An article in the international section of today's New York Times reports on a student at Tufts University. The article runs under the headline "Kashmir's Champion Finds Pitfalls to Peace." It reports, "For Mr. Ahmad, a spokesman in the United States for a nonviolent Kashmiri independence movement, the meeting was doubly important, because he has been denied an Indian visa since June 2001, a month after he joined the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, an organization that has not been accused of either atrocities or of significant Pakistani backing."
"Nonviolent"? "Has not been accused of . . .atrocities"?
The Jerusalem Post reported July 2, 1991, that the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front had taken an Israeli hostage in India after he escaped from another Kashmir group that had kidnapped him and five other Israelis.
The Jerusalem Post said, "The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) has insisted it will release Israeli hostage Yair Yitzhaki only to a UN representative, a demand that police say can be met. . . . .Yitzhaki was picked up by the JKLF after he and five other Israeli tourists overpowered kidnappers from another militant group on Thursday. Erez Cahane was killed along with a militant and three wounded Israelis are still in hospital. One escaped unhurt."
Mr. Yitzhaki was released later.
The Daily Telegraph of London reported on December 14, 1989, about another kidnapping by the JKLF: "THE KIDNAPPED daughter of Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, India's Home Minister, was freed after six days yesterday in exchange for five Kashmiri militants. Mr Inder Gujral, Foreign Minister, authorised the state government to give way on the two sticking points delaying the exchange after the kidnappers, members of the secessionist Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, renewed a threat to kill Dr Rubia Sayeed, 23. The JKLF, the strongest group fighting for independence in Kashmir, freed Dr Sayeed after the militants were released in Srinagar, summer capital of the mountainous Jammu and Kashmir state. Dr Sayeed, whose Kashmiri father is the first Moslem to hold the Home Ministry post, was seized last Friday as she returned home from work."
Don't Know: An op-ed piece by Michael Naumann in today's New York Times runs under the headline, "Why Europe Is Wary of War in Iraq." The article says of Saddam Hussein, "However, while the man is dangerous and crazy, we do not know that he has weapons of mass destruction." First of all, Saddam Hussein unfortunately does have chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. The director of central intelligence's special assistant for nonproliferation, John A. Lauder, said in a statement prepared for delivery on April 29, 1999: "Iraq is another serious CBW proliferation concern, despite more than seven years of rigorous inspections. There are strong indications that Iraq retains a CW capability and that it has helped other countries--particularly Sudan--develop or expand CW capabilities. In addition, since the Gulf War, Baghdad has rebuilt chemical facilities that could be converted fairly quickly for production of CW agents. Meanwhile, Iraq refuses to disclose fully the extent of its BW program and still has not accounted for over a hundred BW bombs and more than three metric tons of imported growth media--directly related to past production and future capabilities. Iraq has demonstrated the capability to deliver BW agent from aircraft. We believe Iraq will exploit any opportunity to reconstitute its pre - Gulf War CBW capabilities as rapidly as possible, once sanctions are lifted." If anything, Saddam Hussein has accumulated more chemical and biological weapons since 1999, in the absence of U.N. inspections. What would it take for Mr. Naumann to "know" that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction -- their use against an American or Israeli city? Second of all, even if Mr. Naumann were right and Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction, what would be the point of waiting until Iraq does have them -- and is a more formidable foe -- to attack?