Six charged with attack on US ship (USS Cole)

[Khephra]

A Yemeni security court today charged six Yemenis with the planning of the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, saying they belonged to Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.

Seventeen American sailors were killed when two suicide bombers in an explosives-laden boat rammed the USS Cole as it refuelled in the southern Yemeni port city of Aden.

The bombing was blamed on Bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network and the US president at the time, Bill Clinton, asked recently whether the attack should have prompted a greater US response. The September 11 attacks came 11 months later.

Today was the first hearing in the trial of the Cole suspects. The trial, held in the Yemeni capital San'a, has already been delayed many times.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1255827,00.html

[Tellurian]

1. This story is a sleeper...

If the mastermind of the attack was captured 2 yrs ago, why has he been kept under wraps, away from any news coverage? The goings on here of the events strike me a odd!

"Among the six charged was the man accused of masterminding the attack, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is in US custody. The other five accused were in court.

Mr Nashiri was accused of planning and funding the attack on the Cole, a US Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, and training the cell members who carried it out.

The United States announced Mr Nashiri's arrest in November, 2002, saying he had been detained in an undisclosed country - later revealed to have been the Emirates - and transferred to American custody."

...hmmm...may be a sleeping bombshell.

[noonwitch]

2. Just think, they got these guys without invading any countries

So a whole lot of civilians didn't have to die to bring them to justice.

[Aidoneus]

4. What "justice"?

The Cole was responsible for enforcing a policy of genocide; what of "justice" for them?

[seemslikeadream]

3. from other thread

readmylips (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-07-04 08:34 AM
Response to Original message

1. Right, Now the repigs can shut the hell up about Prez Clinton.....

for not attacking Bin Laden and Saddam. Prez Clinton has stated many times that there was no credible intelligence to attack anybody for the USS Cole attack.



Minstrel Boy (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-07-04 08:45 AM
Response to Original message

2. Even as Bush was receiving confirmation of al Qaeda's role in the Cole


bombing, he discontinued the deployment of submarines which Clinton had stationed for more than two years within missile range of bin Laden's Afghanistan bases.

This was one of his first actions as President.

Late 1998-January 2001: The US permanently stations two submarines in the Indian Ocean, ready to hit al-Qaeda with cruise missiles on short notice. Six to ten hours advance warning is now needed to review the decision, program the cruise missiles and have them reach their target. On at least three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location with information suggesting he would remain there for some time. Each time, Clinton approves the strike. Each time, CIA Director Tenet says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. (Washington Post, 12/19/01, New York Times, 12/30/01) The submarines are removed shortly after President Bush takes office. The standby force gave Clinton the option of an immediate strike against targets in al-Qaeda's top leadership. The discontinuation makes a possible assassination of bin Laden much more difficult.

December 20, 2000: Counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke submits a plan to "roll back" al-Qaeda in response to the USS Cole bombing. The main component is a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" for bin Laden there. However, since there are only a few weeks left before the Bush administration takes over, it is decided to defer the decision to the new administration. However, one month later, the plan is rejected and no action is taken.

January 25, 2001: Richard Clarke, National Security Council Chief of Counterterrorism and holdover from the Clinton administration, submits a proposal to the new administration for an attack on al-Qaeda in revenge of the USS Cole bombing. In the wake of that bombing, Bush stated on the campaign trail: "I hope that we can gather enough intelligence to figure out who did the act and take the necessary action ... there must be a consequence." According to the Washington Post: "Clarke argued that the camps were can't-miss targets, and they mattered. The facilities amounted to conveyor belts for al-Qaeda's human capital, with raw recruits arriving and trained fighters departing – either for front lines against the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel coalition, or against American interests somewhere else. The US government had whole libraries of images filmed over Tarnak Qila and its sister camp, Garmabat Ghar, 19 miles farther west. Why watch al-Qaeda train several thousand men a year and then chase them around the world when they left?" (Washington Post, 1/20/02) Clarke also warns that al-Qaeda sleeper cells in the US are a "major threat." Two days later, the US confirms the link between al-Qaeda and the USS Cole bombing. (PBS Frontline 10/3/02) No retaliation is taken on these camps until after 9/11. (Washington Post, 1/20/02)

February 9, 2001: Vice President Cheney is briefed that it has been conclusively proven bin Laden was behind the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole (see October 12, 2000). Bush has been in office a matter of days, when secret pipeline negotiations with the Taliban have begun. The new administration has already twice threatened the Taliban that the US would hold the Taliban responsible for any al-Qaeda attack. But, fearful of ending negotiations with the Taliban, the US does not retaliate against either the Taliban or known bin Laden bases in Afghanistan in the manner Clinton did in 1998. (Washington Post, 1/20/02)

March 8, 2001: The United Nations and the European Union direct their members to freeze the assets of some al-Qaeda leaders, including Sa'd Al-Sharif, bin Laden's brother-in-law and the head of his finances, but the US does not do so. Their assets are finally frozen by the US after 9/11 (see October 12, 2001). (Guardian, 10/13/01)

And it's thanks to Paul Thompson we know this.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=...

http://www.paranoidlarry.com / http://www.globalresearch.ca / http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/index.jsp http://www.madcowprod.com / http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk / http://www.ndp.ca / http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com / "We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell






The_Gopher (844 posts) Wed Jul-07-04 09:26 AM
Response to Original message

3. so are we going to invade Iran this time?