Your Pakistan

Long Live Pakistan, God Bless Pakistan – Latest News Updates

Posts Tagged ‘US’

US And India: Pushing Pakistan into an Abyss

Posted by yourpakistan on May 21, 2012


“Pushing Pakistan into abyss may trigger an irreversible situation where Pakistan is compelled to react; such a reaction may result into using all that it can to save her soul. Pakistan needs to be respected and not pushed around; that’s all what it needs. Both the US and India need to stop funding and sponsoring insurgencies in Pakistan; if Pakistan sinks, it won’t sink alone.” Raja Mujtaba

By Brig Asif Haroon Raja

Notwithstanding Gen Muharraf’s weaknesses and several blunders he committed during his nine years rule, one has to admit that his governance and management of state affairs were relatively much better than what we have seen in the last four years. Law and order as well as overall security were not as bad during his time. Between 2004 and 2007, only 10 drone strikes took place. By 2004/05, the GDP had shot up to 7% and this figure was maintained till 2007. Foreign investments poured in and foreign exchange reserves crossed $15 billion mark. Several mega projects as well as development works in all the provinces particularly in neglected Balochistan were undertaken. Rupee was stable and exports had shown visible improvement. There was no shortage of daily commodities and inflation as well as price spiral was within limits. Load shedding and gas shedding was minimal. NAB recovered billions of rupees from corrupt politicians, businessmen, bureaucrats and military. Booming estate property and stock exchange made middle class prosperous. All economic indicators were in positive and public sector corporations were in profit. Corruption was within limits.
By virtue of his high sense of understanding of higher military strategy and defence matters as well as working knowledge of other subjects, he could handle local and foreign media deftly and he never waffled or fumbled. His speeches made on the national TV were measured and convincing. But for his fatal mistake of locking horns with chief justice Iftikhar at the advice of his sycophants and then imposing emergency in November 2007, which isolated him and led to his downfall, he may not have felt the need to strike a power sharing secret deal with Benazir Bhutto in exile and issue NRO, which paved the way for the installation of most corrupt and inept government comprising three secular liberal parties and election of most controversial president. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Osama Bin Laden Operation : May 2nd Raid; Some Unanswered Questions

Posted by yourpakistan on May 3, 2012


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Salman Javed || PKKH.tv Exclusive

 ‘I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist.’ 

That was the first thought that came to my mind when I decided to write something about the May-2 Raid. But like 9-11 and the case of WMDs in Iraq, where some facts are undeniable; some questions need very specific answers with supporting facts, and the claimer has to provide some solid Proofs, before he/she claims of anything exceptional. 

A complete year passed away and we are still in dark about the events that actually happened. Or perhaps this is what we are led to believe; that we cannot find facts on any of the issues played by the big players in their dirty game.

The operation was named as “Neptune Star”. It was spread through different reports that, well before the operation SEAL Team 6 (DEVGRU) practiced the mission in a segregated section of Camp Alpha at Bigram Air Base, Afghanistan, throughout April, 2011, later on they carried out the raid and the “details” were shared by officials and reporters on the media, by CIA Chief and by Obama himself.  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

CIA and ISI locked in Aggressive Spy Battles

Posted by yourpakistan on July 6, 2010


A Pakistani man approached CIA officers in Islamabad last year, offering to give up secrets of his country’s closely guarded nuclear program. To prove he was a trustworthy source, he claimed he had spent nuclear fuel rods.But the CIA had its doubts. Before long, the suspicious officers had concluded that Pakistan’s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, was trying to run a double agent against them.

CIA officers alerted their Pakistani counterparts. Pakistan promised to look into the matter and, with neither side acknowledging the man was a double agent, the affair came to a polite, quiet end.The incident, recounted by former US officials, underscores the schizophrenic relationship with one of America’s most crucial counterterrorism allies. Publicly, officials credit Pakistani collaboration with helping kill and capture numerous al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. Privately, that relationship is often marked by mistrust as the two countries wage an aggressive spy battle against each other.

The CIA has repeatedly tried to penetrate the ISI and learn more about Pakistan’s nuclear program; and the ISI has mounted its own operations to gather intelligence on the CIA’s counterterrorism activities in the tribal lands and figure out what the CIA knows about the nuclear program. Bumping up against the ISI is a way of life for the CIA in Pakistan, the agency’s command centre for recruiting spies in the country’s lawless tribal regions. Officers there also coordinate Predator drone airstrikes, the CIA’s most successful and lethal counterterrorism program. The armed, unmanned planes take off from a base inside Pakistani Balochistan known as ”Rhine.”

”Pakistan would be exceptionally uncomfortable and even hostile to American efforts to muck about in their home turf,” said Graham Fuller, an expert on Islamic fundamentalism who spent 25 years with the CIA, including a stint as Kabul station chief.

That means incidents such as the one involving nuclear fuel rods must be resolved delicately and privately. ”It’s a crucial relationship,” CIA spokesman George Little said. ”We work closely with our Pakistani partners in fighting the common threat of terrorism. They’ve been vital to the victories achieved against al-Qaeda and its violent allies. And they’ve lost many people in the battle against extremism. No one should forget that.”

Details about the CIA’s relationship with Pakistan were recounted by nearly a dozen former and current US and Pakistani intelligence officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to discuss the matter.

An ISI official denied that the agency runs double agents to collect information about the CIA’s activities. He said the two agencies have a good working relationship and such allegations were meant to create friction between them.

But the CIA became so concerned by a rash of cases involving suspected double agents in 2009, it re-examined the spies it had on the payroll in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. The internal investigation revealed about a dozen double agents, stretching back several years. Most of them were being run by Pakistan. Other cases were deemed suspicious. The CIA determined the efforts were part of an official offensive counterintelligence program being run by Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the ISI’s spy chief.

Pakistan’s willingness to run double agents against the US is particularly troubling to some in the CIA because of the country’s ties to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and to the Haqqani network, a Pakistan-based Taliban faction also linked to al-Qaeda.In addition to its concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear program, the CIA continues to press the Pakistanis to step up their military efforts in North Waziristan, the tribal region where Hekmatyar and Haqqani are based.

CIA Director Leon Panetta talked with Pasha about ISI’s relationship with militants last year, reiterating the same talking points his predecessor, Gen. Michael Hayden, had delivered before him. Panetta told Pasha he had needed to take on militant groups, including those such as Hekmatyar and Haqqani, a former US intelligence official said. But the US can only demand so much from an intelligence service it can’t live without.

Recruiting agents to track down and kill terrorists and militants is a top priority for the CIA, and one of the clandestine service’s greatest challenges. The drones can’t hit their targets without help finding them. Such efforts would be impossible without Pakistan’s blessing, and the US pays about $3 billion a year in military and economic aid to keep the country stable and cooperative.

”We need the ISI and they definitely know it,” said C. Christine Fair, an assistant professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies. ”They are really helping us in several critical areas and directly undermining us in others.”

Pakistan has its own worries about the Americans. During the first term of the Bush administration, Pakistan became enraged after it shared intelligence with the US, only to learn the CIA station chief passed that information to the British.The incident caused a serious row, one that threatened the CIA’s relationship with the ISI and deepened the levels of distrust between the two sides. Pakistan almost threw the CIA station chief out of the country. A British security official said the incident was “a matter between Pakistan and America.”

The spate of Pakistani double agents has raised alarm bells in some corners of the agency, while others merely say it’s the cost of doing business in Pakistan. They say double agents are as old as humanity and point to the old spy adage: “There are friendly nations but no friendly intelligence services.”

“The use of double agents is something skilled intelligence services and the better terrorists groups like al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, provisional Irish Republican Army and the Tamil Tigers have regularly done. It’s not something that should be a surprise,” said Daniel Byman, a foreign policy expert at the Saban Center at Brookings Institution. Nowhere is the tension greater than in the tribal areas, the lawless regions that have become the front line in what Panetta described on Sunday as “the most aggressive operations in the history of the CIA.”

The area has become what’s known in spy parlance as a wilderness of mirrors, where nothing is what it appears. The CIA recruits people to spy on al-Qaeda and militant groups. So does the ISI. Often, they recruit the same people. That means the CIA must constantly consider where a spy’s allegiance lies: With the US? With Pakistan? With the enemy?

Pakistan rarely – if at all – has used its double agents to feed the CIA bad information, the former US officials said. Rather, the agents were just gathering intelligence on American operations, seeing how the CIA responded and how information flowed. Former CIA officials say youth and inexperience among a new generation of American officers may have contributed to the difficulties of operating in the tribal regions, where the US is spending a massive amount of money to cultivate sources.

After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the CIA dispatched many young officers to Pakistan and Afghanistan to recruit al-Qaeda spies. Young officers sometimes unwittingly recruited people who had been on Pakistan’s payroll for years, all but inviting Pakistan to use their longtime spies as double agents, former CIA officials said.The Pakistanis “are steeped in that area,” Fuller said “They would be tripping over a lot of the same people.”

Many former CIA officials believe a lack of experience among agency officers led to the bombing in Khost, Afghanistan, last year that killed seven CIA employees. The CIA thought it had a source who could provide information about al-Qaeda’s No.2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was believed to be hiding in the tribal lands. But the person turned out to be a double agent wired with explosives.

Ironically, the CIA steered the source to Khost because officers were concerned ISI would spot him if they brought him to Islamabad for questioning or possibly even arrest him because he was an undocumented Arab. But experience isn’t always the problem.

One example of how the suspicious relationship constrains operations was the CIA’s base in the remote town of Miramshah in North Waziristan. US military and CIA officers worked with the ISI together there, under the protection of the Pakistani army, which kept the base locked down.

The two intelligence agencies sometimes conducted joint operations against al-Qaeda but rarely shared information, a former CIA officer said. Haqqani spies were well aware the CIA was working there, and the base frequently took mortar and rocket fire.

Two former CIA officers familiar with the base said the Americans there mainly exercised and “twiddled their thumbs.” Just getting out of the base was so difficult, US personnel gave it the nickname “Shawshank” after the prison in the movie “The Shawshank Redemption.”

The CIA closed the base last year for safety reasons. None of that tension ever spilled into the public eye. It’s the nature of intelligence-gathering.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Thought Provoking Piece By Shireen Mazari

Posted by yourpakistan on June 30, 2010


The PAF and the Americans certainly tried to create the perfect photo op with the US Viceregal ambassador Ms Patterson and the Air Chief Rao Qamar smiling for the cameras at Jacobabad air base – once Pakistan’s sove-reign territory but now controlled effectively by the US military. All this apparent bonhomie was the delivery of the first three F-16s to the buyer – the Pakistan Air Force from the US manufacturers. The official press release was almost nauseating in the expression of goodwill towards the Americans and the joy the PAF felt at getting these planes. But behind this entire facade, many things are amiss and all concerned Pakistanis should seriously be worried.

To begin with, let us remember that we have paid a hefty price for these planes – $1.4 billion along with another $1.3 billion for the upgrade of our existing fleet of F-16s – the few we did manage to get delivery of and for which we have had to scour the globe for spares since the US refused. Luckily we still have a few gutsy and committed allies! So far only three planes in the new order have been delivered though the official spin is four! Let us hope we get all 18 but the past record is certainly dismal. After all, not only did the US keep our money and refused to give us the planes, the manufacturer had the audacity to charge us parking fees and then all we landed up with was wheat and soya beans – not much to bolster our defences on, but certainly a healthy contribution to the US farmers’ pockets! Why should it be any different this time? So far the US track record has not shown a change for the better – given how they are still holding up our dues in connection with the Coalition Support Fund. That too is not aid but payment for services rendered unquestioningly to US goals by the Pakistani state – and at great cost to the Pakistani nation. So let us hope the Pakistan Air Force has learnt some lessons from the past and built in some cast-iron guarantees but it would be worthwhile for our parliamentarians to demand access to the new F-16 purchase agreement. If there are no firm guarantees of supply, we may be seeing a repeat of our past F-16 history all over again. After all, the deal at the time was also made when we were the frontline state for the US in another war in Afghanistan!

Nor is it just fears of whether we will once again lose our money and end up lining the pockets of some marginalised but politically powerful US lobby such as farmers! A much bigger issue is the terms and conditions which the US insists are attached to the new sales agreement and which our Air Chief denies when he declares that the PAF can use these planes as it sees fit – in other words against any contingency and any enemy. Unfortunately, while expounding on how these new planes will add to the PAF’s capability, the Air Chief focused primarily on the war against “extremists” – something the US also continues to say when explaining the sale of these planes to Pakistan. In fact, the US Assistant Secretary of State, Robert Blake, went especially to New Delhi recently to inform the Indians that the new F-16s will not be used against India. Now how can the US give this assurance unless the Pakistanis have made some foolish commitment in writing to this effect? After all, if there is a conflict with India why would we not want to use our most efficient weapon systems? Have the Indians given any similar commitments vis-à-vis Pakistan in terms of missile defence systems they are acquiring from the US? Of course not! And the US has not assuaged our fears on this count either. Why the Pakistani nation should be concerned is because there have been reports that the US is sending along its own technicians who will ensure that these planes are not used anywhere except against our own people – the “extremists”. TheNation had published this news story (which the US has not denied) and aroused the wrath of the PAF and its PR man who now refuses to answer any questions on the F-16s for us – which he does not seem to realise is his loss not ours!

As it is, according to Indian and US sources, during last month’s Indo-US strategic dialogue the US administration made it clear that the US would deliver the F-16s to Pakistan under tough conditions which including assurances that these planes would not be used in any conflict against India. With the F-16s US Air Force personnel would also arrive and supervise not only the air base where these planes would be deployed but also the operations carried out by the PAF against “Taliban” and “Al-Qaeda” – as if the ordinary inhabitant of the FATA has his political identity displayed on his forehead! According to reports the logistics, management and control of these F-16s would be with US personnel. So why have we paid for these machines if the US will control them? Clearly the PAF needs to prove this is not the case and that can only be done if the actual agreements are made public. After all, this is a lot of our taxpayers money and we have a right to know what deals are being made with it – especially since it involves our security from the external threat.

Under these circumstances, it is also worrying to think that all these fighting machines will be used for bombing our own territories and people – and who will then identify how many “extremists” have been killed and how many innocent civilians. Surely our military should realise that indiscriminate killings merely create more resentment and extremism and the reaction to the drones should be a lesson for the PAF. To fight extremism you need paramilitary forces for law and order and politico-economic strategies for isolating these terrorists from the rest of the population. For $1.4 billion the poor citizens expect a more credible nuclear deterrence and protection against the external threat. To hear the Air Chief, Rao Qamar simply go on and on about adding to the capability for fighting extremists and hardly utter any word about the enhancement of delivery systems against the external enemy was distressing and frankly unacceptable. If the new F-16s are to be used primarily against our own territory and people, then the $1.4 billion would have been better spent in development projects for the FATA which would have given far quicker and better results against extremism. Or are we so fearful of the Americans that we cannot speak plainly about our defence and strategic needs? The symbolism of receiving the planes at Jacobabad air base, which the US military still controls, has not been lost on the rest of us Pakistanis. It seems they are already under US control on Pakistani soil. As if to appease us, the US has given out that it will provide fresh water and other facilities for the local people – but that also means to continue its control of this base – which one was told the US had vacated! Are we Pakistanis so easily purchasable by the US?

Meanwhile, India continues to update its air force with no conditionalities being imposed by any of its foreign suppliers. It is planning to upgrade over 50 of its forward airbases – primarily targeting Pakistan but also China. The Indian Air Chief Naik recently revealed the jointly produced advanced stealth bomber being built with the Russians. It is also planning to buy 126 multirole fighters and has earmarked $11 billion for this purpose. And no one is limiting India’s use of these systems. Only Pakistan falls prey to these debilitating condi-tionalities. Unless some concrete and written texts of agreements are made public, one can sadly say the PAF has once again fallen prey to US diktat for some expensive planes which would truly have acted as a force multiplier within our nuclear deterrence, but which otherwise will become expensive white elephants and only the Pakistani nation will be the victim – once again.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

US: a Friend or Foe?

Posted by yourpakistan on June 28, 2010


The US has raised objections to the agreement under which China will supply two nuclear reactors to Pakistan. These objections are likely to be eared during the next meeting of Nuclear Supply Group (NSG) scheduled to be held in New Zealand in near future.

US State Department spokesman Gordon DuGuid has already commented: “The US expects Beijing to cooperate with Pakistan in ways consistent with Chinese non-proliferation obligations.” The news leak and remarks by the State Department spokesman seems to be a deliberate attempt to assess reactions of the Chinese and Pakistani authorities. The Chinese stance is quite clear, that the proposed installation of nuclear reactors is part of the agreement that was concluded before 2004 – the year China joined NSG. So the objections likely to be raised by the US do not apply to the agreement.

Pakistan certainly is perplexed as the proposed US objections are giving out signals. On the one hand, Pakistan is a frontline state in war on terror, a non-NATO ally and engaged in a strategic dialogue with the US to smoothen out differences to build a long-term relationship; while on the other hand the US is trying to block the Pak-China nuclear deal that is critical to meet Pakistan’s power needs.

Interestingly, the US has been historically weak vis-à-vis its friends with regard to the question of nuclear proliferation. It clearly underlines a trend in US policy where it has turned a blind eye to the nuclear programmes of its allies or openly embraced those programmes in the name of global and regional security. A manifestation of this policy is the recently concluded US-India civil nuclear deal, which, effectively recognises the nuclear status of India despite its refusal to join the NPT. It is a clear instance of “rule bending” by the US for its friends, a trend detrimental to global non-proliferation regime.

It also raises serious questions about the sincerity of the US desire to see a world free of nuclear weapons. Not only that, India has been facilitated in concluding safeguard agreement with IAEA for Indian civil nuclear reactors at its choice. To further brace its nuclear capabilities, Washington lobbied for country specific concessions for India from NSG. As a result, India has signed lucrative nuclear deals with France, UK and Russia. All these efforts will have long-term repercussions on regional balance of power. Presumably, the efforts are directed at energising India as a counterweight to China in the region. On the other hand, Pakistan which is a nuclear weapon state is easily overlooked.

If we look at the global trend, the use of nuclear energy for power generation is on the increase. According to an estimate, 15 percent of the world electricity is being produced through 436 operational nuclear reactors. Reportedly, another 53 are being installed, out of which nine are in non-nuclear states. Another 130 are planned and 250 are proposed. This clearly shows that the world is opting for nuclear energy to meet its growing need for power. Under such circumstances, if Pakistan having over 30 years of experience in managing nuclear installations wants to pursue its energy needs through nuclear reactors that should be understandable and quite justified.

In spite of all the odds Pakistan has maintained the desired control on its nuclear assets. President Obama, in a press conference on April 28, 2009, had also shown confidence in the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Unfortunate though, on the one hand the US reposes confidence in the security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets, while on the other hand it opts to block the Pak-China nuclear deal, which is self-contradictory. This will greatly hurt the feeling of the people of Pakistan and contribute to turning public opinion against the US.

Written by Alam Rind posted in The Nation

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It Is Now Official: The U.S. Is a Police State

Posted by yourpakistan on February 15, 2010


Americans have been losing the protection of law for years. In the 21st century the loss of legal protections accelerated with the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” which continues under the Obama administration and is essentially a war on the Constitution and U.S. civil liberties.

The Bush regime was determined to vitiate habeas corpus in order to hold people indefinitely without bringing charges. The regime had acquired hundreds of prisoners by paying a bounty for terrorists. Afghan warlords and thugs responded to the financial incentive by grabbing unprotected people and selling them to the Americans. The Bush regime needed to hold the prisoners without charges because it had no evidence against the people and did not want to admit that the U.S. government had stupidly paid warlords and thugs to kidnap innocent people. In addition, the Bush regime needed “terrorists” prisoners in order to prove that there was a terrorist threat. As there was no evidence against the “detainees” (most have been released without charges after years of detention and abuse), the U.S. government needed a way around U.S. and international laws against torture in order that the government could produce evidence via self-incrimination. The Bush regime found inhumane and totalitarian-minded lawyers and put them to work at the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) to invent arguments that the Bush regime did not need to obey the law.

The Bush regime created a new classification for its detainees that it used to justify denying legal protection and due process to the detainees. As the detainees were not U.S. citizens and were demonized by the regime as “the 760 most dangerous men on earth,” there was little public outcry over the regime’s unconstitutional and inhumane actions.
As our Founding Fathers and a long list of scholars warned, once civil liberties are breached, they are breached for all. Soon U.S. citizens were being held indefinitely in violation of their habeas corpus rights. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, an American citizen of Pakistani origin, might have been the first.Dr. Siddiqui, a scientist educated at MIT and Brandeis University, was seized in Pakistan for no known reason, sent to Afghanistan, and was held secretly for five years in the U.S. military’s notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Her three young children, one an 8-month-old baby, were with her at the time she was abducted. She has no idea what has become of her two youngest children. Her oldest child, 7 years old, was also incarcerated in Bagram and subjected to similar abuse and horrors.
Siddiqui has never been charged with any terrorism-related offense. A British journalist, hearing her piercing screams as she was being tortured, disclosed her presence. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24605.htm.  An embarrassed U.S. government responded to the disclosure by sending Siddiqui to the U.S. for trial on the trumped-up charge that while a captive, she grabbed a U.S. soldier’s rifle and fired two shots attempting to shoot him. The charge apparently originated as a U.S. soldier’s excuse for shooting Dr. Siddiqui twice in the stomach resulting in her near death.
On Feb. 4, Dr. Siddiqui was convicted by a New York jury for attempted murder. The only evidence presented against her was the charge itself and an unsubstantiated claim that she had once taken a pistol-firing course at an American firing range. No evidence was presented of her fingerprints on the rifle that this frail and broken 100-pound woman had allegedly seized from an American soldier. No evidence was presented that a weapon was fired, no bullets, no shell casings, no bullet holes. Just an accusation.
Wikipedia has this to say about the trial: “The trial took an unusual turn when an FBI official asserted that the fingerprints taken from the rifle, which was purportedly used by Aafia to shoot at the U.S. interrogators, did not match hers.”
An ignorant and bigoted American jury convicted her for being a Muslim. This is the kind of “justice” that always results when the state hypes fear and demonizes a group.The people who should have been on trial are the people who abducted her, disappeared her young children, shipped her across international borders, violated her civil liberties, tortured her apparently for the fun of it, raped her, and attempted to murder her with two gunshots to her stomach. Instead, the victim was put on trial and convicted.
This is the unmistakable hallmark of a police state. And this victim is an American citizen.Anyone can be next. Indeed, on Feb. 3 Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence told the House Intelligence Committee that it was now “defined policy” that the U.S. government can murder its own citizens on the sole basis of someone in the government’s judgment that an American is a threat. No arrest, no trial, no conviction, just execution on suspicion of being a threat.
This shows how far the police state has advanced. A presidential appointee in the Obama administration tells an important committee of Congress that the executive branch has decided that it can murder American citizens abroad if it thinks they are a threat.
I can hear readers saying the government might as well kill Americans abroad as it kills them at home—Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Black Panthers.Yes, the U.S. government has murdered its citizens, but Dennis Blair’s “defined policy” is a bold new development. The government, of course, denies that it intended to kill the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver’s wife and child, or the Black Panthers. The government says that Waco was a terrible tragedy, an unintended result brought on by the Branch Davidians themselves. The government says that Ruby Ridge was Randy Weaver’s fault for not appearing in court on a day that had been miscommunicated to him. The Black Panthers, the government says, were dangerous criminals who insisted on a shoot-out.
In no previous death of a U.S. citizen by the hands of the U.S. government has the government claimed the right to kill Americans without arrest, trial, and conviction of a capital crime.In contrast, Dennis Blair has told the U.S. Congress that the executive branch has assumed the right to murder Americans who it deems a “threat.”What defines “threat”? Who will make the decision? What it means is that the government will murder whomever it chooses.
There is no more complete or compelling evidence of a police state than the government announcing that it will murder its own citizens if it views them as a “threat.”Ironic, isn’t it, that “the war on terror” to make us safe ends in a police state with the government declaring the right to murder American citizens whom it regards as a threat.Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He is a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles.

Americans have been losing the protection of law for years. In the 21st century the loss of legal protections accelerated with the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” which continues under the Obama administration and is essentially a war on the Constitution and U.S. civil liberties.

The Bush regime was determined to vitiate habeas corpus in order to hold people indefinitely without bringing charges. The regime had acquired hundreds of prisoners by paying a bounty for terrorists. Afghan warlords and thugs responded to the financial incentive by grabbing unprotected people and selling them to the Americans.The Bush regime needed to hold the prisoners without charges because it had no evidence against the people and did not want to admit that the U.S. government had stupidly paid warlords and thugs to kidnap innocent people. In addition, the Bush regime needed “terrorists” prisoners in order to prove that there was a terrorist threat.
As there was no evidence against the “detainees” (most have been released without charges after years of detention and abuse), the U.S. government needed a way around U.S. and international laws against torture in order that the government could produce evidence via self-incrimination. The Bush regime found inhumane and totalitarian-minded lawyers and put them to work at the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) to invent arguments that the Bush regime did not need to obey the law.

The Bush regime created a new classification for its detainees that it used to justify denying legal protection and due process to the detainees. As the detainees were not U.S. citizens and were demonized by the regime as “the 760 most dangerous men on earth,” there was little public outcry over the regime’s unconstitutional and inhumane actions.
As our Founding Fathers and a long list of scholars warned, once civil liberties are breached, they are breached for all. Soon U.S. citizens were being held indefinitely in violation of their habeas corpus rights. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, an American citizen of Pakistani origin, might have been the first.
Dr. Siddiqui, a scientist educated at MIT and Brandeis University, was seized in Pakistan for no known reason, sent to Afghanistan, and was held secretly for five years in the U.S. military’s notorious Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Her three young children, one an 8-month-old baby, were with her at the time she was abducted. She has no idea what has become of her two youngest children. Her oldest child, 7 years old, was also incarcerated in Bagram and subjected to similar abuse and horrors.

Siddiqui has never been charged with any terrorism-related offense. A British journalist, hearing her piercing screams as she was being tortured, disclosed her presence. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24605.htm.  An embarrassed U.S. government responded to the disclosure by sending Siddiqui to the U.S. for trial on the trumped-up charge that while a captive, she grabbed a U.S. soldier’s rifle and fired two shots attempting to shoot him. The charge apparently originated as a U.S. soldier’s excuse for shooting Dr. Siddiqui twice in the stomach resulting in her near death.

On Feb. 4, Dr. Siddiqui was convicted by a New York jury for attempted murder. The only evidence presented against her was the charge itself and an unsubstantiated claim that she had once taken a pistol-firing course at an American firing range. No evidence was presented of her fingerprints on the rifle that this frail and broken 100-pound woman had allegedly seized from an American soldier. No evidence was presented that a weapon was fired, no bullets, no shell casings, no bullet holes. Just an accusation.

Wikipedia has this to say about the trial: “The trial took an unusual turn when an FBI official asserted that the fingerprints taken from the rifle, which was purportedly used by Aafia to shoot at the U.S. interrogators, did not match hers.”
An ignorant and bigoted American jury convicted her for being a Muslim. This is the kind of “justice” that always results when the state hypes fear and demonizes a group. The people who should have been on trial are the people who abducted her, disappeared her young children, shipped her across international borders, violated her civil liberties, tortured her apparently for the fun of it, raped her, and attempted to murder her with two gunshots to her stomach. Instead, the victim was put on trial and convicted.

This is the unmistakable hallmark of a police state. And this victim is an American citizen. Anyone can be next. Indeed, on Feb. 3 Dennis Blair, director of National Intelligence told the House Intelligence Committee that it was now “defined policy” that the U.S. government can murder its own citizens on the sole basis of someone in the government’s judgment that an American is a threat. No arrest, no trial, no conviction, just execution on suspicion of being a threat.

This shows how far the police state has advanced. A presidential appointee in the Obama administration tells an important committee of Congress that the executive branch has decided that it can murder American citizens abroad if it thinks they are a threat.I can hear readers saying the government might as well kill Americans abroad as it kills them at home—Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Black Panthers.Yes, the U.S. government has murdered its citizens, but Dennis Blair’s “defined policy” is a bold new development. The government, of course, denies that it intended to kill the Branch Davidians, Randy Weaver’s wife and child, or the Black Panthers. The government says that Waco was a terrible tragedy, an unintended result brought on by the Branch Davidians themselves. The government says that Ruby Ridge was Randy Weaver’s fault for not appearing in court on a day that had been miscommunicated to him. The Black Panthers, the government says, were dangerous criminals who insisted on a shoot-out.

In no previous death of a U.S. citizen by the hands of the U.S. government has the government claimed the right to kill Americans without arrest, trial, and conviction of a capital crime.In contrast, Dennis Blair has told the U.S. Congress that the executive branch has assumed the right to murder Americans who it deems a “threat.”What defines “threat”? Who will make the decision? What it means is that the government will murder whomever it chooses.

There is no more complete or compelling evidence of a police state than the government announcing that it will murder its own citizens if it views them as a “threat.”Ironic, isn’t it, that “the war on terror” to make us safe ends in a police state with the government declaring the right to murder American citizens whom it regards as a threat.Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He is a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles.

Posted in 1 | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »