| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| 25 Saudi Gitmo prisoners return to militancy |
| 2010-06-20 |
| [Al Arabiya Latest] Around 25 former detainees from Guantanamo Bay camp returned to militancy after going through a rehabilitation program for al-Qaeda members in Saudi Arabia, a Saudi security official said on Saturday. The United States have sent back around 120 Saudis from the detention camp at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, set up after the U.S. launched a "war on terror" following the Sept. 11 attacks by mostly Saudi suicide hijackers sent by al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia has put the returned prisoners along with other al-Qaeda suspects through a rehabilitation program which includes religious re-education by clerics and financial help to start a new life. The scheme, which some 300 extremists have attended, is part of anti-terrorism efforts after al-Qaeda staged attacks inside the kingdom from 2003-06. These were halted after scores of suspects were arrested with the help of foreign experts. Around 11 Saudis from Guantanamo have gone to Yemen, an operating base for al-Qaeda, while others have been jailed again or killed after attending the program, said Abdulrahman al-Hadlaq, Director General of the General Administration for Intellectual Security overseeing the rehabilitation. He pinpointed strong personal ties among former prisoners but also tough U.S. tactics as the reason why some 20 percent of the returned Saudis relapsed into militancy compared to 9.5 percent of other participants in the rehabilitation program. "Those guys from other groups didn't suffer torture before, the non-Guantanamos (participants). Torturing is the most dangerous thing in radicalization. You have more extremist people if you have more torture," Hadlaq told reporters in a rare briefing about Saudi anti-terrorism efforts. Despite the setback with Guantanamo prisoners, Saudi Arabia regards the rehabilitation scheme, which kicks in after militants have served a prison term, as a success. "There is no doubt that there is an effect," Hadlaq said. U.S. President Barack Obama ordered the camp shut after taking office in January 2009 but his plans have been stymied. There are now about 180 detainees left, among them 13 Saudis. At its peak, the camp held about 780 detainees. More than 2,000 sympathizers of al-Qaeda are still in prison in Saudi Arabia. Some 2,000 teachers have been removed from classrooms for their extremist views in the past five years while 400 teachers are in prison, Hadlaq said. Saudi Arabia plans to build five more rehabilitation centers which will be able to accommodate 250 people each, he said. The expansion plans are partly to cope with the eventual release of 991 suspected al-Qaeda militants whom the authorities said in October were awaiting trial for 30 attacks since 2003. In July, a Saudi court sentenced one unnamed Islamist to death and handed out to others jail terms of up to 30 years in the first publicly reported trials since the arrests. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #9 Tell me then oh wise one why are Amercian allies of Pakistan and Saudi then.Oil/Energy access? I believe that's already been explained. Alot of people are telling me in the UK especially from muslims that US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was all about getting access to energy reserves in both countries.Would you agree? No. Iraq's Baathist government, its support of terrorists, and its location were primary factors. Afghanistan was originally about getting the Taliban government to turn over al Qaeda leadership. I believe the 'blood for oil' started as a leftist trope. I'm not surprised that it's become a mantra in the UK. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-06-20 23:49 |
| #8 Alot of people are telling me in the UK especially from muslims that US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was all about getting access to energy reserves in both countries.Would you agree? My apologies, Paul, I neglected to answer the second part of your post. But to summarize, a lot of people are stupid. That's why you and I hang out at Rantburg, after all. ;-) Below is an expansion on that statement. Iraq: the U.S. allowed Iraq to sell oil development contracts as they desired. As I recall, in the first round none of the contracts went to American companies. On the other hand, British companies like BP and Shell did rather well. If we'd wanted the oil for ourselves, we wouldn't have allowed open bidding. Google "Iraq oil contracts" for details. Afghanistan: doesn't have any oil, per the CIA Factbook, one of my favourite general information sources. They do have natural gas, but can you imagine how much it would cost to build and protect the infrastructure to ship it anywhere? There was talk of building a natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan or someplace to Pakistan, and then eventually to India, but I have no idea what became of that. (I would be suspicious of Russia throwing her weight around, but I don't know enough to even have suspicions.) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-06-20 22:52 |
| #7 I'm not Pappy - I'm another moderator - but here's one answer to your question Paul. The US formed alliances with the Saudis decades ago. Oil certainly played a role in that, but is by no means the only or even the largest factor. Your UK had a much bigger role than the US in creating and shifting alliances in the region. After all, it was under the British mandate that Gertrude Bell more or less hand-picked who among the various tribes and clans ended up as the new Royals in the Middle East, not to mention where national borders were drawn. Bell's favorites were installed in Baghdad, Jordan and Riyadh. Things were more complicated in Iran because Bell never did understand the Persians. A few decades later the Iranians figured out how much tax revenue the British government was taking from Anglo-Iranian Oil co. (now called BP) vs. what Iran got, leading to the move to nationalize Iranian oil production. In 1951 a radical Islamist assasinated the Iranian politician who was attempting to convince the Brits just how strongly Iranians felt about the exploitation. The Shah cracked down hard in response, and a struggle ensued that ended up with the Shah's overthrow and Islamicists firmly in charge in Teheran. The Saudis are devious and corrupt sons of b*tches, but not all of them are Wahabist. In fact, there's been a power struggle between several factions within the royal family for decades. The old king Faisal, however, built a military alliance with the US to counterbalance destabilizing moves both in Iran and also in Egypt. The latter were, for a while, leaders in a socialist movement intended to unite Arabs (which would have brought down the House of Saud). Egypt also (and partially as a result of Nasser's socialist government) was breeding a particularly virulent set of Islamic fundamentalists in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood - who by the way were one of the two groups that gave rise to al Qaeda. I might remind you that Gulf War I was heavily financed by the Saudis, although the West led by the US did the actual fighting. There's a reason for that - Saddam's Baathist movement was an offspring, albeit a rather thuggish local one, of the socialist movement for which Nasser was the most visible figurehead and were working with the Russians, a relationship that continued right up to our entry into Iraq in March 2003. The Saudis weren't alone. Jordan, for instance, has been a quiet ally. I should probably mention here that the Jordanian royal family and the House of Saud are related ....and worked together to overthrow the Turkish Ottoman rule in 1916. The West has chosen to allow itself to become heavily dependent on imported oil. But at this point the oil in the Saudi kingdom is far less of an issue than their massive wealth invested in stock markets, currencies and a variety of commodities. As for Pakistan, well .... it's not all that long ago that India was quite anti-American and Afghanistan was under Soviet control, or at least influence. Pakistan allied with the US militarily because it sits between those two countries and we allied with them for the same reason. |
| Posted by: lotp 2010-06-20 22:13 |
| #6 Tell me then oh wise one why are Amercian allies of Pakistan and Saudi then.Oil/Energy access? It started as Cold War politics as far as I can tell, Paul D. Pakistan doesn't have any oil, which is why they want a natural gas pipeline from Iran. America allied with a lot of ugly characters to keep them from tying themselves to the Soviet Union. And Pakistan played that card to the hilt, starting from the time the country was separating from India, just as they now play the Al Qaeda card despite the ISI training and financing so many of the jihadi groups aimed at India, Afghanistan and the West. However the other issue, in some ways more urgent, is that the main supply line to all the Coalition units in Afghanistan is through Pakistan, with only minor supplies being flown in from the 'stans and Russia. So as long as we actually have troops in Afghanistan we will have to act as if Pakistan were an ally, despite knowing full well exactly what they are and do. Yes, Saudi Arabia is about the oil, although not so much for America, actually. I'm under the impression they supply about 20pc of American consumption, although that number could be wrong. At any rate, they are our fourth or fifth foreign supplier, I believe. Much more importantly, Saudi Arabia is the number one supplier to the world, so breaking with them -- or declaring war on them as they deserve -- would send the rest of the world into an economic tailspin, much worse than the little rebalancing of the books that's going on now. Somehow it's never been the right time to push our real friends and allies, like Britain, into a 1930s style Great Depression. Actually, that's one reason for the big push to get Iraq producing again; Iraq has massive petroleum reserves, and could go a good bit toward replacing Saudi supply when the time came. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-06-20 21:54 |
| #5 Pappy, Tell me then oh wise one why are Amercian allies of Pakistan and Saudi then.Oil/Energy access? Alot of people are telling me in the UK especially from muslims that US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was all about getting access to energy reserves in both countries.Would you agree? |
| Posted by: Paul D 2010-06-20 17:54 |
| #4 It's not about you. It's about your commentary. It's Coals-to-Newcastle. 50,000 round-trips of it. "It's Saudi Arabia and Pakistan!"? Anyone who's spent a week at Rantburg whose IP isn't from Riyadh or Lahore or Kuala Lumpur knows that. Even without the punctuation tic. Am I being clear enough? I'm not saying 'Don't post". But it'd be nice if Rantburgers got something to read besides rote once in a while. (and I'm not old - most of my white hair ain't due to age). |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-06-20 15:09 |
| #3 Pappy You can keep making snide remarks about me even though i dont know you from Adam but you must hate that i dont bite back you sad old man! |
| Posted by: Paul D 2010-06-20 14:31 |
| #2 It's not the 'infidels' the Saudis are concerned about, O Master of Obvious Statements and Possessor of the Holy Exclamation Point. This is for home consumption. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2010-06-20 12:09 |
| #1 These rehabs are a waste of time and money if you are taught from a young age to hate/kill infidels! |
| Posted by: Paul D 2010-06-20 11:35 |