Ukraine’s “No” to NATO: An Example for Serbia

Mar 20, 2010

By Srdja Trifkovic

Ukraine’s decision to pass a law that will prevent the country from joining NATO should be a model for Serbia to follow. The government in Belgrade is still intent on seeking NATO membership, and it is still encouraged to do so by various ill-informed and not necessarily well-meaning Americans, such as Senator George Voinovich. His advice should be rejected: it is contrary to Serbia’s interests, and detrimental to peace and stability in the Balkans.

Bill Clinton’s air war against the Serbs eleven years ago marked a decisive shift in NATO’s mutation from a defensive alliance into a supranational security force based on the doctrine of “humanitarian intervention.” The defensive alliance of 1949 thus had morphed into a blatant aggressor in 1999. The bombing had a profound effect on the Russian perception of NATO. In the eyes of the Russians, it was aimed to prove that NATO is the decisive force in the post-Cold War Europe, and to reassert the leading positionof the United States in that organization. Better than any other post-Soviet event, the Kosovo war exposed the position of Russia in the new world order. Earlier warnings by Moscow’s NATO-skeptics were suddenly validated: the US was attempting to encircle Russia, after all. This conclusion has not changed over the years. The National Security Strategy approved by President Medvedev in May 2008 and reiterated last winter identified NATO as a threat to Russian national security.

The Traps of Membership – If Serbia were to join NATO, it would inevitably face two major challenges: sharp internal divisions that would further undermine the country’s stability, and Russian counter-measures.  It is worth pondering what would Serbia do, once in NATO, if the US asked it to play host to elements of an anti-ballistic missile system, like those introduced to Romania? Far from treating Serbia as a friendly nation, Russia would be perfectly within her rights to respond by targeting Serbia with nuclear missiles. Clearly, in that case there would be a threat, but it would be a threat of Washington’s own manufacture. Moscow views plans to deploy an ABM system in Eastern Europe as major threats to Russia’s core security interests: if these plans were to come to pass, Russia’s deterrent capability—the key to its security—would be drastically undermined. European Russia would be surrounded by hostile forces.

NATO and the uses to which Washington puts it constitute a messy tangle of contradictions.  Outwardly, it appears to be what it always was: a defensive organization dedicated to collective security. Inwardly it is something else entirely. NATO’s mission was to contain the USSR—universally perceived as a threat—through collective security: an attack against one would be an attack against all.  Although NATO had a war fighting doctrine, it sought mainly to deter attack.  In this it succeeded splendidly; but with Marxism-Leninism relegated to the ash heap of history, NATO morphed from a defensive alliance to fend off a commonly acknowledged threat into a vehicle for the attainment of the United States’ global ambitions.

By virtue of its location, Russia controls the crossroads of Eurasia and therefore access to its huge natural resource wealth.  As Washington craves cheap and easy access to that wealth, Russia is its target – and the U.S. has an ideology to complement its geo-strategic ambitions. Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice described it succinctly: in U.S. foreign policy there is no distinction between ideals and self-interest, she asserted, they are one in the same. U.S. foreign policy is its values, and the US will stop at nothing to assure that its values prevail. The world is divided into two camps: one is made up of states that share U.S. values; the other of states such as Russia and China, who are consigned to a lesser status because their relations with the US are “rooted more in common interests than in common values.”  Some of Dr. Rice’s statements reflected a mindset reminiscent of the early Bolshevik leaders’ revolutionary dynamism: “It is America’s job to change the world, and in its own image… The old dichotomy between realism and idealism has never really applied to the United States because we do not accept that our national interests and our values are at odds… We prefer preponderances of power that favor our values, over balances of power that do not.  We have dealt with the world as it is, but we have never accepted that we are powerless to change to world.”

Whether viewing U.S. foreign policy through the prism of geo-strategy or ideology, Russia remains in NATO’s crosshairs. It has become an important means of changing the world in America’s image. If Serbia were to join, Belgrade would be enlisting in a crusade to encircle Moscow for the benefit of those who bombed Belgrade for 78 days eleven years ago. Such policy would be not only geopolitically self-defeating, but also morally criminal.

At a time of extreme political, economic, military and moral weakness Serbia needs to pursue its key national interest—that of maintaining friendly relations with Russia. This cannot and will not happen if Serbia resorts to provocative acts such as joining a NATO bent on Russia’s encirclement.  In defining its security arrangement Belgrade should adopt certain criteria based on the conventional understanding of Serbia’s national interest. They should include:

- Attention to cost. The cost of force modernization required to meet NATO standards would overburden and overwhelm the already weak Serbian economy;

- Refusal to commit Serbian forces and use them as American cannon-fodder in missions (e.g. in Afghanistan) not directly connected to the country’s national interests;

- Resistance to being pulled into geo-strategic alignments that are not in the national interest, that are overwhelmingly rejected by Serbia’s popular opinion, and would only exacerbate regional tensions.

Serbia should seek its place within a European security architecture that embraces (and balances) the diverse security arrangements maintained by European states. They include NATO members, from Portugal to Estonia and Iceland to Greece; West European states that are not in NATO, such as Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and Switzerland; ex-Communist countries with scant interest in or prospect of joining NATO (Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia); and Russia, which occupies a category of its own.

The reality is even more complex when the European Union is taken into account.  Some states belong to both NATO and the EU—France, Germany, Britain, Poland and a host of others; some belong to the EU but not NATO—Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and Sweden; some belong to NATO but not the EU—Norway, Turkey, Croatia and Albania. In rejecting NATO and working to establish a new security strategy Serbia  would be establishing a security system that addresses not only its own needs, but those of all of Europe. Serbia is ideally placed to overcome the artificial division of Europe into “civilizational blocs” and serve as a bridge between the key parts of pan-Europe. There is more of a future for Serbia in this role than in becoming an apple of discord, an irritant in relations between East and West, and a satellite of a remote, unreliable, and often hostile foreign power.

Tags: Srdja Trifkovic

Ukraine to pass law scrapping NATO ambitions

BY SIMON SHUSTER AND ANNA MELNICHUK

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

KIEV, Ukraine — Ukraine’s new governing coalition in parliament said Tuesday it will pass a law against joining military alliances such as NATO, a move that is sure to please Russia while tilting Ukraine away from its previous pro-Western course.

In a statement of purpose published Tuesday in the parliament’s official newspaper, the coalition supporting President Viktor Yanukovych said new legislation will "enshrine Ukraine’s nonaligned status in law."

Such a move would kill one of the key initiatives of Yanukovych’s predecessor, the staunchly pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko, who had struggled to gain admission to NATO since he was vaulted to power by the Orange Revolution protests of 2004.

Although Yushchenko’s NATO ambitions never gained broad public support, they managed to infuriate Russia – which recently published a military doctrine naming the alliance’s possible eastward expansion as the country’s top external threat.

Moscow’s effort in recent years to restore its own influence over Ukraine and other former Soviet states got a powerful boost with the election of Yanukovych, who has pledged to cooperate with Russia on key energy and military issues.

On Tuesday, Ukraine’s opposition had a bristling reaction to the governing coalition’s statement. It signed its own formal agreement to work together against Yanukovych and his supporters in parliament.

"Today we are forming a union of opposition parties," said opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, who lost to Yanukovych in the hard-fought presidential race last month.

"It will allow us to coordinate our efforts, giving us the ability to protect Ukraine and its democratic path," Tymoshenko said at a signing ceremony with seven other senior lawmakers who oppose Yanukovych.

The new governing coalition behind Yanukovych was formed last week in parliament, and quickly moved to appoint a prime minister loyal to him, Mykola Azarov.

The statement of purpose from the coalition made no mention of the European Union, which Ukraine had also sought to join under Yushchenko’s presidency, but also without success.

"Essentially, it is additional evidence of the intention to change the strategic course of Ukraine," said Hryhoriy Nemyria, the deputy head of Tymoshenko’s fraction in parliament. "It is incompatible with the aims to modernize Ukraine’s economy and society," he said in a statement Tuesday.

Analysts also criticized the new statement of purpose, saying it would play too much into the Kremlin’s hands.

"This is what Russia has been waiting for," said Vadim Karasyov, head of the Global Strategies Institute, a think tank in Kiev. "But this is a dead end. A country in Ukraine’s position cannot remain unaligned."

As part of its effort to assert influence over the post-Soviet sphere, Russia has been promoting the Cooperation and Security Treaty Organization, or CSTO, which is seen as its answer to NATO.

Analysts have said Yanukovych could be pressured to join the Russia-dominated bloc, but the statement published Tuesday appears to apply to all military alliances, including the CSTO.

EU Commissioner: Nabucco Gas Pipeline Delayed till 2018

EU Energy Commissioner Oettinger says the Nabucco pipeline will be delayed by 4 years; the Nabucco Consortium has not confirmed this information. Photo by EPA/BGNES

The EU-sponsored gas transit pipeline Nabucco will come into operation in 2018 at the earliest, EU Commissioner for Energy Guenther Oettinger.

In an interview for the German paper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Oettinger says that he is optimistic about the Nabucco project despite the four-year delay (Nabucco was supposed to be completed in 2014). What is more, he calls the gas pipeline “a prestigious EU project.”

The EU Energy Commissioner says he hopes that Nabucco will receive a final construction permit by the end of 2010. He reminds that the EU will invest EUR 200 M in the pipeline, and also announces that a conference with the participation of all Nabucco partners will be held in July 2010 in Brussels or in Instanbul.

The currently existing plans of the Nabucco Consortium state that the pipeline which is to bring Central Asian and Middle Eastern natural gas to Europe via Turkey and Bulgaria should be in operation by 2014. This information has been confirmed on Wednesday by a spokesperson of RWE, the German participant in the project, as cited by the Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

The other partners in the project include the Turkish company Botas, the Bulgarian Energy Holding, the Romanian Transgas, the Hungarian MOL, and the Austrian OMV. Each of them holds a stake of 16,7%. The construction of the pipe is expected to cost EUR 7,9 B.

In his interview for the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the EU Energy Commissioner Oettinger says that the North Stream gas pipeline between Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea should be ready in two years.

He also stated the other Russian-sponsored pipeline, South Steam, which goes through the Black Sea and Bulgaria in order to reach the rest of Europe, should also be completed because it will provide an alternative route for Russian gas exports to the EU. In his words, the major gas pipeline running from Russia to Europe will have to be repaired over the next three years because of the risk of technical problems which might lead to a crisis of Russian gas supplies whose dimensions might be similar to the January 2009 dispute between Russia and the Ukraine.

South Stream is widely regarded as a competitor to Nabucco that tightens Russia’s energy grip on the EU.

Medicating the military

STEVEN DOLLSpc. Michael Kern has been prescribed a cocktail of drugs as part of his “Warrior in Transition” plan, as he deals with PTSD and other issues since his Iraq deployment.

Use of psychiatric drugs has spiked; concerns surface about suicide, other dangers

By Andrew Tilghman and Brendan McGarry – Staff writers
Posted : Wednesday Mar 17, 2010 12:18:59 EDT

At least one in six service members is on some form of psychiatric drug.

And many troops are taking more than one kind, mixing several pills in daily “cocktails” — for example, an antidepressant with an antipsychotic to prevent nightmares, plus an anti-epileptic to reduce headaches — despite minimal clinical research testing such combinations.

The drugs come with serious side effects: They can impair motor skills, reduce reaction times and generally make a war fighter less effective. Some double the risk for suicide, prompting doctors — and Congress — to question whether these drugs are connected to the rising rate of military suicides.

“It’s really a large-scale experiment. We are experimenting with changing people’s cognition and behavior,” said Dr. Grace Jackson, a former Navy psychiatrist.

A Military Times investigation of electronic records obtained from the Defense Logistics Agency shows DLA spent $1.1 billion on common psychiatric and pain medications from 2001 to 2009. It also shows that use of psychiatric medications has increased dramatically — about 76 percent overall, with some drug types more than doubling — since the start of the current wars.

THE FULL INVESTIGATION:

* Could meds be responsible for suicides?

* Downrange: ‘Any soldier can deploy on anything’

* How drugs enter the war zone

Troops and military health care providers also told Military Times that these medications are being prescribed, consumed, shared and traded in combat zones — despite some restrictions on the deployment of troops using those drugs.

The investigation also shows that drugs originally developed to treat bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are now commonly used to treat symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, such as headaches, nightmares, nervousness and fits of anger.

Such “off-label” use — prescribing medications to treat conditions for which the drugs were not formally approved by the FDA — is legal and even common. But experts say the lack of proof that these treatments work for other purposes, without fully understanding side effects, raises serious concerns about whether the treatments are safe and effective.

The DLA records detail the range of drugs being prescribed to the military community and the spending on them:

* Antipsychotic medications, including Seroquel and Risperdal, spiked most dramatically — orders jumped by more than 200 percent, and annual spending more than quadrupled, from $4 million to $16 million.

* Use of anti-anxiety drugs and sedatives such as Valium and Ambien also rose substantially; orders increased 170 percent, while spending nearly tripled, from $6 million to about $17 million.

* Antiepileptic drugs, also known as anticonvulsants, were among the most commonly used psychiatric medications. Annual orders for these drugs increased about 70 percent, while spending more than doubled, from $16 million to $35 million.

* Antidepressants had a comparatively modest 40 percent gain in orders, but it was the only drug group to show an overall decrease in spending, from $49 million in 2001 to $41 million in 2009, a drop of 16 percent. The debut in recent years of cheaper generic versions of these drugs is likely responsible for driving down costs.

Antidepressants and anticonvulsants are the most common mental health medications prescribed to service members. Seventeen percent of the active-duty force, and as much as 6 percent of deployed troops, are on antidepressants, Brig. Gen. Loree Sutton, the Army’s highest-ranking psychiatrist, told Congress on Feb. 24.

In contrast, about 10 percent of all Americans take antidepressants, according to a 2009 Columbia University study.

SUICIDE RISKS

Many of the newest psychiatric drugs come with strong warnings about an increased risk for suicide, suicidal behavior and suicidal thoughts.

Doctors — and, more recently, lawmakers — are questioning whether the drugs could be responsible for the spike in military suicides during the past several years, an upward trend that roughly parallels the rise in psychiatric drug use.

From 2001 to 2009, the Army’s suicide rate increased more than 150 percent, from 9 per 100,000 soldiers to 23 per 100,000. The Marine Corps suicide rate is up about 50 percent, from 16.7 per 100,000 Marines in 2001 to 24 per 100,000 last year. Orders for psychiatric drugs in the analysis rose 76 percent over the same period.

“There is overwhelming evidence that the newer antidepressants commonly prescribed by the military can cause or worsen suicidality, aggression and other dangerous mental states,” said Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist who testified at the same Feb. 24 congressional hearing at which Sutton appeared.

Other side effects — increased irritability, aggressiveness and hostility — also could pose a risk.

“Imagine causing that in men and women who are heavily armed and under a great deal of stress,” Breggin said.

He cited dozens of clinical studies conducted by drug companies and submitted to federal regulators, including one among veterans that showed “completed suicide rates were approximately twice the base rate following antidepressant starts in VA clinical settings.”

But many military doctors say the risks are overstated and argue that the greater risk would be to fail to fully treat depressed troops.

For suicide, “depression is a big risk factor,” too, said Army Reserve Col. (Dr.) Thomas Hicklin, who teaches clinical psychiatry at the University of Southern California. “To withhold the medications can be a huge problem.”

Nevertheless, Hicklin said the risks demand strict oversight. “The access to weapons is a very big concern with someone who is feeling suicidal,” he said. “It has to be monitored very carefully because side effects can occur.”

Defense officials repeatedly have denied requests by Military Times for copies of autopsy reports that would show the prevalence of such drugs in suicide toxicology reports.

‘THEN IT’S OVER’

Spc. Mike Kern enlisted in 2006 and spent a year deployed in 2008 with the 4th Infantry Division as an armor crewman, running patrols out of southwest Baghdad.

Kern went to the mental health clinic suffering from nervousness, sleep problems and depression. He was given Paxil, an antidepressant that carries a warning label about increased risk for suicide.

A few days later, while patrolling the streets in the gunner’s turret of a Humvee, he said he began having serious thoughts of suicide for the first time in his life.

“I had three weapons: a pistol, my rifle and a machine gun,” Kern said. “I started to think, ‘I could just do this and then it’s over.’ That’s where my brain was: ‘I can just put this gun right here and pull the trigger and I’m done. All my problems will be gone.’”

Kern said the incident scared him, and he did not take any more drugs during that deployment. But since his return, he has been diagnosed with PTSD and currently takes a variety of psychotropic medications.

Other side effects cited by troops who used such drugs in the war zones include slowed reaction times, impaired motor skills, and attention and memory problems.

One 35-year-old Army sergeant first class said he was prescribed the anticonvulsant Topamax to prevent the onset of debilitating migraines. But the drug left him feeling mentally sluggish, and he stopped taking it.

“Some people call it ‘Stupamax’ because it makes you stupid,” said the sergeant, who asked not to be identified because he said using such medication carries a social stigma in the military.

Being slow — or even “stupid” — might not be a critical problem for some civilians. But it can be deadly for troops working with weapons or patrolling dangerous areas in a war zone, said Dr. John Newcomer, a psychiatry professor at Washington University in St. Louis and a former fellow at the American Psychiatric Association.

“A drug that is really effective and it makes you feel happy and calm and sleepy … might be a great medication for the general population,” Newcomer said, “but that might not make sense for an infantryman in a combat arena.

“If it turns out that people on a certain combo are getting shot twice as often, you would start to worry if they were as ‘heads up’ as they should have been,” Newcomer said. “There is so much on the line, you’d really like to have more specific military data to inform the prescribing.”

Military doctors say they take a service member’s mission into consideration before prescribing.

“Obviously, one would be concerned about what the person does,” said Col. C.J. Diebold, chief of the Department of Psychiatry at Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii. “If they have a desk job, that may factor in what medication you may be recommending for the patient [compared with] if they are out there and they have to be moving around and reacting fairly quickly.”

OFF-LABEL USE

Little hard research has been done on such unique aspects of psychiatric drug usage in the military, particularly off-label usage.

A 2009 VA study found that 60 percent of veterans receiving antipsychotics were taking them for problems for which the drugs are not officially approved. For example, only two are approved for treating PTSD — Paxil and Zoloft, according to the Food and Drug Administration. But in actuality, doctors prescribe a range of drugs to treat PTSD symptoms.

To win FDA approval, drug makers must prove efficacy through rigorous and costly clinical trials. But approval determines only how a drug can be marketed; once a drug is approved for sale, doctors legally can prescribe it for any reason they feel appropriate.

Such off-label use comes with some risk, experts say.

“Patients may be exposed to drugs that have problematic side effects without deriving any benefit,” said Dr. Robert Rosenheck, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University who studied off-label drug use among veterans. “We just don’t know. There haven’t been very many studies.”

Some military psychiatrists are reluctant to prescribe off-label.

“It’s a slippery slope,” said Hicklin, the Army psychiatrist. “Medication can be overused. We need to use medication when indicated and we hope that we are all on the same page … with that.”

Combinations of drugs pose another risk. Doctors note that most drugs are tested as a single treatment, not as one ingredient in a mixture of medications.

“In the case of poly-drug use – the ‘cocktail’ — where you are combining an antidepressant, an anticonvulsant, an antipsychotic, and maybe a stimulant to keep this guy awake — that has never been tested,” Breggin said.

Newcomer agreed. “When we go to the literature and try to find support for these complex cocktails, we’re not going to find it,” he said. “As the number of medications goes up, the probability of adverse events like hospitalization or death goes up exponentially.”

LOOKING FOR ANSWERS

Pinpointing the reasons for broad shifts in the military’s drug use today is difficult. Each doctor prescribes medications for the patient’s individual needs.

Nevertheless, many doctors in and outside the military point to several variables — some unique to the military, some not.

A close look at the data shows that use of the antipsychotic and anticonvulsant drugs, also known as “mood stabilizers,” are growing much faster than antidepressants. That may correlate to the challenges that deployed troops face when they arrive back home and begin to readjust to civilian social norms and family life.

“The ultimate effect of both of these drugs is to take the heightened arousal — the hypervigilance and all the emotions that served you once you were deployed — and help to turn that back down,” said Dr. Frank Ochberg, former associate director for the National Institute of Mental Health and a psychiatry professor at Michigan State University who reviewed the Military Times analysis.

Dr. Harry Holloway, a retired Army colonel and a psychiatry professor at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., said the increased use of these medications is simply another sign of deployment stress on the force.

“For a long time, the ops tempo has been completely unrelieved and unrestrained,” Holloway said. “When you have an increased ops tempo, and you have certain scheduling that will make it hard for everyone, you will produce a more symptomatic force. Most commanders understand that and they understand the tradeoffs.”

Petraeus Wants To Be America’s Musharraf

Petraeus Stirs Political Chatter With Visit to Key Presidential Primary Town

FOXNews.com

Gen. David Petraeus gave a talk Wednesday evening at New Hampshire’s Saint Anselm College, a must-see campus for presidential candidates in a must-see state that hosts the first-in-the-nation primaries. Coincidence?

Gen. David Petraeus addresses the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington Jan. 21. (AP Photo)

When a rumor spread last March that Gen. David Petraeus would be speaking at the University of Iowa in 2010, speculation that he was exploring presidential politics became so rampant that Central Command had to issue a statement saying the Iowa news was false.

Weekly Standard columnist Michael Goldfarb, whose column was the source of the frenzy, later admitted he was joking about a Petraeus trip, and that the gag went too far.

This time, it’s no joke.

Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command, gave a talk Wednesday evening at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, a must-see campus for presidential candidates in a must-see state that hosts the first-in-the-nation primaries.

He told a group of reporters there he will never run for political office and that he wasn’t aware Saint Anselm College has been the site for numerous presidential debates.

“I thought I’ve said ‘no’ as many ways as I could,” he said. “I will not ever run for political office, I can assure you of that.”

During Wednesday evening’s talk, he highlighted the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gen. Petraeus says the violence in Iraq has dropped dramatically but Afghanistan’s local government remains the biggest obstacle.

“Getting that local governance piece so the government is serving the people and is not preying on them or corrupting them is the long pole in that tent,” he said.

Sure, he owns property in New Hampshire and is registered to vote there. But that hasn’t stopped a new wave of speculation that the modest, scholarly general credited with leading the “surge” that turned around the Iraq war is, if not positioning himself, at least stirring the pot about his presidential prospects.

“That’s what my students are all chattering about now,” said Jonathan Acuff, an assistant political professor at Saint Anselm  who works with the Institute of Politics putting on the talk.

Petraeus has been assiduous in shooting down rumors about his political aspirations;  in several interviews with Fox News, he has said he has “no desire” to seek elected office.

He pledged no interest in running during an appearance at the Georgetown Law Center in January and again at the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia last month.

So objective is Petraeus — a registered Republican — that he told Fox News in December that he stopped voting in 2002.

But it’s impossible to prove a negative — that Petraeus won’t run or isn’t interested — and the fact that most potential candidates deny interest in running this early inevitably leaves that door open.

Saint Anselm College, in Manchester, N.H., is a prominent presidential debate venue; the college hosted debates for both parties in 2007 and 2008.

“I think he would immediately be a force if he decided to run as a Republican,” said Republican strategist John Feehery, noting that “tension” between him and President Obama might be the precursor to an epic battle.

“Petraeus turned out to be right on Iraq and Obama turned out to be completely wrong,” he said. “I think it would be monumental (if he ran).”

Feehery, though, said a presidential run is probably not what’s going through Petraeus’ mind at the moment — while the U.S. military is still waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq — and that the New Hampshire visit is probably just that.

“The fact that he’s from New Hampshire and he’s speaking to a college campus as opposed to a local Republican club would lead you to believe sometimes talking to a bunch of college kids is just talking to a bunch of college kids,” he said. “If he’s got a book out, then we’ve got something.”

The talk was billed as a discussion of the Iraq surge and “the role of American forces overseas.” Petraeus was not interviewed by FoxNews.com for this article, but a Central Command official said Petraeus’ visit is in no way part of a campaign strategy.

Col. Steve Boylan, a former top aide to Petraeus, also dismissed the speculation.

“What many people don’t understand about General Petraeus is … he is a fervent believer in education. That’s why he talks at many colleges and universities,” he said. “He has no desires for elected office. … That’s not something he sees for himself.”

Acuff said chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff might be on Petraeus’ mind, but that a bid for president is unlikely.

“He has the structural opportunity if he wanted to run in the Republican Party, because of the general leadership vacuum there,” Acuff said. But he noted that Petraeus’ sterling national security portfolio might not be enough against a fiscally minded candidate like Mitt Romney.

The American tradition of high-ranking military officers ascending to the presidency has faded in the last half-century, since Dwight Eisenhower was the last general to occupy the White House.

Colin Powell, who had at the time recently finished his tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was considered a possible challenger to President Clinton in 1996 but ultimately declined. And Wesley Clark, who led forces in Kosovo as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004, but he dropped out to endorse Sen. John Kerry.

Petraeus, a Princeton-educated official, draws a broad audience. Republicans can’t figure out what he wants, but many have made clear they consider him a national asset and figure worthy of the country’s respect — and possibly more.

“He’s an American hero, a great leader,” said New Hampshire GOP spokesman Ryan Williams, who plans to attend the speech Wednesday. “I don’t know if he wants a political future, but he did a fantastic job leading America’s brave men and women.

“New Hampshire Republicans have a lot of respect for General Petraeus,” he said.

FoxNews.com’s Judson Berger, Fox News’ Jake Gibson and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Hackers Shut-Down Turkish Weekly–(cached)

Friday, 12 February 2010

The Web site for Turkey’s leading Armenian newspaper was hacked in the early hours on Friday.

Hackers identifying themselves as “AK Hacker” overtook the Agos Web site and put up an image of Ogün Samast, the alleged murderer of the former editor in chief of the daily, Hrant Dink. The image was accompanied by a text that criticized opposition to the ruling party and stated the act of hacking was “an action that will go on to spread like poison to others who oppose the current powers.”

The note also made a chilling threat given the murder of Hrant Dink: “If you do not fix your reporting in the way we see fit, there will be new Ogün Samasts and new Hrant Dinks.”

Here’s a translation of the full text on thehacked site:

“You either love or you leave it. Or like the traitor Hrant, you die and disappear. You are you. You know yourself as much as we know you. You lived through what you deserved and it will continue as such. This act take on behalf of the Turkish flag, which is not on your Web site, and in the name of the Turkish Republic, will continue to spread like poison to others who oppose the current powers and everyone who opposes will be affected as such. If you do not change your articles and your words and your actions along the lines that we see fit, then there will be new Ogün Samasts and new Hrant Dinks. Thinking you’re smart is your biggest ignorance. Just as the traitors who have given up their Turkishness will one day be expelled from the borders of this country, Turkey will be cleansed thanks to the current powers in Turkey and all slander campaigns will be unsuccessful and inconclusive from now on.

“GAME OVER!

“Who are we?

“Hate, loathsome, Müco, Mr. Bond

“Do you remember?

“Ak Hackers”

Indian military to weaponise world’s hottest chili

Guwahati: The Indian military has a new weapon against terrorism: The world’s hottest chili.After conducting tests, the military has decided to use the thumb-sized ‘bhut jolokia’, or “ghost chili,” to make tear gas-like hand grenades to immobilize suspects, defense officials said.

The ‘bhut jolokia’ was accepted by Guinness World Records in 2007 as the world’s spiciest chili. It is grown and eaten in India’s northeast for its taste, as a cure for stomach troubles and a way to fight the crippling summer heat.

Image: In this July 4, 2007 file photo, a farmer shows a “Bhut jolokia” or “ghost chili” pepper plucked from his field in Assam.

Text & Images: AP

Hezb-i-Islami set to meet with UN today

* Group’s spokesman claims plans to speak with EU representatives as well

KABUL: Representatives of the Hezb-i-Islami, a militant group linked to an infamous Afghan warlord, are hoping to convince UN officials today that the time is right for a peace deal with insurgents.

Hezb-i-Islami spokesman Muhammad Daoud Abedi said that the UN asked a delegation for a meeting, which follows talks that the Taliban-linked group had with President Hamid Karzai earlier this week.

EU representatives: He said the group also plans to speak with representatives from the European Union, but an official at the EU office said he had no knowledge of any meeting with the delegation.

Talk about possible reconciliation with insurgent groups, however, has not reduced violence, especially in southern Afghanistan where a major military operation is under way to rout the Taliban from parts of Helmand province. NATO said two service members were killed on Wednesday in a bombing, and another died as a result of small-arms attack, in the south. It is the first time that high-ranking representatives of the insurgent group, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, have travelled to Kabul to discuss peace. It’s uncertain whether the talks with Hekmatyar’s group will lead to an end game in the eight-year war, given the group’s demand for a quick exit of foreign forces. Hezb-i-Islami wants international forces to begin withdrawing in July – a year ahead of President Barack Obama’s desired deadline to begin a pullout, if conditions allow. But Abedi said the group is flexible on that main point of its 15-point peace offer.

“That is a starting point,” Abedi said in a telephone interview. “If we start the process, we can be ready by another year or so. If President Obama wants the situation to be right for the withdrawal of the foreign forces from Afghanistan, he should start talking and taking some firm, honest steps to make the situation acceptable for that day. That’s why we are putting this proposal on the table, to say ‘If you really mean this, then let’s work and get this thing done”,’ he said.

US Embassy spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden has said US officials have no plans to meet with representatives of Hekmatyar’s group. Abedi said the delegation hoped European officials would persuade the US government to get involved in the negotiations.

“The ball is in their court.” Abedi said. “If the US government would like to leave in honour and leave something behind that the Afghan people and the international community would be proud and grateful for, it is good for them to expedite the peace process, get involved in the negotiations and bring out their concerns so we could answer them and together we could get this all done and bring this ugly war to an end,” he added. ap

Baloch Liberation Army Claims Pakistani Jet Shot Down

BLA shot down Pakistan Air Force (PAF) F-7 aircraft

Posted by admin on 2010/3/23 18:00:00 (37 reads)

BLA shot down Pakistan Air Force (PAF) F-7 aircraft during an encounter near Quetta hills the jet over flew very near at the range of Baloch anti aircraft guns, one RPG was shot at the aircraft and soon after smoke was seen from the aircraft and it came tumbling down one pilot was killed while other one was seen parachuting. According to PAF spokesman, one of the pilots Flight Lt. Gulfam Soomro was killed while another ejected safely.

Anit-War Protestors Urge Soldiers to Resist Deployment

By Dan Bluemel

Marking the seventh anniversary of the Iraq War, anti-war demonstrators marched on Hollywood Boulevard Saturday to protest the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Leading the march along Hollywood Boulevard from Vine Street to Grauman’s Chinese Theatre were veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Holding hand-made flags representing Blackwater, Chase-Manhattan Bank, AIG, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron and Boeing, the veterans formed a sort of Wall Street Color Guard to call attention to corporate America’s role in U.S. foreign policy.

Iraq War veteran Michael Prysner, a Founding Member of March Forward, an anti-war organization that is made up of veterans and service members, spoke at the rally connecting a soldier’s service to their country as a service to corporate America.

“We are nothing more than muscle, thugs for the banks and Wall Street,” he said. “They don’t care about our lives, the lives of those overseas. They only care about profit.”

Long-time peace activist, Vietnam veteran and author of “Born on the Fourth of July” Ron Kovic joined the veterans in their march. “I think Iraq was a terrible mistake,” he said. “These young men and women deserve not to have their lives wasted. That’s why we are here today.”

Kovic was awarded the Bronze Star for his service in Vietnam, as well as the Purple Heart for an injury that left him paralyzed at the waist. “I’m very proud of my service to my country, and most proud of my commitment to non-violence,” he said.

Speaking for the veterans present at the demonstration, Kovic said that they love their country despite their criticisms. “The people who came out today are proud and passionate,” he said. “This is the best of democracy. This is what my sacrifice was about, to assemble peacefully and non-violently.”

Blase Bonpane, KPFK radio host and Director of Office of the Americas, an international justice and peace organization, spoke at the demonstration encouraging soldiers to resist their orders to deploy. He said 50,000 soldiers have refused to go overseas, and though difficult, hundreds have gone public about it.

“This is how the war in Vietnam ended,” he said. “Soldiers realized they were lied to and resisted.”

For Bonpane, he sees the Iraq War as being 19 years old. “I was there in 1991,” he said. “It was a massacre and it hasn’t stopped.”

Kovic led the crowd in a sit-in where demonstrators halted the march and sat in the street. He held two-minutes of silence in honor of those who died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This is a movement of compassion and caring that respects all life,” he said to the crowd. “We will continue to sit in greater and greater numbers in the streets until these wars are ended.”

Present in the demonstration were two candidates for public office that have aligned themselves with the anti-war movement.

Richard Castaldo is running against Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) for the Peace and Freedom Party. Castaldo, paralyzed at the waist from gunshot wounds suffered in the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, said he got involved in politics because of the war and Wall Street bailouts.

“I feel, as a nation, we could be doing a lot better,” he said.

If elected, Castaldo said, his first objective would be to work against corporate influence in Washington.

Long Beach mayoral candidate Stevie Merino was also present at the demonstration. Merino, 21, is a student at Cerritos College. She is running against incumbent Mayor Bob Foster for the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

She finds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan a hindrance to public education. “We need to stop funding wars and start funding people’s needs,” she said. “Education is a right, not a privilege for a select few.”

The demonstration began around noon and ended shortly after 3:30 p.m. LAPD on site said there was no trouble or arrests connected to the march and rally. The Los Angeles demonstration was held in conjunction with protests in San Francisco and Washington, D.C.

Hate speech III

By Fasi Zaka

Zaid Hamid, the self-proclaimed ‘defence analyst’ and a ‘scholar’ with innumerable other self-bestowed platitudes, has suffered from a number of humiliating setbacks recently. I wrote about this purveyor of hate speech, militarism and spontaneous fiction (conspiracy theories) nearly a year and a half ago, criticising him for hate-mongering and half-truths. In retaliation, he sent out a mass email claiming that I was critiquing him at the behest of international Zionists and bankers, getting me threats from his acolytes and followers. No longer the darling of TV evangelism, today he has been put down several pegs, rendering him temporarily ineffective. He was run out of Islamia College in Peshawar by a peace group, his conventions in Islamabad were disrupted by angry students, he’s been named in an FIR for murder and his most ambitious project, creating a new Pakistan resolution at Minar-e-Pakistan in front of millions of his followers, as he had boasted, fizzled in front of far less than a hundred people at a hastily concluded event at Alhamra in Lahore on the 23rd of this month. So, was it people like me, and many other columnists who did a far better job of addressing this demagogue, who won out with arguments of rationalism, trying to reclaim public discourse from charlatans? No. Factual argument had very little to do with it. And that is problematic as I shall explain further on. What happened? Two things: first the overconfidence of his relentless ego that believed its own hype, and second a past that caught up with him. Let’s look at each in turn, eventually coming to the point I mentioned before, that his misfortunes are not a cause for celebration. First, ego. In his speeches, he rails for the reintroduction of the Khilafat system but is short on all specifics. Simultaneously, he will present himself as the saviour, using the royal “we”. He is not one for modesty, quickly one sees through the ruse. He launches into huge spiels of how the CIA, RAW and Mossad are afraid of him. In one TV programme he claimed that the FBI was watching him and he had found a loophole on its website, that it didn’t mention Osama bin Laden’s wanted status in reference to 9/11. Zaid was sure that after the programme had been aired the FBI would change it. Well, as usual with Zaid, the facts were wrong. Osama never claimed involvement with 9/11, only his appreciation for it, and the reason for it is tactical. If Osama was caught, any admission would bring a quick close to the trial, he would like to prolong it to give him an opportunity to critique the US for as long as possible within earshot of the US media. As it is, the website has not changed to this day, more than a year after Zaid claimed it would after his revelation. So much for being an “analyst”. It’s been more than a year since he definitely “proved” that Israel would attack Pakistan in March of 2009. Regarding his total failure in getting a hundred, let alone lakhs of, people to hear him pass a new ‘Pakistan Resolution’, he has a new excuse that he has sent out to his followers. Apparently, he thinks it’s just like the situation of the Prophet (PBUH) at Hudaiybia! Talk about narcissism. A charismatic and well-spoken man, he got too used to followers who lapped all his “prophetic” words about politics without counterargument, and the summersaults and changing of position he regularly did were ignored by them on account of the force of his personality. Unfortunately, for him the problem with the media is that it creates repositories online, so in one programme where he tries and puts up a peaceful façade by saying he isn’t against Hindus, it’s easily contradicted by another programme where he calls them a “paleed” nation. He says he hates the US, but will happily accept dollars for small reports he authors. It was almost as if he believed he was immune to the rules of logic, and that others wouldn’t notice. Anyone who did was a CIA/Mossad/RAW agent, like Hamid Mir who he once accused of being just that. He has been railing against democracy for the longest time because of Pakistan’s cooperation with the US and his desire for his caliphate, but will never criticise Musharraf who set the current relationship in place. If it suited Zaid the rules were flexible. And hence the backlash. Falling in love with celebrity circles was another problem. While pushing a hardliner Islamic agenda, he would also hobnob with rock stars and fashion designers who treated him with a cult-like awe. Increasing the personal realm of influence was more important than ideological consistency. Others saw through that. And now to the past. Islamic groups turned against Zaid Hamid when an old case against Yousuf Ali (better known since as Yousuf Kazzab) gained prominence. Yousuf believed he had the soul of the Prophet (PBUH) within him, and was eventually sentenced to death for blaspheming. Documentary evidence has since surfaced that alleges close links between Zaid Hamid and Yousuf. Zaid denied any association for the longest time, but now admits to a link and has not outright distanced himself from the beliefs of Yousuf. This has galvanised the ulema against him. The FIR against Zaid Hamid for murder is for the gunning down of Maluana Jalalpuri who authored a fatwa against Zaid and was killed soon after. His family claim Zaid Hamid had threatened him before his murder. Whenever Yousaf Kazzab is brought up before Zaid, he insists that the Quranic rules of evidence should be used and false allegations shall take accusers to hellfire. Funny, it never occurs to him to use the same Quranic principles when he randomly labels anyone who inconveniences him in his thirst for followers as a traitor and an agent. Now, why do I say the downfall of Zaid should not be celebrated? Well, because the very issues of hate speech, militarism and false conspiracy theories remain unaddressed. If Zaid’s past was clean, if his ego had not got the better of him, would he have been kosher for Pakistan? In their charge against Zaid, why are the ulema not also talking about how our religion is being misused to fan hate and not tolerance? Even if Zaid magically became irrelevant, what about the persistence of these arguments by others? What is to be done about the erosion of rational discourse in our country? Is it no less a blasphemy that the ulema who are happy to put their attention to Zaid remain quiet when innocent Christian villages are razed by angry mobs? Or that the Prophet’s (PBUH) instructions on education are routinely ignored in a nation that suffers from unforgivable illiteracy? What about the boy murdered in the UET for listening to music by the Islami Jamiat-e-Talba, why are the ulema silent? The ulema have said nothing about Zaid’s other pronouncements and beliefs; their love affair with him is only over because of his alleged past, not his dubious present. The truth of the matter is that Pakistan is in no danger of not believing in the finality of the Prophet (PBUH), with the exception of some small groups. The ulema have a role to play that they have woefully neglected, rather becoming instruments in reactionary behaviour, being anti-progress and sidelining education. Of course, there are some who are an exception to this, but the large majority has failed to provide for the people, preferring instead power over the illiterate. There is a section celebrating Zaid’s setbacks. That’s myopic. One man is not responsible for the madness in a country where some, for example, in the middle class, cannot bring themselves to condemn the Taliban. A victory would have been if the triumph was for reclaiming sense, rationality and Islam in our national dialogue from those who subdue it for self-aggrandisement. The writer is a Rhodes scholar and former academic. Email: fasizaka@yahoo.com

Pak took up issue of India’s ‘intrusion’ in Afghanistan with US : Gilani

Islamabad, Mar.25 : Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has said that Islamabad has taken up the issue of India’s ‘intrusion’ in Afghanistan with both New Delhi and the United States.

Addressing the Senate, Gilani said he had a detailed meeting with US National Security Adviser General. James Jones over India’s expanding presence in Afghanistan.

Pakistan has been blaming India for using Afghan territory to launch terror activities in Pakistan, especially in Balochistan.

Pakistani agencies have also been accusing India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) of plotting terror attacks across the country using Indian consulates in Afghanistan.

Recently, Pakistani intelligence officials claimed that they had nabbed the mastermind of the Lahore serial blasts, in which over 50 persons were killed earlier this month, who revealed that the attacks were planned two months ago in an Indian consulate in Afghanistan.

Pakistani agencies also claimed that a top Indian official had visited Kabul in December and met Muzammal, who had fled to Afghanistan via Balochistan after the attack on the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi in 2009. (ANI)

China rising in battle for Central Asia influence

By Matt Siegel
Agence France-Presse

BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan—The United States wants to win supremacy to support troops for a prolonged conflict in nearby Afghanistan. Russia sees the region as its own backyard where its right for influence dates back centuries.

But in the modern-day Great Game battle for influence in the strategic region of Central Asia, it is China who is stealing a march on the two Cold War-era superpowers with its vast check book, analysts say.

China has been using the twin distractions of the Afghan war and Russia’s financial woes to secure its own position in Central Asia, Alexander Cooley, a political scientist at Columbia University, told AFP.

In 2009, for the first time, China’s net trade with Central Asia exceeded that of Russia and the trend is likely to persist in the future, he said.

“Russia was traditionally the dominant power in the region, but the financial crisis has undermined its economic power and influence while it has precipitated a wave of new China-Central Asia business deals,” he said.

Ex-Soviet Central Asia, a vast resource-rich region bordering Russia, China, Iran, and Afghanistan, has long found itself at the center of power struggles between the world’s leading powers.

In the 19th Century, then-Tsarist Russia and the British Empire held an epic century-long struggle for influence here known as The Great Game, their troops and spies facing off along the dusty plains of the legendary Silk Road.

But if the Great Game was defined by two roughly-equal opponents fighting over an established idea—the Russian Empire’s thrust towards British India—the new contest is more complicated.

The United States is interested in one thing only in Central Asia, said Paul Quinn-Judge, a Bishkek-based analyst with the International Crisis Group. “One word: Afghanistan,” he said.

“As a result they are throwing their lot in with some of the most corrupt and authoritarian regimes in the world today, doing incalculable damage to their own long-term standing,” he said.

As it prepared to invade Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks the United States established military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

Now almost a decade on and with only the Manas Transit Center in Kyrgyzstan left—Uzbekistan evicted the US in 2005 over rights criticisms—the US presence continues to attract negative attention and to anger Moscow.

Rights advocates say that by choosing to keep Manas despite serious human rights and democratic concerns in Kyrgyzstan, Washington has weakened its hand with ordinary people.

Russia’s perception that the US military presence in Central Asia is part of a plan to encircle it has become the key factor driving Moscow’s ad-hoc policy here, Quinn-Judge said.

“Russia is essentially floundering—winging a policy here. Its main lever of foreign policy in recent years, money, is in markedly shorter supply these days,” he said.

“And the Moscow policy is that of a small part of the leading elite—notably those around (Russian Prime Minister Vladimir) Putin, as seen from a near obsessive concern about the US in the region.”

Into that mix steps China, which has gone on a vast spending spree, lending billions of dollars to local governments and snapping up key energy rights in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

In December a consortium led by the China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) won the rights to develop Turkmenistan’s South Yolotan field, one of the world’s most prized gas fields.

China is also active in uranium and oil projects in Kazakhstan, the region’s largest economy, and has been building modern roads that will transport Chinese goods to impoverished Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and beyond.

But while China’s moves into Central Asia are certainly good business, Beijing has a greater concern, one that is often touted by the region’s governments as justification for their often-draconian rule: Islamic extremism.

Three of Central Asia’s states—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan—border China’s most restive region, Xinjiang, ancestral home to Turkic-speaking Muslim Uighurs, a group Beijing has often portrayed as radical.

China sees a stable, if authoritarian, Central Asia as key towards protecting its western regions from the kind of Islamist violence that has devastated Afghanistan.

“Beijing views the Central Asian states as a critical buffer region for stabilizing and developing its bordering Western province of Xinjiang,” Cooley said.

California to Vote on Legalization of the “Chronic”

State’s voters to decide on legalizing pot

Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

California voters will decide this November whether to legalize and regulate adult recreational use of marijuana. The secretary of state on Wednesday certified that a Bay Area-based effort to put the issue on the ballot has collected enough signatures to do so.

If passed, California would have the most comprehensive laws on legal marijuana in the entire world, advocates say. Opponents are confident they will easily defeat the measure.

The vote will be the second time in nearly 40 years that people in the Golden State will decide the issue of legalization, though the legal framework and cultural attitudes surrounding marijuana have changed significantly over the past four decades. If Californians pass the measure, they would be the first in the nation to vote for legalization. Similar efforts in other states all have failed.

Backers needed to collect at least 433,971 valid signatures of registered voters, and Secretary of State Debra Bowen said they met that threshold.

If voters approve the measure, it will become legal for Californians 21 and older to grow and possess up to an ounce of marijuana under state law. Local jurisdictions could tax and regulate it or decide not to participate. Marijuana would continue to be banned outright by federal law.

Current state law allows a person, with a doctor’s approval, to possess an amount of marijuana that is reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs. People also can obtain cards identifying themselves as a patient, which helps in interactions with law enforcement.

“There is no state that currently allows adults to grow marijuana for personal (recreational) use, but what is totally different and will be a game-changer internationally is this would allow authorized sales to adults as determined by a local authority,” said Stephen Gutwillig, California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance Network, an organization advocating for changes in drug laws.

Key supporters

The major backers of the initiative – the founder of an marijuana trade school based in Oakland, a retired Orange County judge and various drug-law reform organizations – are planning to oversee a $10 million campaign to push the measure.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said his organization will work hard to pass the proposition, adding that the California effort is notable because it probably will be funded by the marijuana industry.

“This is being launched at a time not only of mass nationwide zeitgeist around marijuana,” but acutely so in California, he said. “Almost all other (marijuana) initiatives were poorly funded, and what funding there has been … was purely philanthropic.”

But opponents, who probably will include a large coalition of public safety associations, said that once voters understand the implications of the measure, it will be handily defeated.

“The overarching issue is, given all the social problems caused by alcohol abuse, all the social and public safety problems caused by pharmaceutical abuse and the fact that tobacco kills – given all those realities, what on Earth is the social good that’s going to be served by adding another mind-altering substance to the array,” said John Lovell, a lobbyist for a number of statewide police and public safety associations.

Additionally, he said, employers and government entities that receive federal money may not be able to meet federal standards for drug-free workplaces if the measure passes, putting billions of federal dollars in jeopardy.

‘Sink like a rock’

“It’s terrible drafting … that will cause the state of California significant fiscal problems,” he said. When these issues are presented to voters, he said, the measure will “sink like a rock in the North Atlantic.”

Attitudes of voters in California have increasingly moved in favor of full legalization of marijuana. Californians passed Proposition 215 in 1996 to legalize marijuana for medical use. A bill in the Legislature would also legalize adult recreational use, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said it is an idea that should be debated, although he personally opposes it.

A Field Poll taken in April found that 56 percent of voters backed the idea of legalization and taxation of marijuana. The measure will add to an already crowded November ballot, with an expensive gubernatorial race looming along with other statewide offices.

Prominent candidates running for higher office, including Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is seeking the governorship, and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, a Democrat who is running for attorney general, have said they oppose the initiative. Don Perata, former Senate president pro tem and candidate for Oakland mayor, supports the initiative.

The major Republican candidates oppose the measure.

Richard Lee, the founder of Oaksterdam University, has spearheaded the effort and said he is not concerned about prominent political opposition to the plan, noting the similar lack of support for Prop. 215.

“I think the voters lead the politicians on this issue and they realize that,” Lee said.

E-mail Wyatt Buchanan at wbuchanan@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Predator Assassination Program–Proof of Fascism

Barack Obama must justify covert killing. Or halt it

It’s not just Israel that is eliminating its enemies. The US is pursuing a programme of state-backed assassination

Ben Macintyre

David Miliband was diplomatically livid. “Such misuse of British passports is intolerable”. Israel had broken every rule, he said, by cloning British documents that were used by some of the hit-team sent to kill the Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel room. In retaliation for forging Her Britannic Majesty’s signature, the senior Mossad officer in London is heading home — presumably on his own passport.

Mr Miliband is firmly opposed to state-sponsored identity theft. He did not, however, offer an opinion in his Commons statement on whether it is acceptable to break into a hotel room in a sovereign foreign country, inject its occupant with muscle relaxant and smother him with a pillow.

A few months earlier, a notorious Taleban terrorist named Baitullah Mehsud was sitting on the roof of his father-in-law’s farmhouse in Pakistan. He was spotted by an unmanned Predator drone operated from CIA headquarters thousands of miles away in Langley, Virginia, and was blown to pieces by two precisely aimed Hellfire missiles. Twelve others also died.

Both al-Mabhouh and Mehsud were exceptionally nasty pieces of work. Mehsud was linked to a host of terrorist attacks, including the murder of Benazir Bhutto. Al-Mabhouh was involved in the abduction and murder of two Israeli soldiers.

State-backed assassination — the extrajudicial killing of an enemy outside a war zone — has long been regarded as illegal and immoral. Yet that principle is now being undermined as governments increasingly turn to the bomb and bullet rather than the law to destroy their adversaries.

In 1976 President Ford issued an executive order banning political assassinations. When Mossad launched Operation Wrath of God, tracking down and killing the Palestinian terrorists responsible for the Munich Olympics massacre in Lebanon, France and Norway, the US was sharply critical.

In July 2001, the US Ambassador to Israel declared: “The United States Government is very clearly on record as against targeted assassination … They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”

After 9/11, George W. Bush was granted broad executive powers to combat terrorism around the world, and under Barack Obama the programme of killing using drones has accelerated sharply. Unmanned planes are used routinely to pick out specific enemies, not just in the wild Pakistani borderlands but in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere.

President Obama has ordered more drone strikes on terrorist targets in his first year in office than President Bush did in two terms. Of the 99 drone attacks carried out in Pakistan since 2004, 89 occurred after January 2008; last year there were a record 50 drone strikes, up from 31 the year before.

America’s preferred euphemism is “targeted killing”; on the ground the procedure is called “find, fix and finish”. The Obama Administration prefers the term “elimination” to “assassination”, yet that is what is taking place.

The CIA’s targeted killings may be justified on legal, ethical and practical grounds: if a gun it pointed at your head, violent self-defence is a reasonable response. The problem is that the Obama Administration has not sought to justify, or even properly acknowledge, its tactics, just as Israel has neither admitted nor defended the al-Mabhouh hit.

Drone strikes take place amid the strictest secrecy. The Obama Administration has made no direct comment on them, nor divulged the criteria by which individuals are selected. The CIA reportedly keeps a constantly updated list of shoot-to-kill targets “deemed to be a continuing threat to US persons or interests”.

But how a person gets on that list — or off it — is unclear. Are terrorists and insurgents singled out for what they have done in the past, or what they might do in the future? The latter may be a defensible rationale for assassination, the former is not. Is the risk of collateral damage factored in? How secure is identification before the trigger is pulled? As Milt Bearden, a former CIA officer, recently observed: “There is precious little intelligence reliable enough to be the basis for a death sentence.”

The legal basis for drone strikes is also murky. Assassination may be justifiable in time of war, but the CIA is a civilian organisation, and the US is not at war with Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia. Winston Churchill was acutely aware of the dangers inherent in political assassination. Presented with an opportunity to attempt to kill off Hitler in 1942, he declined. The assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, the Nazi ruler of Czechoslovakia, had unleashed horrendous reprisals. Killing Hitler would ensure his martyrdom, galvanise Nazi passion and allow Himmler, arguably an even more appalling prospect, to take over.

Mr Obama has plainly decided that “targeted killing” is a legitimate and effective tool of war. He must now justify that to the world and provide an official accounting of how, when and why life-and-death decisions are taken.

Britain was rightly outraged when Alexander Litvinenko was murdered on British soil, but official anger over the murder in Dubai has been largely restricted to complaints about the misuse of passports. In this country, the killing in Dubai has been treated as if were some colourful John le Carré story. The CIA programme of targeted killing without accountability is merely seen as just an extension of the Afghan war. Both are unacceptable.

Hard intelligence of an imminent terrorist attack is the only possible justification for extrajudicial execution. Consorting with terrorists, or a terrorist history, are not enough. Perhaps Israel had evidence that al-Mabhouh was planning more attacks, but this has not been revealed. Perhaps the CIA had concrete proof that every one of the 50 individuals hit by missiles from unmanned drones last year was on the verge of terrorist action. If so, the intelligence remains under wraps.

Killing people without due process is seldom justifiable; but it is never acceptable if carried out in secret.

Mr Obama must explain and publicly justify targeted killings. Failure to do so will merely compound the impression of an intelligence agency wielding lethal powers in secret, a group of state-backed hitmen prepared to carry out covert assassinations — like Mossad — because they can.

Headley’s Case: Curiouser And Curiouser

By B.Raman

The case relating to India’s request to the US to be allowed to interrogate David Coleman Headley of the Chicago cell of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) is getting curiouser and curiouser due to mishandling by the Governments of India and the US.

The mishandling by the Government of India is due to its disinclination to accept that the US has badly let down India and that the Indo-US cooperation in counter-terrorism is not as satisfactory as projected to be by officials of both the countries. The mishandling by the US is due to its anxiety to prevent a public admission of the US intelligence community’s links with him and to protect Pakistan from the legal consequences of its role in the 26/11 terrorist strikes.

Headley, according to his confessions before a Chicago court, helped the LET in carrying out the Mumbai 26/11 terrorist strikes Nine of the 12 charges filed against him by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) before a Chicago court arise from his participation in the planning for the 26/11 terrorist strikes.

There are three criminal cases simultaneously going on relating to the 26/11 strikes—- before a court in Mumbai, a court in Chicago and an anti-terrorism court in Pakistan. Till now, Pakistan has chosen not to take cognizance of Headley in connection with its own case against seven arrested members of the LET despite Headley’s links with some of them. Pakistan is conducting itself as if action against Headley is a matter between India and the US with which it is not concerned.

Even though India has been agitating vigorously for its right to interrogate Headley in connection with the Mumbai case and his links with the LET, it has chosen till now not to cite him as a co-accused in the Mumbai case to avoid delay in the Mumbai trial till the judicial proceedings in Chicago are over.

Indian interrogation of Headley in the sense the word interrogation is understood in criminal law has been ruled out by the FBI, but in the plea bargain with Headley, the FBI has kept open the possibility of Headley’s testimony from the US through video-conferencing or other means in any foreign judicial proceedings. This applies to any judicial proceedings relating to the Mumbai attack in India as well as Pakistan. There have to be common parameters for recording his testimony— whether the request for it comes from India or Pakistan. If the FBI concedes India’s right to interrogate, then Pakistan does not come into the picture. Interrogation is not a judicial proceeding. If India accepts the FBI’s suggestion of testimony, Pakistan comes into the picture. The same procedure for testimony has to apply in the case of judicial proceedings of India and Pakistan.

India seems still undecided whether it should insist on “interrogation” or should accept “testimony” even though it may not be as satisfactory as “interrogation”. If India accepts the suggestion for testimony, will he be asked to testify as a witness or as a co-accused in the Mumbai case? If India wants him to testify as a co-accused, then his name has to be cited as a co-accused on the basis of the information shared by the FBI with the Indian investigators.

If “testimony” is chosen as the ultimate solution, the case may have to proceed along the following lines. India cites Headley as a co-accused on the basis of the information shared by the FBI based on Headley’s interrogation by FBI officers. The FBI officers, who interrogated Headley, testify before the Indian court from the US through video-conferencing. Headley testifies through video-conferencing to the Indian court on what he told the FBI.

“Interrogation” will give India greater flexibility to ensure that the Mumbai trial is not delayed till the judicial proceedings in the US are over. “Testimony” will curtail India’s flexibility.

One has to admit that whatever be the arguments and spins one might use, the post-9/11 Indo-US counter-terrorism cooperation so painstakingly built up lies shattered. The comfort level between the intelligence communities of the two countries was an important outcome of this co-operation.

This received two serious blows post-2004. The first was the case of Major (retd) Rabinder Singh of the Research & Analysis Wing who had been allegedly recruited as its agent by the CIA. The CIA helped him to seek asylum in the US when he was about to be arrested by the Indian counter-intelligence.

The second was the discovery of another alleged CIA mole in the National Security Council Secretariat of the Government of India, which is part of the Prime Minister’s Office.

The intelligence communities of the two countries, which had a long history of co-operation against the subversive activities of international communism ever since India became independent in 1947, managed to get over the trust deficit, which resulted from these two blows.

They did not allow these blows to damage seriously the counter-terrorism co-operation architecture built up since 9/11. Indian intelligence professionals were appreciative of the high level of co-operation—-forensic and technical— which they received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during their investigation of the 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

At a time when the Indian intelligence community seemed to have rid itself of the past distrust, a third blow has been struck by the case of Headley.

Headley and his accomplice Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Chicago-based Canadian citizen of Pakistani origin, were arrested by the FBI in October 2009 during an investigation into a plot of the LET and some other Pakistan-based terrorists to attack a Danish newspaper which had published cartoons of Prophet Mohammad in 2005. Their interrogation led to the discovery that they had assisted the LET in attacking Mumbai.

The perceived reluctance of the FBI to consider an Indian extradition request and to allow Indian investigators to interrogate Headley in Indian custody has revived the wall of distrust between the two intelligence communities. There has been strong criticism in India of what is seen as the double standards of the US intelligence.

When Abu Zubaidah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and Abu Faraj al-Libi of Al Qaeda were arrested in Pakistan and Hambali of the Jemmah Islamiyah Indonesia was arrested in Thailand, the US intelligence insisted on taking them into its custody to interrogate them on the future plans of their organizations and on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. It prevailed.

India knew that extradition of Headley and Rana, though desirable, may not be feasible under US laws. It did not want even that they should be brought to India for interrogation. It knew that the US judiciary may not allow it.

All New Delhi wanted was that its investigators should be given immediate access to them in the US so that they could question them not only on 26/11, but also on the future plans of the LET and its sleeper cells in India.

Presuming that in the light of the growing co-operation the FBI would allow this, the Government of India rushed a team of investigators to the US to question Headley after hearing of his arrest. Indian officials were taken by surprise when the FBI declined to do this and sent them back empty-handed.

Indian professionals feel that since then the FBI has been dragging its feet to repeated Indian requests for an opportunity to interrogate Headley even in US territory. The plea bargain entered into by the FBI with Headley last week has created strong suspicions in India that the FBI wants to avoid a formal trial of Headley and was reluctant to allow Indian investigators to interrogate him because Headley was a deep penetration agent of the US intelligence, who horribly went out of control.

Indian intelligence officers are mature professionals. They know all agencies commit mistakes in their deep penetration operations. They would not be interested in asking him about any links which he might have had with the US intelligence. They know that by embarrassing the FBI by exposing such links they would create bitterness.

Their interest will be in questioning Headley on his role in 26/11, the future plans of the LET, the sleeper cells of the LET in India, the plans of Ilyas Kashmiri, a Pakistani associate of bin Laden, for terrorist strikes in India and the role of the Pakistani State in all this.

So long as Headley is jailed in the US, extradition is not a life and death matter for India. New Delhi has no interest in embarrassing the FBI, but it has a right to expect that as a much-trumpeted strategic partner and natural ally of the US, its core concerns regarding the need to neutralize the LET before it indulges in more 26/11s will be understood and shared by the US intelligence and that Indian investigators will be given unrestricted access to Headley and Rana—even if it be in US custody.

Unless this is done, the counter-terrorism co-operation between the two countries may face difficulty in recovering from the present set-back.

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com