Kashmir, Beautiful State of Misery

Relatives try to comfort the daughter of Manzoor Ahmed Beigh who was killed allegedly by Special Operations Group of police, Monday. Hundreds of protesters raising anti-India slogans blocked the airport road near Aluchi Bagh in Srinagar after Beigh’s body was handed over. Farooq Javed

The sister of Manzoor Ahmed Beigh cries during his funeral in Srinagar, Monday. Hundreds of protesters raising anti-India slogans blocked the airport road near Aluchi Bagh in Srinagar after Beigh’s body was handed over. Farooq Javed

View from Fortress: Rising Kashmir lensman Shuaib Masoodi catches the panoromic view of Srinagar city from Koh-e-Maran fort on Sunday.

All in a day’s work: The State authorities imposed severe restrictions across Kashmir valley and stopped people from moving around even as Kashmiris observed shutdown on the call of pro-freedom leader Syed Ali Geelani. North Kashmir\’s Baramulla district and Ladakh parliamentary constituencies are going to polls in the 5th and last phase of Lok Sabha elections on 13 May 2009. Farooq Javed/ Rising Kashmir

Angry protesters damage the vehicle of Indian Army after it overran a minor girl at Lasjan area of Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, Monday. Farooq Javed/ Rising Kashmir

Angry protesters try to set the vehicle of Indian Army afire while the body of minor girl who was overrun by the vehicle is carried from the spot at Lasjan area of Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, Monday. Farooq Javed/ Rising Kashmir Mother of a disappeared Kashmiri consoles her husband as they weep during a peaceful sit-in demonstration organized by the Association for Parents of Disappeared Persons on Mother’s Day in Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, Sunday. According to APDP since the beginning of the armed rebellion in Kashmir in 1989, some 8000 to 10000 persons went missing after being detained allegedly by troopers. Farooq Javed / Rising Kashmir


Alucha Bag

Locals stage protest demos, DC orders probe

Wasim Khalid/ Hakeem Irfan
Srinagar, May 18:
A 40-year old resident of Alucha Bagh, who is father of three, was killed allegedly in custody by Special Operations Group of police Monday, sparking massive anti-police demonstrations. The Deputy Commissioner Srinagar has ordered an inquiry into the killing while police has launched inquest proceedings under section 174 CrPC.
“I and my brother (Manzoor Ahmad Beigh) left the home in the morning for our routinely work. At around 1:30 pm, two men came to my shop at Hari Singh High Street and told me that Manzoor has been arrested by personnel of SOG Cargo and shifted to SMHS hospital,” said Manzoor’s brother, Abdul Majeed Beigh of Beigh Mohalla, Alucha Bagh.
He said, “I alongwith another relative of mine went to SMHS hospital, where we found Manzoor lying dead on a stretcher”.
Manzoor, 40 son of late Abdul Ahad Beigh, who was dealing in the sale and purchase of vehicles and gold, has left behind a widow, two sons and a daughter.
Claiming that torture marks were visible on Manzoor’s body, Majeed said, “There was a red mark around his throat. His chest was red and the arm pits were swollen. His eyes were closed forcibly with an adhesive tape.”
As the news about Manzoor’s death reached Alucha Bagh, hundreds of men, women and children came out on the Indira Gandhi Airport road and staged demonstrations. They blocked the vehicular movement on the road for nearly three hours, as a result traffic jams became rampant in city from Rambagh to Jawahar Nagar.
The slogans like  “We want freedom”, ‘Qatil Ko Peesh Karo”, “Task force hai hai”, “National Conference Hai Hai’ slogans reverberated the air as the protestors were demanding action against the guilty SOG men.
The protestors clashed with police in the evening. The cops fired tear smoke shells and resorted to baton charge to disperse the agitating people. The cops also fired in air. However, no injuries were reported.
Manzoor picked up by SOG
Police sources admitted that Manzoor was picked up by SOG men. “He was picked up by some officer and later shifted to the hospital,” said a senior officer pleading anonymity.
The relatives of deceased said, “Manzoor was shifted to Ramzana hospital by the SOG after severely torturing him in custody. Seeing his condition, the Ramzana hospital management refused to admit him. Later, he was taken to SMHS in an auto bearing number JKO1A-1629 by some men, who later fled.”
Police sources said that auto driver has been arrested by police. “The two men, who informed Manzoor’s brother about his arrest and shifting to hospital have also been detained,” said Abdul Majid, brother of deceased.
An Alucha Bagh resident, Bashir Ahmed told Rising Kashmir, “The NC has revived SOG and STF and the incidents like today will happen again. It will be a routine affair during the NC government”.
DC orders inquiry
Deputy Commissioner Srinagar Mehraj Ahmed Kakroo and SSP Srinagar Afhad-ul-Mujtaba visited SMHS hospital, where 40-year old Manzoor was lying dead on a stretcher.
Talking to media persons, Kakroo said he rushed to the hospital after coming to know about the incident through an SMS. “The inquiry into the incident will be conducted in seven days,” he said.
Later, in the evening, DC ordered inquiry into the killing. The Additional District Development Commissioner, Srinagar, M. Y. Zargar was appointed as Inquiry Officer and was asked to submit report within a week.
Kakroo said post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by a team of doctors appointed by Principal, Government Medical College, Srinagar and Chief Medical Officer, Srinagar.
Meanwhile, a police spokesman said that police has launched inquest proceedings under section 174 of CrPC into the incident. “The circumstances under which the body was brought to Hospital appeared to be suspicious. The inquest proceedings u/s 174 CrPC have been initiated in the matter and the District Magistrate Srinagar stands informed accordingly,” he said.
Separatist address mourners
National Front chairman Nayeem Khan, Muslim League Chairman Mushtaq ul Islam, JKLF leaders Noor Muhammad Kalwal, Bashir Ahmed Bhat and Showkat Bakshi visited the residence of the deceased and addressed the mourners.
“SOG and STF have again started to unleash the reign of terror. Omar Abdullah cries hoarse about democracy but this is what is happening on ground,” said Nayeem Khan.
ML chairman termed the killing as part of planned state sponsored terrorism.
Meanwhile, Hurriyat Conference (G) Syed Ali Geelani has condemned the killing of the civilian. “It is the worst act of state terrorism and a routine event after the election drama,” he said.

“International terrorism does not exist”: General Ivashov

General Ivashov: “International terrorism does not exist”

by General Leonid Ivashov *

General Leonid Ivashov was the Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the September 11, 2001, attacks took place. This military man, who lived the events from the inside, offers an analysis which is very different to that of his American colleagues. As he did during the Axis for Peace 2005 conference, he now explains that international terrorism does not exist and that the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them. He affirms that, instead of faking a “world war on terror”, the best way to reduce that kind of attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens.


JPEG - 22 kb
General Leonid Ivashov (left) at the Axis for Peace Conference 2005 in Brussels, with Webster Tarpley

As the current international situation shows, terrorism emerges where contradiction aggravate, where there is a change of social relations or a change of regime, where there is political, economic or social instability, where there is moral decadence, where cynicism and nihilism triumph, where vice is legalized and where crime spreads.

It is globalization what creates the conditions for the emergence of these extremely dangerous phenomena. It is in this context that the new world geo-strategic map is being designed, that the resources of the planet are being re-distributed, that borders are disappearing, that international law is being torn into pieces, that cultural identities are being erased, that spiritual life becomes impoverished…

The analysis of the essence of the globalization process, the military and political doctrines of the United States and other countries, shows that terrorism contributes to a world dominance and the submissiveness of states to a global oligarchy. This means that terrorism is not something independent of world politics but simply an instrument, a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite. It is precisely this elite that constitutes the key element of world terrorism, its ideologist and its “godfather”. The main target of the world elite is the historical, cultural, traditional and natural reality; the existing system of relations among states; the world national and state order of human civilization and national identity.

Today’s international terrorism is a phenomenon that combines the use of terror by state and non-state political structures as a means to attain their political objectives through people’s intimidation, psychological and social destabilization, the elimination of resistance inside power organizations and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries’ policies and the behavior of people.

Terrorism is the weapon used in a new type of war. At the same time, international terrorism, in complicity with the media, becomes the manager of global processes. It is precisely the symbiosis between media and terror, which allows modifying international politics and the exiting reality.

In this context, if we analyze what happened on September 11, 2001, in the United States, we can arrive at the following conclusions: 1. The organizers of those attacks were the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the world order and who had the means necessary to finance the operation. The political conception of this action matured there where tensions emerged in the administration of financial and other types of resources. We have to look for the reasons of the attacks in the coincidence of interests of the big capital at global and transnational levels, in the circles that were not satisfied with the rhythm of the globalization process or its direction.
Unlike traditional wars, whose conception is determined by generals and politicians, the oligarchs and politicians submitted to the former were the ones who did it this time.

2. Only secret services and their current chiefs – or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations – have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude. Generally, secret services create, finance and control extremist organizations. Without the support of secret services, these organizations cannot exist – let alone carry out operations of such magnitude inside countries so well protected. Planning and carrying out an operation on this scale is extremely complex.

3. Osama bin Laden and “Al Qaeda” cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders. Thus, a team of professionals had to be created and the Arab kamikazes are just extras to mask the operation.
The September 11 operation modified the course of events in the world in the direction chosen by transnational mafias and international oligarchs; that is, those who hope to control the planet’s natural resources, the world information network and the financial flows. This operation also favored the US economic and political elite that also seeks world dominance.

JPEG - 22.2 kb
General Leonid Ivashov with journalist Christopher Bollyn from American Free Press

The use of the term “international terrorism” has the following goals:
- Hiding the real objectives of the forces deployed all over the world in the struggle for dominance and control;
- Turning the people’s demands to a struggle of undefined goals against an invisible enemy;
- Destroying basic international norms and changing concepts such as: aggression, state terror, dictatorship or movement of national liberation;
- Depriving peoples of their legitimate right to fight against aggressions and to reject the work of foreign intelligence services;
- Establishing the principle of renunciation to national interests, transforming objectives in the military field by giving priority to the war on terror, violating the logic of military alliances to the detriment of a joint defense and to favor the anti-terrorist coalition;
- Solving economic problems through a tough military rule using the war on terror as a pretext. In order to fight in an efficient way against international terrorism it is necessary to take the following steps:
- To confirm before the UN General Assembly the principles of the UN Charter and international law as principles that all states are obliged to respect;
- To create a geo-strategic organization (perhaps inspired in the Cooperation Organization of Shanghai comprised of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) with a set of values different to that of the Atlantists; to design a strategy of development of states, a system of international security, another financial and economic model (which would mean that the world would again rest on two pillars);
- To associate (under the United Nations) the scientific elites in the design and promotion of the philosophical concepts of the Human Being of the 21st Century.
- To organize the interaction of all religious denominations in the world, on behalf of the stability of humanity’s development, security and mutual support.

 General Leonid Ivashov
General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union’s ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council of defense ministers of the Community of independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federation’s Ministry of defense and Joint chief of staff of the Russian armies

The Machinery of Hopelessness

The Machinery of Hopelessness

Posted by thomaspainescorner

zqqvmjoeekoyxmjwm2ln

By David Graeber

5/17/09

We have reached an impasse. Capitalism as we know it is coming apart at the seams. But as financial institutions stagger and crumble, there is no obvious alternative. Organized resistance is scattered and incoherent. The global justice movement is a shadow of its former self. For the simple reason that it’s impossible to maintain perpetual growth on a finite planet, it’s possible that in a generation or so capitalism will no longer exist. Faced with this prospect, people’s knee-jerk reaction is often fear. They cling to capitalism because they can’t imagine a better alternative.

How did this happen? Is it normal for human beings to be unable to imagine a better world?

Hopelessness isn’t natural. It needs to be produced. To understand this situation, we have to realize that the last 30 years have seen the construction of a vast bureaucratic apparatus that creates and maintains hopelessness. At the root of this machine is global leaders’ obsession with ensuring that social movements do not appear to grow or flourish, that those who challenge existing power arrangements are never perceived to win. Maintaining this illusion requires armies, prisons, police and private security firms to create a pervasive climate of fear, jingoistic conformity and despair. All these guns, surveillance cameras and propaganda engines are extraordinarily expensive and produce nothing – they’re economic deadweights that are dragging the entire capitalist system down.

This hopelessness-generating apparatus is responsible for our recent financial freefalls and endless strings of bursting economic bubbles. It exists to shred and pulverize the human imagination, to destroy our ability to envision an alternative future. As a result, the only thing left to imagine is money, and debt spirals out of control. What is debt? It’s imaginary money whose value can only be realized in the future. Finance capital is, in turn, the buying and selling of these imaginary future profits. Once one assumes that capitalism will be around for all eternity, the only kind of economic democracy left to imagine is one in which everyone is equally free to invest in the market. Freedom has become the right to share in the proceeds of one’s own permanent enslavement.

Since the economic bubble was built on the future, its collapse made it seem like there was nothing left.

This effect, however, is clearly temporary. If the story of the global justice movement tells us anything, it is that the moment there appears to be any sort of opening the imagination springs forth. This is what effectively happened in the late ’90s when it looked for a moment like we might be moving toward a world at peace. The same thing has happened for the last 50 years in the US whenever it seems like peace might break out: a radical social movement dedicated to principles of direct action and participatory democracy emerges. In the late ’50s it was the civil rights movement. In the late ’70s it was the anti-nuclear movement. More recently it happened on a planetary scale and challenged capitalism head-on. But when we were organizing the protests in Seattle in 1999 or at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) meetings in DC in 2000, none of us dreamed that within a mere three or four years the World Trade Organization (WTO) process would collapse, “free trade” ideologies would be almost entirely discredited and new trade pacts like the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) would be defeated. The World Bank was hobbled and the power of the IMF over most of the world’s population was effectively destroyed.

But of course there’s another reason for all this. Nothing terrifies leaders, especially American leaders, as much as grassroots democracy. Whenever a genuinely democratic movement begins to emerge, particularly one based on principles of civil disobedience and direct action, the reaction is the same: the government makes immediate concessions (fine, you can have voting rights) and then starts revving up military tensions abroad. The movement is then forced to transform itself into an anti-war movement, which is often far less democratically organized. The civil rights movement was followed by Vietnam, the anti-nuclear movement by proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua and the global justice movement by the War on Terror. We can now see the latter “war” for what it was: a declining power’s doomed effort to make its peculiar combination of bureaucratic war machines and speculative financial capitalism into a permanent global condition.

We are clearly on the verge of another mass resurgence of the popular imagination. It shouldn’t be that difficult. Most of the elements are already there. The problem is that our perceptions have been twisted into knots by decades of relentless propaganda and we are no longer able to see them. Consider the term “communism.” Rarely has a term come to be so utterly reviled. The standard line, which we accept more or less unthinkingly, is that communism means state control of the economy. History has shown us that this impossible utopian dream simply “doesn’t work.” Thus capitalism, however unpleasant, is the only remaining option.

In fact, communism really just means any situation where people act according to this principle: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. This is, in fact, the way pretty much everyone acts if they are working together. If, for example, two people are fixing a pipe and one says “hand me the wrench,” the other doesn’t say “and what do I get for it?” This is true even if they happen to be employed by Bechtel or Citigroup. They apply the principles of communism because they’re the only ones that really work. This is also the reason entire cities and countries revert to some form of rough-and-ready communism in the wake of natural disasters or economic collapse – markets and hierarchical chains of command become luxuries they can’t afford. The more creativity is required and the more people have to improvise at a given task, the more egalitarian the resulting form of communism is likely to be. That’s why even Republican computer engineers trying to develop new software ideas tend to form small democratic collectives. It’s only when work becomes standardized and boring (think production lines) that becomes possible to impose more authoritarian, even fascistic forms of communism. But the fact is that even private companies are internally organized according to communist principles.

Communism is already here. The question is how to further democratize it. Capitalism, in turn, is just one possible way of managing communism. It has become increasingly clear that it’s a rather disastrous one. Clearly we need to be thinking about a better alternative, preferably one that does not systematically set us all at each others’ throats.

All this makes it much easier to understand why capitalists are willing to pour such extraordinary resources into the machinery of hopelessness. Capitalism is not just a poor system for managing communism, it also periodically falls apart. Each time it does, those who profit from it have to convince everyone that there is really no choice but to dutifully paste it all back together again.

Those wishing to subvert the system have learned from bitter experience that we cannot place our faith in states. Instead, the last decade has seen the development of thousands of forms of mutual aid associations. They range from tiny cooperatives to vast anti-capitalist experiments, from occupied factories in Paraguay and Argentina to self-organized tea plantations and fisheries in India, from autonomous institutes in Korea to insurgent communities in Chiapas and Bolivia. These associations of landless peasants, urban squatters and neighborhood alliances spring up pretty much anywhere where state power and global capital seem to be temporarily looking the other way. They might have almost no ideological unity, many are not even aware of the others’ existence, but they are all marked by a common desire to break with the logic of capital. “Economies of solidarity” exist on every continent, in at least 80 different countries. We are at the point where we can begin to conceive of these cooperatives knitting together on a global level and creating a genuine insurgent civilization.

Visible alternatives shatter the sense of inevitability that the system must be patched together in its pre-collapse form – this is why it became such an imperative on behalf of global governance to stamp them out (or at least ensure that no one knows about them). Becoming aware of alternatives allows us to see everything we are already doing in a new light. We realize we’re already communists when working on common projects, already anarchists when we solve problems without recourse to lawyers or police, already revolutionaries when we make something genuinely new.

One might object: a revolution cannot confine itself to this. That’s true. In this respect, the great strategic debates are really just beginning. I’ll offer one suggestion though. For at least 5,000 years, before capitalism even existed, popular movements have tended to center on struggles over debt. There is a reason for this. Debt is the most efficient means ever created to make relations fundamentally based on violence and inequality seem morally upright. When this trick no longer works everything explodes, as it is now. Debt has revealed itself as the greatest weakness of the system, the point where it spirals out of control. But debt also allows endless opportunities for organizing. Some speak of a debtors’ strike or debtors’ cartel. Perhaps so, but at the very least we can start with a pledge against evictions. Neighborhood by neighborhood we can pledge to support each other if we are driven from our homes. This power does not solely challenge regimes of debt, it challenges the moral foundation of capitalism. This power creates a new regime. After all, a debt is only a promise and the world abounds in broken promises. Think of the promise made to us by the state: if we abandon any right to collectively manage our own affairs we will be provided with basic life security. Think of the promise made by capitalism: we can live like kings if we are willing to buy stock in our own collective subordination. All of this has come crashing down. What remains is what we are able to promise one another directly, without the mediation of economic and political bureaucracies. The revolution begins by asking what sorts of promises do free men and women make one another and how, by making them, do we begin to make another world?

Tamil Tiger Founder Prabhakaran Dead at 54

[Yes, he is really dead, despite what you hear.]

Tamil Tiger Founder Prabhakaran Dead at 54

For 37 years, Prabhakaran had done one thing better than anything else on his fearsome resume: avoid capture.

Tamil Tiger Founder Prabhakaran Dead at 54

Sri Lankan military handout photo shows what the army says is the body of LTTE leader Prabhakaran

In the end, Tamil Tiger leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran appeared to have no time to bite the cyanide capsule he wore to take in case of imminent capture.

The architect of Asia’s longest-running civil war had vowed never to be taken alive, and on Tuesday, Sri Lankan army Commander General Sarath Fonseka said soldiers had killed the island’s most wanted — and until now — most elusive man.

For 37 years, Prabhakaran had done one thing better than anything else on his fearsome resume: avoid capture. But on Tuesday, there was little doubt about the elusive Tiger chief’s whereabouts, even though an LTTE official denied he was dead.

Video footage showed what the military said was Prabhakaran’s corpse with the top of his head blown off. The founder of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) was shot and killed on Monday, the government said.

Before meeting his end near a marshy lagoon in the land he fought three decades to establish as a separate nation for Sri Lanka’s Tamils, Prabhakaran had almost single-handedly propelled one of the world’s most brutal and intractable wars.

He sent thousands of foes and followers to their deaths, either by signing off on their assassinations or ordering them to blow themselves up with a bomb strapped to their chest.

The man known to friends as “Thamby”, or little brother in Tamil, started out with a few friends by robbing banks to fund their rebel group in the 1970s, and eventually turned it into one of the world’s most well-funded and well-armed irregular groups.

The LTTE at its peak ruled a quarter of Sri Lanka’s land mass, maintaining a standing army, navy and even a combat air wing of small planes that carried out attacks in the capital and elsewhere during its two years aloft from 2007-2009.

A stocky man who brooked no dissent from his own organisation or the wider Tamil community, Prabhakaran has been accused of eliminating all of his opponents, including lieutenants.

The list included nearly every moderate Tamil politician in Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa in 1993, and former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.

PHOTO ALBUM

Shortly before the end, troops recovered his personal photo album and the Defence Ministry published pictures showing him frolicking with his eldest son, Charles Anthony, in a pool, or dining in relative luxury with his family.

“Those were purely personal pictures, taken like any father who has a doting family,” said Col. R. Hariharan, who served in India’s 1987-1990 peacekeeping mission to Sri Lanka.

“But it also shows, though the Sri Lankan propaganda puts it crudely, his double standards in asking suicide bombers to give up their lives.”

Prabhakaran was most often pictured in his trademark tiger stripe camouflage with men and women he had sent to their deaths on suicide missions. One notable photo showed his followers in combat boots, while he wore penny loafers.

The son of a government employee, Prabhakaran dropped out of school at 16 to fight for Tamil independence and has since been accused of drafting thousands of child soldiers, some as young as 10, and sending hundreds of people to blow themselves up.

Prabhkaran lifted a ban on marriage in the LTTE when he married university student Mathi Vathani in 1984.

The couple had three children. His heir-apparent, Charles Anthony, was killed in the final assault, and the image of his dead body was broadcast on state television on Monday.

A fan of action movies, Prabhakaran initially called his group the Tamil New Tigers, which produced the acronym TNT.

Although he caught the attention of authorities shortly thereafter, his notoriety grew after he killed the pro-government mayor of the northern city of Jaffna in 1975.

A year later, he changed his growing insurgent group’s name to reflect his goal of creating Eelam, the Tamil word for homeland.

The LTTE quickly became the most brutally efficient of several groups formed to fight against what they saw as mistreatment by successive governments, all led by the Sinhalese ethnic majority since independence from Britain in 1948.

By the time Sri Lanka’s civiL war got under way in 1983, the LTTE had sidelined almost all of them.

That Prabhakaran had faced a final showdown was a marked turnaround for a man who just a few years ago owned a reputation as a ruthless tactician who killed his enemies before they became threats and commanded a fanatically loyal army.

In his annual speech in November, he said Sri Lanka’s military was “in a dreamland” if it thought it would win the war.

Iran war still on, only after first taking care of Pakistan

Published: May 19, 2009

WASHINGTON — Now that President Obama has established what he called a “clear timetable” for Iran to halt its nuclear program — progress must be made by the end of the year, he declared on Monday — both American and Israeli officials are beginning to talk about how to accomplish that goal.

But even after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s first visit to the White House on Monday, where he and Mr. Obama stressed common goals and played down their differences on strategy, it seemed clear that they still do not agree even on the basic question of how much time remains to stop Iran from gaining a nuclear weapons capability. So now begins Mr. Obama’s diplomatic sprint. His declaration Monday that “we’re not going to have talks forever” was a warning to the Iranians that his fundamentally different approach — serious American engagement with Tehran for the first time in three decades — must bear fruit before Iran clears the last technological hurdles to building a weapon. It is a strategy that some administration officials describe as “negotiations with pressure” — a combination of direct negotiations, reassurances that Washington is no longer seeking regime change in Iran, and an effort to persuade the ruling mullahs that the alternative to serious concessions will be painful: international sanctions that are far harsher and more tightly enforced than the weak mix of actions imposed so far by the United Nations Security Council

.

“There’s a three-way race going on here,” one of Mr. Obama’s strategists said the other day. “We’re racing to make diplomatic progress. The Iranians are racing to make their nuclear capability a fait accompli. And the Israelis, of course, are racing to come up with a convincing military alternative that could plausibly set back the Iranian program.”

Neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Netanyahu made any reference on Monday to Israel’s regular allusions to those alternatives. This was, after all, a first meeting.

Their most obvious public differences were not over Iran at all. Instead, they centered on Mr. Obama’s insistence that Mr. Netanyahu should order an halt to new Jewish settlements in the West Bank before there can be any hope of serious negotiations with the Palestinians. True to form, Mr. Netanyahu said he was ready to restart the peace process but refused to say whether he viewed the creation of a Palestinian state as the ultimate goal. Mr. Obama pushed back — gently — saying that “all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations they have previously agreed to.” That seemed like enough of a public split for a first meeting.

On Iran, the divisions are not as public. But they start with the fundamental issue of how much time remains to stop the Iranian program. “We’re looking at the same evidence,” Brigadier General Michael Herzog, the chief of staff to Israel’s minister of defense, said during a visit to Washington earlier this month. “We interpret it differently.”

The American interpretation is that Iran could reach the capability to build a bomb any time between 2010 and 2015 — a window that cracks open right after Mr. Obama’s rough deadline to show that negotiations are working. But in their public comments, senior American intelligence officials say they think Iran would not have a serious nuclear capability until the end of that range. “We have some time,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates insisted earlier this year.

Mr. Herzog offered a grimmer assessment. “Under a certain scenario,” he said, if the Iranians decide to speed ahead, “they can have a first device by the end of 2010, perhaps the beginning of 2011, and that’s not very far away.”

Presumably, that was why Mr. Obama went out of his way, with Mr. Netanyahu sitting next to him, to warn the Iranians that “we’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear — and deploying — a nuclear weapon.”

Mr. Obama’s strategy is based on a giant gamble: That after the Iranian elections on June 12, the way will be clear to convince the Iranians that it is in their long-term interest to strike a deal, trading their ability to produce their own nuclear fuel for a range of tempting rewards. For months, White House and State Department strategists have been debating just which incentives to offer the Iranians up front, and in what order. But they start with the prospect of opening the spigots of investment in Iran’s decrepit oil infrastructure, and even recognizing — and aiding — a civilian nuclear capability for Iran, as long as the country kept its hands off the nuclear fuel.

Behind the scenes, there has been work on the other side of the ledger: How to escalate pressure if the Iranians drag their feet. Some tactics involve corner shots, like persuading the Chinese to stop blocking the imposition of some sanctions against Iran. And if, by year’s end, the Iranians still refuse serious negotiations, Mr. Obama’s aides have debated more extreme sanctions. One involves cutting off credit guarantees to European companies that do business with Iran.

“That’s been impossible until now,” said one American official, “but it could become possible.”

Mr. Obama raised a far more extreme possible sanction during his presidential campaign, though he has not discussed it publicly since his inauguration: Threatening to cut off the supply of refined petroleum products like gasoline to Iran. Of course, that would inevitably lead to Iranian cutoffs of crude oil exports, the country’s most effective conventional weapon.

But Israeli officials express skepticism that any combination of new diplomatic openness and gradually escalating pressure will work. Their assessment is that Iran wants the bomb, full stop. Privately they raise doubts over whether Mr. Obama has really defined in his own mind what it is that constitutes, as he said on Monday, “moving in the right direction.”

A senior Israeli who talked with journalists after the two leaders met said that to his mind, the only benchmark that really matters this year is a halt in Iran’s enrichment of uranium. Otherwise, he said, Iran just gets closer to a bomb capability every day that talks drag on.

CENSORED CONTENT

CENSORED CONTENT

[These words from my last article, "The American War on Wana," will not post in the Word format.  Each time I tried to load the article with these paragraphs included, they were automatically removed in the process.  I could not post the full article until I did it from Notepad.  The oddest part is that nearly every one of the censored paragraphs pertained to "al Qaida" being fake; it is really an intelligence operation.]

A great sickness of mind has inflicted the people of this Nation, filling our thoughts with bloodlust and heroic visions of victory over savage hordes who are bent on our destruction.   The “al Qaida” and Taliban who have been cast as classic movie villains who prefer a world ruled by death and despair, answer to strange gods and display bizarre customs.  American soldiers were cast in the hero’s role, standing tall in their glorious image of the lone eagle warriors holding-back the swelling tides of Asia and Africa, defending our lovingly constructed towers of glory that surely elevate us that much closer to our Creator even as they set us above our fellow man.  This is the Hollywood image of America that has been carefully constructed by our leaders and powerhouses of influence, the “Zion” of Matrix fame.   “Zion” America, the hero nation of warriors, defending precious civilization, under siege by armies of darkness and inhumanity.

Every action that our government takes in Pakistan and Afghanistan, under the pretense of eliminating “al Qaida” is a fraud.  Whatever is left of bin Laden’s organization (he never called it “al Qaida,” it was the “World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders”), most of the terrorist acts that have been blamed on the legendary group were either the work of other terrorists [like Khalid Sheikh Mohamed and Ramsey Yousef], CIA/Special Forces operations or attacks by mercenary proxies hired by the CIA network).   The Arabic expression,’Q eidat ilmu’ti’aat’, meaning “the database,” is the source of the term ascribed to the legendary terrorist outfit.

The term “al Qaida” was never used before the “war of terror” was dreamed-up in the sick minds of the neocon spooks who ran the Bush/Cheney political team in the 2000 campaign.   The only proof given to the contrary came from an Israeli source, claiming to be copied text from an American embassy press release.  World renowned expert on bin Laden , Yossef Bodansky never used the term “al Qaida” even once in his opus volume of research entitled, “Bin Laden: the Man Who Declared War on America,” published in 1999.

The concept of the “global war on terror” has served as an excuse for turning reality on its head and the implementation of the full war agenda of the radical American right wing.   Bin Laden’s organization, “World Islamic Front for Jihad” is a spent force.

The war in AfPak is based on multiple deceptions by numerous interested parties

Their attacks, coupled with the constant haranguing and threats coming from Bush and Cheney, have compelled the Army to fight a series of mini-wars against the fake Taliban, or “al Qaida,” who had taken advantage of Muslim customs to gain shelter among the local Pashtun population from the storm blowing-away across the Durand Line.  Each time the Army ended the mini-war by signing treaties with militant leaders like Mullah Dadullah or Baitullah Mehsud, a new series of attacks would erupt elsewhere.  The collateral damage inflicted upon the local tribes in these attacks and the Army’s counter-attacks then, as now, was massive.  This suffering and violence breathed new life into the local Taliban movement, motivating thousands to take-up arms against the Americans and the Pakistani government.
Into this confusing, boiling cauldron of inter-tribal and inter-agency warfare the British and American forces introduced another wild card, the “Taliban split,” orchestrated around the killing on May 13 of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Dadullah.   British and Afghan agencies used his brother Mansoor to introduce the idea of “reconciliation” and double-cross into the minds of both the Afghan and the Pakistani Taliban. British assets associated with Mansoor began to perpetuate mistrust and suspicion of Afghan double-agents, especially those who had been associated with Abdullah Mehsud and his Uzbeks.

Pakistan has to seriously fight a war against the Taliban, pretending that they are fighting an imaginary “al Qaida” hierarchy which survived the Afghan war by fleeing to FATA and NWFP.   Pakistan has to decimate its population with war and refugee problems, under American direction, in the pretense of fighting a military “force” that consists of no more than a token  remnant; it is not any kind of “force” at all.

The U.S.-Backed War on Gaza

The U.S.-Backed War on Gaza

The Silent Partner
By LARRY EVEREST

Shortly after darkness fell on Saturday night, January 3, Israel launched a massive land invasion of Gaza involving 9,000-10,000 soldiers, tanks, helicopters, and heavy artillery, engineering and intelligence forces, with the support of Israel’s Air Force, navy, and secret police and spy agencies. The ground invasion came after Israel, for the first time, unleashed an artillery barrage on Gaza, striking a mosque and killing at least 11 people. By the next day, Israeli forces had reportedly cut Gaza in half, “bisecting” it between north and south.

Seven straight days of Israeli bombing before the invasion had already resulted in an estimated 460 killed and 2,285 wounded (with the numbers increasing by the hour). Now more carnage looms with The New York Times (January 4, 2009) already reporting “Wounded civilians poured into the emergency room of Shifa Hospital in Gaza City on Sunday, including women and children.” And Israel’s ban on journalists from entering Gaza means that much death and destruction has gone unreported.

In a despicable display of threat and false show of concern, Israel dropped leaflets over northern Gaza telling residents: “For your own safety, you are asked to leave the area immediately. ” Yet Palestinians are trapped in Gaza by Israel. Where are they supposed to go?

This raises the specter that many people, unable to leave, will be murdered. And according to a March 2008 report on Israeli Channel Two (after a visit from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice), Israel’s strategy may be “for the removal of tens of thousands of Palestinians from the northern Gaza Strip, namely from the region that the resistance uses for the launch of these rockets, and to move them toward Gaza City and to confine them there.” (See http://arablinks. blogspot. com/2008/ 03/after- meeting-condi- israeli-official s.html)

The forced removal of a civilian population is the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing and a war crime.

In the past several days the U.S. government has made its support for Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza crystal clear. The U.S. was informed before Israel launched its attacks (and was reportedly involved in months of Israeli planning), and now CNN reports (January 4, 2009) that the U.S. military was “aware in advance of Israel’s plans to enter Gaza.”

So it is telling that on the very day of Israel’s invasion, President Bush gave his first public statement on Gaza—condemning Hamas, raising no criticism of Israel, and opposing a ceasefire, but instead justifying Israel’s attack: “This recent outburst of violence was instigated by Hamas—a Palestinian terrorist group supported by Iran and Syria that calls for Israel’s destruction. “

The same day, Secretary of State Rice strongly backed Israel and condemned any cease-fire that didn’t meet Israeli objectives. And the day before, a White House spokesperson said any decision on a ground invasion would be Israel’s to make—in other words, a bright green light for Israel from the U.S.
Meanwhile, President-elect Barack Obama has supported the Bush regime and Israel by refusing to publicly comment, while his spokespeople repeat campaign statements supporting Israeli action against Hamas.

Imperial Aims

The U.S. through Israel is aiming to tighten its imperial domination of the entire strategic region. And Israel, for its part, aims not only to aid U.S. imperialism in that, but to strengthen its own fortress-like settler state, even more ruthlessly oppressing and dominating the Palestinians.

The U.S., together with Israel, has a number of intertwining objectives it hopes to achieve with this military assault in Gaza. It wants to even more forcefully assert and hammer down the dominance of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. As part of its so-called “war on terror,” the U.S. wants to further undermine and push back Islamic fundamentalist forces that pose a challenge to the U.S. empire. And it wants to brutally put down the struggle of the Palestinian people and break their will to resist.

“Surgical” Strikes Targeting a Society

Israel claims that Hamas “started it,” and that now Israel is simply trying to defend itself against Hamas “terrorists, ” in order to stop rocket attacks on Israel and the Jewish people.

Yet there is absolutely nothing just or legitimate about Israel’s targeting of Hamas.

For one, it was Israel that first broke the ceasefire in November and has refused to negotiate its renewal (while planning this attack for its own strategic objectives for over six months). Israel’s war is aimed at strengthening its stranglehold on Palestine, by defeating Islamic fundamentalist forces like Hamas that pose an obstacle to unfettered US-Israeli control. As one senior military officer put it, Israel’s goal was “making Hamas lose their will or lose their weapons.”

One Israeli spokesperson declared, “We have defined legitimate targets as any Hamas-affiliated target.” (Washington Post, January 2, 2009). Armed forces deputy chief of staff Brigadier General Dan Harel stated, “After this operation there will not be a single Hamas building left standing in Gaza.” (Ynet News)

The Palestinian people have a long history of fierce resistance and uprising against the brutal Israeli occupation. And Israel faces a lot of necessity to put down this struggle. This is why, while Israel is targeting Hamas as the governing party in Gaza with ties to Iran—it is also doing this as a way of breaking the back of the resistance of the masses, which has been a U.S.-Israeli goal for over 60 years. Consider the fact that “[H]undreds of thousands of Gazans have received warnings in the form of telephone messages or fliers that their buildings are Israeli targets.” (New York Times, January 2, 2009)

Or consider U.S.-Israeli objections to a resolution proposed by the Arab League calling for “an immediate ceasefire and for its full respect by both sides,” and for Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention with regard to protecting civilians in time of war. The U.S. attacked it as “unbalanced, ” after earlier forcing the removal of language calling on Israel to lift its blockade of Gaza and stop the collective punishment of Palestinians. (Antiwar.com, January 1, 2009). So even abiding by basic international law concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity is intolerable for the U.S. and Israel, and an impediment to their criminal attacks on the Palestinian people!

The U.S. has also opposed calls for a cease fire, blaming Hamas for the fighting and demanding it stop firing rockets before Israel is required to halt its military assault—in effect blocking any diplomatic moves that could in any way impede Israel’s attack.

What Israel is doing in Gaza is like the Nazis confining people in the Warsaw ghetto during World War 2 and then seizing on their resistance to declare, “we’re are being attacked and anyone who says anything about the situation has to first agree on that—and before anything can be done to resolve the situation, the people in the Warsaw ghetto have to stop attacking us.”

The U.S. and Israel’s Broader “War On Terror” Aims

Israel’s military assault on Gaza is part of a broad U.S.-Israeli counter-offensive against Islamic fundamentalist forces and Iran in particular which is seen by both as crucial to their broader “war on terror” objectives. This war, really a war for empire, is aimed at crushing Islamic fundamentalist forces, peoples and states which stand in the way of U.S. designs, and restructuring the region in order to strengthen the U.S. This war has made the U.S.-Israel’ s strategic relationship ever more pivotal today.

Israel’s long-planned attack on Gaza is aimed at rolling back Hamas’ January 2006 election victory and its summer 2007 seizure of power in Gaza, as well as Israel’s political defeat in its summer 2006 war against the powerful and reactionary Hezbollah Islamic fundamentalist forces in Lebanon—Israel couldn’t deliver on its promise to destroy Hezbollah, which instead emerged strengthened. It’s also aimed at restoring Israel’s military “credibility” : “to expunge the ghost of its flawed 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and re-establish Israeli deterrence,” as the New York Times put it.

This war is also part of a broader U.S.-Israeli effort to roll back regional gains by Islamist forces, especially Iran, which is a large, relatively powerful and coherent Islamic theocratic state with enormous energy resources and its own reactionary ambitions. Iran has challenged U.S.-Israeli regional hegemony through its increasing influence in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and the region generally. It’s also pursuing nuclear enrichment, which is considered intolerable in Washington and Tel Aviv, because even Iranian mastery of this technology could shift the regional military balance and impede U.S. and Israeli freedom of military action, even if Iran didn’t immediately make a nuclear bomb.

Hamas and the Iranian government do not offer the people a road to liberation and they do not break with imperialism in any fundamental way. These forces represent reactionary outmoded social relations. At the same time, it is important to be clear that it is U.S. imperialism, ruled by reactionary outmoded ruling strata, which has done and continues to do by far the greater damage and poses the greater threat to humanity (often, as in this case, acting through Israel).

Bush targeted Iran in his most recent radio address. Sallai Meridor, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., stated, “What you see in Gaza is made by Iran—it’s funded by Iran, the terrorists are trained by Iran, it’s supplied by Iran, the know-how to create short range rockets is Iranian,” calling Iran “an octopus,” with proxies in region and beyond the region.” (Press TV, December 30, 2008)
Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who remains a major voice in U.S. foreign policy, recently warned Fox News. “So while our focus obviously is on Gaza right now, this could turn out to be a much larger conflict. We’re looking at potentially a multi-front war.”

So the danger of this crime spiraling into even wider and more criminal war is very real. This is all the more reason to step up efforts to broadly educate people about what’s actually going on in Gaza, and to build very broad mass resistance—immediate ly.

Larry Everest is the author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda (one of the books that influenced the script of “W” – Oliver Stone’s just-released movie about George W. Bush),, a correspondent for Revolution (www.revcom. us) and a contributor to Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney (Seven Stories). He can be reached via http://www.larryeverest. com.

Beware the Revenge of the Pashtun

Beware the Revenge of the Pashtun

By Eric S. Margolis
Monday, 18 May 2009

Pakistan’s once beautiful Swat Valley has been turned into a battlefield. Last week, Pakistan finally bowed to Washington’s angry demands to unleash its military against rebellious Pashtun tribesmen of Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) – who are collectively mislabeled `Taleban’ in the west.

The Obama administration had threatened to stop $1.2 billion annual cash payments to bankrupt Pakistan’s political and military leadership, and block
$5 billion future aid, unless Islamabad sent its soldiers into Pakistan’s turbulent NWFP along the Afghan frontier and crushed attempts to re-establish Islamic Law.

Pakistan’s army and air force killed some 1,000 `terrorists’ (read: mostly civilians) and almost emptied the valley of its inhabitants, turning 1.2 million people into refugees.

Pakistan’s armed forces, who are being paid by the US to fight Pashtun tribes, have scored a brilliant victory against their own people. Too bad Pakistan’s military does not manage to do as well in wars against India. Blasting civilians, however, is much safer and more profitable.

Unable to pacify Afghanistan’ s Pashtun tribes (again, lumped together as `Taleban’), a deeply frustrated Washington has begun tearing Pakistan apart in an effort to end Pashtun resistance in both nations. CIA drone aircraft have so far killed over 700 Pakistani Pashtun. Only 6 per cent were militants, according to Pakistan’s media, the (rest civilians.

Pashtun, also improperly called Pathan, are the world’s largest tribal people. Fifteen million live in Afghanistan, forming half its population. Twenty-six million live right across the border (in Pakistan.

Up to three millions Afghan Pashtun are refugees in Pakistan.

Britain’s imperialists divided Pashtun by an artificial border, the Durand Line (today’s Afghan-Pak border). Pashtun reject it.

Many Pashtun tribes agreed to join Pakistan in 1947 provided much of their homeland remain autonomous and free of government troops. Pashtun Swat, where Islamic Shariah law was in force, only joined Pakistan in 1969 after assurances of autonomy and (religious freedom.

As Pakistan’s Pashtun increasingly aided Pashtun resistance in Afghanistan, US `Predator’ drones began attacking them. Washington forced Islamabad to violate its own constitution by sending troops into Pashtun lands. The result was the current explosion of Pashtun anger.

I have been to war with Pashtun and have seen their legendary courage, strong sense of honour, and determination. They are also hugely quarrelsome, feuding, prickly, and notorious for (seeking revenge.

One learns never threaten a Pashtun or give him ultimatums. These mountain warriors defied the US by refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden because he was a hero of the anti-Soviet war and their guest. Doing would have violated their ancient code of `Pashtunwali’ that still guides them.

Now, Washington’s ham-handed policies and last week’s Swat atrocity threaten to ignite Pakistan’s second worst nightmare after invasion by India: that its 26 million Pashtun will secede and join Afghanistan’ s Pashtun to form an independent Pashtun (state, Pashtunistan.

This would rend Pakistan asunder, probably provoke its restive Balochi tribes to secede, and might tempt mighty India to intervene military, risking nuclear war with beleaguered Pakistan. The Pashtun of Northwest Frontier have no intention or capability of moving into Pakistan’s other provinces, Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. They just want to be left alone. Alarms of a `Taleban takeover of Pakistan’ are driven by ignorance or propaganda.

Lowland Pakistanis have repeatedly rejected militant Islamic parties. Many have little love for Pashtun, whom they regard as mountain rustics best avoided. Nor are Pakistan’s well-guarded nuclear weapons a danger – at least not yet. Alarms about Pakistan’s nukes come from neoconservative fabricators worried about Israel.

The real danger is in the US acting like an enraged mastodon, trampling Pakistan under foot, and forcing Islamabad’s military to make war on its own people. Pakistan could end up like US-occupied Iraq, split into three parts (and helpless.

If this continues, at some point patriotic Pakistani soldiers may rebel against the corrupt generals and politicians on Washington’s payroll.

Equally ominous, a poor people’s uprising spreading across Pakistan – also mislabeled `Taleban’ – threatens a radical national rebellion like India’s (Naxalite rebels.

As in Iraq, ignorance and military arrogance are driving US Afghan policy. Obama’s people have no understanding what they are getting into in `Afpak.’ I can tell them: an unholy mess they will long regret.

* Eric S Margolis is a veteran US journalist who has reported from the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan for several years.

DALIT VOICE–May 16th – 31st, 2009

DALIT VOICE

Bid to sabotage electoral verdict : Congress, BJP, CPM may unite to keep Bahujans out of power

A big news. And a shocking news. But the Bahujan 85% of the Indian population, made unthinking morons by the mere 2% of our Brahminical rulers, may not be able to grasp the significance and the devastating consequences of the conspiracy disclosed below.

India is a vast subcontinent of over 1,200 millions ruled by a mere 15% upper caste (headed by 2% Brahmins). Money, muscle, media and caste manipulation determine the outcome of all elections including the current one, results of which will be out on May 16, 2009.

World’s greatest democracy: Billions have voted in the over a month-long election process which is the only criterion that makes the White Western media to call India as the “world’s largest democratic country” (DV May 1, 2009 p.8: “Elections alone can’t make India proud to call itself a democracy”). But we alone, the victims of this so-called sham democracy, know how this democracy is working in India. But we as the slaves have no voice in this “greatest democracy”.

The 15% upper caste rulers have come to know that the current parliamentary elections are going against them.

Being the rulers, property-holders, custodians of their obedient gods and their make-believe religion, they are alarmed that the political power may slip out of their hands and pass into the hated Bahujans. From centuries and centuries — even during the Muslim and then the British rule — they have been presiding over the destiny of the land and riding rough-shod over the 85% Bahujan havenots.

There was never a revolution in India. Only counter-revolutionaries like M.K. Gandi are paraded as our role model.

“Caste identity” kills casteists: For the first time the rulers are getting firm hints that they may lose the power after the elections. The one and only thing that helped to demolish the upper caste hegemony is our “caste identity” theory (read our book, Caste ­ A Nation Within the Nation, Books for Change, Bangalore, Rs. 140).

The on-going elections brought the “caste identity” to the forefront and killed the casteists (Hindus).

Till today, these micro-minority 15% rulers have been getting themselves divided into three principal parties: (1) the Congress, the country’s original Brahminical party of Gandhi-Nehru, (2) the more honest Brahmana Jati Party (BJP), born tot he first and (3) the communists (CPM&CPI), the deadliest and most dangerous Brahmin wovles in sheep’s clothings. These three parties, all controlled by upper castes, guided by the most cunning Brahminical brains, used to divide themselves, quarrel like cats and dogs during the day but as the night falls, they all dine together and then sleep together.

Pakistan visit: This conspiratorial caucus is expected to suffer a firm rebuff in the current elections. So, when we were in Delhi for three days before we left on a tour of Pakistan, leading a three-member Dalit writers delegation, to participate in the gala Dr. Ambedkar birth anniversary celebration there, we got scent of the ruling class conspiracy.

Till today the Tri Murtis — Congress, BJP and communists — were outwardly pretending to be ideological enemies of each other. But now they have decided that the time has come to call off this drama, clean up their painted faces and come out in their true colour.

Our information is the Brahminical controllers of the three parties will now join hands to retain the power in their hands forgetting all their false ideologies and fake quarrels.

Bomb unites Brahmins: Already hints have been thrown to unite on the “peaceful nuclear deal” with USA forged by the Khatri Sikh PM, who has already emerged as the darling of the Brahminical micro-minority. Manmohan Singh, who prostrated before the hated George Bush begging for bomb, is their hot favourite.

It is on the issue of bomb all the three notorious Brahminical parties are now going to unite to re-elect Khatri Sikh as PM so that the surging Chamar ka beti, Mayawati, is denied the seat.

Times of India campaign: The election results are expected to reduce the three “national” parties into anti-nationals by the surging SC/ST/BCs and Muslim/Christian/Sikh slaves of India. The worried Bhoodevatas have been directed by their holy Shankaracharyas that the three parties must unite to keep the hated Bahujans out and retain the Brahmin supremacy.

Already the country’s principal English daily, the Times of India, has been beating the drums to welcome the unelected Khatri Sikh back to the Delhi throne. As the election results start pouring in the BJP Brahmins and communist crooks will raise their voice in favour of the Khatri Sikh.

That means all the SC/ST/BCs (65%) and Muslim/Christian/Sikhs (20%) total 85% will stand deceived. This will be hailed in the media as a big feather on the hat of the “world’s greatest democracy”.

Coronation of Khatri Sikh: The zionists and their band-masters have already descended on Delhi to prepare for the coronation of the Khatri Sikh or may be the Bengali Brahmin, Pranab Mukherji. Anything can happen in India. The Tatas, Ambanis, Bajajs, and the entire lot of capitalist crooks will drink and dance over the victory of “democratic experiment” and the slaves of India will also see the dance in TV and enjoy the scene.

The rest will simply fall in line. The future of the over 120 crore of people of India will be decided by just 12 people. That is why India is called the “world’s largest democracy”. People get the govt. they deserve.

Vol. 28

May 16th – 31st, 2009

No. 10
Editorial
  • Bid to sabotage electoral verdict : Congress, BJP, CPM may unite to keep Bahujans out of power
Reports
  • Hindu Nepal turns against Hindu India
  • Pak Hindus snatching away benefits given to Dalits
  • People reject socialist sucker
  • Ruling class loves only suckers
Articles
  • Muslims punished for forgetting duty towards Mustadafeen (Dalits)
  • Over 20% of Indian Dalits subjected to sanctified racism
  • Rulers won’t allow caste-wise census
  • Tamil Muslim & Dalit refusal to join Elam struggle finished LTTE
  • Brahminism as principal contradiction
  • COMMUNICATION : IF YOU HAVE TEARS SHED THEM NOW Brahminical bid to kill 2 crore Bengali Dalit refugees

Learning from Iraq

Learning from Iraq

By Shahid Javed Burki

Iraq did not see stability until hope took the place of fear – AFP/File photo<!–
addthis_pub = ‘dawnadmin’;
addthis_logo = ‘http://65.175.69.196/styles/default/beta/images/logo.jpg&#8217;;
addthis_logo_background = ‘FFFFFF’;
addthis_logo_color = ’338DCC’;
addthis_brand = ‘DAWN.COM’;
addthis_options = ‘facebook, google, digg, delicious, myspace, favorites, myweb, live, more’;
// –> .

Pakistan IDP situation improving as operation continues: official

A GREAT deal has been learnt about insurgency and counterinsurgency from America’s seven-year involvement in Iraq. More will now be learnt as the struggle between the forces representing the state and the Taliban intensifies.

Some of Iraq’s lessons will no doubt be applied to the conflict in Pakistan’s north and in the settled districts of the Malakand division. Let us start with what Iraq has taught us.

The first lesson concerns the use of force. The Americans went in convinced that the use of disproportionate force would deter opposition to their occupation of the country. They called it ‘shock and awe.’ This involved the use of an extraordinary amount of firepower to impress not only the Iraqi armed forces. There was also the expectation that what America could throw at the opposition in terms of bombs and bullets would scare the people into submission. But the strategy didn’t work.

It was only in 2007 that Gen David Petraeus was able to change course and adopt an approach that was to reduce significantly the level of violence and bring relative peace to the country. Iraq has reached a point where the Americans have begun to disengage, political processes have begun to work, and the economy has begun to revive. What was the main difference between the earlier American way of dealing with the insurgency and the approach that has produced a degree of normalcy?

The main difference was that the Americans recognised that it is not fear but hope that would pacify an unhappy populace. The use of force had to be combined with investment in development and institution-building that gave hope to the people that they could expect something better for themselves and for their children.

Initially averse to nation-building, the latter was precisely what the Americans began to do in 2007. They began with what Gen Petraeus called the ‘surge.’ This involved the dispatch of an additional fighting force to the country to add strength to the already large American presence in Iraq. Once the commanders were sure that they would have enough soldiers available to them, they would be able to give confidence to the local leaders that after their areas were cleared of insurgents, there would be a strong enough American presence to ensure that the miscreants did not return. This was the area in which the Americans had failed earlier.

They had earlier used a great deal of force to push back the insurgents from the province of Fallujah, one of the most troubled areas in Iraq. Dominated by fiercely independent Sunni tribes who resented the rise of the Shia leadership in the country, the tribal leaders looked the other way as the insurgents established their control in the area. However, the insurgents brought with them a culture and social norms that were alien to the people of the area and resentment built up as they introduced their values in the system of governance.

When the American push came, the locals watched the developing situation without taking sides. But the US left after scoring a victory over the insurgents. They said they couldn’t stay since they did not have the manpower to keep the place pacified. This was expected to be done by the Iraqis themselves. But Iraq was slow in developing its own security force. This is where the surge in the American presence made a difference.

Once the additional troops came, the locals developed confidence in the American willingness to do more than simply fight. The new troops came equipped with the training and the ability to provide the local population with the services and basic needs it needed. Once these came to be provided, the Americans were able to build alliances with the area’s tribal leaders who came over to the side of the government and lent their support to the counterinsurgency efforts.

The Pakistani Army has to learn the same lesson. It has not only to expel the insurgents who have been defying the state’s authority, it must also stay on in the area while local leaders re-establish control. As is now recognised by most people who have studied the situation in Swat, the Taliban initially won some support from the locals in connection with the legal system that replaced the one that operated before 1969 when the district along with Dir and Chitral were merged to form the administrative division of Malakand.

That was when the old princely states became a part of the province of the North West Frontier and adopted its governance system. With the merger came the established legal system, replacing the one that was based on the Sharia and tradition. The old system was quick in dispensing justice; the one that replaced it was slow, cumbersome and often corrupt.

The demand by some of the religious groups to reintroduce the old system resonated with the people and the Taliban climbed on the bandwagon. Once the state made the concession, the Taliban did not stop at that and they pressed forward putting in place other practices that had no tradition and were not sanctioned by the state or religion. They did not confine themselves to Swat; they began to push ahead and took over Buner and threatened other settled parts of the NWFP. The West became nervous. It was widely reported in the western press that the Taliban were only 60 miles from Islamabad; only the Margalla Hills were in their way before they took over the capital city. That, of course, was nonsense but it got Islamabad to take notice.

With the military operation now underway, those who are managing it must draw lessons from Iraq. Four of these are important. One, the military must go the entire way and rid the Pakistani territory of insurgency. Two, once the military has reoccupied the areas currently controlled by the insurgents it should only leave when the state has developed the capacity to provide security to the local people. Three, an intensive effort should then be launched to bring development to those areas, including programmes and projects aimed at improving women’s welfare. Women were targeted by the Taliban; the state must demonstrate that it has a different set of priorities. Four, a system of local government must then be developed based on tradition as well as the need to provide adequate representation to the people.

A great deal depends on how this phase of the conflict develops. The Taliban have posed an existential threat to the state of Pakistan. The state must respond fully and intelligently.

I did not say Cheney killed Benazir: Seymour Hersh

I did not say Cheney killed Benazir: Seymour Hersh

Former US VP Dick Cheney.—AP

The story regarding Hersh’s reported claim that Cheney ordered the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was published on our website among other publications. We regret the error.

WASHINGTON: American journalist Seymour Hersh on Monday denied news reports that quoted him as saying a ‘special death squad’ working under former US vice president Dick Cheney had killed Benazir Bhutto.

The award-winning journalist described as ‘complete madness’ the reports that the squad headed by General Stanley McChrystal – the new commander of US army in Afghanistan – had also killed former Lebanese prime minister Rafique Al Hariri and a Lebanese army chief.

‘Vice President Cheney does not have a death squad. I have no idea who killed Mr Harari or Mrs Bhutto.  I have never said that I did have such information. I most certainly did not say any thing remotely to that effect during an interview with an Arab media outlet,’ Hersh said.

‘General McChrystal ran a special forces unit that engaged in High Value Target activity. While I have been critical of some of that unit’s activities in the pages of the New Yorker and in interviews, I have never suggested that he was involved in political assassinations or death squads on behalf of Mr Cheney, as the published stories state.’

‘I have never been asked by any journalist…about such allegations.  This is another example of blogs going bonkers with misleading and fabricated stories and professional journalists repeating such rumours without doing their job — and that is to verify such rumours,’ Hersh said.

Steve Kangas, Martyr for Truth

Timeline of CIA Atrocities

 
By Steve Kangas

INTRODUCTION

The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA since 1943.1

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment.

So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: “We’ll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us.” The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination.

These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be “communists,” but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious “School of the Americas.” (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the “School of the Dictators” and “School of the Assassins.” Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations.2 Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an “American Holocaust.” The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms, political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out Washington’s dictates, and declarations of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nation’s desire to stay out of the Cold War.

The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of Washington’s will. The CIA then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator’s control, afraid to cooperate with American spies for fear of torture and execution.

The only two options for the U.S at this point are impotence or war. Examples of this “boomerang effect” include the Shah of Iran, General Noriega and Saddam Hussein. The boomerang effect also explains why the CIA has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing dictatorships.

The following timeline should confirm that the CIA as we know it should be abolished and replaced by a true information-gathering and analysis organization. The CIA cannot be reformed — it is institutionally and culturally corrupt.


TIMELINE

1929: The culture we lost
Secretary of State Henry Stimson refuses to endorse a code-breaking operation, saying, “Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail.”

1941: COI created
In preparation for World War II, President Roosevelt creates the Office of Coordinator of Information (COI). General William “Wild Bill” Donovan heads the new intelligence service.

1942: OSS created
Roosevelt restructures COI into something more suitable for covert action, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Donovan recruits so many of the nation’s rich and powerful that eventually people joke that “OSS” stands for “Oh, so social!” or “Oh, such snobs!”

1943: Italy
Donovan recruits the Catholic Church in Rome to be the center of Anglo-American spy operations in Fascist Italy. This would prove to be one of America’s most enduring intelligence alliances in the Cold War.

1945: OSS is abolished
The remaining American information agencies cease covert actions and return to harmless information gathering and analysis.

Operation PAPERCLIP
While other American agencies are hunting down Nazi war criminals for arrest, the U.S. intelligence community is smuggling them into America, unpunished, for their use against the Soviets. The most important of these is Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s master spy who had built up an intelligence network in the Soviet Union. With full U.S. blessing, he creates the “Gehlen Organization,” a band of refugee Nazi spies who reactivate their networks in Russia. These include SS intelligence officers Alfred Six and Emil Augsburg (who massacred Jews in the Holocaust), Klaus Barbie (the “Butcher of Lyon”), Otto von Bolschwing (the Holocaust mastermind who worked with Eichmann) . The Gehlen Organization supplies the U.S. with its only intelligence on the Soviet Union for the next ten years, serving as a bridge between the abolishment of the OSS and the creation of the CIA. However, much of the “intelligence” the former Nazis provide is bogus.

Gehlen inflates Soviet military capabilities at a time when Russia is still rebuilding its devastated society, in order to inflate his own importance to the Americans (who might otherwise punish him). In 1948, Gehlen almost convinces the Americans that war is imminent, and the West should make a preemptive strike. In the 50s he produces a fictitious “missile gap.” To make matters worse, the Russians have thoroughly penetrated the Gehlen Organization with double agents, undermining the very American security that Galen was supposed to protect.

1947: Greece
President Truman requests military aid to Greece to support right-wing forces fighting communist rebels. For the rest of the Cold War, Washington and the CIA will back notorious Greek leaders with deplorable human rights records.

CIA created
President Truman signs the National Security Act of 1947, creating the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Council. The CIA is accountable to the president through the NSC -there is no democratic or congressional oversight. Its charter allows the CIA to “perform such other functions and duties as the National Security Council may from time to time direct.” This loophole opens the door to covert action and dirty tricks.

1948: Covert-action wing created
The CIA recreates a covert action wing, innocuously called the Office of Policy Coordination, led by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. According to its secret charter, its responsibilities include “propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.”

Italy
The CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy, where Italian communists threaten to win the elections. The CIA buys votes, broadcasts propaganda, threatens and beats up opposition leaders, and infiltrates and disrupts their organizations. It works — the communists are defeated.

1949: Radio Free Europe
The CIA creates its first major propaganda outlet, Radio Free Europe. Over the next several decades, its broadcasts are so blatantly false that for a time it is considered illegal to publish transcripts of them in the U.S.

Late 40′s: Operation MOCKINGBIRD
The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham head the effort. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major CIA player. Eventually, the CIA’s media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service and more. By the CIA’s own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become CIA assets.

1953: Iran
CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.

Operation MK-ULTRA
Inspired by North Korea’s brainwashing program, the CIA begins experiments on mind control. The most notorious part of this project involves giving LSD and other drugs to American subjects without their knowledge or against their will, causing several to commit suicide. However, the operation involves far more than this. Funded in part by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, research includes propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis, and other forms of suggestion.

1954: Guatemala
CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

1954-1958: North Vietnam
CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA’s continuing failure results in escalating American intervention and finally the Vietnam War.

1956: Hungary
Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev’s Secret Speech, in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight. This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.

1957-1973: Laos
The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an “Army Clandestine” of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

1959: Haiti
The U.S. military helps “Papa Doc” Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the “Tonton Macoutes,” who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.

1961: The Bay of Pigs
The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro’s Cuba. But “Operation Mongoose” fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the invasion would spark a popular uprising against Castro — which never happens. A promised American air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA’s first public setback, causing President Kennedy to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.

Dominican Republic
The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo’s business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.

Ecuador
The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency with its own man.

Congo (Zaire)
The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public support for Lumumba’s politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.

1963: Kennedy Assassination

1963: Dominican Republic
The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right wing junta.

Ecuador
A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.

1964: Brazil
A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America’s first death squads, or bands of secret police that hunt down “communists” for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these “communists” are no more than Branco’s political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.

1965: Indonesia
The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being “communist.” The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.

Dominican Republic
A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country’s elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.

Greece
With the CIA’s backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.

Congo (Zaire)
A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.

1966: The Ramparts Affair
The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan [or Michigan State University? - ed.] $25 million dollars to hire “professors” to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveal that the National Students’ Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including draft deferments.

1967: Greece
A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections. The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years, the “reign of the colonels” – backed by the CIA – will usher in the widespread use of torture and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about U.S. plans for Cyprus, Johnson tells him: “Fuck your parliament and your constitution.”

Operation PHOENIX
The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report, this operation killed about 20,000 “Viet Cong.”

1968: Operation CHAOS
The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals and 1,000 organizations.

Bolivia
A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The CIA wants to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executes him to prevent worldwide calls for clemency.

1969: Uruguay
The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. “The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect,” is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to the death squads rival the Nazis’. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap and murder him a year later.

1970: Cambodia
The CIA overthrows Prince Sihanouk, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.

1971: Bolivia
After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.

Haiti
“Papa Doc” Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son “Baby Doc” Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA.

1972: The Case-Zablocki Act
Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally effective.

Cambodia
Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.

Watergate Break-in
President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon’s illegal campaign contributions. CREEP’s activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.

1973: Chile
The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America’s first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.

CIA begins internal investigations
William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is later reported to Congress.

Watergate Scandal
The CIA’s main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post, reports Nixon’s crimes long before any other newspaper take up the subject. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA’s many fingerprints all over the scandal. It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, “Deep Throat,” is probably one of those.

CIA Director Helms Fired
President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.

1974: CHAOS exposed
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S. The story sparks national outrage.

Angleton fired
Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA.

House clears CIA in Watergate
The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity in Nixon’s Watergate break-in.

The Hughes Ryan Act
Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report non-intelligence CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.

1975: Australia
The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.

Angola
Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger’s assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.

“The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence”
Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an intelligence official in the State Department.

“Inside the Company”
Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA. Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part.

Congress investigates CIA wrongdoing
Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation (“The Church Committee”), and Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number of reforms intended to increase the CIA’s accountability to Congress, including the creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.

The Rockefeller Commission
In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee, President Ford creates the “Rockefeller Commission” to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless reforms. The commission’s namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA figure. Five of the commission’s eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a CIA-dominated organization.

1979: Iran
The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA’s backing of SAVAK, the Shah’s bloodthirsty secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

Lebanon: CIA Trains Phalangists on how to bomb civilians

El Salvador
An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back to “normal” – the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.

Nicaragua
Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s.

1980: El Salvador
The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter “Christian to Christian” to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D’Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.

1981: Iran/Contra Begins
The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be “pressured” until “they say ‘uncle.’” The CIA’s Freedom Fighter’s Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.

1983: Honduras
The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual – 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras’ notorious “Battalion 316″ then uses these techniques, with the CIA’s full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least 184 are murdered.

1984: The Boland Amendment
The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director William Casey is already prepared to “hand off” the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally continues supplying the Contras through the CIA’s informal, secret, and self-financing network. This includes “humanitarian aid” donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded by Iranian arms sales.

1986: Eugene Hasenfus
Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes a mockery of President Reagan’s claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.

Iran/Contra Scandal
Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally captures the media’s attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the scandal are purely cosmetic.

Haiti
Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that “Baby Doc” Duvalier will remain “President for Life” only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.

1989: Panama
The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA’s payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA’s knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega’s growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington. So out he goes.

1990: Haiti
Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide’s return, the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.

1991: The Fall of the Soviet Union
The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn’t been doing its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community’s budget is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.

1992: Economic Espionage
In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA’s clear preference for dirty tricks over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.

1993: Haiti
The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do not arrest Haiti’s military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda favorable to the country’s ruling class.

1993: World Trade Centre

1995: Oklahoma City Federal Building

2001: World Trade Centre


EPILOGUE

In a speech before the CIA celebrating its 50th anniversary, President Clinton said: “By necessity, the American people will never know the full story of your courage.” Clinton’s is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don’t know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked. Furthermore, Clinton’s statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA. These facts began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different directions.

The CIA’s response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern. (Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church’s fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA’s criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners. (See Philip Agee’s On the Run for an example of early harassment.)

However, over the last two decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet, where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton’s “Americans will never know” defense is a prime example.

Another common apologetic is that “the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all.” There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.

Second, this argument raises several questions. The first is: Which American interests? The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country’s cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. The second question is: Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples’ human rights?

The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity. Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal of collecting and analyzing information.

As for covert action, there are two moral options. The first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about the Adolph Hitler’s of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote. Which of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship, like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.


1.  All history concerning CIA intervention in foreign countries is summarized from William Blum’s encyclopedic work, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II, Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995. Sources for domestic CIA operations come from Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen’s The 60 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time, Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1997.

2.  Coleman McCarthy, “The Consequences of Covert Tactics”, Washington Post, December 13, 1987.


Copyright 1996 Steve Kangas
Text can be quoted freely for non-commercial purposes only, with proper attribution.

Published on Serendipity 2002-11-30.

More of the late Steve Kangas’s writings at
Liberalism Resurgent: A Response to the Right.

See also:

Setting Africa on Fire

[It's so much easier to harvest Africa's immense resources if you burn the "useless eaters" off it first.]

Nigeria: War in Niger Delta – MEND Threatens Northerners in Oil Industry

Ofonime Umanah and Yemi Akintomide

18 May 2009

Port Harcourt/Akure — Umbrella body of the militants in the Niger Delta, Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), has sent out a chilling signal, threatening an impending attack on the Federal Government, and particularly, Northerners who occupy prominent positions in the oil industry.”Our message to the Northern Sultans and Emirs is this: The period of exploiting the Niger Delta is coming to an end. It is not the birth right of your people to rule the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

“The war is just beginning and by the time it ends, Nigeria will practice true federalism such as fiscal federalism which will benefit the entire populace. Let your people brace themselves to develop their resources and such a bold change will be remembered,” Jomo Gbomo, MEND’s

spokesman said in an electronic mail on Sunday.

The threat came a few hours after the Special Adviser to the Rivers State Governor on Budget, Austin Ngor, was kidnapped and moved to an unknown destination.

It was not clear what the demands of the kidnappers are, but the governor’s Chief Press Secretary, Blessing Wikinaka, has warned them to free the man immediately as there was no just reason for his abduction.

Meanwhile, MEND two of the hostages in their custody killed “in the course of the war”.

It said the remaining one has been relocated to an unnamed camp in Delta State.

MEND dared the security outfit, Joint Task Force (JTF), to destroy all its (MEND’s) camps, which it said, were spread in many places across Niger Delta region.

The MEND’s spokesman said, “The British hostage, Mr Matthew Maguire, has been relocated to Delta State and will be a guest of one of the camps there”.

He added: “Nigerians should now brace up for the worst from the decisions of an incompetent leadership.

“The Niger Delta people who have endured injustice and genocide for over 50 years must be ready to fight for change as our destiny should not be in the hands of others but ourselves.

The group said it was embarrassed at the “performance of the Nigerian Armed Forces who performed like poorly trained amateurs by bombing indiscriminately into civilian communities using helicopter gunships and fighter jet planes.

“Civilians should have been allowed to leave the area before the attack. This simply has shown that the government is insensitive to the Niger Delta people.

“If the Army’s mission was to also rescue the hostages, then that again was a botched and ridiculous attempt because the hostages were not at any immediate risk except for their temporary freedom.

“We regret to announce that two hostages have been killed by the indiscriminate shelling and two more are still in our custody.

“We are happy that all of them were not killed by

the Army. The bodies of the dead men will be handed over to the Red Cross. MEND deeply regrets the avoidable deaths”.

It denied claims that the Army captured a plane from one of its camps.

“If my memory serves me right, the plane in question is a toy remote controlled plane which can be purchased from any toy shop. It is rather shameful that they cannot distinguish the difference between a toy plane and a drone.

“As promised, we have begun nibbling again at the oil infrastructure. Already, two major trunk pipe and gas lines, which were recently repaired, have been blown up. This is just the tip of the series of attacks we plan to carry out.

“For the Nigerian government to declare victory, troops must be able to secure every inch of pipelines and eliminate the over 500 camps stretching from Ondo to Akwa Ibom.

“What the government has been successful in doing is committing genocide against the Ijaw communities whose offence, it seems, is discovering oil in their backyards,” the group said.

Netanyahu stands firm against demands from Obama

Netanyahu stands firm against demands from Obama

Israel stood firm against demands from Barack Obama on Monday to cease the construction of Jewish settlements and embrace the “two-state solution” to achieving peace in the Middle East.

By Alex Spillius

Barack Obama meets with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu  in the Oval Office

Barack Obama meets with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office Photo: Getty

Sitting side by side in the White House, the two leaders hailed the friendship between their two countries but remained far apart on how to proceed towards a resolution of the 60-year conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Mr Obama said the Palestinians had to take steps to guarantee Israel’s security – but took a tough line on the construction of settlements on Arab land.

“Israel is going to have to take difficult steps as well,” he said. “There is a clear understanding we have to make progress on settlements. Settlements have to stop.”

He called on Mr Netanyahu, who leads a hawkish, Right-wing coalition, to seize a “historic opportunity” to work earnestly for peace.

“It is in the interests of Israel, the US and the international community to achieve a two-state solution. We have seen progress stalled on this front. I suggested to the prime minister he has a historic

opportunity to get serious movement on this issue during his tenure,” he said.

There was a conspicuous lack of praise for his 59-year-old Israeli visitor, whom he said had the “benefit of having served” previously as prime minister and for having “both youth and wisdom”.

The meeting overran to two hours, suggesting that the two sides had struggled to find a way of presenting a unified face to the watching world.

Though Mr Netanyahu made clear he wanted to hold peace talks with the Palestinians, he refused to utter the words “two-state solution”, the consensus approach towards peace agreed by previous Israeli governments and US administrations.

Mr Obama is expected to announce his own revamped version of the “road map” next month, after he has met Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president.

“The terminology will take care of itself,” said Mr Netanyahu. “The important thing is to resume negotiations with the Palestinians as soon as possible. The issue is less one of terminology than of substance.”

He said that if a peace deal delivered a “terror base next door” to Israel than it would be worthless, and insisted that Hamas, the militant group that controlled Gaza, had to recognise Israel before he was ready to make concessions.

The prime minister dwelt at length on the threat posed to Israel by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

His goal is to persuade the Americans that Tehran must be reined in before peacemaking with the Palestinians can progress.

Special Ops Training for the Expected in Flint, Michigan

Military to use Burton as a training ground for a week

by Bryn Mickle | The Flint Journal

Wednesday May 13, 2009, 7:15 AM

Boeing MH-6 “Little Bird” helicopters may be seen over Burton in the coming days.

BURTON, Michigan – The black helicopter crowd’s worst fears of a New World Order are coming true.

The military is invading Burton.

But it promises to only stay a week.

The U.S. Special Operations Command is using Burton as a training ground for military exercises.

Sometime over the next day or two, a military spokesman said residents may see low-flying helicopters buzzing overhead.

People may even catch a glimpse of special operations forces, but the goal is to keep the exercise as low key as possible.

“Chances are that most people won’t see them,” said Naval Lt. Nathan C. Potter, a spokesman for the exercises.

Citing safety and security concerns, the military is being mum on details about the exercises, including the size of the force being trained.

There’s also no word on where exactly the operations will take place, although Potter said soldiers could be working in neighborhoods and industrial sites.

“It will be very sporadic,” he said.

The goal is to prepare troops for unfamiliar urban areas.

Once they are finished in Burton, Potter said the soldiers will be ready to be deployed overseas.

The military approached Burton officials with the request to train there about three months ago, said Burton police Lt. Tom Osterholzer.

Although officials are being cautious about the details, Osterholzer said they opted to notify the public to allay any fears once people start seeing helicopters.

Burton and Flint police will provide traffic control for some of the exercises and 911 operators at the Flint and Genesee County dispatch centers have been alerted in case of panicked calls.

“It’s an honor to help these guys,” said Osterholzer.

Not everyone is as enthusiastic.

“It scares me,” said Jennie Moench of Swartz Creek.

Moench questioned whether the military is getting ready for action in a new theater outside of Iraq and Pakistan and wonders why it chose Burton.

“Would you see this happening in a wealthy city?” said Moench, a member of the area Peace Triangle group that has protested the U.S. presence in Iraq for about seven years.

But Burton resident Leroy Cronkright believes the city is providing an important service to the military.

“Nowadays, almost everything (soldiers do) is cities and towns,” said Cronkright, a Navy veteran who served in the 1960s.

Sonia Flagg said she would have been caught offguard by the sight of helicopters over her yard, but likes the idea.

“Somebody’s got to do it, so why not Burton,” said Flagg.

“Young kids will love watching the helicopters fly around and everything.”

Potter said the military appreciates the local help and said such training exercises are critical to the ability of soldiers to operate overseas.

Similar operations have been run in other cities around the nation.

“We’re not trying to cause a disturbance,” said Potter.

Pelosi is shading the truth on her knowledge of CIA torture

Pelosi is shading the truth on her knowledge of CIA torture

By David Ignatius

It has been the nightmare scenario ever since the modern system of congressional oversight of intelligence was created in the late 1970s: When a scandal erupts, a member of Congress will put his (or her) political interests above those of the intelligence agency whose secrets he (or she) has sworn to protect.

That’s what’s so troubling about the campaign for self-vindication that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been waging. To escape from the charge that she was briefed about – and implicitly condoned – interrogation methods that she now calls torture, Pelosi is accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of lying.

And not just the Bush-era CIA, mind you, but the Obama CIA as well.

If you read the CIA’s careful 10-page summary of the 40 briefings it has given to Congress since 2002 on “enhanced interrogation techniques,” it’s pretty hard not to conclude that Pelosi is shading the truth to retrospectively cover her backside. “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah … and a description of the particular EITs that had been used,” reads the entry for the September 4, 2002, briefing for Pelosi and her House Republican counterpart, Porter Goss. Those techniques included waterboarding, whose use Pelosi has repeatedly claimed she wasn’t briefed on.

Congressional Democrats are acting as if there is something sinister in the CIA releasing the records of its briefings (see, for example, Politico’s May 12 post “Democrats: CIA is out to get us”). But the deal with congressional oversight is that if members of Congress are briefed on a subject and don’t object, they shouldn’t trash the agency later in public when there’s a flap. That undermines not just CIA morale but the integrity of the oversight process itself.

Pelosi’s apparent rewriting of the record would be shocking, if it weren’t so typical of congressional behavior on this subject.

Playing politics with the CIA is a way of life on Capitol Hill – love ‘em when they’re up, trash ‘em when they’re down. Republicans and Democrats both play this game, from administration to administration. Rarely, though, has it been as naked as in Pelosi’s case. Having climbed up a very tall tree, she is now watching – and yelping – as the CIA saws off the limb.

CIA Director Leon Panetta delivered a sharp riposte to Pelosi on Friday, serving notice that he is removing the “kick me” sign from the CIA uniform. He said in a message to employees: “There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.”

CIA veterans remember how William Casey protected his flank when he was CIA director in the 1980s. To get congressional support for his plan to undermine the Nicaraguan economy by having the contras plant mines in Nicaraguan harbors, Casey invited leading members of Congress to the super-secret Site 39 in North Carolina where the operation was being planned. There was even a photo of then-Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan sitting atop one of the big mines that was to be used, “looking like the actor Slim Pickens riding a nuclear warhead in ‘Dr. Strangelove,’” remembers a former agency officer.

When the mining operation became public and Moynihan and others began expressing indignation – and threatened to call CIA officers to testify – Casey paid a visit to Capitol Hill to meet with the congressional leadership. The demand for CIA testimony disappeared, and agency officers involved in the program suspected that Casey had brought along some of the Site 39 photos in his briefcase.

What will President Barack Obama do in this latest of the never-ending skein of CIA flaps? If Pelosi forces a political showdown, I have a feeling that Obama will side with his CIA director, Leon Panetta, and not with the House speaker.

By reversing his position last week on the release of Defense Department photos documenting the abuse of detainees, Obama put his responsibilities as commander in chief first – and his loyalty to fellow Democrats second. That’s the way it’s supposed to work, and, if Obama follows through, it will be one of the defining moments of his presidency.

Syndicate columnist David Ignatius is published regularly by THE DAILY STAR

Trial of CIA, Italian agents provides rare look at intelligence work

Abu Omar

PBS
Egyptian cleric Abu Omar, seen in surveillance camera footage, was allegedly abducted in Italy by the CIA as part of an anti-terrorism program.
PBS
Egyptian cleric Abu Omar, seen in surveillance camera footage, was allegedly abducted in Italy by the CIA as part of an anti-terrorism program.
Testimony about the alleged ‘rendition’ of Egyptian Abu Omar features feuds and rogue conduct in a case that has apparently made and crushed careers.
By Sebastian Rotella
May 19, 2009

Reporting from Milan, Italy — The two spies were allies and kindred spirits.

Robert Seldon Lady, the CIA station chief in Milan, and Col. Stefano D’Ambrosio, the local head of the SISMI, Italy’s intelligence agency, shared pride in their fight against terrorism and disdain for self-serving bosses.

On a fall day in 2002, the American made an explosive revelation. He told D’Ambrosio that, over his objections, a CIA team was in Milan doing reconnaissance for the “rendition” of an Egyptian extremist ideologue. The American was worried that the risky operation would ruin his carefully built alliances, D’Ambrosio testified years later, and could even lead to a shootout between the Americans and the Italians if things went awry on the street.

With an urgent look, spy to spy, Lady said: “Talk to your people.”

D’Ambrosio recalled that he got the unspoken message: “In other words, he says . . . ‘This whole thing is so crazy that if . . . two operational chiefs in the field, who know the area, who work in this territory, say that an action is completely crazy, probably they will back off.’ “

Four months after the conversation in Milan, the CIA allegedly abducted the cleric and flew him to Egypt, where he was tortured for months. An international scandal ensued: The accused abductors left a sloppy trail of phone activity, credit card charges and photo IDs that allowed Milan authorities to prosecute 26 Americans (in absentia), including the now-retired Lady, and seven Italian officials.

The brazen nature of the alleged rendition has gotten much attention. But the trial has also revealed how the Bush administration’s drastic tactics shook up the secret world of U.S. intelligence work overseas. Testimony has featured remarkable allegations about feuds and rogue conduct. The case apparently made and crushed careers and spread betrayal and suspicion among U.S. and Italian anti-terrorism officials.

On the witness stand in October, D’Ambrosio summed it up: “We were between the tragic and the ridiculous.”

The case arose from an extrajudicial practice known as “extraordinary rendition,” in which U.S. intelligence officials have secretly abducted terrorism suspects and transported them to secret detention facilities or to countries that subject the suspects to harsh interrogation and, sometimes, torture.

Unless otherwise noted, the following account is based on testimony during the trial, which has slogged on almost two years.

Tragic figure

Lady seems a rather tragic figure at the heart of the case: a veteran spy who, after the Sept. 11 attacks, established himself as a point man in the shadows of the battle against the Islamic extremist underworld. Although he took risks to try to stop the abduction, in the end he allegedly became one of its dutiful architects.

The bearded, curly-haired Lady, now 55, spoke excellent Italian. He thrived in the convivial culture of Italian law enforcement, doing business over espresso and long lunches, hosting barbecues. He cultivated bonds with anti-terrorism units of agencies that are wary of one another: the SISMI spy service, the paramilitary Carabinieri and the national police. He passed along valuable leads from U.S. intercepts and offered cash and high-tech equipment for costly stakeouts.

“We all had excellent relationships with him because this was a very affable and professionally accessible person,” testified Luciano Pironi, a Carabinieri lieutenant who confessed to a hands-on role in the abduction. “I think he had given CIA souvenirs to half of Milan.”

Lady also developed his own agents at a mosque that was a European hub for Al Qaeda, targeting a network suspected of sending militants to training camps in northern Iraq. He helped Milan anti-terrorism police build a case against the rendition target, Abu Omar, regarded as a vehement ideologue in the group.

At a discreet sit-down with D’Ambrosio in October 2002, however, Lady said that his CIA bosses had decided to circumvent the police and abduct Abu Omar, supposedly hoping to force him to become an informant. As a result, Lady was embroiled in a feud in his own agency. The American told D’Ambrosio that he had an “awful” relationship with the CIA’s Rome station chief, who resented Lady’s criticisms of the planned rendition and had sent a tough deputy to Milan to make sure he followed orders.

D’Ambrosio was dumbfounded. When Lady told him that the SISMI had dispatched Italian agents to help a team from the CIA’s paramilitary “special operations group” stalk the Egyptian, D’Ambrosio realized that his own bosses were keeping him in the dark about the plan.

Warning issued

Lady said he warned higher-ups that the idea was a colossal mistake.

He said “it would eliminate from the area a subject who was known to counter-terrorism forces,” D’Ambrosio said. “We knew what [Abu Omar] did, who he met, where he met them. . . . It would cause grave harm, because at the moment Abu Omar was substituted in his post, we would have to start all over again, with the risk that terrorist projects perhaps in the initial stage could be executed. . . . The subject they wanted to abduct was not certainly a subject who posed an imminent danger. Abu Omar did not go around with an AK-47 ready to shoot children.”

Obama’s Murderous Guest

Obama’s Murderous Guest

by Fatima Bhutto

Besides ruining my country, I believe my aunt’s husband, Pakistani President Zardari, orchestrated my father’s murder. Is Obama really going to offer him billions more when they meet today?

Something rotten has arrived in Washington.

Today, President Barack Obama will shake hands and stage Oval Office photo ops for the first time with the man who many believe stole billions from the Pakistani treasury, empowered Pakistan’s newly formed Taliban by imposing Shariah law without a vote or referendum, and whom I have publicly accused of orchestrating the murder of my father, Murtaza Bhutto, an elected member of parliament until he was killed in 1996.

Pakistan has been at war with its own people for a long time now—perhaps it’s only natural that we move on to terrorizing the world at large.

My father was a vocal critic of both Pakistan’s former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto (his sister, my aunt), and her husband, current president Asif Zardari. He called Zardari and his cronies “Asif Baba and the 40 thieves,” and spoke out against the targeted killings of opposition members and activists by the state’s police and security forces. In the end, my father was slain in an extrajudicial assassination. The fact that he was seen, in a traditionally patriarchal society, as the heir to the Bhutto legacy didn’t make him any safer as Benazir’s second government began to lose power and international repute.

Now in Washington, the man who helped this happen will ask for money and the chance to cling to his dwindling power. Obama, in turn, will ask for results. That’s going to be a problem. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the situation in my country a threat to universal peace. Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special envoy for Pakistan, has said our government is capable of fighting terror, but he also calls the region “AfPak” so he’s probably confused. President Obama hasn’t offered much of an opinion yet. He has noted that the civilian government has failed to provide its citizens with the most basic services. But he’s also suggested that some hard cash might help the Zardari government through its problems. No, it won’t.

Pakistan has been at war with its own people for a long time now—given the daily politics of persecution that the state machinery inflicts on its own citizens, perhaps it’s only natural that we move on to terrorizing the world at large. The Taliban is waiting at the gates. They are making inroads into the Punjab, the heart of the country, slowly but steadily. Swat has fallen. Buner district is gone, airstrikes or no airstrikes. Now this government has to go. It’s either them or Pakistan.

President Zardari is a man with a colorful history. He is known by many endearing epithets here in Pakistan: Mr. 10 Percent (a reference to kickbacks), Mr. 50 Percent, the First Spouse (twice), and President Ghadari, or “traitor” in Urdu. I might not be the right person to tell his story, given that I believe he was involved in my father’s murder. But, then again, I just might be in the best position to warn President Obama about him.

Last summer, as an odious bill called the National Reconciliation Ordinance expunged from his prison record the four murder cases pending against him—my father’s included—as well as various national and international corruption cases, Zardari prepared himself for power. He did so not only by wiping his criminal slate clean, but also by distancing himself from medical records that showed him to be “a man with multiple and severe physical and mental-health problems,” according to the Financial Times.

When Obama meets Zardari in Washington, he should remember that he is meeting not only with a dangerous man, but with an unelected official. Zardari never stood for elections in Pakistan. He has no constituency, no vote of support from the people, no democratic mandate. The “opposition,” the Pakistan Muslim League, is run by Zardari’s frenemy, Nawaz Sharif, also unelected—Pakistan, a nation of 180 million people, is at the mercy of two unelected men. President Obama has to decide this week whether he wants to foster democracy in Pakistan, or whether he wants to have a pliable government in power—a government, it bears noting, that is so inept it managed to grow a local Taliban.

Lest we forget, when Zardari took power last September, Pakistan didn’t have an indigenous Taliban. Now, a year into his rule, the Tehreek-e-Taliban not only exists in Pakistan, but controls the Northwest Frontier Province, frighteningly close to the Afghan border. The reason Pakistan’s government cannot fight the Taliban is not because Pakistan doesn’t have the money to fight terror. We do, plenty of it. By my last count, we’ve received some $12 billion in military aid over the last eight years. (It may not have gone where it was supposed to go, however. It might have ended up in someone’s Swiss bank account—no names, but we can guess.) And it’s not because Pakistanis are rabid fundamentalists elated by the arrival of an indigenous Taliban. That’s not it at all. Pakistan is a religiously diverse country—we have a history of Buddhist, Sikh, and Hindu heritage.

The reason is the leadership. It’s just not working. In the year that Zardari has been president, Pakistan has become a third front in the war on terror. We are not safer, our neighbors are not safer, and we have not made any strides toward fighting fundamentalism.

As much as America finds President Zardari repellent, we in Pakisan do, too. But you made him our president, and now you’re about to give him billions of dollars in aid. We cannot foster any democratic alternatives to Zardari while his government gets bucketloads of American money. Local activists, secular parties, and nascent opposition groups can’t fight that kind of money—it’s impossible to compete with a party that has access to billions of dollars. Pakistan is at a crossroads. We are either going to save our country from its descent into fundamentalism and lawlessness, or we are going to have Zardari as president, bolstered by American aid and support. The ball is in President Obama’s court today. Let’s hope he makes the right decision.

Fatima Bhutto is a graduate of Columbia University and the School of Oriental and African Studies. She is working on a book to be published by Jonathan Cape in 2010. Fatima lives and works in Karachi, Pakistan.

Caught in a Lie The U.S. is Using White Phosphorous in Afghanistan


Caught in a Lie
The U.S. is Using White Phosphorous in Afghanistan

DAVE LINDORFF

razia-white_phosphorus_victim_afghanistan.jpg
8-year-old Razia from Kapisa province who was burned when a shell her father says was fired by Western troops exploded into their house, enveloping her head and neck in a blazing chemical. Now she spends her days in a U.S. hospital bed at the Bagram airbase. “The kids called out to me that I was burning but the explosion was so strong that for a moment I was deaf and couldn’t hear anything,” her father, Aziz Rahman, told Reuters (May 8, 2009).

May 18, 32009

When doctors started reporting that some of the victims of the US bombing of several villages in Farah Province last week—an attack that left between 117 and 147 civilians dead, most of them women and children—were turning up with deep, sharp burns on their body that “looked like” they’d been caused by white phosphorus, the US military was quick to deny responsibility.US officials—who initially denied that the US had even bombed any civilians in Farah despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including massive craters where houses had once stood—insisted that “no white phosphorus” was used in the attacks on several villages in Farah.

Official military policy on the use of white phosphorus is to only use the high-intensity, self-igniting material as a smoke screen during battles or to illuminate targets, not as a weapon against human beings—even enemy troops.

Now that policy, and the military’s blanket denial that phosphorus was used in Farah, have to be questioned, thanks to a recent report filed from a remote area of Afghanistan by a New York Times reporter.

C.J. Chivers, writing in the May 14 edition of the NY Times, in an article headlined “Korangal Valley Memo: In Bleak Afghan Outpost, Troops Slog On,” wrote of how an embattled US Army unit in the Korangal Valley of Afghanistan, had come under attack following a morning memorial service for one of their members, Pfc. Richard Dewater, who had been killed the day before by a mine.

Chivers wrote:

After the ceremony, the violence resumed. The soldiers detected a Taliban spotter on a ridge, which was pounded by mortars and then white phosphorus rounds from a 155 millimeter howitzer.

What did the insurgents do? When the smoldering subsided, they attacked from exactly the same spot, shelling the outpost with 30-millimeter grenades and putting the soldiers on notice that the last display of firepower had little effect. The Americans escalated. An A-10 aircraft made several gun runs, then dropped a 500-pound bomb.

It is clear from this passage that the military’s use of the phosphorus shells had not been for the officially sanctioned purpose of providing cover. The soldiers had no intention of climbing that hill to attack the spotter on the ridge themselves. They were trying to destroy him with shells and bombs. In fact, the last thing they would have wanted to do was provide the spotter with a smoke cover, which would have helped him escape, and which also would have hidden him from the planes which had been called in to make gun runs at his position.  Nor was this a case of illuminating the target. The incident, as Chivers reports, took place in daylight.

Clearly then, this article shows that it is routine for soldiers to call in phosphorus rounds to attack enemy soldiers, which is supposed to be against US military policy for this material. Whoever was manning the howitzer had a stock of the weapons on hand, and was ready to fire them.

The US initially flatly denied using white phosphorus weapons in Iraq, when reports first began to come out, including from US troops themselves, that they had been used extensively against insurgents defending the city of Fallujah against US Marines in November 2004. Under mounting pressure, the Pentagon first admitted that it had used the chemical in Fallujah but only “for illumination.”  Later, the Pentagon added that it had used phosphorus as a “screen” to hide troops. But finally, in 2005, the Pentagon was forced to admit that it had also used white phosphorus directly as a weapon against enemy Iraqi troops in the assault on Fallujah, a city of 300,000 that still held many civilians.

The same pattern of denial and eventual admission regarding the use of this controversial and deadly weapon by US forces now seems to be repeating itself in Afghanistan.

It is odd that given the controversy over the use of white phosphorus weapons, which result in terrible wounds and eventual death as phosphorus particles burn their way down through flesh to the bone and sometimes straight onward through a body, leaving a charred channel of destruction, the New York Times’ Chivers—or perhaps his editors back in New York?—ignored any mention of the issue while reporting on the use of the chemical rounds to attack a lone spotter on the ridge.

Given the current controversy over whether the US used white phosphorus shells or bombs in Falah Province only days before, it is hard to understand why the issue wasn’t mentioned in this particular article. Indeed, in the online version of the story, the word phosphorus is set as a hotlink to an article on the controversy over the battlefield use of phosphorus, indicating that at least someone at the Times has integrity and a good news sense.

As for the US government and the Pentagon, it is clear that they know the weapon is a vicious and controversial one, and that besides causing horrific and painful wounds, it is profoundly dangerous for innocent civilians, particularly when used in town or village settings.

It is bad enough that the US is using this weapon. It is even worse that it is forced to lie about it.

Surely if the goal of US policy is to win the hearts and minds of Afghanistan’s people, it shouldn’t be using a weapon that causes such terrible and indiscriminate wounds.  Then again, maybe winning those hearts and minds isn’t the goal. Maybe, as in the so-called “Pacification Program” applied by US forces in rural South Vietnam, the goal is to terrorize Afghan villagers in Taliban regions into rejecting the Taliban in their midst.

Requests for answers from the press office at the Pentagon, and at military headquarters in Afghanistan regarding US policy on the use of white phosphorus, and on the specific use of the shells mentioned in the New York Times article were ignored.

Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback). He can be reached at dlindorff@mindspring.com


:: Article nr. 54356 sent on 18-may-2009 19:52 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=54356

Link: www.counterpunch.com/lindorff05182009.html

US Stirs a Hornet’s Nest in Pakistan

US Stirs a Hornet’s Nest in Pakistan

by Eric Margolis

PARIS – Pakistan finally bowed to Washington’s angry demands last week by unleashing its military against rebellious Pashtun tribesmen of North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) — collectively mislabelled “Taliban” in the West.

The Obama administration had threatened to stop $2 billion US annual cash payments to bankrupt Pakistan’s political and military leadership and block $6.5 billion future aid, unless Islamabad sent its soldiers into Pakistan’s turbulent NWFP along the Afghan frontier.

The result was a bloodbath: Some 1,000 “terrorists” killed (read: mostly civilians) and 1.2 million people — most of Swat’s population — made refugees.

Pakistan’s U.S.-rented armed forces have scored a brilliant victory against their own people. Too bad they don’t do as well in wars against India. Blasting civilians, however, is much safer and more profitable.

Unable to pacify Afghanistan’s Pashtun tribes (a.k.a. Taliban), a deeply frustrated Washington has begun tearing Pakistan apart in an effort to end Pashtun resistance in both nations. CIA drone aircraft have so far killed over 700 Pakistani Pashtun. Only 6% were militants, according to Pakistan’s media, the rest civilians.

Pashtun, also improperly called Pathan, are the world’s largest tribal people. Fifteen million live in Afghanistan, forming half its population. Twenty-six million live right across the border in Pakistan. Britain’s imperialists divided Pashtun by an artificial border, the Durand Line (today’s Afghan-Pakistan border). Pashtun reject it.

Many Pashtun tribes agreed to join Pakistan in 1947, provided much of their homeland be autonomous and free of government troops. Pashtun Swat only joined Pakistan in 1969.

As Pakistan’s Pashtun increasingly aided Pashtun resistance in Afghanistan, U.S. drones began attacking them. Washington forced Islamabad to violate its own constitution by sending troops into Pashtun lands. The result was the current explosion of Pashtun anger.

I have been to war with the Pashtun and have seen their legendary courage, strong sense of honour and determination. They are also hugely quarrelsome, feuding and prickly.

One quickly learns never to threaten a Pashtun or give him ultimatums. These are the mountain warriors who defied the U.S. by refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden because he was a hero of the anti-Soviet war and their guest. The ancient code of “Pashtunwali” still guides them: Do not attack Pashtun, do not cheat them, do not cause them dishonour. To Pashtun, revenge is sacred.

HAM-HANDED

Now, Washington’s ham-handed policies and last week’s Swat atrocity threaten to ignite Pakistan’s second worst nightmare after invasion by India: That its 26 million Pashtun will secede and join Afghanistan’s Pashtun to form an independent Pashtun state, Pashtunistan.

This would rend Pakistan asunder, probably provoke its restive Baluchi tribes to secede and tempt mighty India to intervene militarily, risking nuclear war with beleaguered Pakistan.

The Pashtun of NWFP have no intention or capability of moving into Pakistan’s other provinces, Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan. They just want to be left alone. Alarms of a “Taliban takeover of Pakistan” are pure propaganda.

Lowland Pakistanis repeatedly have rejected militant Islamic parties. Many have little love for Pashtun, whom they regard as mountain wild men best avoided.

Nor are Pakistan’s well-guarded nukes a danger — at least not yet. Alarms about Pakistan’s nukes come from the same fabricators with hidden agendas who brought us Saddam Hussein’s bogus weapons.

THE REAL DANGER

The real danger is in the U.S. acting like an enraged mastodon, trampling Pakistan under foot, and forcing Islamabad’s military to make war on its own people. Pakistan could end up like U.S.-occupied Iraq, split into three parts and helpless.

If this continues, at some point patriotic Pakistani soldiers may rebel and shoot the corrupt generals and politicians on Washington’s payroll.

Equally ominous, a poor people’s uprising spreading across Pakistan — also mislabelled “Taliban” — threatens a radical national rebellion reminiscent of India’s Naxalite rebels.

As in Iraq, profound ignorance and gung ho military arrogance drive U.S. Afghan policy. Obama’s people have no understanding what they are getting into in “AfPak.” I can tell them: An unholy mess we will long regret.

Eric Margolis is a columnist for The Toronto Sun. A veteran of many conflicts in the Middle East, Margolis recently was featured in a special appearance on Britain’s Sky News TV as “the man who got it right” in his predictions about the dangerous risks and entanglements the US would face in Iraq. His latest book is American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World