CIA and ISI Built bin-Laden Compound, Obama Ordered Assasination
By Sam Vaknin
Editor-in-Chief, Global Politician
UPDATED May 10, 2011 at 13:30 CET On May 2, a mere few hours after bin-Laden was assassinated in Pakistan, and then again on May 4, I published in Global Politician and the Chronicle Media Group detailed articles regarding the raid, its background, and its unfolding (the entire texts of these 2 articles are appended below). On May 5, I reiterated my claims in an exclusive interview I granted to the Macedonian weekly Publika and in a televised investigative journalism show ("Vo Centar" with Vasko Eftov). My articles contained numerous bits of information that were confirmed only days later. Here is a partial list: I was the first journalist to expose the fact the Obama and other senior figures in the administration watched the raid unfold in a live feed. I even identified the ultra-secret and sophisticated equipment involved (helmet-cams with small, mobile drop-down transmitters). A day later, BBC confirmed that indeed this may well have been the materiel used in the operation. I wrote that bin-Laden and his family moved into the compound in late 2005 and early 2006. This was confirmed on May 7 by Amal, his young Yemenite widow. Moreover, on May 5 and 6, the CNN made public utility bills (connection to the gas network, for instance) which prove that the building complex was not in full use prior to April 2006. I further asserted on May 2 that both the ISI and the CIA knew about bin-Laden's whereabouts and were involved in procuring the land, constructing the structure and transferring him and his family there. On May 5 and 6, the ISI (Pakistan's intelligence service) insisted in a series of press releases that it had corresponded in 2009 with the CIA and sought their input regarding the fate of bin-Laden's brood, mentioning the compound specifically and repeatedly. On May 4, the CIA admitted that they have been watching the compound for months prior to the raid. Such prolonged presence in a sensitive militarized border town would, of course, have been impossible without the close collaboration of the ISI. Moreover: in an interview the aforementioned talkative bin-Laden widow gave to the Daily Mail, she astoundingly made the statement that, back in 2001, after the invasion of Afghanistan, her infamous husband and she crossed the border and entrusted themselves to the "Pakistani government" (presumably the ISI). Bin-Laden, she averred, was stashed among friendly tribesmen in villages (exactly as is set out in my articles) until 2006. This was further confirmed by Reuters on May 7. In my articles I said that 3 men and 1 woman died in the raid and that bin-Laden was unarmed. This was later confirmed by everyone involved, including the Pakistani authorities. The 3 men were bin-Laden's son and 2 couriers who were mistakenly (and intentionally) misidentified as 2 Pakistani brothers (actually, they were not brothers and they were not Pakistani). The woman was one of bin-Laden's entourage, possibly one of his wives. Finally, all manner of "experts" explained why bin-Laden didn't have weapons, bodyguards, escape tunnels, and hidden rooms behind double walls in his compound: he didn't want to stand out, they said. But, in the lawless and crime-ridden border areas of Pakistan everybody who is anybody has bodyguards and is armed to the teeth. Indeed, bin-Laden provoked the intense curiosity of locals and the CIA alike precisely BECAUSE he did NOT have any of these amenities. Thus isolated, he was forced to rely on couriers and one of them allegedly led the investigators to his doorstep. Sources (note the dates, days after in have published my articles): http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/07/us-obama-statement-idUSTRE74107920110507
The United States shared with the Israelis the two-way wireless and satelite video feeds (provided by the raiding party's helmet-cams and drop-down transmitters) of the assault on bin-Laden's compound. At a certain point an officer is heard asking for instructions "from the Commander (in Chief Obama - SV)". Obama then ordered him to "terminate target" (i.e, to kill bin-Laden) although this is not captured on tape. Obama gave the lethal command from an underground situation room, flanked by Panetta, Clinton, Gates, and other senior officials.
In 2001, shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA whisked bin-Laden and his family to a safe haven in Pakistan, among friendly tribesmen who served as guides and supplier for American special forces on the ground. The CIA, in cahoots with Pakistan's ISI, then embarked on the construction of the compound that was stormed on May 1, 2011. In 2005-6, bin-Laden and his family were transferred there and virtually imprisoned. Bin-Laden was not allowed to carry weapons and he had no bodyguards. The entire fortress-like edifice was locked from the outside. The CIA allowed only couriers to come and go with censored mail and minimal money orders. One of the couriers was a Tunisian and the other Jordanian. They both collaborated with the Mossad and with the CIA on multiple assignments.
The decision to assassinate bin-Laden was adopted after he was repeatedly heard threatening to expose what he knew about various covert operations in the USA and elsewhere should he not be allowed free movement.
WRITTEN MAY 2, 2011 at 10 AM CET
On May 1, 2011 Osama bin-Laden was allegedly shot in the head by Navy Seals during an operation in Pakistan. The order came directly from US President Obama and he also monitored the firefight from the White House Situation Room as it unfolded. Bin-Laden's body was first whisked away to Afghanistan where DNA samples were taken and an autospy was performed. The cadaver was then returned to Pakistan and buried at sea. Thus, we have only the word of the United States administration - not known for its veracity - that he is no longer with us.
But, even if true, why wasn't bin-Laden taken alive? Presumably, had he been abducted, he would have proven to be an invaluable source of intel on crucial national security issues facing the United States. A shot to the head, execution-style, indicates orders to shoot to kill (as was later confirmed by the CIA and the military - SV). Why give up such a cornucopia of information that cannot be obtained in any other way? To shut him up, of course. A live bin-Laden would have had to be debriefed, interrogated, and then judged in a court of law or military tribunal. To prevent multiple embarrassments and a myriad incriminating revelations involving multiple administrations, he had to be disposed of summarily.
All powers are self-interested - but America is narcissistic. It is bent on exploiting and, having exploited, on discarding. It is a global Dr. Frankenstein, spawning mutated monsters in its wake. Its "drain and dump" policies consistently boomerang to haunt it.
Both Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega - two acknowledged monsters - were aided and abetted by the CIA and the US military. America had to invade Panama to depose the latter and to molest Iraq for the second time in order to force the removal of the former.
The Kosovo Liberation Army, an American anti-Milosevic pet, provoked a civil war in Macedonia tin 2001. Osama bin-Laden, another CIA golem, restored to the USA, on September 11, 2001 some of the materiel it so generously bestowed on him in his anti-Russian days.
Normally the outcomes of expedience, the Ugly American's alliances and allegiances shift kaleidoscopically. Pakistan and Libya were transmuted from foes to allies in the fortnight prior to the Afghan campaign. Milosevic has metamorphosed from staunch ally to rabid foe in days.
This capricious inconsistency casts in grave doubt America's sincerity - and in sharp relief its unreliability and disloyalty, its short term thinking, truncated attention span, soundbite mentality, and dangerous, "black and white", simplism.
In its heartland, America is isolationist. Its denizens erroneously believe that the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is an economically self-sufficient and self-contained continent. Yet, it is not what Americans trust or wish that matters to others. It is what they do. And what they do is meddle, often unilaterally, always ignorantly, sometimes forcefully.
Elsewhere, inevitable unilateralism is mitigated by inclusive cosmopolitanism. It is exacerbated by provincialism - and American decision-makers are mostly provincials, popularly elected by provincials. As opposed to Rome, or Great Britain, America is ill-suited and ill-equipped to micromanage the world.
It is too puerile, too abrasive, too arrogant and it has a lot to learn. Its refusal to acknowledge its shortcomings, its confusion of brain with brawn (i.e., money or bombs), its legalistic-litigious character, its culture of instant gratification and one-dimensional over-simplification, its heartless lack of empathy, and bloated sense of entitlement are detrimental to world peace and stability.
America is often called by others to intervene. Many initiate conflicts or prolong them with the express purpose of dragging America into the quagmire. It then is either castigated for not having responded to such calls - or reprimanded for having responded. It seems that it cannot win. Abstention and involvement alike garner it only ill-will.
But people call upon America to get involved because they know it rises to the challenge. America should make it unequivocally and unambiguously clear that - with the exception of the Americas - its sole interests rest in commerce. It should make it equally known that it will protect its citizens and defend its assets, if need be by force.
Indeed, America's - and the world's - best bet are a reversion to the Monroe and (technologically updated) Mahan doctrines. Wilson's Fourteen Points brought the USA nothing but two World Wars and a Cold War thereafter. It is time to disengage.
Most Recommended Comment
Orlando, Florida, United States