Comments on: Quid pro quo pro quo

By: marc sobel

marc sobel — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 05:46:07 +0000

I guess you don’t need habeus corpus if you habeat britti

By: Mary Martini

Mary Martini — Wed, 07 Jul 2004 00:26:38 +0000

Yes Peter correct, these westerners were not petty criminals they did a home brew like everyone else there, Saudi Royals used to get the best Johnny Walker delivered, there were pubs there too but Saudi turned a blind eye unless it was blatant. When James Cottle was kidnapped from Bahrain he was never asked about booze just which embassy official gave the orders for the bombings…

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:54:46 +0000

The Brits were rounded up and accused of bootlegging (appears near the bottom of page 2). Saudi, as you may or may not know, is a “dry” country where alcohol is forbidden (despite the word alcohol being arabic). The excuse the Saudis used to arrest, torture and sentence to death the Brits involved revolved around some tortuous claim that rival rumrunner gangs were doing the violence, not terrorists. Speaking from experience, there are no rumrunners in Saudi. People living in the compounds there brew their own moonshine (called Sidhiki, or “friend” in arabic) and trade it among co-workers. When a still catches fire, the news reports blame the fire on an “unattended cooking pot.” All this from a country that claims binLaden is a dupe of the Mossad, and that AlQeda is run by Israelis. Those of you who have worked in Saudi know that when you get your alien registration card/work permit, it is one of 2 colors: green if you are a muslim, and purple if you are an infidel. Little wonder how the kidnappers know who to kill and who to let go. Saudi Arabia is not the ally of the US or the UK. I don’t know how long it will take for that to sink in to the folks stateside, or how many more of these things have to happen before they start to wake up.

By: GMT

GMT — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:35:00 +0000

Sombody noticed. Quoth the Moore: When is the real discussion going to begin? If the White House has its way, the CNNs of this country will just keep attacking me with wild-ass claims about how I am in cahoots with Martians or something. And I’ve NEVER even released a suspected Saudi terrorist! I just made a movie! Geez…

By: Mary Martini

Mary Martini — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:18:26 +0000

It is proved this swop took place, I am one of the relatives of the British men, Saudi officials say they have a justice system NO not true, you are first tortured(James’s case 10 weeks) and dragged in front of three non english speaking bearded men, well you are guilty no matter what, James Cottle one of the men just found out over the weekend he was swopped we are horrified that there seeemed no other way, appease Saudi again seems to be the norm, James was living back in UK and was lured to Bahrain for new work when he was kidnapped in June 2001, this was engineered by Prince Naif to make up his jigsaw of weterners to blame when all along Saudi is crawling with Al-Queda

By: keef

keef — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 06:30:41 +0000

A few things: 1) I don’t think the brits were criminals at all—I believe they were merely convenient “arrests” by the saudis and then were tortured to extract “confessions.” THe US gave back people who were probably real terrorists to get the release of UK citizens who were certainly NOT terrorists. 2) If I recall correctly, the Saudis did not even announce the fact that these people had been returned, and didn’t announce their names. So, how can a return of Saudis help “public opinion” in Saudi Arabia when the public there doesn’t know that anyone , or anyone specificcally, was returned? In short, maybe it assuaged the saudi royals but it had nothing to do with Saudi “public opinion.” 3) This gives the Saudis encouragement to abduct, torture and extract “confessions” from westerners so they can hold them in hopes the Bush administration will offer them painful concessions to release innocent people. If you don’t know how the saudi “justice” system operates for non-Saudis, please look into it. It’s pre-medieval. I’d prefer the US not negotiate with terrorists like the saudis. Keef

By: taylor

taylor — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:26:42 +0000

This “swap” allegation was headline news in Canada. Here’s a story on the Canadian involved, with his view of things. http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040705/SAMPSON05//?query=swap

By: Zizka

Zizka — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 05:08:33 +0000

A very very sketchy story, as if censored. As I remember, the Brits were petty criminals and not terrorists, but I may be all wrong. Knowing nothing about any of them on either side makes it pretty murky. If Rumsfeld was overruled, the Michael Moore alarm goes off. This is old news. Coming out now seems designed to embarrass Bush. Bush really shouldn’t have screwed with the CIA. My guess is that they were highly-connected terrorists whose uncles and cousins have a LOT of pull. The acephalous tribal Saudi state makes it almost impossible to punish well-connected people. A Mahfouz who was involved in the Grand Mosque attack was the only one not immediately beheaded, and is alive and free today.