Press Action ::: The Court Historian and the Unbearable Facts of History

Friday, October 10, 2003

The Court Historian and the Unbearable Facts of History

By Abu Spinoza*

One of United States’ leading historians, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. writes, in a review essay titled, “Eyeless in Iraq:”

Following the attack of September 11, the Afghan war was necessary, since the Taliban government refused to turn over bin Laden; but the Iraq war was optional.

The Taliban regime’s position on turning over bin Laden was not an unreasonable one. It demanded evidence for turning over Osama bin Laden to the United States. By no means is it unreasonable for a country to require some evidence before handing over a terrorist to another country.

On September 21, 2001, the New York Times, reported the following in an article (appropriately titled), “Without Evidence, the Taliban Refuses to Turn Over bin Laden” by John F. Burns with Christopher S. Wren:

The Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, said at a news conference in Islamabad, “Our position in this regard is that if the Americans have evidence, they should produce it.” If they can prove their allegations, he said, “We are ready for a trial of Osama bin Laden.”

The Taliban regime demanded evidence of Osama bin Laden’s role in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Whether they meant to hand over bin Laden if such evidence were provided, one cannot know. But it is certainly the case that the United States administration refused to provide any evidence at that time to the Taliban regime. Indeed, the United States administration refused even to consider the possibility of providing evidence of bin Laden’s role.

The LA Times reported on October 11, 2001:

Since Sept. 11, the Taliban has responded to American calls to turn over Bin Laden by offering to try him before an Islamic court on the basis of evidence presented by the United States. The Bush administration rejected the offer. [Emphasis added]

Even as the bombing of Afghanistan continued, the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden to a third country. The Guardian (October 14, 2001) reported:

President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban “turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over.” He added, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.” In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country.”

These are crucial facts. Remembering the facts without distortion is not apologetics for the Taliban. The undeniable point is that it is the U.S. administration that held the rejectionist position with Bush saying, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.” Thus it ruled out of hand the possibility of extraditing bin Laden. But one can always count on court historians, such as Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., to erase such essential facts out of history, and to claim that the Afghan war was “necessary” and that “the Taliban government refused to turn over bin Laden,” when in fact the U.S. administration rejected the chance to obtain bin Laden.

*Abu Spinoza is a pseudonym for an economist. He is a regular contributor to Press Action.

More from Abu Spinoza