A former official of a defunct Muslim charity, who was convicted of lying to an FBI agent, was set free on bail yesterday to await sentencing next month. Assistant U.S. Attorney Aloke Chakravarty objected to U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IVs decision to free Emadeddin Z. Muntasser of Braintree, a former Worcester resident, who was president of Care International Inc. in Boston from 1993 to 1996. The decision was welcomed not only by several family members and Muslim supporters of Mr. Muntasser, but also by the Worcester County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Ronal C. Madnick, director of the ACLU chapter, noted that Judge Saylors decision came on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 that the constitutional rights of Muslims imprisoned by the United States in Guantanamo were being violated. Mr. Madnick said the Bush administration received messages yesterday from courts from Worcester to Washington that we do have a legal method of warfare system and it will be carried out.
Earlier this month, Judge Saylor acquitted Mr. Muntasser, Muhamed Mubayyid of Shrewsbury, and Samir Al-Monla, a former Worcester resident living in Brookline, of conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service by concealing information that would have affected the IRS process to grant tax-exempt status in 1993 and to keep it for 10 years after that. Judge Saylor cleared Mr. Al-Monla of all charges and freed him, while Mr. Mubayyid remains jailed and continues to face charges of concealing material facts, impeding the IRS and filing false tax returns. Sentencing has been rescheduled for Mr. Muntasser, who faces only one count, for July 17, and the following day for Mr. Mubayyid.
Yesterdays hearing in the Donohue Federal Building occasioned a fierce fight between the Justice Department and Kathleen M. Sullivan, Mr. Muntassers lawyer. She argued for the correctness of the Probation Departments calculation that her client should be sentenced to between 0 and 6 months and said the government pushing for five years in prison disrespects the courts dismissal of most of the counts against him. The U.S. attorneys recommendation to exceed the guidelines by a factor of 10 runs counter to the policy enunciated three years ago by Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey to ensure adherence to the sentencing guidelines, even in light of Supreme Court decisions making them advisory only.
Assistant U.S. Attorney B. Stephanie Siegmann said the court is required to consider what is called relevant conduct supporting jihad and raising money and contributing it to groups subsequently designated as terrorist organizations. She said the reason Mr. Muntasser lied to an FBI agent in 2003 about meeting with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a Muslim warlord, in Afghanistan in 1994 was to conceal that he had pledged Cares support to him. She also said he promised to carry out his orders, as reflected in a document the FBI covertly copied pursuant to a search warrant from a secret court. The prosector said it was part of a pattern of lying to the government over a number of years to continue to hide the non-charitable activities of Care International.
Judge Saylor was clearly torn by the arguments, telling the lawyers several times that he is struggling. The judge said that on one hand, the government argues the statute of limitations doesnt matter and the judges acquittal of the defendants on many charges doesnt matter as far as his sentencing is concerned. On the other hand, the judge said, the defense says that only the narrow behavior of lying to the FBI agent should be taken into account. Is there any stopping point in between these extremes? he asked the lawyers. Judge Saylor said he will consider several issues before crafting a sentence: evidence from the trial, how much of a tax loss there was, and the so-called terrorism connection the government claims. While the release of Mr. Muntasser put a smile on the faces of his supporters, Judge Saylor also said, There is a substantial possibility I may give a sentence longer than the guideline. I havent decided.
Mr. Chakravarty said the government intends to file notice of appeal of the judges earlier acquittals on many of the charges; and Ms. Siegmann predicted a substantial chance that Judge Saylor will be overturned by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. But Ms. Sullivan predicted the judges decision will be upheld, and he should sentence on narrow grounds, revisiting the sentence only if the appeals court orders him to.
Judge Saylor ordered Mr. Muntasser to put his commercial property valued by the defense at $1.9 million as security for his release, on top of his home valued at $400,000. He also ordered home confinement and electronic monitoring. Ms. Sullivan said Mr. Muntasser, who was jailed upon his Jan. 11 conviction, could rejoin his pregnant wife and their four children as soon as today.
Follow-up and opportunity for more discussion. I think the USSC blew it.
WASHINGTONThe Supreme Court sent an urgent message to the White House on Thursday, saying clearly that the Bush administration no longer controls the fate of the almost 300 prisoners held at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Hugh Hewitt has the best headline -- The United States Supreme Court Versus America: Awarding "The Privilege of Habeas Corpus To Terrorists". This is a terrible decision, written by five justices and their law clerks, that is going to end up with dead Americans.
In a 5-4 decision, the court essentially gave the nation's federal courts supervisory authority over those detainees, holding that the inmates can have judges review the government's rationale for keeping them locked up without charges. "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority.
There's a hoary old legal chestnut about how "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". Justice Kennedy and four of our other justices have forgotten that. They're extending the protection of the Constitution to a group of people who --
-- are not US citizens or residents
-- do not live in the US
-- are open enemies of the US
-- were captured in battle
-- did not abide by the Geneva Conventions themselves
-- reject our Constitution
-- reject everything we stand for
-- want us dead.
Amazingly enough, Justice Kennedy doesn't understand that, and at the end of his opinion he pretty much admits that he and the other justices and judges don't understand, and don't have the information, and don't have the analysis skills to understand what terrorists are doing and what the threat is to our country. But he still thinks they can be released -- and make no mistake, this is all about releasing terrorists. Habeas corpus is the thin edge of the wedge, and this centuries-old legal tradition will be used to free terrorists who will then seek to kill Americans.
For most of the prisoners, it will be the first time an independent body has probed into the circumstances of their extended detention. Lawyers for the prisoners believe many of them will be quickly freed and returned to their native countries or perhaps other places. "A lot of these cases are just going to be gone," said Michael Ratner, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, the public interest law firm that represented a group of 37 detainees before the Supreme Court.
Careful how you say that, 'just going to be gone' has different meanings to different people ...
The opinion's transfer of power to civilian courts enraged the justices who dissented from the opinion, as well as outside critics. "The court has conferred upon civilian judges the right to make military decisions," said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.). "These judges have virtually no training in military matters. Yet civilian judges, in some of the most liberal district courts in the country, will have an opportunity to determine who is a threat to the United States."
It's not just that more liberal district court judges will get a crack at releasing terrorists, it's that we'll have a couple of hundred judges, each with their own opinions, views and bias, making decisions. Anyone think they'll all render the same opinions on the same mooks? Anyone? Bueller?
And so all these decisions will be appealed, and the whole thing will eventually end up back at the USSC, whereupon the government will be told once again that whatever procedures they set up, it isn't good enough.
In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia suggested the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" because, he said, it will lead to the release of hostile terrorists.
Justice Scalia understands that there is a war going on. He also understands that the Constitution gives the Executive and Legislative branches of government responsibility for starting, conducting and ending wars. The Judicial branch doesn't have a role in war, and it certainly appears that the Framers got that one right.
In a sense, the court told the administration that its time had run out. For more than four years, government lawyers have struggled to satisfy the court that some sort of process was in place in Guantanamo to separate those detainees who may pose a threat to the United States from those who were innocently caught up in the dragnet cast in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Thursday marked the third time the justices have rejected those efforts as being insufficient.
Not that they've told us what is acceptable to them; we were supposed to read their opinions and some turkey entrails to figure that out ...
And this time, there won't be a chance for another shot. It was clear from the tenor of the decision that the justices' patience had been exhausted. "Some of these petitioners have been in custody for six years with no definitive judicial determination as to the legality of their detention," Kennedy wrote.
The victims of the terrorists are still dead, too ...
The bulk of the detainees remaining at Guantanamoabout 260will have their cases heard individually by U.S. District Court judges in Washington in what's known as a habeas corpus proceeding. In these cases, the government will have the burden of showing why a prisoner should continue to be held without charges. "We think it's unlikely in most of the cases the government will be able to do that," Ratner said.
Other than that they're likely to kill people, since they were captured on a battlefield.
Compounding the problem will be that any evidence obtained through torture or coercion at Guantanamo is likely to be inadmissible in federal court. The inmate will also have the opportunity to offer exculpatory evidence.
A few were indeed tortured. That was wrong. The rest will likely go free because the liberal judges won't want to pay attention.
The judge can then order his continued detention without a charge being filed against him; that the government charge the detainee or release him; or that he be released and transferred to another country.
Since when can a judge order a prisoner to be transferred? Especially if the other country doesn't want the mook?
That judge will also have the authority to block a transfer of a prisoner by the Pentagon on the grounds that he may be re-incarcerated or tortured if shipped to his home country, and perhaps order him transferred to a different country.
Since when do judges make those decisions? I said yesterday that the simplest work-around to handling the prisoners, other than shooting them (which we don't want to do, as much as we want to do it) is to hold them in cooperation with and in another country. If we grab them in Afghanistan, we hold them in Bagram. If we grab them in Iraq they go to a prison there.
Just what exactly will a federal district court judge do about that? I'll tell you what: the lawyers are now planning to extend their ability to 'regulate' how the US keeps prisoners by reaching into other countries. One of the premises of the ruling today is that we control Gitmo completely, but we don't control Bagram or Balad in that way, so as long as our allies will cooperate, we have a solution. The Amnesia Int'l folks have already thought of that one, it seems, so we'll see them waging law in the near future.
We need to empty Gitmo ASAP. Throw the less valuable mooks back into the field and make sure, if they ever pick up a weapon again, that they don't become prisoners.
The decision does not affect the small group of detainees who are now facing trials through the controversial military tribunal system at Guantanamo.
Some outside critics were were supportive of the ruling. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University here, said that "the impact of this decision is enormous for the legal system. We have lost so much credibility internationally."
In part because of folks like you. Had we handled these mooks just as prescribed by the Geneva Conventions, the mooks would be dead/incarcerated already.
Most of the habeas corpus actions have already been filed at the federal court in Washington and its chief judge, Royce Lamberth, said he would begin making preparations for the judges to hear the flood of politically sensitive and contentious cases. President George W. Bush, in Italy, said he did not agree with the decision, but that the government would abide by it while studying legislative options that could limit it.
Administration critics, such as Dalia Hashad of Amnesty International USA, still worry that the Pentagon will seek to get around the court's mandate, perhaps by releasing detainees to be jailed in other countries before their cases can be reviewed. "The Bush administration has been so adamant about doing what they want, regardless of its legality, that despite today's claim that Bush will respect the decision, I'm still concerned that he'll find a way to do what he wants," she said.
Bush just said he'd abide by the law, Dalia, so he's not been getting around anything. Sure wish Amnesia Int'l would pay this much attention to Daniel Pearl's killers ...
For many who have watched the conflict between the court and the executive branch unfold over the past six years, the decision came as no surprise. Turley called it "the defining moment of the Bush administration."
John McGinnis, a law professor at Northwestern University, said that while he disagreed with the decision, the administration could have avoided the fight by simply cooperating with Congress to find an acceptable procedure years ago instead of going it alone. And, he said, it was a matter of a weakened president no longer having the political muscle to fend off defeat. "It would have been much harder to strike this down when Bush was a popular president with substantial more time remaining in office," McGinnis said, "than when he was an unpopular lamest of ducks."
I propose the Twenty-Eighth amendment to the Constitution of the United States --
Section 1. The right of habeas corpus, and other rights of the people under this Constitution, shall not be construed as to apply to persons who are not citizens of the United States, and who are held by the United States as enemy combatants in time of war.
Section 2. No citizen or subject of any Foreign State shall be held by the United States, outside of a time of war, except as provided by law or treaty.
Section 3. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
you can't extend the constitution to dead men. Just saying. No prisoners
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/13/2008 6:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This is awful, but enemy combatants still have to show cause, viz release. Most won't be able to do that. Frankly, I would have done exactly what military justice did to the Germans who were caught in US uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge: summary judgment and quick battle field execution by firing squad.
#3
All this really does is generate more billable hours for attorneys on the government payroll. No district court judge is going to release a pow (Clinton appointees excepted). They just have to listen to a bunch of argument before saying, No.
#8
The behavior of Lawyers and Judges is one of the five reasons I see the United States having another revolution within the next ten years, just behind taxes and government "regulation", and ahead of earmarks and corruption.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/13/2008 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Are you talking about the Terrorists or the Justices Darth?
#10
Someone mentions "revolution." That happens when a majority is oppressed. I could see an Obama government alienating 80% of the population. As for the Euros, they are de-nationalizing while the Muslims are using human rights laws to build up their "ummah" (community). There could be national revolutions in Europe.
Guwahati: Ten persons, who were arrested by the Assam Police on charge of being agents of Pakistans intelligence agency ISI and detained in jails for nine years, were acquitted by the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup (Metropolitan), here on Friday.
Defence lawyer Nekibur Zaman told The Hindu that District and Sessions Judge Chayarani Goswami acquitted all the 10 accused persons, including a Pakistan and a Bangladesh national, as there was no material to prosecute them on charges framed against them.
The court sentenced the Pakistan national Fasiullah and the Bangladesh national Bilal Mian to five years imprisonment under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act for entering India without valid documents. However, as they had already spent nine years in jail, the court ordered their release, advocate Zaman said.
It was on August 7, 1999 that the Assam Police arrested four of these 10 persons Fasiullah, Javed Wakar, Kari Salim and Maulana Akram from the city and accused them of being ISI agents.
Later, the Special Operation Unit of Assam Police brought Bilal Mian, who was arrested by the West Bengal police and showed him as arrested in the case. All the accused were shown to be involved in a case relating to recovering of explosives at Siliguri. The police claimed that the explosives were despatched from Bangladesh.
Later five more persons, Haji Bilaluddin and Manikut Chodhury, Jakir Hussain of Goalpara and Kaifatullah of the city and Jehirul Hussain of Howly in Barpeta district were arrested in connection with the case.
In statement laid on the floor of the Assam Assembly on April 6, 2000, the then Assam Chief Minister Prafulla Kumar Mahanta had informed that House that the Assam Police arrested Md. Fasih Ullah Hussaini, resident of Hyderabad Sind, Pakistan; Md. Javed Wakhar a resident of Karachi; Maulana Hafiz Md. Akram Mallick of Kupwara in J&K; and Qari Salim Ahmed of Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh.
Posted by: john frum ||
06/13/2008 17:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
NEW DELHI: The Army will raise two offensive mountain divisions in three years, according to sources in the Army. They will be equipped with air portable guns and an integral air component to quickly transport troops into battle positions.
In simple terms, each division, with about 10,000 to 13,000 troops, will take the battle into the enemy camp in the Himalayas. A substantial part of the countrys border with Pakistan and China is mountainous. The entire mountainous stretch is unresolved and is known by various acronyms such as the Line of Control (Pakistan), the Actual Ground Position Line (SiachenPakistan) and the Line of Actual Control (China).
The Army already has 10 mountain divisions and a complete infantry division for undertaking operations in high altitudes. India is negotiating with the U.S. for importing six large troop transport carriers and planning to manufacture over 300 medium lift transport helicopters. It has also called tenders for light artillery guns that can be air dropped.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has been asked to manufacture 67 helicopter gunships. The other option is to import additional helicopters. Sensing the opportunity, worlds helicopter majors are lining up to offer their wares. The Army is also mulling a proposal to better equip its soldiers for fighting in the heights.
The Cabinet Committee on Security had cleared the Armys proposal a couple of months ago.
The sources said the outlines of the two divisions should be in place in another two years. They would include the headquarters and other elements. It would take another year to make the divisions fully functional.
Posted by: john frum ||
06/13/2008 17:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Directly or indirectly, CHINA holds the mil advantage vvv "HIGH GROUND by its domination of the TIBETAN PLATEAU, and looking downslope into northern INDIA = INDIAN ARMY.
Relations between U.S. and Pakistani military forces are in crisis after clashes and a U.S. air strike that hit a Pakistani border post and killed 11 Pakistani soldiers.
Islamabad has called the strike "unprovoked," but the Pentagon says Pakistani troops attacked U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
Pakistan's army says the U.S. air strike early on June 11 on a border post in the Mohmand tribal region "struck at the very basis of cooperation" between the two countries in the war against terrorism.
Describing the attack by an unmanned Predator aircraft as "cowardly and unprovoked," Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told the parliament in Islamabad that a formal complaint is being sent to Washington.
"We will take a stand for sovereignty. We will take a stand for dignity. We will take a stand for self-respect. And we will not allow our soil [to be attacked]. We totally condemn it and will take up the matter through the Foreign Office," Gilani said.
Taliban Fight
But in Washington, U.S. Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell defended the U.S. air strike as "legitimate" -- saying the Pakistani troops at the outpost were "hostile" and had attacked U.S. forces across the border in Afghanistan.
"Every indication we have at this point is that the actions that were taken by U.S. forces were legitimate in that they were in self-defense after U.S. forces operating on the border of Pakistan -- in Afghanistan territory -- came under attack from hostile forces. And in self-defense they called in an air strike which took out those forces that were attacking them," Morrell said.
U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan have told RFE/RL and other international media in the past that they do not trust Pakistani security forces on the other side of the border.
Pakistan is supposed to be a key ally in the U.S.-led fight against the Taliban. But U.S. commanders in southern Afghanistan have told RFE/RL that sharing intelligence with Pakistan ahead of a U.S. military operation near the border put the lives of U.S. troops at risk. The U.S. commanders say they fear elements within Pakistan's security forces share U.S. military intelligence with the Taliban -- giving them advanced warning about a U.S.-led attack or even providing information about U.S. positions that help the Taliban carry out their own attacks.
But until recently, it was unusual to hear the Pentagon make such allegations about Pakistani forces.
Low Point
Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, a noted author on the Taliban militants, says relations between the United States and Pakistani security forces appear to be at a low point since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States.
Writing as a guest columnist for the BBC this week, Rashid noted a crescendo of international criticism against Pakistan recently because of peace deals made with the Taliban in the tribal regions -- deals that critics say are allowing Taliban fighters to freely cross the border to attack U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Criticism of the peace deals has been made by U.S. officials and lawmakers, NATO commanders, European leaders, UN administrators, and the Afghan government.
June 9 marked the release of a new Pentagon-funded study by the RAND Corporation on the counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan. That study alleges that individuals from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate and Frontier Corps provide direct assistance to the Taliban and other terrorist groups in the tribal regions.
The author of the study, Seth Jones, says the Taliban and other militants still find refuge in the tribal regions, the Northwest Frontier Province, and Baluchistan because Pakistan's security forces have failed to root them out. Jones concludes that if Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan are not eliminated, the United States and its NATO allies will face crippling long-term consequences in their effort to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan.
Pentagon Report
Michael Shaik, an expert on Afghanistan for the International Crisis Group, tells RFE/RL that the report is particularly significant because it is funded by the Pentagon.
"A lot of different organizations, including ours, have been talking about this for the past several years. There has been clear evidence that the Taliban leadership has used Pakistani soil to carry out the insurgency in Afghanistan. So really, the findings of this are nothing new," Shaik says. "What is new is that it is a [U.S.] Defense Department-funded report. RAND has finally come to this realization that individuals in the Pakistani ISI and in the Frontier Corps have been aiding and abetting the Taliban. Individuals. The U.S. administration and also the Pakistani military [have failed] to take these allegations seriously."
But Shaik and other experts on security in the region also note that the RAND study does not go as far as supporting allegations made by government officials in Kabul and New Delhi -- namely, that those individuals in Pakistan's security forces and the ISI support cross-border militancy as part of a covert government plan to achieve Islamabad's foreign-policy goals in the region.
Christopher Langton, head of the defense analysis department at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, tells RFE/RL that the RAND report does reflect growing frustration in Washington about Islamabad's failure to root out Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters.
"People in the United States are beginning to realize the limitations on Pakistan in dealing with this incredibly difficult problem. And, of course, the Taliban were created by Pakistan with western concurrence at the time. Therefore, it's very, very difficult for Pakistan to wind that clock back," Langton says.
Langton says critics of Pakistan shouldn't ignore the complex domestic political situation that Islamabad faces over the deployment of its troops near the Afghan border.
"There are significant efforts [by Islamabad]. Pakistan has lost nearly 900 troops fighting in the Federal Administered Tribal Areas. Pakistan is suffering a huge number of suicide attacks across the country. And I don't think people should forget this. That's not to say more cannot be done. It probably can. But the domestic difficulties for Pakistan are actually huge," Langton says.
Analysts do agree, however, that fighting between Pakistani and U.S. troops on the Afghan border has raised the crisis in bilateral relations to a new level.
#3
The only solution is to crush the "vaunted" Paki military, kill lots and lots of pakistanis, divide the country in half along the Indus River between India and Afghanistan, and continue to clear the talibunnies from Afghanistan. It'll take maybe a year, two at most. Most of the Pashtuns of the Tribal Agencies will be killed, but I see that as a plus. They're the primary supporters and members of the talibunnies, so they should pay the majority of the price. Afghanistan will get a seaport (Karachi), and India will be able to reunite Jammu & Kashmir. It will end the majority of the phony passport game, curb terrorism, and give the world a new respect (or at least fear) of the United States. India should be "encouraged" to assimilate Bangladesh, too. While counter-insurgency works locally, to really control terrorism will require the destruction of those states that sponsor it. If that means they disappear from the map, so be it.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/13/2008 14:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I think the new paki Gov't is just trying to shake us down for a bigger aid package next year.
Posted by: N guard ||
06/13/2008 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#5
India kowtows to it's own Muslims. What would happen when the numbers doubled, with the new citizens reared on jihad? It'd take a good three generations to cure them of that, and only if intensive education and communal retaliation are applied, something neither India nor Afghanistan are likely to do.
#6
"We will take a stand for sovereignty. We will take a stand for dignity. We will take a stand for self-respect." We will take a dump in our diapers the next time we see a Predator....
#9
tribal territories all the way to the Indian Ocean? It's leading there, the post-nuke attack will ensure there's mutations aplenty to make it even more fun!
Land of the Pure Idiots, it seems
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/13/2008 22:03 Comments ||
Top||
Envoy says Islamabad will help thwart Qaeda's plans to attack US
Hopes next US president won't seek quick solution to militancy
Pakistan will attack Al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden the moment it has reliable intelligence on his whereabouts, Pakistani Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani said on Wednesday.
He said in an interview that he was confident Pakistan could help foil any Al Qaeda plans to attack the US, adding that it had previously helped defeat many of the several dozen Al Qaeda plots detected worldwide since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and that Pakistan would act on its own against Al Qaeda, if necessary. A co-operative effort between all the allies, and that includes Afghanistan, Pakistan and the United States and NATO I think we can thwart any potential plans for an attack, he said. If any of us had that actionable intelligence we would all act. We would act separately, we would act in tandem, we would act cooperatively we would act, he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
KHAR: Ten million tribal people would avenge the bombing of Mohmand Agency by US-led NATO forces, Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) Bajaur Agency leaders said on Thursday. The JI leaders said the US could not kill the spirit of jihad by launching such attacks against tribal people. JI Bajaur Agency Ameer Sardar Khan, Naib Ameer Maulana Waheed Gul and Malik Aziz Khan expressed these views at a public meeting organised by the JI to protest against the bombing of Bahadur Kalay by NATO troops on the Pak-Afghan border. Hundreds of tribal people attended the public meeting held at Khar Bazaar. The JI leaders said the alarming law and order situation in Tribal Areas was the result of President Pervez Musharrafs wrong policies. They said the US airstrike killing innocent people had provoked 10 million tribal people but the government did not even express sympathies to please America. The JI agency ameer said the tribal people would never accept to be slaves of America and would avenge the atrocities committed by US against the tribal people.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Jamaat-e-Islami
#2
Reminder: the JI invited Osama bin Laden to attend their 1998 convention in Lahore. He didn't attend because Clinton had sent cruise missiles at his genocide camps. I believe that the Pakis tipped off the terrorist because captive al-Qaeda admitted that he had hurried out of the camps before the attacks. He would have had ample time to escape from a sea launched cruise missile.
LAHORE: The United States airstrike on a Pakistani checkpost in which 11 troops were killed and nine others were injured, was an accident, Federal Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar told Dawn News on Thursday. He told the channel that the US-led coalition forces did not enter Pakistan, adding that it did not suit the US to attack its ally Pakistan. The minister said Pakistan did not have radar capabilities above 30,000 feet and that it was impossible to determine who was entering the countrys airspace above that altitude. He said Pakistan had taken up the airstrike with the coalition partners, adding that it would remain a part of the war on terror, the channel reported. The minister said the war against terrorism must be fought in order for Pakistan to exist in and be a part of the civilised world. He said the bereaved families of the 11 troops would be compensated.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Can that compensation include a copy of the video footage showing them attacking Afghan troops?
KUFA, Iraq (Reuters) - Anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said on Friday that only a select group of his Mehdi Army should fight U.S. forces in Iraq, in an apparent attempt to assert his authority over the militia.
Sadr said a limited number of Mehdi Army members would be authorized to battle American forces, while most of his supporters should work against Western cultural, social and religious domination.
"The weapons will be in their hands exclusively and they must only use them against the occupier and not against others," he said in a statement read by a cleric during Friday prayers in the southern town of Kufa.
Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki mounted a security crackdown on his militiamen in Basra in March. A similar ceasefire was reached in Baghdad after violence erupted there following the Basra offensive.
Persistent attacks against Iraqi security forces have raised questions over Sadr's control over Shi'ite militias.
The U.S. military say rogue elements of the Mehdi Army have not obeyed Sadr and continued launching attacks. It says these so-called "special groups" receive training and funding from neighboring Iran, a charge Tehran denies.
#4
WE NEED TO GET THE HELL OUT! THIS WILL NEVER END.
My name is Spc. Kenneth G. Davis, and I authorize this message because I fought in Iraq for oil and am now totally and permanently blind. And did my sacrifice improve your gas prices?
#7
To the Duke, unfortunately it is our mess. The country was intact, Sunnis and Shias getting along just fine before bush attacked. Now, even christians are being persecuted as they were not before.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/13/2008 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Wasn't going too well for the Kurds or the Marsh Arabs under ol' Sammy though. Or all those dead folks in those mass graves they found and occasionaly still come across. But, hey, who cares about them.
Might wanna review your talking points, unless you like looking like a naive fool, which is fine by me.
#11
Don't tell Hannah about how Saddam used poison gas on his own people. And don't tell her about the shredding machines. And definitely don't tell her about Uday.
Wouldn't want to harsh her mellow ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/13/2008 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Ok Spc. Kenneth G. Davis, a lot of people pretend to be people they aren't on this site, but I give you the respect you claim. To begin, thank you for your service, it has given me a chance to raise my boys to be the soldiers who will protect you long into the future. Thank you again for your concern about the future of the nation; although, I think we disagree on policy. Many people do not understand that freedom is not free. I hope that no one of that ilk ever darkens your door. Finally, the fact that trained and equipped American soldiers have been fighting America's foes over seas has prevented America's police, fire fighters, and first responders from suffering the kinds of losses they suffered on 9/11, and I thank you for that. Best wishes to you and yours.
ION WAFF.com > REUTERS > ELBARADEI[UNIAEA] to DER SPEIGEL: WE ARE HEADING DOWN INTO A DEEP ABYSS, and are UNCERTAIN IFF WORLD CAN GET OUT OF IT.
ELBARADEI - opines that IRAN's actions indics that it is COVERTLY INTENT ON DEV NUCWEAPONS, but that any Mil Response = AIR STRIKE agz Iran MAY END UP DESTROYING MANY IRAN NUCTARGETS WHILE ALLOWING THE MULLAHS TO JUSTIFY IRAN'S DRIVE TOWARDS NUCWEAPS + PULLOUT?NON-COOPER vv NPT TREATY.
PLUS:
INSPIRE ONE OR MULTIPLE "DIRTY BOMB" [CBRN] TERROR STRIKES on a MAJOR/LARGE CITY(S) IN RETALIATION.
IOW, 2008-2012 + PAN-ISLAMIST NUCLEARIZATION = WE'RE D**** IFF WE DO, D *** IFF WE DON'T WHETHER ALLOW OR DISALLOW SAME.
But we knew this already, at least since 9-11, didn't we!?
#14
hmmm "Sgt Kenneth Davis"? Did you receive orders to fight for oil? I suspect those orders were as bogus as your post (no doubt there's a real Sgt Davis, suffering the injuries this asshole pretends to). My first take was to dismiss you, "Sgt Davis", but I'd prefer Wiki and Google find my diss first. HAND Sgt Davis
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/13/2008 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said he would ask the United Nations Security Council on Friday to start exploring ways to protect his government from an avalanche of financial claims from people harmed by Saddam Husseins government. Iraq has been immune to such lawsuits under the terms of the Security Council mandate that kept foreign forces there, but that mandate is to expire Dec. 31. The financial question is considered particularly complex, not least because there is no precedent for extending protection from claims indefinitely, diplomats here said.
Iraq is trying to push solutions for such outstanding issues by the end of July in hopes of preventing various treaty negotiations from becoming entangled in the American presidential elections, Mr. Zebari said in an interview on Thursday. The coming months are critical, he said. If this cant be realized, we have to consider other options. Those options include extending the Council mandate beyond 2008 while the claims issue is sorted out. That would also give more time for the complicated, unresolved talks over the bilateral treaty between Baghdad and Washington that will govern the presence of American forces there outside the United Nations framework once the Council mandate expires. Iraq had said that the current mandate would be the last such request.
Critical unresolved bilateral issues include any presence of American bases, arrests and detentions carried out by United States forces, whether American contractors or soldiers could be taken to court under Iraqi law and control of Iraqs airspace. There has been some domestic debate in Iraq whether the government should push for a treaty under the Bush administration, or stall until after the November election in case a deal more favorable to Iraq could be possible.
It is possible for Iraq to ask that the mandate be maintained solely for financial reasons, said Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to the United Nations. They are nervous that they will lose this protection, he said, while at the same time on the military front, They want to move from a Security Council framework to one where they have more of a say about how the forces behave.
It is unclear how the Council might respond to such an extraordinary request. A few people contacted Thursday said they would have to wait to hear the specific Iraqi proposals before deciding how to react, but diplomats from at least two countries thought it would be possible to let the troop mandate expire while extending the protection forever against the financial claims. Fridays session is formally just a standard, six-month review of the situation in Iraq under the mandate, but Mr. Zebari said Iraq wanted members to start weighing what its expiration would mean. He said there would be untold financial claims from all those who might have been killed or held hostage by the government of Mr. Hussein, for example, in addition to those harmed by disasters like the ignition of Kuwaiti oil fields in February 1991. The United Nations Compensation Commission governed damages from the Persian Gulf war. But Mr. Zebari said Iraq was concerned about unfiled claims from the entire period dating from Iraqs invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 when Security Council resolutions first came into play.
#1
There are those still trying to stick the current Japanese government for pain and suffering created by the former Imperial Japanese government. Why would anyone not take this kind of action? A hundred and forty years after the American Civil War (I) and forty years (two generations) after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and we have people still talking about reparations in this country.
#2
...and we have people still talking about reparations in this country.
The talking phase is just about over Procopius2k, in fact it will be over with my 50 Trillion Dollar Tender.
Posted by: B. Obama ||
06/13/2008 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The talking phase is just about over Procopius2k, in fact it will be over with my 50 Trillion Dollar Tender.
Lemme tell you about muh great-greatgranny, Cherokee my ass!
Posted by: George Smiley ||
06/13/2008 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
AMMAN - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki arrived in Jordan on Thursday for talks with King Abdullah II and senior officials on political and oil ties. Maliki, at the head of a delegation including the interior, oil, finance and planning ministers, held talks with the king on "bilateral and regional issues," the palace said in a statement.
"Jordan supports Iraqi government plans to enhance the political process and preserve Iraq's unity, stability and security," it quoted the king as telling Maliki. "Strong relations between Iraq and the rest of the Arab world are key to restoring Iraq's role in the region."
"Now that we see who's going to win ..."
Maliki was due later on Thursday to hold talks with his counterpart Nader Dahabi on oil, transport, trade and political ties.
His two-day visit comes after Jordan said it would appoint an ambassador to Iraq and after Baghdad said it would review a discounted oil deal for Amman, which depends on its neighbour for most of its fuel needs. Jordan said in May that it would soon designate a new ambassador for Iraq where its embassy, which came under deadly attack in August 2003, is run by a charge d'affaires.
Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi said last month that Baghdad is to review a 2006 agreement to sell discounted oil to Jordan amid soaring world prices. Iraq agreed in August 2006 to provide Jordan with between 10 and 30 percent of its daily oil needs of around 100,000 barrels at a preferential price starting from September of that year, but deliveries by road began a year late. Jordan increased fuel prices on Tuesday by almost 10 percent, the fifth such rise in as many months amid skyrocketing world prices.
When's that ambassador going to arrive in Baghdad?
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Hamas laid out conditions on Thursday for a truce with Israel in the Gaza Strip and for discussing reconciliation with the Fatah movement of president Mahmud Abbas.
Any truce must include "in exchange a lifting of the (Israeli) siege, with a precise timetable for opening the crossing points (out of Gaza) and a list of the categories of products that will enter the Gaza Strip," said the Hamas leader there, Ismael Haniya. "It is important that the Rafah terminal (between Gaza and Egypt) be part of the project for calm. The Israelis and others have insisted that the Rafah terminal not be included" in an eventual deal, he added.
This is the first time Hamas has demanded a timetable for opening the crossings and a list of products since Israel imposed the blockade after the Islamist movement seized control of Gaza from forces loyal to Abbas last June.
The Israelis have been linking the opening of Rafah -- the only outlet for Gaza that does not pass through Israel -- to the freeing of Corporal Gilad Shalit, captured by Hamas and others in a cross-border raid two years ago. Haniya added that the Rafah crossing should be under the joint administration of the Palestinians and the Egyptians.
On Thursday, Israel joined a new round of Egyptian-brokered negotiations on a proposed truce after deciding to give the talks one last go while preparing for military action if they fail. Defence Minister Ehud Barak told reporters his country "must assess the possibilities of reaching a calm" but that "our duty is to ensure security around the Gaza Strip and we shall do so."
"Our military is strong and we are ready. As soon as the order is given, we will act," he added, stressing that Israel must first "try to reach the same results without turning to the armed forces."
Turning to the question of Fatah, Haniya set out a long list of conditions for a new "national dialogue" with Hamas called for last week by Abbas. "Dialogue is not sorting out differences between two clans," Haniya said. "It must include all the questions and details of the dossiers on security, on cohabitation, on the Palestine Liberation Organisation, on judicial institutions," he said.
Saying "we need to agree on the basis for dialogue," Haniya added that talks should be direct, but under Arab mediation. "We have sent a ten-point document to the Palestinians and to the Arabs, calling for the unity of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, respect for legality, reform of the security services and the right to resistance" against Israel.
Haniya also demanded the release of all Hamas militants arrested in the West Bank and the reopening of Islamic institutions and associations that have been shut down there.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
MP Mohammed Hajjar of the Democratic Gathering bloc said the only way to end the chaos and eliminate the repercussions of the clashes in Beirut was for the offenders to "confess their sins."
"I mean Hezbollah," he clarified, calling on Hezbollah to apologize to the people and regions affected by the events.
After visiting with the Grand Mufti Sheikh Mohammad Rashid Qabbani, Hajjar stressed that Beirut should be "safe and demilitarized," where the only legitimate weapon were those of the Lebanese Army and security forces.
The formation of a national-unity government had faltered due to the opposition's reluctance to apply the clauses of the Doha agreement. Hajjar said Hezbollah's words that they wished that the situation would calm this summer should be coupled with action to make sure the summer is calm.
Hajjar said he was shocked by Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad statement about Shebaa Farms. Hajjar said during the 2006 dialogue talks it was agreed that Lebanon will try to recover this area from Israel through diplomatic means and that Lebanon will demarcate its borders with Syria . He added Raad statements do not providing optimal conditions for the restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty and independence. "
Posted by: Fred ||
06/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
As Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora struggles to form a government satisfactory to both the majority and opposition, MP Michel Aoun has once again assumed the role of spoiler.
The General has recently raised eyebrows - and blood pressure levels - by demanding one of just four sovereign ministries for his own bloc, despite having already received nearly half of the opposition's total share of ministers. At present, there is a general consensus that of the sovereign portfolios - Justice, Interior, Finance and Foreign Affairs - the first two will go to President Suleiman, while the majority and opposition will each take one of the latter. In recent years, Finance has traditionally gone to the Future Movement, and Foreign Affairs to Amal. Both parties have expressed their desire to retain the posts in the next government.
Aoun's demand therefore risks upsetting not only the majority (Aoun has specifically asked for the Finance portfolio) but also his opposition allies, who do not want to see him granted their only key post.
In an attempt to mitigate the latter, Aoun is demanding that the opposition receive two sovereign ministries, effectively stripping one portfolio from the president. But the majority will not accept having less sovereign ministers than the minority: If it doesn't block the formation of the government altogether, Aoun's ploy could ultimately leave the president empty-handed, further weakening the country's highest Christian officeholder.
Allocating the ministries
Speaking to NOW Lebanon, Change and Reform bloc MP Ibrahim Kanaan argued that it was fair for the opposition to take two sovereign ministries, as the majority had already secured a sovereign post in the government by nominating Fouad Siniora to be the new prime minister. "This is a super-sovereign ministry with many privileges, and we are entitled by the law and custom to ask for whatever ministry we want," he contended.
When asked about the FPM's reasons for choosing the Finance Ministry in particular, Kanaan stressed that they primarily wanted to break the Future Movement's hold over the ministry. "This is all still unresolved, and the media talk about who gets what is premature. All parliamentary blocs demanded ministries, and like everybody else, we are waiting for Siniora to present his formula."
Future MP Jamal Jarrah told NOW Lebanon that the prime minister's position cannot be considered a "sovereign ministry" because it is simply part of the division of authorities under the Taif Agreement. "This is just another invention by Aoun to circumvent Taif and challenge political norms," he said.
Nasir al-Asaad, a columnist for Al-Mustaqbal daily, also confirmed that the prime minister's election is separate from the government's formation. "No one has 'given' the prime minister's office to anyone," he stressed.
A key component of Aoun's strategy has been to cast himself both as part of the opposition and as the primary Christian representative, demanding a share in both capacities. "He cannot do that. He has to realize that he is representing the Christians in the opposition, and he cannot claim his own share away from the opposition," Jarrah added.
Asking for the impossible
Jarrah remained firm that the president would be able to appoint both the Interior and Defense ministers, leaving only two sovereigns up for grabs. While the opposition can choose between the Finance or Foreign Affairs ministries, he said, it cannot have both - a position reportedly reflected in the proposal conveyed from Siniora, via his adviser Mohammed Chattah, to Aoun in Rabieh last night. "We are not clinging to the Finance Ministry, as ministries do not belong to certain sects or parties. But we are also aware that the General is trying to get the Defense Ministry by targeting the Finance Ministry."
Aoun had initially shown an interest in the defense portfolio, and some have speculated that he may be demanding Finance at this stage as a negotiating strategy to get the majority to offer him Defense as a compromise.
Theories on Aoun's motives abound, and range from delusional to dangerous. Aoun might be taking a maximalist position in order to eventually receive key service ministries in a compromise, which could help him bolster popular support ahead of the 2009 elections, or to extract other concessions for himself - or his allies - later on.
But watching this drama unfold, Lebanese may experience a sense of deja vu. In the summer of 2005, Aoun also hindered Siniora's efforts to form the first government following the withdrawal of Syrian occupation forces. Negotiations eventually broke down with Aoun demanding the Justice Ministry and that all of his ministers hold portfolios. While in 2005, this led to the Free Patriotic Movement entering the opposition to the Siniora government, the consequences of the General's obstruction in 2008 could be far graver. With the formation of a national unity government one of the pillars of the Doha Agreement, Aoun's intransigence threatens to torpedo the cabinet - and the fragile consensus reached in Doha itself.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/13/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
A key component of Aoun's strategy has been to cast himself both as part of the opposition and as the primary Christian representative, demanding a share in both capacities
Tastes Great yet Less Filling. A simple, albeit damn well armed leader of a minority within a minority. I advise telecomuting or if that's not possible go NBA regular season and mail it in.
Posted by: George Smiley ||
06/13/2008 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A former official of a defunct Muslim charity, who was convicted of lying to an FBI agent, was set free on bail yesterday to await sentencing next month. 
Relations between U.S. and Pakistani military forces are in crisis after clashes and a U.S. air strike that hit a Pakistani border post and killed 11 Pakistani soldiers.
KUFA, Iraq (Reuters) - Anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said on Friday that only a select group of his Mehdi Army should fight U.S. forces in Iraq, in an apparent attempt to assert his authority over the militia.
The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said he would ask the United Nations Security Council on Friday to start exploring ways to protect his government from an avalanche of financial claims from people harmed by Saddam Husseins government. Iraq has been immune to such lawsuits under the terms of the Security Council mandate that kept foreign forces there, but that mandate is to expire Dec. 31. The financial question is considered particularly complex, not least because there is no precedent for extending protection from claims indefinitely, diplomats here said. 
