Q. Would you state your full name?
A. Timidity Cowhurd Squeam.
Q. Do you have a nickname, Mr. Squeam?
A. Yes, my friends call me Timid.
Q. What is your principal residence, Mr. Squeam?
A. The planet Earth.
Q. And how long have you lived there?
A. Fifty-eight years.
Q. Have you ever left planet Earth before, Mr. Squeam?
A. No. This is my first excursion.
Q. The purpose of this inquiry, Mr. Squeam, is to determine, so far as that may be possible, the reasons behind the recent events on Earth, especially those giving evidence of a decline in the level of civilisation. Your testimony can be very helpful in that regard. We appreciate your willingness to cooperate.
A. It is a honour to be asked. I hope I can provide some clarity.
Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Squeam, I want to assure you that you yourself are under no suspicion, and are not charged with any offense. In addition, all your testimony is protected by the immunity provided to all who appear in this chamber. So you may feel free to relate the facts as you recall them. Do you understand, Mr. Squeam?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. Good. Let me begin by asking if you personally were aware of declining standards?
A. No. I don't recall that I was.
Q. Let me be more specific, Mr. Squeam. Did you know, from your own experience, that important changes were taking place in your civilisation?
A. No. I was not aware of any important changes.
Q. In the matter of relations between the various countries, was it customary to issue a formal declaration of war before active hostilities began?
A. Not usually. The formal declaration generally came later, after a pre-emptive attack of some kind.
Q. Why was this?
A. I think it was to gain some advantage over the adversary, to strike unawares.
Q. Would that be something like hitting a man while he is sleeping?
A. I suppose so.
Q. Did this arouse your indignation, Mr. Squeam?
A. At one time it did, as when the Germans attacked Poland, and when Japan attacked America at Pearl Harbour.
Q. But later this indignation waned?
A. Yes. As time went on, it became customary to engage in combat without a formal declaration of war, and I don't recall that I had any objection.
Q. You did not object to going to war without a formal declaration?
A. No. It was presented as an appropriate response to provocation.
Q. Can you tell us about a specific provocation?
A. Yes, I remember the destruction of office buildings in New York.
Q. And what was the response?
A. The United States considered that it was an act of war, and that the country was at war against the perpetrators of the act.
Q. As I recall, the perpetrators were killed at the time, is that right?
A. Yes, they were in the planes that crashed into the buildings.
Q. So the actual perpetrators were dead?
A. Yes, presumably so. There were no survivors among the crew and passengers of the planes.
Q. Can you tell us how a war came to be declared, when the event was carried out by suicide bombers?
A. It was considered to be the work of a conspiracy. It was the surviving conspirators, and their organisation, that were the declared enemy.
Q. Can you tell us the name of this organisation?
A. It was called the Al Qaeda. And it was lead by a man named Osama bin Laden.
Q. Was the declaration of war against the organisation, or against the leader?
A. Actually it was neither. The war was against "terrorism."
Q. And how was terrorism defined?
A. It was never defined.
Q. So there was an express intent to go to war against an undefined entity, one loosely referred to as "terrorism."
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. The word terrorism refers to a pattern of behaviour, engaged in by an anti-social person or group of persons, does it not?
A. Well, that is one definition.
Q. What I am asking is whether you are able to make a distinction between the proscribed behaviour and the perpetrators, whether known or unknown.
A. I find it difficult to make the distinction. To me, they are one and the same.
Q. Very well. You have answered the question. At the time, the time the war on terrorism was announced, did you have any objection, or at any time feel some unease that a series of events were being contemplated that might endanger individual freedoms?
A. No, not at all. I think I was still concentrating on the attack on the New York buildings, and the deaths of the people who were inside at the time.
Q. Was there any confusion in your mind between 'going to war' and apprehending the members of Al Qaeda as criminals?
A. At first there was some confusion in everyone's mind, and it was not at all clear whether there was a large conspiracy at work, to attack the United States and its allies, or whether the attack was a small-scale operation involving just a few people.
Q. Did that confusion cause you to hesitate in forming an opinion regarding the appropriate response?
A. I suppose so. I recall the general fear further acts of terrorism would occur. There was apprehension no defense was in place.
Q. So there was confusion about the identity of the perpetrators, along with a fear of additional attacks, and this prevented any serious consideration of whether subsequent actions were an appropriate response to the attack on the buildings?
A. Yes, I think that is correct.
Q. What actions did the United States take to forestall further terrorist acts, especially on its continental territory?
A. The search for Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organisation led eventually to Afghanistan, where there was a civil war in progress.
Q. Did the United States make a formal request to the government of Afghanistan for the extradition of Osama bin Laden?
A. I don't recall a formal request, just some discussion. Not everything was reported.
Q. Did the United States recognise the government of Afghanistan at that time, and if so, was there an extradition treaty in effect?
A. I recall that the Afghanistan government was called the Taleban, and that they were strictly Islamic in their attitudes and policies. I don't recall that the United States ever gave formal recognition to the Taleban government, or if there was an extradition treaty in effect. Somehow I don't think so. I am wondering now if there was even an embassy or consular office in Kabul at that time.
Q. Do you recall if the United States asked for Osama bin Laden?
A. Yes. They wanted the Taleban to hand him over for arrest and prosecution.
Q. Did the Taleban respond favorably to this request?
A. The Taleban asked for proof that Osama bin Laden was involved.
Q. Did the United States attempt to offer proof?
A. Not as I recall. There did not seem to be any proof.
Q. Did this lack of proof bother you at the time?
A. Yes, I think it did, but there were hints that evidence was available, and we were asked to believe that the evidence was both available and sufficient.
Q. And did you accept this assurance without further qualms?
A. I didn't make any statement or protest.
Q. When the Taleban request for proof was not met, what happened next?
A. The United States began to supply arms and weapons to the Northern Alliance, which was the faction opposing the Taleban in the civil war.
Q. Was a declaration of war issued at that time?
A. No.
Q. What was the extent of United States participation in the civil war?
A. At first they provided air cover and bombs, in support of the ground troops. Then they began to supplied massive logistical support, and later ground troops joined in the battle.
Q. Did the entry of the United States into the Afghanistan civil war cause you any pangs of conscience? Do you recall any feeling of unease or distress?
A. No, I don't recall that it did. Wait, I take that back. There were several aspects that bothered me.
Q. What were they?
A. The United States started to use large "bunker buster" bombs that exploded above the troops with a huge fireball, killing or wounding everyone within a radius of a thousand yards or more. Then they began to bomb buildings that later turned out to be in civilian use. I recall a report that a power generating station was destroyed, and an airfield.
Q. Why did this bother you?
A. I thought it was unnecessary, an excessive use of firepower and destructive capacity. I objected to the indiscriminate killing of civilians, as well as people who were in no way involved in the attack in New York.
Q. Did you do or say anything at the time to indicate your discontent?
A. No.
Q. What made you hesitant?
A. There seemed at the time an active effort to present the facts in a way that made objectionable actions 'errors,' and this tended to remove the element of intent. I just gave them the benefit of the doubt.
Q. Do you recall reading any reports of "massacres" or "atrocities" during the fighting in Afghanistan?
A. No.
Q. Did you detect any racial or ethnic elements in the fighting?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Do you think the large bombs would be used on Caucasions? Would they be used in Europe, for example.
A. I don't know, I can't say. As I said, the reports of so many deaths and injuries were troublesome for me.
Q. Were any prisoners taken by the Northern Alliance during the fighting?
A. Yes, there were many hundreds of prisoners taken.
Q. Were there reports of mistreatment of the prisoners?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make any objection at the time?
A. No.
Q. And why do you think you were able to accept this mistreatment of prisoners with equanimity?
A. I think I blamed them. In some way I blamed them for the destruction of the New York buildings.
Q. Did it ever occur to you that these people were fighting to defend their country against outside aggression?
A. No. I couldn't see things from their perspective. I believed that everything done to them was what they deserved.
Q. Did you know any of the fighters personally?
A. No.
Q. Do you think this may have affected your feelings about the events surrounding the treatment of prisoners?
A. My feelings were partly in sympathy for their condition, which news reports described as miserable, with many deaths. But the news reports also stated that those coming forward to surrender often had hidden grenades that they exploded when near their captors.
Q. Did these suicide killings strike you as conduct that was rational and fair?
A. No. When a soldier offers to surrender, he should not engage in any further belligerent activity.
Q. Were you able to verify that the 'suicide surrenders' actually happened as reported?
A. No.
Q. Did you attempt to verify these reports through other channels?
A. No. As I recall, there were no "other channels." The only news was provided by the Northern Alliance and a few Western journalists.
Q. Do you have any reason to doubt the news reports you read?
A. No. If you don't trust the news, what can you trust?
Q. Was this behaviour, the suicide bombings of the prisoners, was it indicative of an ideological orientation? Did it suggest to you that the soldiers had an extraordinary determination?
A. Not really. As I said, I thought it was unfair, to surrender and then continue fighting.
Q. Did you later learn that the United States had taken charge of some of the prisoners?
A. Yes.
Q. Since the United States was not a combatant in the civil war, was the taking of prisoners a surprise to you?
A. I wondered about it, but it seemed natural that the United States would want to interrogate the Taleban soldiers to find out what they could about the Al Qaeda and the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden.
Q. Some of the prisoners were flown to a United States Naval Base in Cuba, where they were incarcerated. Did this strike you as unusual?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you say anything or write anything at the time?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. By this time the war on terrorism had become polarised, so that anyone who objected to the United States actions became suspect. No one wanted to be thought supportive of the aims or attitudes of the Al Qaeda.
Q. Were you aware of the stated objectives of the Al Qaeda?
A. We were told they hated America, which seemed obvious at the time.
Q. Were you aware of other motives?
A. They hated American freedoms and liberties. They were enemies of democracy, and they hated the wealth and advantages that Americans enjoy.
Q. How did you become aware of these objectives?
A. The American President, George Bush, stated them often.
Q. Were you aware of any other motives for the attack on the New York buildings?
A. Yes. I recall there were three: (1) The presence of United States troops and bases in Saudi Arabia, (2) the support of dictatorships around the world, and especially in the Middle East, and (3) the support of Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians.
Q. How did you learn of these?
A. I think I learned of them from Osama bin Laden. He made a tape that was broadcast on TV.
Q. Were these ever debated openly, by news commentators or others?
A. No. There was never any discussion.
Q. Was the United States support for Israel apparent at that time?
A. Yes, there was an active campaign taking place in the Israel-Palestine theatre.
Q. Was the support of the United States questioned as being a factor?
A. Not inside the United States. All over the world there was distaste and revulsion at what was going on, but not within the United States. It was a taboo subject to some extent, and anyone who questioned the suppport given to Israel was treated as unpatriotic.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Squeam. We will take a recess at this time. We will continue with your testimony at 2:00 PM. You are excused until then.
The url of this page is: https://harunrmy0.tripod.com/98Squeam.html