Blair's evidence of bin Laden's guilt nothing but old news stories and
leaps of logic
by Stephen Gowans
One dark morning a few weeks ago I stepped into a cab. The cab driver,
keenly following the news of the aftermath of September 11th, had been
listening to radio reports all night. But he tore his attention away from
the tragedy, and we began to chat idly.
As used car and donut signs whizzed by, the sonorous voice of the radio
news announcer broke in on our conversation. That day's lead story was the
Taliban's reply to Washington's ultimatum to hand over Osama bin Laden. We
both pricked up our ears as the news announcer began.
"The Taliban has agreed to hand over Osama bin Laden," the announcer said,
"but is asking Washington to show clear evidence of bin Laden's
involvement in the September 11th attacks."
Eminently reasonable, I thought. If there's evidence pointing to bin
Laden's complicity, he should be turned over, and prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law. There's plenty of evidence that he's been
behind terrorist attacks elsewhere - in Kosovo, in Macedonia, in Bosnia,
in Chechnya, and in Dagestan, in those instances, with the full knowledge
For example, on May 4th, 1999, The Washington Post reported that in 1998
"State Department officials labeled the KLA a terrorist organization,
saying it bankrolled its operations with proceeds from the heroin trade
and from loans from known terrorists like bin Laden...The officials
charged that the KLA used terrorist tactics to assault Serbian and ethnic
Albanian civilians in a campaign to ruthlessly induce Western media
sympathy and achieve independence."
On June 22, 2001 The Washington Times reported that a bin Laden
representative "is the main financial supporter of the National Liberation
Army," the NLA, which has terrorized Macedonia.
In November, 1998 The Sunday Times reported that bin Laden operated a
terrorist network out of Albania.
On September 24, 1999 Agence France Presse reported that bin Laden was
granted as Bosnian passport in 1993. The report pointed out that "Islamic
fighters battled alongside Muslim soldiers in central Bosnia against
Of course, bin Laden's connection to terror attacks elsewhere doesn't mean
he plotted the September 11th attacks, but if there's credible evidence he
did, he should be held to account for those attacks, and for his
involvement in other terror operations too, including those in the Balkans
and central Asia. Indeed, bin Laden's support for terrorism in the Balkans
should have been stopped long ago. Instead, Washington let bin Laden's
terrorism go unchecked, even siding with him against the victims.
But as I soon discovered, my view wasn't shared - not by the cab driver,
not by the news announcer, and certainly not by Washington.
"Evidence! What evidence do you need?" the driver sputtered in
exasperation. "The evidence is staring you in the face."
Others, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz would later
make the same claim. Bin Laden's culpability is so plain that asking for
evidence is like asking for evidence that Michael Jackson has had
But as the days rolled by, the initial acceptance that Washington didn't
need to produce evidence started to fray at the edges, and some reporters
and some current and could-be US allies began to ask questions. Are you
going to show us the evidence that bin Laden's involved? "Sure," said
Secretary of State Colin Powel. "Soon." But that promise, was, a few days
later, followed by a retraction. Powel couldn't present the evidence, he
explained. Security concerns. Disclosing the evidence would compromise
Allies flocked to Powel's rescue. "We don't need evidence," they said.
"We're convinced it was bin Laden." Of course, anyone who made the equally
lame statement, "I'm convinced it's not Osama bin Laden, and I don't need
any evidence," would be hooted down with well-deserved derision. So why
not leaders like Canada's Jean Chretien, or NATO chief Lord Robertson?
Perhaps recognizing that Chretien's and Robertson's idiocy was doing more
harm than good, Tony Blair, Britain's Prime Minister, and Washington's
junior partner, declared that he had seen the evidence, and it was
powerful and incontrovertible.
Yesterday, Blair disclosed the evidence to the public, laying out "in 70
damning points...the complete evidence (showing) the direct complicity of
Osama bin Laden in the terrorist attacks of September 11th."
Someone should tell Blair that restating allegations is not the same as
Blair's 70-point brief, if you take the time to sift through it, is
nothing more than a rehash of old newspaper stories, innuendo, leaps of
logic, and a restatement of the charges, with a significant part of bin
Laden's history and connection to "international terrorism" left out.
Sixty of Blair's seventy-points have nothing whatever to do with the
September 11th attacks, but offer an incomplete history of bin Laden , his
movements, and Al-Qaeda. There's nothing on the Saudi millionaire's
connections to terror campaigns in the Balkans or Chechnya or Dagestan.
The greatest detail is provided in describing the 1993 attacks on US
military personnel in Somalia and the 1998 attacks on the US embassies in
Nairobi and Dar es Salaam , as if establishing bin Laden's connection to
those attacks, proves he was behind the New York and Washington attacks.
And then Blair offers something significant: "Mr. bin Laden has claimed
responsibility for the attack on US soldiers in Somalia....; for the
attack on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August of 1998." But
he hasn't claimed responsibility for the September 11th attacks. Quite
the opposite - he denies responsibility. That's something Blair doesn't
You could see a particularly dim prosecutor making the same kind of case
against a bank robber, and being excoriated by the judge for wasting the
Court's time. "Well, Butch here, robbed a bank in L.A. in 1993, and
another in Phoenix in 1995. He's admitted to both robberies. And while he
denies he robbed the bank in Sydney, Australia two weeks ago, it must be
him because he robbed those two other banks here in the US. "
Is Blair's case any different?
After plowing through 60 points of background we finally get to the meat
of the document, or what's supposed to be a thick, succulent slab of
evidence, but turns out to be a disappointing piece of warmed over shoe
Points 61 through 69 deal with the September 11th attacks. They're mostly
a rehash of what anyone who reads a daily newspaper will already have read
- 19 men are identified as the hijackers of which three are linked to
al-Qaeda, etc.. Sensing perhaps that by this point anyone who's taken the
time to read the brief will be throwing their hands up in exasperation,
crying, "You haven't told me anything new," Blair introduces this
bombshell: "There is evidence of a very specific nature relating to the
guilt of Mr. bin Laden and his associates that is too sensitive to
What? I've gone this far, plowing through a document that purports to
present incontrovertible evidence, but has presented none, only to be told
at point 62 of 70 that, "We have evidence, but we can't tell you what it
But Blair's not done. There are seven more points to go. Having
established that bin Laden is connected with previous terror attacks
against US targets, in Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania, Blair says in point
65, "The attacks of September 11 are consistent with the scale and
sophistication of the previous attacks."
Huh? Has he been briefed on what happened that terrible day?
The attacks of September 11th were on a much bigger scale and involved
infinitely more sophistication and coordination and cunning and daring
than car bombings. Comparing previous attacks to the September 11th
attacks is like comparing the sniffles to viral pneumonia.
And isn't there an astonishing leap of logic here? Evidence of Bin Laden
being involved in previous attacks, does not constitute evidence that he
was involved in the September 11th attacks, especially given the previous
attacks were nothing like the September 11th attacks. Blair's simply
saying, "Bin Laden's a bad guy. Therefore, he must be involved. He's done
this kind of thing before," not much different from the dim prosecutor who
points to an accused's previous crimes as evidence of culpability for some
current crime. I don't know about you, but in my books - and in a court of
law -- that hardly counts as overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence.
Blair's argument about September 11th having the marks of a bin Laden
operation is made in point 64: "The modus operandi of September 11th was
entirely consistent with previous attacks."
No it wasn't. For one, Blair says bin Laden claimed responsibility for the
Somalia, Tanzania and Kenya attacks. But the Saudi millionaire has denied
responsibility for the New York and Washington attacks. That hardly seems
consistent. And the previous attacks were attacks on American targets in
foreign countries. This was an attack on US soil. That, too, is
inconsistent. Moreover, most attacks bin Laden has some connection to,
have been directed at Serbs, Macedonians and Russians, not Americans, a
point Blair is silent on.
What's more, no one would deny that the September 11th attacks were
unique. Nothing like the operation has ever been done before. So how can
it be said to be like previous bin Laden operations? This wasn't like any
Wrapping up, Blair declares in point 69 that "no other organization has
the motivation and the capability to carry out attacks like those of
September 11," but what evidence does he offer? None, which, it seems, is
only to be expected from Blair. I can think of plenty of organizations
that have the resources to pull something off like September 11th , none
of them a rag-tag band of people living in tents in an enormously poor and
backward country, that has never mounted an operation of this scale and
So, weeks after I first heard the news report that the Taliban had
demanded evidence of bin Laden's involvement in the September 11th
attacks, we're no further ahead. Nothing has changed, except that
Washington and its junior partner in London are a little farther along in
their plans to launch a major military operation, directed ostensibly at a
man and organization they can't, or won't, provide evidence of being
involved in the September 11th attacks. Meanwhile, Washington, and many of
its allies, have taken a good many steps toward crafting legislation to
limit civil liberties, and towards shoveling billions more into the
pockets of defense contractors. In Bush's case, there's been ground made
on the tax cut front, with promises to cut taxes even more generously for
the wealthy, as a means of "stimulating an economy weakened by the
attacks," but it may be more accurate to say he's made a good start in
making over the US to benefit the wealthy in a way he would never had been
able to do in the absence of September 11th. And significantly, with the
establishment of a substantial military presence in central Asia underway,
Washington will soon crack the nut of securing access to the trillions of
dollars of oil wealth locked beneath the Caspian Sea.
A lot has been accomplished in a few short weeks by those whose interests
lie firmly in oil wealth, lower taxes, defense spending, and muzzling what
was becoming a bothersome anti-globalization movement. But those weeks
have come and gone, and despite promises that the proof was forthcoming,
despite Paul Wolfowitz's claim that the evidence was plain to see, despite
Blair's 70-point restatement of the allegations, we still have no more of
a sound basis to believe that bin Laden was behind the attacks than we did
that dark morning I stepped into the taxi cab to hear the Taliban agree to
hand over bin Laden if Washington could present proof.
Proof? Who needs proof? Washington says, "Trust us. Trust Tony Blair. Have
we ever lied?"
Mr. Steve Gowans is a writer and political activist who lives in Ottawa,
ININ List Archives Found Here: http://www.egroups.com/messages/inin
To subscribe please e-mail majordomo@...
In the body type: "subscribe inin-net"
To unsubscribe please e-mail majordomo@...
In the body type in: "unsubscribe inin-net"
ISLAMIC NEWS AND INFORMATION NETWORK: HTTP://WWW.ININ.NET
WE AFFIRM THAT INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE!!!!
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was
not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not
speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the
Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for
me, and there was no one left to speak for me." - Pastor Martin Niemoller
regarding the Nazi reign.