What's new

What Pakistan Knew About Bin Laden

It's very difficult to produce "concrete" proof in Pakistan, since the ISI is unaccountable to democratic authority.

DG ISI reports directly to the PM and COAS, get your facts right. If the proof is difficult to produce, does it give this author a right who hasn't visited Pakistan since 2006 to form a hypothesis based on her wild assertions?

One of the problems I noted from Wikileaks is that this pervades Pakistan's polity, leading to officials who operate based on commonly-held fictions - for example, Nawaz Sharif telling the U.S. ambassador that the U.S. chooses Pakistan's military leaders. I can just imagine how that made her eyes spin...

And your point is?

I think the reporter here made a good-faith effort to write the story. She doesn't need concrete facts for that, just sources, and if she managed to collaborate one source with another that's plenty good enough for the NYT. However, that doesn't mean the sources were not, themselves, operating under the kind of delusion that Nawaz Sharif had. Nor does that mean the sources are in error. I cannot, therefore, class the article as fiction.

It is fiction because it lacks logic. Why in the world would the ISI support OBL when he is himself responsible for the death of thousands of Pakistanis. Or wait, are we back to the good ole days of black/white propaganda when the enemy was shown to be a rabid barbarian.

If there is some sort of internal inconsistency in the article's logic, can you tell me what it is?

Here's a good start, she hasn't visited Pakistan since 2006 yet speaks about Pakistan as an expert. Her sources and allegations are based on her personal anecdote. As i said, when you make a serious allegation of this magnitude, better have your sources straight. On a side note, your Government has already disapproved this article so IMO the argument is pretty much over.
 
.
Of course! Look what happened the doctor who helped America nail Osama. Pakistan arrested Afridi and sentenced him to 33 years in jail!!! :woot:

That really sucked, but it exposed the establishment's utter frustration at how things turned out, especially by a Pakistani who went against its core interest of hiding Osama from the world. Instead of being applauded and conferred the highest award for helping find Osama, the poor sod was incarcerated for 33 years!! :cheesy:

That action of sentencing Afridi really let the cat out of the bag!

For the highlighted part you are wrong as he was sentenced because he initiated a fake polio vaccination campaign to help a foreign intelligence which is hurting us to this date if only you care to see how polio teams are being targeted in those areas of Pakistan. Because of people like him who sell out to the highest bidder, innocent people have lost their lives. He deserves to be incarcerated for 33 years, though Nawaz has reduced that sentence.
 
.
For the highlighted part you are wrong as he was sentenced because he initiated a fake polio vaccination campaign to help a foreign intelligence which is hurting us to this date if only you care to see how polio teams are being targeted in those areas of Pakistan. Because of people like him who sell out to the highest bidder, innocent people have lost their lives. He deserves to be incarcerated for 33 years, though Nawaz has reduced that sentence.

You may be right, Afridi's actions caused the deaths of polio workers, but on the other hand, terrorists hardly need legitimate reasons for killing people. Ideally, if someone doubts polio workers - refusing to get immunized would be enough rather than killing the polio workers.

The basic crux behind killing of polio workers lies in the belief that the CIA / Mossad attempt to make Muslim kids impotent by way of polio drops rather than Afridi.
 
Last edited:
.
Disturbing. What would happen to a Pakistani reporter if they wrote this piece? Can't expel him or her, right? Would the reporter simply be killed instead?
Contrary to what you Americans thinks there are no summary executions in Pakistan, Pakistani journalists have written things far worse than this and have lived.....
 
.
ISI folks were constantly in touch with them. A fact which Pentagon knew and reason they did the operation without even asking Pak president for permission.
 
.
Disturbing. What would happen to a Pakistani reporter if they wrote this piece? Can't expel him or her, right? Would the reporter simply be killed instead?

Cheap publicity stunt to promote her upcoming book..
 
.
The reporters credibility is ruined IMO. One of the Officers she has quoted in her article has already refuted this claim.

Why is only one ex-ISI chief always quoted by Western media?

ISLAMABAD: One person who has repeatedly been quoted by the Western media accusing the ISI of having sheltered Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad is none other than a former ISI chief General (retd) Ziauddin Butt whose elevation as COAS by Nawaz Sharif had prompted General (R) Pervez Musharraf to stage a military coup on October 12, 1999.



A cursory glance at the newspaper files since the May 2011 covert raid by the US Navy Seals in Abbottabad [in which Osama was killed], indicates that Ziauddin had alleged several times during the last 36 months that Osama had been kept in Abbottabad by the Pakistani establishment. Even the latest report in New York Times, which has created a stir in the military and intelligence circles, mentions Ziauddin stating that Musharraf had been responsible for hiding Osama in Abbottabad. The NYT has published excerpts from a book authored by a British journalist Carlotta Gall, claiming that the former ISI chief, Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of Osama’s presence in the garrison town of Abbottabad.



In her upcoming book “The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014,” Gall has further claimed that Musharraf and his top commanders were aware of al-Qaeda’s plan to assassinate Ms Benazir Bhutto. She writes in her book: “In trying to prove that the ISI knew of Bin Laden’s whereabouts and protected him, I struggled for more than two years to piece together something other than circumstantial evidence and suppositions from sources with no direct knowledge. Only one man, a former ISI chief and retired general, Ziauddin Butt, told me that he thought Pervez Musharraf had arranged to hide Osama in Abbottabad. But he had no proof and, under pressure, claimed in the Pakistani press that he’d been misunderstood”.



However, when approached by this reporter to get his point of view, General Ziauddin said the British journalist Carlotta Gall did see him and talk to him but misquoted him.“To a query, I told her that Musharraf should have known that Osama was hiding in Abbottabad. But in a bid to give credence to her thesis, the lady journalist misquoted me as saying that Musharraf knew about Osama’s presence. She probably did this while trying to give credibility to her contention”.



As this scribe reminded the General that he has not been quoted by Western media for the first time accusing Pervez Musharraf and Ijaz Shah of sheltering Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Ziauddin said: “I am misquoted every time the Western media talks to me to advance their own agenda”. General Ziauddin described the NYT news as a vicious attack on the ISI, which, he said was reprehensible.




Stressing that the ISI had always been an epitome of patriotism and professionalism, he termed it one of the world’s top intelligence agencies.



Ziauddin Butt was elevated as the Army Chief out of turn in October 1999 when Nawaz Sharif decided to get rid of General Pervez Musharraf. A four star general, he fought in the 1965 and 1971 wars with India. He was the first head of the army’s Strategic Plans Division which controls nuclear weapons. Nawaz Sharif made him Director General of ISI in 1997 and promoted him to COAS on October 12, 1999.



After Musharraf staged the coup, Nawaz Sharif and Ziauddin were arrested by the coup-makers and taken to different locations. While Nawaz Sharif was quick to strike an exile deal with Musharraf to leave for Saudi Arabia, Ziauddin was kept in solitary confinement for two years and was subjected to three separate army investigations to find some element of wrongdoing on his part. Musharraf had eventually decided to use a scouts’ penalty - a discretionary punishment not requiring a crime, to dismiss Ziauddin from the army service.



It was on December 22, 2011 that General Ziauddin was quoted by the Western media for the first time saying that Osama was kept in an Intelligence Bureau safe house in Abbottabad and Musharraf knew about it. He was quoted in an article on the well-known Jamestown Foundation website, saying: “General Ziauddin Butt said Osama bin Laden was kept in Abbottabad under the instructions of IB Director Brigadier Ijaz Shah.



He added that Shah was also responsible for hiding Omar Saeed Sheikh who had killed journalist Daniel Pearl. General Butt stated that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had set up a 90 man commando team to track and kill Osama bin Laden but it was disbanded after he was ousted in a military coup. He went on to say that the ISI had helped the CIA to track down and kill Bin Laden. The general had an apprehension that Kayani may have known about Bin Laden’s whereabouts”.



Almost two months later, General Ziauddin was quoted by the Newsweek on February 15, 2012, saying that General Musharraf knew that Osama was hiding in Abbottabad. Ziauddin said the Abbottabad safe house was made to order for Osama by Brigadier Ijaz Hussain Shah, who was the Punjab chief of the ISI when Musharraf staged the coup. Musharraf later made him the director general of the Intelligence Bureau. Ziauddin said Ijaz Shah was responsible for setting up Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, ensuring his safety and keeping him hidden from the outside. “Without a doubt, Ziauddin has an axe to grind. But he is also well tied in to the Pakistani intelligence world”, the Newsweek report added.



Four months later, General Ziauddin was quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald [on July 09, 2012] in an interview, saying: “A Pakistani brigadier harboured Osama for years with the full knowledge of Musharraf at a time when the US was hunting for him. Ijaz Shah was the most important and all-powerful person in his regime. I fully believe that Ijaz Shah had kept Osama in Abbottabad with the full knowledge of Musharraf”. But Shah said the allegations were groundless. “Not only do I reject it, but any sensible man in the world will reject this allegation. I will challenge these allegations in the court of law,” he stated. But these allegations have not yet been contested in any court of law.



Almost 15 years after Musharraf’s 1999 military coup, General Ziauddin had challenged his removal from service in Lahore High Court [once Nawaz Sharif became the prime minister in 2013], praying that the order of his dismissal be declared illegal and he may be issued all benefits due to him being the former Army Chief. The petitioner prayed to the court that the order of his removal by Musharraf be declared null and void and the respondents may be directed to restore all the benefits due to him as a four star general.

Why is only one ex-ISI chief always quoted by Western media? - thenews.com.pk

@Solomon2
 
. .
Pakistan sheltered Bin Laden? Prove it
By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst
March 21, 2014 -- Updated 1418 GMT (2218 HKT)

Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's national security analyst, a director at the New America Foundation and the author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden -- From 9/11 to Abbottabad."

(CNN) -- The New York Times magazine is running a bombshell story alleging that the Pakistanis knew all along that Osama bin Laden was living for years in his longtime hiding place in the northern Pakistan city of Abbottabad, where he was killed by a U.S. Navy SEAL team on May 2, 2011.

The Times story, titled "What Pakistan Knew About bin Laden," will carry weight: It was written by Carlotta Gall, the dean of the correspondents who have covered Afghanistan and Pakistan since that fateful day in 2001, when al Qaeda's four hijacked planes crashed through America's comfortable sense that vast oceans insulated it from its enemies.

At great personal risk Gall has authoritatively covered the war in Afghanistan for the past 12 years. Indeed, I first met her during the civil war in Afghanistan during the mid-1990s when she was an aid worker, and I have met her many times since. I encouraged her (along with, I'm sure, many others) to write a book about her reporting in Afghanistan, as no Western reporter has more to say about what has transpired there since the fall of the Taliban.

The bin Laden story in the New York Times magazine is an extract from Gall's forthcoming book, "The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan, 2001-2014."

Gall makes two astonishing claims in her Times magazine piece.

The first claim: An unnamed Pakistani official told her, based on what he had in turn heard from an unnamed senior U.S. official that "the United States had direct evidence that the ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad." ISI is Pakistan's powerful military intelligence agency.

The second claim: "The ISI actually ran a special desk assigned to handle bin Laden. It was operated independently, led by an officer who made his own decisions and did not report to a superior. He handled only one person: bin Laden...the top military bosses knew about it, I was told."

It is, of course, hard to prove negatives, but having spent around a year reporting intensively on the hunt for al Qaeda's leader for my 2012 book "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden From 9/11 to Abbottabad," I am convinced that there is no evidence that anyone in the Pakistani government, military or intelligence agencies knowingly sheltered bin Laden.

How did I arrive at this conclusion?

On three reporting trips to Pakistan I spoke to senior officials in Pakistan's military and intelligence service. They all denied that they had secretly harbored bin Laden. OK, you are thinking: "But they would say that, wouldn't they?"

Well, what about the dozens of officials I spoke to in the U.S. intelligence community, Pentagon, State Department and the White House who also told me versions of "the Pakistanis had no idea that bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad"?

During the course of reporting for my book I spoke on the record to, among others, John Brennan, now the CIA director and then President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser; then CIA Director Leon Panetta and his chief of staff, Jeremy Bash; then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mike Mullen; then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. James Cartwright; then director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter; then senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council, Nick Rasmussen; then head of policy at the Pentagon, Michele Flournoy; Michael Vickers, who was then the civilian overseer of Special Operations at the Pentagon; Tony Blinken, who is now the deputy national security adviser; and Denis McDonough, who held that position before Blinken.

These officials have collectively spent many decades working to destroy al Qaeda, and many are deeply suspicious of Pakistan for its continuing support for elements of the Taliban. But all of them told me in one form or another that Pakistani officials had no clue that bin Laden was living in Abbottabad.

Indeed, an early debate between senior national security officials at the White House, once CIA intelligence established that bin Laden could be hiding in Abbottabad, was whether to mount a joint U.S.-Pakistani raid on bin Laden's suspected hideout.

This plan was rejected because the officials were concerned that such a joint operation carried the risk that word would leak out about the bin Laden intelligence. This debate would have been moot if the Pakistanis already knew bin Laden was living in Abbottabad.

And, by the way, if the U.S. government had any evidence that the Pakistanis were knowingly sheltering bin Laden, as Gall claims, why cover this up?

In 2011, the relationship between the United States and Pakistan was at its lowest point ever. Early that year a CIA contractor killed two Pakistanis in broad daylight in the city of Lahore, and both countries were trading accusations about each other's perfidy. The tension was compounded by the fact that the CIA drone program in Pakistan was then at its height, which was deeply unpopular among Pakistanis. What did U.S. officials have to lose by saying that bin Laden was being protected by the Pakistanis if it were true?

The fact is that the senior Pakistani officials Gall alleges were harboring bin Laden were utterly surprised that al Qaeda's leader was living in Abbottabad. Based on the bewildered reactions of top Pakistani officials to the events on the night that bin Laden was killed, it was obvious to U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter and to U.S. officials monitoring communications in Pakistan that the Pakistanis had not had a clue about bin Laden's presence there.

Finally, in the course of reporting my book I discovered that bin Laden was even hiding from some of the people living in his own compound; forget about letting officials in the Pakistani government in on the secret. One of the wives of the bodyguards protecting bin Laden didn't know that the tall stranger hiding on the compound was al Qaeda's leader.

In fairness to Gall, I have heard from four current and former U.S. intelligence and military officials that some of the thousands of documents that U.S. Navy SEALs picked up at bin Laden's Abbottabad compound that haven't been publicly released could point to some kind of official Pakistani collusion.

If that is the case, the Obama White House should release any documents that are relevant so that the American public can be the judge if one of our allies was knowingly harboring bin Laden all along. So far there is no evidence that that is the case.

Opinion: Pakistan sheltered Bin Laden? Prove it - CNN.com


Argh! Sorry, didn't see you had posted it.
 
.
Contrary to what you Americans thinks there are no summary executions in Pakistan, Pakistani journalists have written things far worse than this and have lived.....
Some get beaten to death, some are attacked by bombs, some have their editors' offices attacked by terrorists. But you didn't need me to tell you that, did you?
 
.
DG ISI reports directly to the PM and COAS, get your facts right. If the proof is difficult to produce, does it give this author a right who hasn't visited Pakistan since 2006 to form a hypothesis based on her wild assertions?...Her sources and allegations are based on her personal anecdote.
They aren't "wild assertions"; she had sources. That's enough for a story; it doesn't have to be "truth". Though if you suspect the sources were fictional, complain to the editor of the NYT, then other U.S. newspapers. Please! NYT reporters have been caught doing such things before.

It is fiction because it lacks logic. Why in the world would the ISI support OBL when he is himself responsible for the death of thousands of Pakistanis.
Without political control subordinate officers have great freedom to interpret superiors' orders creatively. Remember, Pakistani politicians not only cannot appoint generals below COAS, more importantly they cannot remove bad apples. That means Pakistan's armed forces form an unaccountable polity of their own, with room for deception, personal agendas, alliances, back-stabbing, plots, and betrayals. Even if the COAS and ISI chief give orders, they doesn't mean they will be carried out in the intended fashion, nor can they easily remove suspect subordinates without a clear paper trail or evident chain of responsibility, lest they threaten cutting away their own support that pushed them to the top, or the effectiveness of their own command. In short, in a military oligarchy, orders may come from above, but legitimacy comes from below.
 
.
Even if the COAS and ISI chief give orders, they doesn't mean they will be carried out in the intended fashion, nor can they easily remove suspect subordinates without a clear paper trail or evident chain of responsibility, lest they threaten cutting away their own support that pushed them to the top, or the effectiveness of their own command.

You can't be more wrong on this one.

This shows how little practical experience you have with the Pakistani military or perhaps any military worldwide.
 
.
These officials have collectively spent many decades working to destroy al Qaeda, and many are deeply suspicious of Pakistan for its continuing support for elements of the Taliban. But all of them told me in one form or another that Pakistani officials had no clue that bin Laden was living in Abbottabad.
As Robert Gates noted in his recent memoir, all serving U.S. officials refrain from criticizing Pakistan, for fear of making a bad situation even worse.

You can't be more wrong on this one.

This shows how little practical experience you have with the Pakistani military or perhaps any military worldwide.
I wouldn't expect officers below the level of battalion commander or major to have much experience with such things.
 
. .
Point being?
You might not know.

There is one more factor: as an unaccountable institution lacking democratic checks and balances, these un-confirmable allegations and whisperings go with the territory. If the Pakistani Army wishes to eliminate such "unfounded" rumors, it's going to have to open itself up to more political control.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom