U.S. Interviews Osama Bin Laden's Wives

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:57:29 PM EST
Tags: Osama bin Laden (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Pakistan allowed U.S. officials to interview the three wives of Osama bin Laden who were at the compound in Abbottabad during the raid that killed Osama.

The wives were described as "hostile." Why wouldn't they be? All three lost a husband, one (or two, depending on which inconsistent report you believe) lost a son, and one was shot in the leg.

Reportedly, the eldest of the three wives spoke for the group. That would be Khairia Saaba, otherwise known as Umm Hamzah, who is 7 years older than Osama and the mother of the missing or dead or captured Hamza bin Laden. [More....]

No productive information was obtained. Of course it wasn't. Members of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence were in the room along with the U.S. intelligence officers. They hardly were going to allow the women to say ISI officers were complicit in protecting bin Laden. The media seems surprised Osama had no escape plan and didn't worry about encrypting his computer data. Why would he be, knowing ISI and/or the Pakistani Army were his protectors and receiving information from the CIA through the program allowing the sharing of intelligence information? Pakistan can't and won't admit sheltering Bin Laden, but it's the only, even remotely plausible explanation.)

Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani made it pretty clear today that the ISI-CIA collaboration is kaput for now.

the Prime Minister said cooperation between the CIA and the ISI had broken down, and that Washington and Islamabad differed on how to fight terror and forge an exit strategy in Afghanistan.

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | Trump's Kardashian-Like Business Model, Without The Honesty >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

U.S. Interviews Osama Bin Laden's Wives | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Well, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:18:13 PM EST

Pakistan can't and won't admit sheltering Bin Laden, but it's the only, even remotely plausible explanation.

I'd say that's certainly quite likely. But I'm prepared to consider that he was just flying under the radar. "Hiding in plain sight," as they say.

I can't believe Osama would have been that (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by ruffian on Fri May 13, 2011 at 12:36:35 PM EST

confident of his safety if he was merely hiding in plain site without some assurances of Pakistani protection. I agree with Jeralyn on that point.


I can't believe there wasn't a strong 'curiosity' (none / 0) (#2)
by nycstray on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:27:47 PM EST

factor as to who was holed up in the compound for that long. It wasn't subtle. To me, hiding in plain site would be changing appearance/identity and literally blending in with daily life.


Why? (none / 0) (#5)
by gyrfalcon on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:07:49 PM EST

I truly don't get this. One of the CNN reporters who went down there drove around the area and there were dozens and dozens of similar large, ungainly, high-walled houses. Osama's may have had higher walls, but there really was nothing particularly unusual about the place.

The same reporter and others have said that the whole area is one where well-to-do people live in considerable seclusion and privacy.

I don't know how intrusive the Pakistani government is, but certainly in this country, the government would have no business (and no interest) in prying into people's homes for no good reason. As long as they weren't causing any trouble, there'd be no reason to.

And honestly, if Osama bin Laden had been living in seclusion in a big house right next to West Point, we wouldn't have known about it, either.

It certainly does seem likely, just because of what we know about the mixed loyalties of some elements of the Pakistan government and particularly the ISI, that somebody did know he was there. But for the life of me, I can't see why this house and its occupants would have obviously been suspicious to those who weren't in on the secret.


I guess I need to catch up (none / 0) (#14)
by nycstray on Fri May 13, 2011 at 01:07:02 AM EST

I didn't know compounds where the occupants never surfaced were common in this 'hood. I thought it would have raised eyes locally, which then may go broader. I would expect less suspicion here, vs Pak in this situation re where OBL was :) I'm not big on conspiracy, but OBL being in Pak wasn't a huge stretch over the past 9yrs. The caves were a good cover (Bush) for never finding the guy though . . .

really, I am honestly surprised that his living situation didn't raise eyebrows over the past 5 yrs. Guess I would make a lousy Most Wanted person :)


Well, I guess if you knew someone was (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 13, 2011 at 12:44:24 PM EST

hermeting inside a house, that might raise some eyebrows.

Of course, in this case, the whole idea was that no one in the "hood" had any idea there was someone in the house who was hiding.


People saw the children (none / 0) (#27)
by Politalkix on Fri May 13, 2011 at 12:59:33 PM EST

Unless the couriers told people that all the children were their own, it is difficult to believe that in a conservatve country like Pakistan, nobody asked who the father of these children were. Everybody's life is everybody's business in many parts of the world (the right to privacy is a foreign concept in most Islamic countries), so we should not make the mistake of comparing neighbourhoods around Westpoint with those in Pakistani towns/cities. It seems that the children did not go to school; that very fact should have raised red flags in a reasonably affluent neighbourhood. How many of the neighbours did not send their children to school?


Dunno, how many? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 13, 2011 at 02:14:59 PM EST

Very much not true (none / 0) (#30)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 13, 2011 at 11:19:09 PM EST

according to the reporters on the ground, that "Everybody's life is everybody's business" there. Quite to the contrary. This is a wealthy area, and wealthy people tend to prefer stay fairly secluded. That's one reason they build big mansions, so they don't have to go out much and mix with the rest of the world.

And again, the neighbors being curious is not a reason for local police, never mind national military, to barge in and investigate.

There's local gossip everywhere, so the fact that neighbors were curious about the occupants means almost nothing. I'm curious about the neighbors down the road. Big deal.

A lot of children there don't go to school. The schools mostly stink, and it's in no way unusual, especially for religious people, to have their children tutored at home instead.

Really, I think you're the one who's making way too many assumptions about the similarity of an Islamic society in Pakistan to our own here.


: Abbottabad (none / 0) (#37)
by Politalkix on Sat May 14, 2011 at 09:03:55 PM EST

has some of the best schools in Pakistan. Please read about the city.
Apparently, the city is called the "city of schools."

The occupants did surface (none / 0) (#31)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 13, 2011 at 11:27:11 PM EST

from time to time, it's just that Osama himself didn't. He apparently walked around inside a high-walled garden area, but nobody would have seen that, so they'd have no idea there even was somebody in there to specifically wonder about. There were a lot of people living in that house!

It's been widely assumed ever since Tora Bora that Osama was somewhere in Pakistan, but it's a very large country, huge parts of which are not under central government control or supervision. That's where everybody assumed he was. But he was smart and went where he'd be least expected to be found.

I'm reminded of a species of Arctic-nesting goose that nests right next to the very large and very fierce Snowy Owls' nests. It's the safest place to do it because the Owls don't hunt close to their nests, so they are exempt from attack by the owls and the owls in turn protect the area from other predators in order to keep their own chicks from being victims.


All those other houses are where ... (none / 0) (#20)
by magster on Fri May 13, 2011 at 09:53:35 AM EST

AQ #2,3,4 and 5 live.


Duplicity of Pakistan (none / 0) (#4)
by Politalkix on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:06:53 PM EST

Stop all aid to Pakistan's military and intelligence service right now!


That'll make 'em cooperate (none / 0) (#7)
by gyrfalcon on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:10:39 PM EST

by God! Lucky thing they have really lousy relations with China, eh?


We have other tools (none / 0) (#12)
by Politalkix on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:32:23 PM EST

Pass a congressional resolution declaring Pakistan a state that harbors terrorism. Raise the issue of Pakistan's support of terrorism in the UN. Tell China that there will be economic and trade consequences if it provides support to Pakistan's military and intelligence service. Tell Pakistan that if they do not cooperate, there will be a permanent US military base in Afghanistan, we will also work with India. Stop providing travel visas to the families of Pakistani elites to travel in western countries (what will the Kayanis and Musharaffs do if their spouses cannot shop in New York, London and Paris and their children do not get educated in western countries?).
The military and the Pakistani Intelligence Service has to be squeezed very hard if we want to get rid of terrorism from that part of the world. The carrot approach is clearly not working.


If you think the (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by JamesTX on Fri May 13, 2011 at 12:12:46 AM EST

carrot approach isnt working you may want to consider how much credit we have left in the "whip their asses" department. Iraq. Afghanistan. Libya. Now Pakistan? Do you really think that we can go on forever and prevail? You watched too many war movies. The precise problem which the Islamic world has with us is our attitude that it's our way or the highway on everything. There is a limit to our power.


Hypocritical (none / 0) (#17)
by gaf on Fri May 13, 2011 at 06:09:07 AM EST

Pass a congressional resolution declaring Pakistan a state that harbors terrorism. Raise the issue of Pakistan's support of terrorism in the UN. Tell China that there will be economic and trade consequences if it provides support to Pakistan's military and intelligence service.

Most of the world knew that Pakistan was a state that harbors terrorism for the last 10-15 years. And the USA also knew it. In spite of this, the USA provided support to Pakistan's military & intelligence services.

So all of the sudden stopping others from doing what you have been doing for many years would seem a little hypocritical, don't you think?


I do not think (none / 0) (#24)
by Politalkix on Fri May 13, 2011 at 12:02:11 PM EST

that any country other than China would shed a tear or thought about how we deal with Pakistan. People may just yawn and say "what took you so long?". China does not have much standing on a subject such as hypocrisy.


India (none / 0) (#38)
by gaf on Sun May 15, 2011 at 10:52:03 AM EST

that any country other than China would shed a tear or thought about how we deal with Pakistan.

What about India?


: Please explain (none / 0) (#39)
by Politalkix on Sun May 15, 2011 at 12:24:29 PM EST

why India would object to the us stopping all aid to Pakistan's military and intelligence service right now.

Another Trump voter! (none / 0) (#32)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 13, 2011 at 11:29:09 PM EST

I'd say it was internal faction (none / 0) (#35)
by Militarytracy on Sat May 14, 2011 at 06:56:00 AM EST

Within the ISI...just guessing though based on what I understand of them mostly from reading.


Not surprised (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 13, 2011 at 05:42:04 AM EST

they were hostile as I never thought much would be gained from interviewing them but I guess you have to at least try.

"No productive information was obtained" (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by jbindc on Fri May 13, 2011 at 08:52:01 AM EST

That we know of. Of course, if any productive information WAS obtained, we wouldn't hear about it from CNN.....

Jeralyn, to what do you attribute (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:35:36 PM EST

your interest in the wives and children of ObL?

: Jeralyn has spent her (none / 0) (#6)
by gyrfalcon on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:09:12 PM EST

entire adult life fighting for underdogs.

So much for (none / 0) (#8)
by gyrfalcon on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:13:05 PM EST

the idea the U.S. was going to take them to Gitmo.

I think Bagram is more likely (none / 0) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:28:37 PM EST

and until they are sent home to their home countries, I wouldn't count it out. The question is, what will the U.S. offer Pakistan to get custody of them? The U.S. is going to want to question them separately and without Pakistan sitting in. I don't think they are giving up on that so easily.


separately meaning (none / 0) (#10)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:29:27 PM EST

individually, one at a time, hoping for inconsistencies.


: Agreed on that, but (none / 0) (#33)
by gyrfalcon on Fri May 13, 2011 at 11:31:37 PM EST

Bagram seems to me almost as unlikely as Gitmo. It would be insane to treat the lady wives of a Muslim pooh-bah that way, and whatever else this admin. is, it's not insane about Middle Eastern sensitivities.

"kaput" (none / 0) (#11)
by denise k on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:31:21 PM EST

It seems like it has been kaput for a long time. It is just now we can all see it.

The wives were described as "hostile..." (none / 0) (#15)
by JoeCHI on Fri May 13, 2011 at 04:59:29 AM EST

Why wouldn't they be? All three lost a husband, one (or two, depending on which inconsistent report you believe) lost a son, and one was shot in the leg.

Cry me a river....

Spoken like... (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by kdog on Fri May 13, 2011 at 08:58:26 AM EST

an AQ sympathizer regarding the wife and children of a 9/11 victim , or fallen US soldier.

Its little wonder the world is such a violent place...with so little value placed on human life and decency...and so much self-righteous blood lust.

Unless the wives and kids were actively involved in planning or executing more murder, and I seriously doubt Osama asked for his wives opinions or input regarding AQ Murder Inc., they should not be bothered in the least...they should be set free immediately.

No mas to making the family suffer for the crimes of a family member...foreign and domestic. That's mafioso cruel and inhumane bullsh*t.


: "Mafioso" (none / 0) (#34)
by Nemi on Sat May 14, 2011 at 06:19:58 AM EST

style liquidation is btw also the term Paul Auster, himself a New Yorker close to/ affected by 9/11, use to describe how he sees the assassination of bin Laden. And he finds it ever harder to have a positive view of the US in general and N.Y. in particular.

Many a wife, mother or family (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by KeysDan on Fri May 13, 2011 at 10:24:29 AM EST

member of the most vile offender is either hostile or pleads to the judge that "your honor, he is really a good man". It is neither unusual or unexpected. And, from an investigative point of view, an attitude of "cry me a river" to a family member is unlikely to yield much intelligence. Of course, some may see waterboarding as the best approach to interrogating the widows.


Simple waterboarding? (none / 0) (#22)
by kdog on Fri May 13, 2011 at 10:28:53 AM EST

Not getting soft on terror are ya KD? Off to the rape room with them! Cry me a river!


: Welll, you have to start somewhere. (none / 0) (#23)
by KeysDan on Fri May 13, 2011 at 10:51:03 AM EST

After that big drink doesn't work, we have methods.

I can't help but think (none / 0) (#29)
by JamesTX on Fri May 13, 2011 at 06:25:08 PM EST

how this "shot in the leg" thing has a sort of cheap Western movie quality to it. I can remember an interview where some guy in U.K. was suggesting that the police deadly force policy should include a rule to shoot people in the arms or legs if use of deadly force was in doubt. Of course, the interviewer quickly pointed out to the person, obviously unfamiliar with the realities of firearms (because they don't have any in U.K.), that a a shot to the leg is in no way "safe" or unlikely to be fatal. With today's high powered weapons, a shot to the leg can open an artery or even tear the limb off leading to quick death. What confuses me is how these hyper-expert highly trained marksmen with hi-tech weapons, who obviously can put a round into someone's mouth at 100 yards while running and chewing gum, would shoot someone "in the leg". It seems almost as if it were intentional!

I think we knew what we were risking (none / 0) (#36)
by Militarytracy on Sat May 14, 2011 at 06:58:51 AM EST

when we did this, and I think it is a fair assumption that the CIA has infilitrated the ISI too and they are working with us even when they aren't working us now. They never could be trusted though, and neither could certain factions within the Pakistani military either. We understand this and we have always undestood this.