A.Q. Khan and "Justice"

In last night's debate, Bush stated (on more than one occasion):

The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice.

(Transcript, courtesy of the Washington Post.)

I'm hardly a Kerry-tine, but this truly irks me. The A.Q. Khan network has not been brought to justice. A.Q. Khan was caught, immediately pardoned by President Musharraf of Pakistan, and shuffled off to an undisclosed location. To my knowledge, no credible party has interviewed him; we have little idea how widely or deeply he distributed his nuclear know-how.

Indeed, at the very time that Bush was asserting that A.Q. Khan's network had been wrapped up and rolled up, Pakistan was refusing to allow the IAEA to interview A.Q. Khan:

VIENNA, Sept 30: Pakistan has refused to let the UN nuclear watchdog interview scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in an interview with the BBC on Thursday.

"We have not been allowed by Pakistan to talk to the man," Mr ElBaradei, who is director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said in the BBC World Service interview.

It was the first time the IAEA has admitted that Pakistan is refusing to let it see Dr A.Q. Khan. The IAEA has been asking Pakistan regularly to help it investigate the international black market allegedly run by Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Pakistan's cooperation with the probe is crucial in resolving how Iran, and other states like North Korea, have supplied themselves with nuclear parts and technology that can be used to make atomic weapons.

... Mr El Baradei said "as far as I know Mr Khan has not talked to any non-Pakistani until now".

A.Q. Khan is probably the biggest proliferator of WMDs of the last decade. He needs to be interviewed, his network fully revealed and rolled up, and the recipients of his WMD secrets publicly identified. No ifs, ands, or buts. Saying we've already done that -- when we clearly haven't -- was probably the most significant misstatement of the debate.

I'm not convinced yet on Kerry -- the Libertarian party has its draws, after all -- but I'm certain that Bush simply does not deserve my vote.

Comments

[sidereal]

I'm actually inclined to be generous on this. I think Bush is fundamentally not up to the job and borderline inept, but I don't believe he's inept enough to just gloss over the most dangerous nuclear proliferation situation of our time. And even if he were, he has a lot of advisors that aren't.

In other words, I'm pretty sure he did the best he possibly could. There are two interpretations of this. Either the best possible was good, and Khan can't speak to anyone because he's hanging by his ankles in a dungeon somewhere busy giving up names, or the 'best possible' was what we evidently got -- almost nothing -- because there's something even more dangerous keeping us from it. Perhaps Khan is capable of making credible threats.

My nagging tinfoil fear is that what we got in exchange for Khan's wrist-slap was something beneficial to the Bush campaign, and not to America. But I'm keeping that one in the closet for now.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Sidereal, the far more plausible explanation is that we couldn't get much from Pakistan on this issue because Kahn has god-like popularity in Pakistan as the father of their nuclear program.

[von]

I think Sebastian's explanation is probably the right one; nor am I asking for Bush to do the impossible -- though I'd like to see some more pressure on Pakistan over the issue (so far as I can tell, there's been none).

What really, really irks me is Bush's misstatement in the debate. This is not another talking point for the campaign trail.

[sidereal]

"we couldn't get much from Pakistan on this issue"

Come on. The United States is (still, despite current efforts) the most powerful country in the known universe. We can't generate some leverage to publicly punish the man personally responsible for escalating the greatest current threat to our security?

How do you square your belief in our impotence with your criticism of Clinton's Korea policy? Surely if we can't get justice for the man feeding NUCLEAR WEAPONRY into the black market, we can hardly do anything about Jong-Il.

[Slartibartfast]

Hmmm...I have to confess near-complete ignorance on this. Was A. Q. Khan in any way involved in getting gas centrifuges to North Korea?

I know he was involved in other unsavory endeavors, just was trying to connect the dots. If possible.

[Jadegold]

Sebastian is correct; Khan enjoys almost a mythical stature in Pakistan. He's considered to be a kind of "founding father" in Pakistani history. It would be virtually impossible for the US to gain access to Khan.

But it's a lie to say the Khan network was "brought to justice."

And there's a larger lie. Khan couldn't have possibly operated his nuclear Quickee Mart without the approval and knowledge of the highest levels of the Pakistani Government and military.

[carsick]

It's possible that Khan was a scapegoat for Pakistani involvement in selling nuclear secrets and pushing the issue will endanger Pakistan's cooperation in the hunt for OBL and other high target al Queda (not that we seem to be making much progress in that area). Also, Musharaff's very leadership of Pakistan might also be in danger if we put too much pressure on him.
But, claiming house arrest (sans US interrogation or interviews) for the world's leading distributor of nuclear technology as a big win for the administration is just ridiculous.
He did afterall admit to selling info to Iran, N.Korea and who else? Libya? Any others?
Wasn't there something about the axis of evil at one point? Those states were connected and it seems Khan was the axle.
Unsupervised house arrest? That's some serious justice.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"The United States is (still, despite current efforts) the most powerful country in the known universe. We can't generate some leverage to publicly punish the man personally responsible for escalating the greatest current threat to our security?"

Sure, if you want don't want to work with anyone in Pakistan at all. It is all about making choices.

And you call Bush a poor diplomat?

[praktike]

Doubltess, Badnarik will solve this problem.

[von]

Doubltess, Badnarik will solve this problem.

Touche'.

[sidereal]

"And you call Bush a poor diplomat?"

Horrible, actually. But that's beside the point.

What sort of 'nuance' argues for letting the ringleader of criminal conduct that both parties and most Americans have agreed is the most dangerous threat to our security on the entire planet in exchange for ephemeral increased support from Pakistan which may or may not aid us in capturing people who are now substantially less dangerous?

You are, I believe, allowing politics to dictate priorities. Saddam was incredibly dangerous because he might do what we know Khan was doing. We know it. Smoking gun a mushroom cloud? Remember any of that?

This is insane. It's like we caught Saddam doing exactly what we feared most, and everyone is shuffling their feet and saying 'oh, we'll take a slap on the wrist. That's cool. Because our Pakistani relations are so important.' Is the Pakistani Test some kind of sub-Global Test? If I had said we shouldn't take out Saddam because it would seriously hamper our French relations, you'd have self-righteously laughed in my face (blogly speaking).

I am deeply afraid for our country right now. I'm beginning to understand how profoundly essentially arbitrary mental and political constructs determine our attitudes and behavior. The danger to American interests represented by Khan and Hussein are like night and day.

[sidereal]

Don't go to the Libertarians for foreign policy. They're smoking butts in the lobby with Nader.

Badnarik's fairly great. Anti-abortion libertarian. A little too gun-happy for my tastes, but whatever. But not this year, and maybe not ever until we get IRV or some permutation.

[Jesurgislac]

If I had said we shouldn't take out Saddam because it would seriously hamper our French relations, you'd have self-righteously laughed in my face

Ah, but that would have been a "global test", according to Von, and a "global test" is obviously wrong. Whereas a Pakistani test is as obviously just fine. After all, Pakistan is a democracy. Unlike France.

Sorry, I still have way too much irony in my diet.

[Jay C.]

Unfortunately, the Khan case sits at the juction of two major (and I mean fate-of-world-type MAJOR) groundfaults in the "War on Terror", namely 1) the dangers of the worst-case-scenario sort of nuclear proliferation - the chance that outright terrorists (think al-Qaeda) can or will get their hands on a working nuclear bomb; and 2) the fact that Pakistan is a somewhat less-than-stalwart ally in the fight against Islamic-extremist-terrorism; if only because it is said extremists who have the sympathies and allegiance of most of the country -as opposed to its government.
Not a good situation, and definitely not one with any easy solutions: but for President Bush to claim that Abdul Qadeer Khan has been "brought to justice" as part of his non-proliferation efforts is just plain idiotic.
But then, consider the source.....

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Sidereal, Pakistan has done pretty much the most we could expect them to do with Kahn. They have kept him from travelling to and communicating with other countries. They are interviewing him but not allowing their hero the indignity of being interviewed by us. We could do more if we were willing to invade Pakistan. Are you?

Pakistan is a nuclear power.

Iraq was not.

It is in our best interests to stop nuclear proliferation BEFORE a country becomes a nuclear power--it is easier that way.

[sidereal]

"We could do more if we were willing to invade Pakistan."

The limits of our leverage are 100% speculation on your part, so I don't feel constrained by the choices you offer. If our President can offer no leverage other than our invasion, then he is an absolute disaster and we will remember his election with shame unto the end of our days.

[sidereal]

"Pakistan is a nuclear power."

So is France.

[von]

Ah, but that would have been a "global test", according to Von, and a "global test" is obviously wrong. Whereas a Pakistani test is as obviously just fine. After all, Pakistan is a democracy. Unlike France.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with me, Jes, but I sense it's a very silly one.

[Jesurgislac]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with me, Jes, but I sense it's a very silly one.

Ya think?!

Von, when you start trying to argue that Kerry ought to have brought a dictionary to the debates and flashed definitions of the words he was using up on the screen behind him so as to avoid anyone being able to claim ambiguity... at that point I lose all seriousness.

[Fledermaus]

It is in our best interests to stop nuclear proliferation BEFORE a country becomes a nuclear power--it is easier that way.

Um, by definition - wouldn't a country have to be a neclear power BEFORE they could proliferate nuclear weapons?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"The limits of our leverage are 100% speculation on your part, so I don't feel constrained by the choices you offer. If our President can offer no leverage other than our invasion, then he is an absolute disaster and we will remember his election with shame unto the end of our days."

At this point I'm confident that you simply do not understand the position Khan has in the public opinion of people in Pakistan. It would be like asking Americans to turn over George Washington.

I'm not saying the US has no leverage other than invasion on all possible foreign policy topics. I'm saying they have no such leverage on the topic of Khan in Pakistan.

[CharleyCarp]

Funny, but you don't hear Marcia Clark bragging much about how OJ was "brought to justice."

Indeed, I think it's time the term "brought to justice" start having the only rational and recognizable meaning: to cause a person to submit to an adjudicative process.

It does not mean killed in battle. It does not mean killed while escaping. It does not mean held incommunicado, without any judicial process, and interrogated in ways that do not pass muster under the principles of law.

Of course, one problem with using these words for what they actually mean is that one would not be able to say that Bush brought Hamdi to justice, but would in fact say that Hamdi brought Bush to justice.

Better to just use Red Queen logic, and appropriate words that have a nice sound to cover things that aren't all that nice.

[von]

at that point I lose all seriousness.

Jes, I don't require absolute precision. But "global test" is an unclear "test" on a subject where clarity is required. He could simply say, "I won't act unless I've convinced our [NATO/Western European] allies to act with us." That's a test (though not a very good one). "I won't act unless after I've acted I have found that I have succeeded" -- what you and CharlieCarp suggested Kerry meant -- ain't a test at all. It's a post-hoc justification.

This ain't a quibble, this is an actual problem for Kerry -- which is why you see it popping up all around the right-wing blogosphere.

[von]

For the record, however, I agree with CharlieCarp's assessment of Hamdi's release.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"I won't act unless after I've acted I have found that I have succeeded" -- what you and CharlieCarp suggested Kerry meant -- ain't a test at all. It's a post-hoc justification.

Furthermore it is Kerry's typical M.O. His concept of when to remove the troops is--when the job is done. He then refuses to clarify 'the job' and his ridiculous hints about removing troops in the next six months suggest that 'the job' doesn't involve a stable non-authoritarian Iraq.

[Jesurgislac]

This ain't a quibble, this is an actual problem for Kerry -- which is why you see it popping up all around the right-wing blogosphere.

Nope, it is a quibble. The right-wing blogosphere have simply spotted two words that they can focus on out of context, and are gunning for them. This is SOP for the right-wing blogosphere whenever Kerry says anything.

"Global test" clearly in context includes far more than "our Western European allies" - especially, it also includes the people of the US.

Katherine makes a good point on the other thread (03:46 PM):

Global test was poor phrasing but the context makes it perfectly clear what he meant: if you're going to attack preemptively be prepared to show it was legitimate afterwards.

They're using it to propagate the same old lie about Kerry not going to war without U.N. approval. It's a cheap attack and you shouldn't contribute to it. Even if you only attack Kerry for a tactical error in choosing those words, you are aiding in the misrepresentation of his clear meaning. (cite)

I agree.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian on Kerry: His concept of when to remove the troops is--when the job is done.

When else, pray tell, would you suggest that the troops are removed?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Wow, Jesurgislac, for someone who just spent pages defending the context of Kerry's quote, you certainly didn't bother to pay even cursory attention to what you quote from me.

Careful readers might note the next sentence:

"He then refuses to clarify 'the job' and his ridiculous hints about removing troops in the next six months suggest that 'the job' doesn't involve a stable non-authoritarian Iraq."

[CharleyCarp]

I don't know why "don't gamble the rent money unless you are very very sure you're going to win" is so difficult to accept.

In the run-up, we were constantly told -- and the VP loved to say this -- that the risks of not acting vastly exceeded the risks of acting. People heard this and nodded, and if it had turned out that a nuclear program (not even weapons) had actually been reconstituted, and there were vast stockpiles of chemical weapons, and a clear paper trail leading from Iraqi bio-weapons programs to Islamists, well, the only true pacifists would really oppose the thing. In Paris and Berlin, people would be saying, probably even in public, that it was a good thing, even if they weren't convinced of the timing.

As it turned out, of course, it's plenty clear that the risks of not acting were actually pretty low. Maybe not zero, but certainly nothing like what the Admin was talking about in the run-up (or the Pres implied last night).

In the eyes of a great many folks, the Admin gambled with American credibility, and they lost.

The question we face, then, is whether they really had enough, when they made the decision to throw the dice, to justify the gamble. Supporters of the Admin want to talk about the state of knowledge in October or December 2002, because at that time everyone thought there may well be something. This WAS NOT the state of affairs in late February and March of 03, because inspectors had been going to the places we told them the stuff would be found -- and we really did want the inspectors to catch Saddam red-handed -- and they kept finding no evidence that our intelligence on the subject was or had ever been accurate.

The Admin, despite this substantial evidence that their intelligence was inaccurate, decided to gamble based on their assessment of Saddam's character. Once again, if they'd lucked out, it wouldn't be a campaign issue, and no one but the truly marginal would be talking about it.

Of course, we've also found out that the risks of acting are a lot higher than represented. I don't remember the Pres saying back in March 03 that even a year after Saddam was gone it would be very hard work.

[Jesurgislac]

Wow, Jesurgislac, for someone who just spent pages defending the context of Kerry's quote, you certainly didn't bother to pay even cursory attention to what you quote from me.

You're right, Sebastian. I apologise. I should go eat.

[Fledermaus]

Sorry to quibble, Seb, but

At this point I'm confident that you simply do not understand the position Khan has in the public opinion of people in Pakistan. It would be like asking Americans to turn over George Washington.

Hmmmmm . . . I don't rememeber England basing their decisions on what America would think. For some one who argues

But at some point I'm sure England asked us to turn over Washington. Plus Pakistan is supposed to be our ally on the war on terror.

Look, I understand the delicate position the General is in (sorry can't spell Musharif). However there comes a time when we have to ask - what have we gotten in return? AQ Kahn has (if the reports that I read are true) given nuclear technology to 2/3 of the Axis of Evil. At the very least we should be demanding specifics as to what he gave/sold to whom - do you really believe that the General doesn't know? What ever Khan's popularity is his boss should know what he's been giving to whom. And if the General doesn't know what's going on in his own government, how do you expect him to find and capture significant AQ targets?

As I see it, in either case he is 1) hiding intel from us; or 2) too ignorant to keep track of is nuclear technology. So explain again why we should give him a pass on AQ Kahn.

[Fledermaus]

For some one who argues . . .

sorry, that was a sentence fragement that I forgot to delete.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

But according to the reports, we have been getting the intel that Pakistan gets from Khan. We just aren't allowed to interview him ourselves. I understand (boy do I understand) why we want to interview him ourselves. But I also understand that when you have the living equivalent to George Washington in your country, you don't feel compelled to turn him over to anyone.

[Anarch]

But I also understand that when you have the living equivalent to George Washington in your country, you don't feel compelled to turn him over to anyone.

That's twice you've used that metaphor. Any justification for it?