on July 13, 2004 02:08:49 PM new
The US can "want" all they would like to but the Saudis are not going to hand him over and the US is not going to put the Saudis in the position to have to refuse. They may ask to be granted access for questioning or to information garnered during questioning and I'm sure they would be given it but it is not in our best interest to put the Saudis in a position where they must distance themselves from us. We need them, they do not need us.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 13, 2004 03:27:45 PM new
Hey...maybe binladen will take advantage of this amnesty? Ya think?
-----------------
fenix - Because I trust that you are a fair minded person I have a question I'd like to know your answer to.
I've mentioned before that I don't hold a strong position on the Saudi's and why I've had trouble forming an opinion in this area. So...that being said...
Do you see the *U.S.* position with Saudi Arabia being different under different administrations? Like, in your opinion, do we or have we as a country acted differently with SA when a dem or rep party has been in office. Like was SA our enemy under clinton....and a friend under both Bush administrations?
posted on July 13, 2004 06:02:19 PM new
Reamond - it does not matter the public "wants" it or "demands" it. The Saudis are not going to put the health and welfare of the Kingdom at risk by going back on their very public word and the US government is not going to ask them to. They know they will be denied and the Saudis will be insulted and resentful at being put into such a position.
Linda - the answer to your question is that, No, I don't think our realtiontionship with the House of Saud has been remarkably different with this administration than with any other. We have always enjoyed a friendly relationship with them, we provided them with most of their military equipment, trained their airforce, our Army Corps of Engineers was there helping them with major projects and even during the Carter administration it was our AWACs flying overhead making sure their boundaries were safe.
Quite frankly I think that the paranoia regarding the relationship between the current adminstration and the Saudis is bunch of crap.
It is no accident that the majority of the hijackers were Saudi's. Bin Laden was exiled from his country and stripped of his citizenship as a result of his efforts to break the ties between Saudi Arabia and the US (ironically, this happened during the Bush Srs term). He knows that the House of Saud respects the relationship and will not sever it. The only way then to sever the relationship is to do it from the US side. Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, The House of Saud is there to stay but the US is a different story. If by loading the planes with Saudi hijackers he could turn US public opinion against the Kingdom he could create a rift in the relationship by means of the american political system. Dems are exploiting the rift to advance a politcal goal. Don't be mistaken though, republicans are exploiting it too by using the fears to justify the shreading of our Bill of Rights.
Isn't it ironic that bin Laden is using one of the very aspects of our society that he professes to depise to assist him in achieving his goal?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 14, 2004 12:01:22 PM new
In a way, this could be a good thing. If found guilty under Islamic law, the guy is likely to be beheaded...thereby saving us tax-payer dollars in trial and jail time...
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 14, 2004 12:02:59 PM new
Reamond - did you not pay attention to when I said in the post that they would be judged under Islamic Law (which by the way, is much more stringent than US criminal law). If not me, did you not pay attention whn the saudis first said this a month ago? The Saudi's did not "clairfy their position", your news source jus finally got around to giving you the whole story.
Are you so desperate for vngence that you are perfectly willing to sacrifice any future intelligence information that can be garnere by means of this amnesty and to sacrifice the lives of what could eaily become thousands of Saudi citizens as terrorist groups increase their attacks within the Kingdom in return for blatantly lying to their people?
What do you expect Bush to do? Demand he be turned over? Great, of course you know the Saudi's are going to say no which causes him public embarassment and forces him to take face saving measures that are counter productive to US Interests.
What is it that LOGICALLY could be done that would be in the best interest of this country. Enough with all of your railing .... lay it down... What should we do, what are the ramifications, why is it the right thing to do in the long term bet interest of our country?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on July 15, 2004 09:06:55 AM new
The Saudi spokesman came out with the clarification due to confusion.
Everyone knew that they would be prosecuted under Islamic law.
BUT, no one knew what the situation would be if an al Qaeda member surrendered and he had not committed ANY CRIMES AGAINST OR WITHIN SAUDI ARABIA.
So what becomes of the ones that committed crimes against teh U.S. but have not committed crimes against SA ?
Are you so desperate for vngence
You confuse vengence with justice.
What do you expect Bush to do? Demand he be turned over?
HAVE YOU NOT READ OR HEARD OF THE BUSH DOCTRINE ?
We invaded Afghanistan for not handing over terrorists. DID YOU FORGET THAT THE TALIBAN SAID THEY WOULD PROSECUTE ANY TERRORISTS UNDER ISLAMIC LAW TOO ?
posted on July 15, 2004 09:12:02 AM new
Did you also forget what happened when our military base was blown up in Saudi Arabia ?
The same thing happened. We were not allowed to interrogate the suspects. They were tried under Islamic law.
All the "intellegence" you seem to think we'll get will never come from the Saudis. Why do you think they will not allow us to interrogate the accused ?
The Johnson murder and deaths of his alleged abductors in SA stinks to high heaven, and we'll never get to the bottom of that.
