The UK drew up plans to train and equip a 100,000-strong Syrian rebel army to defeat President Bashar al-Assad, BBC Newsnight can reveal. The secret initiative, put forward two years ago, was the brainchild of the then most senior UK military officer, General Sir David Richards. It was considered by the PM and the National Security Council, as well as US officials, but was deemed too risky. The UK government did not respond to a request for comment. Lord Richards, as he is now, believed his proposal could stem the civilian bloodshed in Syria as rebels fought troops loyal to Mr Assad. The idea was considered by David Cameron and Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, and sent to the National Security Council, Whitehall sources said.
It was also put to senior figures in Washington, including General Martin Dempsey, the US's most senior military officer. While it was thought to be too radical at the time, US President Barack Obama said last week he was seeking $500m (£291m) funding to train Syrian rebels - an echo of Lord Richards' plan. Insiders have told BBC Newsnight that Lord Richards, then chief of the defence staff but since retired from the military, warned Downing Street there were only two ways to end the Syrian civil war quickly - to let President Assad win, or to defeat him.
'Extract, equip, train'
With ministers having pledged not to commit British "boots on the ground", his initiative proposed vetting and training a substantial army of moderate Syrian rebels at bases in Turkey and Jordan. Mr Cameron was told the "extract, equip, train" plan would involve an international coalition. It would take a year, but this would buy time for an alternative Syrian government to be formed in exile, the PM was told.
Once the Syrian force was ready, it would march on Damascus, with the cover of fighter jets from the West and Gulf allies. The plan envisaged a "shock and awe" campaign, similar to the one that routed Saddam's military in 2003, but spearheaded by Syrians.
'Chemical weapons'
Though the plan was put to one side at the time, Mr Cameron was later persuaded to consider military action when evidence emerged of chemical weapons use in Syria. However, MPs voted against giving authority for a direct intervention last August. The US and UK accused the Assad government of being behind the attacks, but Damascus blamed rebel groups.
Probe team: Women sexually assaulted before killing in Panjwai ...
before the gun attack, US soldiers physically manhandled the two women and later turned their weapons on the helpless residents
By Absin Zaheer
In shock: Relatives sat in shock in a van carrying the bodies of their kin wrapped in blankets. (Photo: EPA)
US soldiers were alleged to have sexually assaulted two female victims before they were killed in the Panjwai massacre in southern Kandahar last Sunday, a high-level Afghan probe team revealed.
The Wolesi Jirga’s, or lower house of Parliament, delegation investigating the Kandahar shootings by US troops said besides killing 16 civilians, the soldiers sexually assaulted them.
On the ill-fated Sunday, US troops shot 16 civilians, including nine children and three women, and injured five others when they opened fire on houses in Zangabad village, in Panjwai district.
Some of the victims’ bodies were later set on fire.
The Wolesi Jirga members jointly probing the Panjwai episode, along with a government team, on Saturday presented their chilling findings to the general session of the Parliament.
MP Hamidzai Lali, representing Kandahar province and a delegation member, said before the gun attack, US soldiers physically manhandled the two women and later turned their weapons on the helpless residents.
Shakiba Hashami, another delegation member, confirmed the vicious attack, adding about 15 to 20 American soldiers were involved in the killings and even helicopters were seen hovering the areas.
Quoting local residents, Hashami, said ahead of the Sunday tragedy, there was a blast in the area and foreign troops had warned of revenge killings.
The Afghan Parliamentarians strongly condemned the incident and demanded a public trial for the perpetrators.
US officials had claimed a mentally unstable soldier was responsible for the killings and pledged to put him on trial. Recent media reports said the suspect, in his late 30s, was initially transferred to Kuwait and later flown to the US where he is being interrogated.
KANDAHAR CITY (PAN): A parliamentary probe team on Thursday said up to 20 American troops were involved in Sunday’s killing of 16 civilians in southern Kandahar province.
The probing delegation includes lawmakers Hamidzai Lali, Abdul Rahim Ayubi, Shakiba Hashimi, Syed Mohammad Akhund and Bismillah Afghanmal, all representing Kandahar province at theWolesi Jirga and Abdul Latif Padram, a lawmaker from northern Badakhshan province, Mirbat Mangal, Khost province, Muhammad Sarwar Usmani, Farah province.
The team spent two days in the province, interviewing the bereaved families, tribal elders, survivors and collecting evidences at the site in Panjwai district.
Hamizai Lali told Pajhwok Afghan News their investigation showed there were 15 to 20 American soldiers, who executed the brutal killings.
“We closely examined the site of the incident, talked to the families who lost their beloved ones, the injured people and tribal elders,” he said.
He added the attack lasted one hour involving two groups of American soldiers in the middle of the night on Sunday.
“The villages are one and a half kilometre from the American military base. We are convinced that one soldier cannot kill so many people in two villages within one hour at the same time, and the 16 civilians, most of them children and women, have been killed by the two groups.”
Lali asked the Afghan government, the United Nations and the international community to ensure the perpetrators were punished in Afghanistan.
He expressed his anger that the US soldier, the prime suspect in the shooting, had been flown out of Afghanistan to Kuwait.
He said the people they met had warned if the responsible troops were not punished, they would launch a movement against Afghans who had agreed to foreign troops’ presence in Afghanistan under the first Bonn conference in 2001.
The lawmaker said the Wolesi Jirga would not sit silent until the killers were prosecuted in Afghanistan. "If the international community does not play its role in punishing the perpetrators, the Wolesi Jirga would declare foreign troops as occupying forces, like the Russians," Lali warned.
President Hamid Karzai on Thursday asked the US to pull out all its troops from Afghan villages in response to the killings.
Pajhwok Afghan News is Afghanistan’s largest independent news agency. With headquarters in Kabul, eight regional bureaus and a nationwide network of reporters and correspondents, Pajhwok delivers an average daily output of three dozen stories in Pashto, Dari and English. Pajhwok also provides photographs, video footage and audio clips to international wire agencies, television and radio stations.
From its beginnings as a small project to report on the 2003 Constitutional Loya Jirga, Pajhwok has become the main provider of daily news to the country’s media and the most trusted source of news about Afghanistan from an Afghan perspective. Pajhwok is wholly owned and operated by Afghans and has no political affiliations.
Former leader Radovan Karadzic is on trial at The Hague facing eleven criminal charges, including the alleged massacre of up to 8,000 Bosniak men and youths in Srebrenica. Swiss researcher Alexander Dorin denounces the media’s distorted account of those events which prevails to this day. The facts were allegedly fixed around Washington’s policy of having to justify NATO’s military intervention in the conflict, marking the Organization’s first post-Cold War deployment and the first intervention outside its original purview.
“After 14 years of investigating events that took place in Srebrenica in 1995 I can attest there was no genocide over Muslims in that enclave — the myth about the massacre of Muslims was invented by the late Bosnian Muslim war leader Alija Izetbegović and then-U.S. president Bill Clinton”, Swiss researcher Alexander Dorin, author of the book Srebrenica — die Geschichte eines salonfahigen Rassismus) (Srebrenica — The History of Salon Racism) told Belgrade Daily Press in an exclusive interview.
He added that, contrary to the popular mythology still dominating Western mainstream media, Muslims who lost their lives in Srebrenica were grown men rather than “boys”, and have been gunned down while fighting against the Bosnian Serb Army. Which, as he points out, can in no way be equated with a massacre, let alone “genocide”.
After many years of investigating the war events in and around Srebrenica, I have reached a definite conclusion that there was no genocide. In July 1995, as the town was being taken over by the Serb forces, some 2,000 Muslim men lost their lives — not 8,000 as the Bosnian Muslim propaganda machinery claims, with the backing of certain Western politicians and media. Those 2,000 men fell in a battle against the Serbian Army, while they were breaking through to Tuzla. “Srebrenica genocide” is Izetbegović’s and Clinton’s invention, – Dorin said.
Question: Upon what do you base your claims Srebrenica “massacre” was invented by Izetbegović and Clinton?
Answer: One should keep in mind that even the American media wrote quite a bit about the fact United States was arming Izetbegović’s forces for years. Clinton administration was very antagonistic toward Serbs — Clinton’s generals were even involved in the Croat operation “Storm”, expulsion and elimination of the Serbian nation from the Republic of Serbian Krajina and western parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
At the same time, one of Srebrenica warlords — Hakija Meholjić — continues to assert Clinton was offering Izetbegović a manufactured massacre against Srebrenica Muslims since 1993, as a ploy that will end the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina [to the Bosnian Muslim advantage].
Q: What does that tell us?
A: It tells us they had two years to set that ploy up, the time during which Izetbegović and Clinton were being mythologized and raised to the status of heroes throughout the most influential Western media outlets.
“Srebrenica Victims” Voting
Q: Does your book offer additional evidence?
A: The book also presents evidence which shows 2,000 Muslim men who lost their lives in Srebrenica fell during the battles. In order to be able to claim that the “genocide” was committed, and since they didn’t have enough bodies to back the initial claim of 8,000 allegedly killed Muslims, they listed as Srebrenica victims a number of Bosnian Muslim fighters who died long before Srebrenica takeover, or were shot down in other battles during the civil war, from 1992-1995. The list of the alleged Srebrenica victims also contains the names of those who are still alive.
Q: You mean those who were later voting in the elections…?
A: That is correct. In the 1996 Bosnian elections, the electoral lists contained some 3,000 Bosnian Muslims who were also listed as “Srebrenica victims”. This further underlines the fact that so-called Hague Tribunal still has no evidence of “Srebrenica genocide”. Instead, they rely on the claims of Croat Dražen Erdemović, proven to be sheer lies, as Bulgarian reporter Germinal Civikov has demonstrated in his latest book.
Q: The Hague Tribunal does not believe so…?
A: Former NATO spokesman Jamie Shea stressed back in 1999 that, without NATO, there would be no Hague Tribunal to begin with. He asserted that NATO and the Hague Tribunal are “allies and friends”. Among others, the example which confirms his assertion is the case of [Colonel] Vidoje Blagojević, sentenced to a long prison term due to Srebrenica events, even though he is absolutely innocent and has done no harm to anyone. So, NATO is punishing its adversaries via the Hague Tribunal while, at the same time, it protects its allies.
The History of Yugoslav Civil War was Written by the Aggressors
Q: Why have they bore down on Serbs?
A: Serbs have never allied with the aggressive forces. In the past hundreds of years, Serbs were fighting against all the aggressors and the fascist forces. Instead of respect and gratitude, they were rewarded with sanctions and bombs by the international community, and with a thorough and complete demonization by the Western media. Today’s world is ruled by the criminals and psychopaths who call themselves democrats.
Swiss researcher who has been investigating Srebrenica events for the past 14 years and has published several books on the subject, including Srebrenica — The History of Salon Racism (Srebrenica — die Geschichte eines salonfahigen Rassismus) .
One of Alexander Dorin's myths is a claim that more than 3,000 Srebrenica victims, from the list of missing, participated in the 1996 municipal Srebrenica elections. He also refers to the figure of "7,000 - 8,000" Srebrenica victims as a "western myth".
FACTS:In fact, none of the Srebrenica genocide victims ever voted in the 1996 elections. In the 1996 elections, which were held shortly after the 1995 genocide, local authorities simply used the list containing the names of all registered pre-war Srebrenica citizens. This does not mean that "dead people voted." According to Helge Brunborg, the Hague Tribunals' expert, at least 7,475 Bosniaks perished in the Srebrenica genocide. Under cross-examination in Blagojevic case, Brunborg (who speaks English as his Second Language) explained that by 1997, there were no missing people registered to vote:
"If you would look at Table 1 on page 7 in the 2000 report, you will see that there were 5 -- on the ICRC list and PHR list were 5.712. On the ICRC list only 1.586. That makes 7.298, which is 101 less than the ICRC number that you quoted, 7.399. In addition, we had access to information that the ICRC did not have at that time, I believe, which is the voters' list, 1997 and 1998, which were used to check that missing people were -- that there were no survivors who registered to vote.And we also checked difficult cases where the data were incomplete with the 1991 census.... The only thing is the information from ICRC, that 6 persons were found to be alive. So we subtracted that number." (Court Transcript)
Furthermore, Brunborg explained:
"People who are missing and believed to be dead should not be able to vote. So when we had this complete list of people who were registered to vote in 1997 and 1998, we wanted to make a comparison to see if there were, in fact, people believed to be missing who were registered to vote. So we did a very careful comparison, and we found nine names that we believe are unique and that are appearing on both lists of missing persons and the list of voters. So there is an error somewhere. Either these are not really missing persons, they are survivors, or somebody misused their identities because they knew they were dead, so they misused their identities, perhaps to get extra -- additional political influence, to vote twice. Or third, there is a mix-up due to data problems and so on. But the conclusion is that the number was very small. Nine, that is less than -- that is about one-tenth of a per cent. To be on the safe side, we subtracted these names, although it is not certain that these are survivors.... We asked the ICRC whether they knew about people who had survived, who they later learned to be survivors and not dead on the list of missing persons since January 1997. And they told us there were six persons out of 7.000, but they would not reveal their identities to us. So to be on the safe side, we subtracted another six persons from the total number. We could not delete those from the list that was also submitted to the court, because we didn't know their identities. In this way we ended up with 7,475." (Court Transcript)
Asked "how reliable do you think this number of 7.475 missing persons is it?", Helge Brunborg responded: "We think that the number is very reliable as a minimum estimate... the number could easily be higher because there were records that we excluded to be on the safe side."
As of July 2009, the DNA results of the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) support an estimate of 8,100 Srebrenica genocide victims. So far, the identities of 6,186 genocide victims have been revealed by the DNA analysis. (Source: ICMP)
Bernard Kouchner dément les accusations de Carla del Ponte
5 mars 2010
En visite officielle au Kosovo, le ministre français des Affaires étrangères, Bernard Kouchner, a été interrogé le 1er mars par un journaliste à propos des rumeurs selon lesquelles il serait impliqué dans le scandale des trafics d’organe.
Plusieurs médias serbes ont accusé M. Kouchner d’avoir couvert ces agissements lorsqu’il était Haut représentant des Nations Unies dans la région (1999-2001).
« L’affaire de la Maison jaune », par référence à la couleur de la clinique clandestine où des organes étaient prélevés sur plus de 300 prisonniers civils serbes avant qu’ils ne soient exécutés, a été attestée par l’ancienne procureur du Tribunal pénal international Carla del Ponte dans son livre La caccia. Io e i criminali di guerra [Version française : La Traque, les criminels de guerre et moi (éd. Héloïse d’Ormesson, 2009)]. Quatre ans après les faits, les enquêteurs de Mme Del Ponte ont localisé la Maison jaune à Burrell (Albanie), mais n’ont pu y trouver d’indices permettant de reconstituer la filière.
Sur proposition de la délégation russe, l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l’Europe a mandaté le sénateur suisse Dick Marty pour ouvrir une nouvelle enquête.
En répondant à la presse, Bernard Kouchner ne manifeste aucune compassion pour les victimes et leurs familles. Fort étrangement il choisit de démentir la complicité passive qu’on lui impute en niant l’existence du crime. En outre, il qualifie de « salauds et d’assassins » ceux qui colportent cette rumeur ; des propos qui incluent Carla Del Ponte.
Former Albanian fighter with the terrorist group, the Kosovo Liberation Army or the KLA, says that the organs of kidnapped Serbs were pulled out not only in Albania but also in the sea, in northern Italy, north Africa and Middle East.
The witness referred to as I.T. testified that he personally transferred a group of kidnapped Serbs to Tirana and Drac, in Albania, so their organs could be taken out.
Once there, the witness says, “general” human traders loaded them in the ships that sailed into the international waters in the Adriatic.
Once in the international water, doctors, mostly from the western countries, “took them apart” as the KLA members refer to such operations.
The Albanian witness says that he was responsible for numerous kidnappings of Serbs for purposes of taking them apart.
The witness said that in 1999 he led two trucks that drove from Kosovo, via Pastrk, to Tropoje and Peskopi in Albania.
One truck was loaded with corpses of murdered Serb civilians and the other contained live Serbs that were suppose to be taken apart.
The witness says that his commanders for such operations were Daut Haradinaj, Sami Ljusaku and Jakup Krasniqi.
Daut is a relative of the KLA commanded Ramush Haradinaj who was once a so-called prime minister of Kosovo.
Jakup Krasniqi is a leader in the current Kosovo separatist government.
Another Albanian witness, who was held in concentration camp in Lapusik, says that Krasniqi and Hashim Thaci, current so-called prime minister of Kosovo, personally took part in torture of the prisoners.
The witness says that he saw them kill the prisoners there.
The witness says that the KLA was aided by Jihadis from the Middle East.
Some other KLA members involved in removal of corpses say that several Serbian solders were, after torture, taken apart in Kukes and their remains buried in the city cemetery.
They say that other captured Serb soldiers ended up in the hospitals in Valona until a buyer of an organ made an order.
The evidence suggests that an Albanian organ trade started in 1998 when Serbs from Balacevac were kidnapped.
South Africa's biggest healthcare company Netcare has been implicated in an illegal kidney transplant plot.
The biggest health care firm in South Africa has been charged with cooperating with an Israeli-linked organ trafficking syndicate.
The South African government said that the head of the Netcare company and a director of the St. Augustine's Hospital in Durban, Richard Friedland, had been aware of illegal kidney trade at the hospital, but "nevertheless permitted these operations" to take place, South African daily The Times reported on Wednesday. The police said that wealthy Israelis paid organ dealers between 2001 and 2003, the year when the ring was exposed, the German Press Agency (DPA) reported. "Israeli citizens in need of kidney transplants would be brought to South Africa for transplants at St. Augustine's Hospital," read the charge sheet. "They paid kidney suppliers for these operations. [The kidneys] were initially sourced from Israeli citizens, but later Romanian and Brazilian citizens were recruited as their kidneys were obtainable at a much lower cost than those of the Israeli suppliers," it added. An Israeli middleman, named Ilan Perry, received between USD 97,676 and USD 118,607 to arrange for the operations. This is while, those who provided the kidneys were paid approximately between USD 6,000 and USD 20,000. Five notable South African physicians, working in Durban have also been charged in the illegal organ-trafficking case. The report also said that Netcare is being charged with setting up the syndicate with the assistance of prominent kidney specialist Jeffrey Kallmeyer and Perry. The report comes as earlier last year, another report surfaced about an Israeli plot to kidnap children and harvest their organs. According to the report, some 25,000 Ukrainian children had been brought into Israel over the past two years to be used by Israeli medical centers for their "spare parts." The Israeli military is also accused of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners.
Obama invokes 'state secrets' claim to dismiss suit against targeting of U.S. citizen al-Aulaqi
Spencer S. Hsu September 25, 2010
The Obama administration urged a federal judge early Saturday to dismiss a lawsuit over its targeting of a U.S. citizen for killing overseas, saying that the case would reveal state secrets.
The U.S.-born citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, is a cleric now believed to be in Yemen. Federal authorities allege that he is leading a branch of al-Qaeda there.
Government lawyers called the state-secrets argument a last resort to toss out the case, and it seems likely to revive a debate over the reach of a president's powers in the global war against al-Qaeda.
Civil liberties groups sued the U.S. government on behalf of Aulaqi's father, arguing that the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command's placement of Aulaqi on a capture-or-kill list of suspected terrorists - outside a war zone and absent an imminent threat - amounted to an extrajudicial execution order against a U.S. citizen. They asked a U.S. district court in Washington to block the targeting.
In response, Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said that the groups are asking "a court to take the unprecedented step of intervening in an ongoing military action to direct the President how to manage that action - all on behalf of a leader of a foreign terrorist organization."
Miller added, "If al-Aulaqi wishes to access our legal system, he should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions."
In a statement, lawyers for Nasser al-Aulaqi condemned the government's request to dismiss the case without debating its merits, saying that judicial review of the pursuit of targets far from the battlefield of Afghanistan is vital.
"The idea that courts should have no role whatsoever in determining the criteria by which the executive branch can kill its own citizens is unacceptable in a democracy," the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights said.
"In matters of life and death, no executive should have a blank check," they said.
The government filed its brief to U.S. District Judge Robert Bates just after a midnight Friday deadline, blaming technical problems, and the late-night maneuvering underscored the political and diplomatic stakes for President Obama. His administration announced last year that it would set a higher bar when hiding details of controversial national security policies.
Justice Department officials said they invoked the controversial legal argument reluctantly, mindful that domestic and international critics attacked former president George W. Bush for waging the fight against terrorism with excessive secrecy and unchecked claims of executive power.
A senior Justice official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration is engaging in "a much narrower use of state secrets" than did its predecessor, which cited the argument dozens of times - often, the official said, to "shut down inquiries into wrongdoing."
In its 60-page filing, the Justice Department cites state secrets as the last of four arguments, objecting first that Aulaqi's father lacks standing, that courts cannot lawfully bind future presidents' actions in as-yet undefined conflicts, and that in war the targeting of adversaries is inherently a "political question."
Robert M. Chesney, a national security law specialist at the University of Texas School of Law, said that Obama lawyers would undoubtedly prefer not to stoke the state-secrets debate, or to risk judicial review of its claim to a borderless battlefield.
"The real big issue here is . . . are we only at war in Afghanistan, or can the U.S. government lawfully use war powers in other cases, at least where the host nation consents or there is no host government?" Chesney said.
"You're trying to avoid a judicial ruling on the merits of the whole issue," Chesney said, adding, "But at the end of the day, if it's your best argument in a case you want to win, you're going to make that argument."
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
The US Central Intelligence Agency is running and paying for a secret 3,000-strong army of Afghan paramilitaries whose main aim is assassinating Taliban and al-Qa'ida operatives not just in Afghanistan but across the border in neighbouring Pakistan's tribal areas, according to Bob Woodward's explosive book.
Although the CIA has long been known to run clandestine militias in Afghanistan, including one from a base it rents from the Afghan president Hamid Karzai's half-brother in the southern province of Kandahar, the sheer number of militiamen directly under its control have never been publicly revealed.
Woodward's book, Obama's Wars, describes these forces as elite, well-trained units that conduct highly sensitive covert operations into Pakistan as part of a stepped-up campaign against al-Qa'ida and Afghan Taliban havens there. Two US newspapers published the claims after receiving copies of the manuscript.
The secret army is split into "Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams", and is thought to be responsible for the deaths of many Pakistani Taliban fighters who have crossed the border into Afghanistan to fight Nato and Afghan government forces there.
There are ever-increasing numbers of "kill-or-capture" missions undertaken by US Special Forces against Afghan Taliban and foreign fighters, who hope to drive rank-and-file Taliban towards the Afghan government's peace process by eliminating their leaders. The suspicion is that the secret army is working in close tandem with them.
Although no comment has been forthcoming, it is understood that the top US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, Gen David Petraeus, approves of the mission, which bears similarities to the covert assassination campaign against al-Qa'ida in Iraq, which was partially credited with stemming the tide of violence after the country imploded between 2004 and 2007.
The details of the clandestine army have surprised no one in Kabul, the Afghan capital, although the fact that the information is now public is unprecedented. There have been multiple reports of the CIA running its own militias in southern Afghanistan.
The operation also has powerful echoes of clandestine operations of the 1990s, when the CIA recruited and ran a militia inside the Afghan border with the sole purpose of killing Osama bin Laden. The order then that a specially recruited Afghan militia was "to capture him alive" – the result of protracted legal wrangles about when, how and if Osama bin Laden could be killed – doomed efforts to assassinate him before 9/11.
NY groups seek DC order blocking targeted killings
AP August 30 2010
NEW YORK (AP) — Two New York-based civil liberties groups have sued the federal government, saying its targeted killings of U.S. citizens overseas is unconstitutional.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed the lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Defendants include President Barack Obama and the CIA director.
The lawsuit was filed for the father of a U.S.-born cleric believed to be hiding in Yemen. It seeks a court order declaring the Constitution prohibits the government's targeted killings of U.S. citizens.
The cleric is believed to have helped inspire the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner Christmas Day. The Obama administration cited his al-Qaida role when it placed him on the CIA's list of assassination targets.
The Department of Justice hasn't returned a message seeking comment.
Former Pakistani spy agency chief Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul denied that he has any links to al Qaeda or Taliban insurgents and said he is willing to go to America to face any charges.
“Report of my physical involvement with al Qaeda or Taliban in planning attacks on American forces is completely baseless,” the former Inter-Services Intelligence chief said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “I am not against America, but I am opposed to what the American forces are doing in Afghanistan.”
In the murky world of Pakistan army links with militants, it’s often difficult to ascertain whether former military officers like Mr. Gul are working with the tacit approval of current army personnel.
Mr. Gul, however, does not work mainly in the shadows. He’s a regular presence on nightly TV talkshows, expounding his anti-American views.
The ISI denied that Hamid Gul had continued to operate on behalf of the spy agency after officially leaving the organization two decades ago.
“He hasn’t worked for the ISI in any capacity since he left the organization,” said Zafar Iqbal, a spokesman for the ISI. “He doesn’t have any sanction from the ISI,” he added.
Gul, who served as director general of ISI from 1986 to 1989, had worked closely with the Central Intelligence Agency in organizing a covert war against the former Soviet Union forces in Afghanistan. Gul likes to call himself a “Muslim visionary” and has remained actively involved with Pakistani radical Islamic movements and Afghan Mujahideen leaders such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar since his retirement from the army in 1991. He has been a strong critic of America since then.
Gul now lives in a high-security neighborhood in Rawalpindi, which is also the headquarters of the Pakistan army. “I am their favorite whipping boy and it is not the first time that such a allegations are made against me,” he said. “It is almost two decades since I am retired from the ISI, but they keep accusing me for everything.”
Gul said he was prepared to appear before an open American court to defend himself against the allegations. “I am not afraid of them, but the Americans are afraid of me.”
He said the U.S. officials were trying to make him a scapegoat to hide their own mistakes. “The U.S. cannot escape defeat in Afghanistan and it is about time that American officials realize their mistake and pull out from there.”
He said the leaked U.S. intelligence reports have targeted the Pakistani army and the ISI, which he said were aligned with the United States.
Leaked files indicate U.S. pays Afghan media to run friendly stories
Jul 27
Buried among the 92,000 classified documents released Sunday by WikiLeaks is some intriguing evidence that the U.S. military in Afghanistan has adopted a PR strategy that got it into trouble in Iraq: paying local media outlets to run friendly stories.
Several reports from Army psychological operations units and provincial reconstruction teams (also known as PRTs, civilian-military hybrids tasked with rebuilding Afghanistan) show that local Afghan radio stations were under contract to air content produced by the United States. Other reports show U.S. military personnel apparently referring to Afghan reporters as "our journalists" and directing them in how to do their jobs.
In one of the WikiLeaks documents, a PRT member reports delivering "12 hours of PSYOP Radio Content Programming" to two radio stations in the province of Ghazni in 2008, and paying one of them "$3,900 for Radio Content Programming air time for the month of October":
"The PRT provided 12 hours of PSYOP Radio Content Programming to Radio Ghaznwyan FM Station and Radio Ghazni AM/FM Station for week of 6-12 Nov. Topics included Afghanistan History, Law, and Human Rights in both Dari and Pashto, and a spreadsheet with the specific radio content programming for the week of 6-12 Nov will be forward sepcor to SPARTAN. Additionally, PRT paid Radio Ghaznwyan $3,900 for Radio Content Programming air time for the month of October."
Another message, from 2008, records a meeting that members of the Bagram PRT held with Rahimullah Samander, the news director of the Wakht News Agency and president of the Afghan Independent Journalists Association. Samander, the memo says, "proposed a partnership with the PRT" and "offered to include PRT news articles and photos on his news service":
"Kapisa team met with a Kabul radio representative at the Kapisa TV and Radio Station. Met with Rahimullah Samander, news director for Wakht News Agency and president of the Afghan Independent Journalists Association. He provided information about his organizations and proposed a partnership with the PRT. He offered to include PRT news articles and photos on his news service. The PRT IO recommended a conference including Afghan and US military journalists to collaborate and share ideas. Samander hopes to increase the presence of his agency in Kapisa province."
"The TF has a new PSYOP contract with RTA and a continuing PSYOP contract with Shaiq Network; additionally, these are key IO mediums. The purpose of the meetings were to introduce new HQ PSYOP members to the RTA and Shaiq managers, provide initial payment for the RTA contract, receive a PRT Advertising Campaign contract bid proposal from Shaiq (for the pending garbage removal initiative in Jalalabad), and tour both facilities."
The report, written by an Army information operations officer, describes the Afghan journalists as "very pro-CF [coalition forces]" and surmises that "there is a lot they are willing to do for the CF."
Two other messages seem to show U.S. soldiers referring to local Afghan media as extensions of their own units rather than independent reporters. In 2007, after insurgents attacked an Afghan National Police convoy, a member of Task Force Rock wrote that "we ... had our journalist conduct an interview with the Afghan National Police District Chief who condemned the attacks on their fellow countrymen." In another 2007 message, a Task Force Diablo soldier reported that after Taliban gunmen assassinated a local businessman, leading village elders to question the Afghan police's ability to keep the peace, "we were able to send the journalist in with our cultural advisor to speak to the elders."
An inquiry after the Lincoln Group revelations found that paying foreign news outlets to run friendly stories did not violate Department of Defense policy or U.S. law, though the practice seems to have been discontinued in Iraq.
A Defense Department spokesperson did not immediately return an e-mail seeking comment.
— John Cook is senior national reporter/blogger for Yahoo! News.
Hellerstein ruling provides cover for U.S. intelligence illegal covert ops
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein's July 15th decision to deny the American Civil Liberties Union's request to compel the government to release details of the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" methods on 9/11 detainees provides the legal cover for the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies to hide their illegalcovert methods used abroad and domestically. Hellerstein, who has been one of the most activist judges in denying requests for a full disclosure of government intelligence involving the 9/11 attacks, wrote in his decision, "Courts are not invested with the competence to second-guess the CIA director regarding the appropriateness of any particular intelligence source or method."
In 2008, Hellerstein tossed out a law suit filed by 9/11 victims' families asking for the debris at the Fresh Kills, Staten Island waste dump to be sifted for the remains of their loved ones so they could receive a proper burial. Hellerstein was obviously worried about what other evidence might be sifted from the debris piles, evidence that would point to more than airplanes bringing down the World Trade Center. In 2009, Hellerstein, again, ruled to cover-up 9/11 by dismissing a lawsuit against New York City's Office of Emergency Management for negligence in helping cause the collapse of Building 7 of World Trade Center by permitting diesel fuel to be stored on the roof.
Hellerstein has now given a green light to U.S. intelligence agencies for continued protection from law suits and other sanctions under the guise of national security.
Obama and his four predecessors have continued to violate Executive Order after Executive Order in permitting U.S. intelligence operatives to blatantly engage in assassinations, coups, and kidnappings. Hellerstein has provided judicial cover for these continued activities by ruling that intelligence sources and methods are more important that U.S. law or prior presidential orders.
Judge Rules CIA Can Suppress Information About Torture Tapes and Memos
July 15, 2010
Ruling Allows CIA To Conceal Evidence Of Its Own Illegal Conduct, Says ACLU
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK – A federal judge today ruled that the government can withhold information from the public about intelligence sources and methods, even if those sources and methods were illegal. The ruling came in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation filed by the American Civil Liberties Union for Justice Department memos that authorized torture, and for records relating to the contents of destroyed videotapes depicting the brutal interrogation of detainees at CIA black sites.
The government continues to withhold key information, such as the names of detainees who were subjected to the abusive interrogation methods as well as information about the application of the interrogation techniques. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York today ruled that the government can continue to suppress evidence of its illegal program.
The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU:
“We are very dismayed by today’s ruling, which invests the CIA with sweeping authority to conceal evidence of its own illegal conduct. There is no question that the CIA has authority under the law to withhold information relating to ‘intelligence sources and methods.’ But while this authority is broad, it is not unlimited, and it certainly should not be converted into a license to suppress evidence of criminal activity. Unfortunately, that is precisely what today’s ruling threatens to do. The CIA should not be permitted to unilaterally determine whether evidence of its own criminal conduct can be hidden from the public.”
Former Guantanamo Bay detainees Omar Deghayes, Binyam Mohamed and Martin Mubanga. MI5 officers interviewed Omar Deghayes in Afghanistan Kabul for three hours on the evening of 3 July 2002. He commented that he was treated better by the Pakistanis. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images/Reuters/PA
The true extent of the Labour government's involvement in the illegal abduction and torture of its own citizens after the al-Qaida attacks of September 2001 has been spelled out in stark detail with the disclosure during high court proceedings of a mass of highly classified documents.
Previously secret papers that have been disclosed include a number implicating Tony Blair's office in many of the events that are to be the subject of the judicial inquiry that David Cameron announced last week.
Among the most damning documents are a series of interrogation reports from MI5 officers that betray their disregard for the suffering of a British resident whom they were questioning at a US airbase in Afghanistan. The documents also show that the officers were content to see the mistreatment continue.
One of the most startling documents is chapter 32 of MI6's general procedural manual, entitled "Detainees and Detention Operations", which advises officers that among the "particular sensitivities" they need to consider before becoming directly involved in an operation to detain a terrorism suspect is the question of whether "detention, rather than killing, is the objective of the operation".
Other disclosed documents show how:
• The Foreign Office decided in January 2002 that the transfer of British citizens from Afghanistan to Guantánamo was its "preferred option".
• Jack Straw asked for that rendition to be delayed until MI5 had been able to interrogate those citizens.
• Downing Street was said to have overruled FO attempts to provide a British citizen detained in Zambia with consular support in an attempt to prevent his return to the UK, with the result that he too was "rendered" to Guantánamo.
The papers have been disclosed as a result of civil proceedings brought by six former Guantánamo inmates against MI5 and MI6, the Home Office, the Foreign Office, and the Attorney General's Office, which they allege were complicit in their illegal detention and torture.
The government has been responding to disclosure requests by maintaining that it has identified up to 500,000 documents that may be relevant, and says it has deployed 60 lawyers to scrutinise them, a process that it suggests could take until the end of the decade. It has failed to hand over many of the documents that the men's lawyers have asked for, and on Friday failed to meet a deadline imposed by the high court for the disclosure of the secret interrogation policy that governed MI5 and MI6 officers between 2004 and earlier this year.
So far just 900 papers have been disclosed, and these have included batches of press cuttings and copies of government reports that were published several years ago. However, a number of highly revealing documents are among the released papers, as well as fragments of heavily censored emails, memos and policy documents.
Some are difficult to decipher, but together they paint a picture of a government that was determined not only to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States as it embarked upon its programme of "extraordinary rendition" and torture of terrorism suspects in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but to actively participate in that programme.
In May, after the appeal court dismissed attempts to suppress evidence of complicity in their mistreatment, the government indicated that it would attempt to settle out of court.
Today the government failed in an attempt to bring a temporary halt to the proceedings that have resulted in the disclosure of the documents. Its lawyers argued that the case should be delayed while attempts were made to mediate with the six men, in the hope that their claims could be withdrawn in advance of the judicial inquiry. Lawyers for the former Guantánamo inmates said it was far from certain that mediation would succeed, and insisted the disclosure process continue.
In rejecting the government's application, the court said it had considered the need for its lawyers to press ahead with the task of processing the 500,000 documents in any event, as the cases of the six men are among those that will be considered by the inquiry headed by Sir Peter Gibson. Last week, in announcing the inquiry, Cameron told MPs: "This inquiry will be able to look at all the information relevant to its work, including secret information. It will have access to all relevant government papers – including those held by the intelligence services."
Cameron also made clear that the sort of material that has so far been made public with the limited disclosure in the Guantánamo cases would be kept firmly under wraps during the inquiry. "Let's be frank, it is not possible to have a full public inquiry into something that is meant to be secret," he said. "So any intelligence material provided to the inquiry panel will not be made public and nor will intelligence officers be asked to give evidence in public."
The coalition government is anxious to draw a line under what is currently described in Whitehall as "detainee legacy issues". It hopes that mediation, followed by the inquiry, will lift the burden of litigation that it is currently facing while restoring public confidence in MI5 and MI6.
It also wishes to preserve what it calls "liaison relationships" – operational links with overseas intelligence agencies, including those known to use torture – on the grounds that they are a vital part of the country's counterterrorism strategy.
The torture files: key passages
We highlight the key passages from the classified documents disclosed in high court proceedings - and what they show. Click on each passage in red to read the annotations
Are you sure that the keyboard or mouse you are using today is the one that was attached to your computer yesterday? It might have been swapped for a compromised device that could transmit data to a snooper.
The problem stems from a shortcoming in the way the Universal Serial Bus (USB) works. This allows almost all USB-connected devices, such as mice and printers, to be turned into tools for data theft, says a team that has exploited the flaw.
Welcome to the murky world of the "hardware trojan". Until now, hardware trojans were considered to be modified circuits. For example, if hackers manage to get hold of a microchip when it is still in the factory, they could introduce subtle changes allowing them to crash the device that the chip gets built into (New Scientist, 1 July 2009, p 18).
Computer engineers John Clark, Sylvain Leblanc and Scott Knight at the Royal Military College of Canada in Kingston, Ontario, wondered if a hardware trojan attack could be carried out by other means. They calculated that the easiest way to introduce a hardware trojan might be via a computer's USB ports.
The trio found they could exploit a weakness in USB's plug-and-play functionality. The USB protocol trusts any device being plugged in to report its identity correctly. But find out the make and model of a target user's keyboard, say, swap it with a compromised device that reports the same information - and that doesn't even have to be a keyboard - and the computer won't realise.
The team designed a USB keyboard containing a circuit that successfully stole data from the hard drive and transmitted it in two ways: by flashing an LED, Morse-code style, and by encoding data as a subtle warbling output from the sound card (Future Generation Computer Systems, DOI: 10.1016/j.future.2010.04.008). They could have chosen more efficient methods to transmit the data, such as email, but Leblanc says their main goal was to see if they could steal data without anyone noticing.
"We've shown any USB device could contain a hardware trojan," he says. Security software, if it checks USB devices at all, tends to look only for malware on USB memory sticks.
"This work opens many cans of worms," says Vasilios Katos, a computer scientist at the Democritus University of Thrace in Greece. "A USB device cannot now be trusted - it may have hidden processing capabilities."
He's right, says Leblanc. "You could mount a hardware trojan attack with a USB coffee-cup warmer.
Following the publication of Thierry Meyssan’s investigation titled « The secret behind Guantánamo », we received the following clarification from Professor Martin Seligman, denounced in the article for his role in Guantánamo.
20 juin 2010
Thierry Meyssan (20 May 2010) makes a series of utterly false allegations about me and about my role in the torture of prisoners.
Here is what he wrote:
1) That I “supervised the torture experiments on Guantanamo prisoners.”
2) The Navy formed a high-powered medical team. In particular, it invited Professor Seligman to Guantánamo. …. It was he who oversaw the experiments on human guinea pigs.
3) U.S. torturers, under Professor Seligman’s supervision, experimented and perfected every single coercive technique.
This is wholly false and completely baseless.
Here is what the sum total of what I know about the torture controversy and what my role was:
I gave a three hour lecture sponsored by the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency at the San Diego Naval Base in mid-May 2002. I was invited to speak about how American troops and American personnel could use what is known about learned helplessness to resist torture and evade successful interrogation by their captors. This is what I spoke about.
I was told then that since I was (and am) a civilian with no security clearance that they could not detail American methods of interrogation with me. I was also told then that their methods did not use "violence" or "brutality." James Mitchell, whom the press has accused of being behind the torture program at Guantanamo and elsewhere, was in the audience of between 50 and 100 others at my speech.
I presented my research on learned helplessness to this audience, the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. I spoke about how American troops and American personnel could use what is known about learned helplessness to evade successful interrogation by their captors. There was no other occasion on which I discussed my research with Mitchell or with any other people associated with this controversy. I have read since in the press that that the torturers used my theory of learned helplessness as a partial basis for what they did. If that is true, it was done without my consent, without my knowledge, and certainly without my “supervision.”
I have never “supervised” them or anyone else associated with the alleged torture programs. I was never invited to Guantanamo by anyone.
I have not had contact with JPRA or SERE since that meeting in May 2002. I have never worked under government contract (or any other contract) on any aspect of torture, nor would I be willing to do work on torture.
I have never worked on interrogation; I have never seen an interrogation and I have only a passing knowledge of the literature on interrogation.
I am grieved and horrified that good science, which has helped so many people overcome learned helplessness and depression, has been used for such inhumane purposes.
Most importantly, I never did and never would provide any assistance in torture. I strongly disapprove of it.
Professor of Psychology (University of Pennsylvania). Former President of the American Psychological Association.
Explanatory remarks
The article in question recounts the torture experiments conducted by the Guantánamo medical teams not to extort confessions, but to inculcate them into the detainees. It is founded on the abundant literature existing on the subject as well as on witness accounts.
I reported on Professor Seligman’s role on the strength of a testimony provided by a witness speaking on condition of anonymity. I apologise to Martin Seligman for having divulged an accusation which I am not in a position to prove. Moreover, I take note of his strong condemnation of the application to human beings of the principles he brought to light by torturing dogs.
I further take note of his relativisation of the suffering inflicted on others when he asserts never having practiced or participated in torture, in spite of the fact that, in the 70s, he had recommended and practiced electric shock treatments on homosexual teenagers to force them to alter their behaviour.
This said, his response shows an intent of dissimulation.
He omits to say that he was invited and remunerated by the CIA in relation to the above-mentioned conference.
He contradicts himself when he states having given, but not administered, a course on torture resistance techniques, while asserting that he could not have spoken to his listeners about the interrogation methods applied since he was not authorised to do so.
In fact, he feigns naiveté in affirming to have accepted the allegations of his hosts that they conducted interrogations without employing violence or brutality, when already in January 2002 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights had denounced the United States for resorting to torture methods.
He is inelegant when he makes excuses by pointing his finger at a third party, in this case James Mitchell.
He is ridiculous when, as former President of the American Psychological Association, he makes reference to « good » science, claiming to be horrified to discover that human knowledge can be applied for inhuman purposes.
Finally, he is despicable when he alludes to « alleged torture programs » as if the existence of the facts that he purports to condemn still remained to be proven, just at the time when Physicians for Human Rights has released a stinging report titled Experiments in Torture.
As for Professor Seligman himself, his role still remains to be clarified.
A la suite de la publication de l’enquête « Le secret de Guantánamo » de Thierry Meyssan, le professeur Martin Seligman, mis en cause, nous a adressé cette mise au point.
Martin Seligman
Thierry Meyssan a présenté une série d’allégations totalement fausses à mon propos et sur mon rôle dans la torture de prisonniers.
Voici ce qu’il écrit :
1) J’ai « supervisé les tortures expérimentées sur les prisonniers à Guantanamo ».
2) « La Navy a constitué une équipe médicale de choc. Elle a notamment fait venir à Guantánamo le professeur Seligman (…) C’est lui qui a supervisé des expériences sur cobayes humains. »
3) « Les tortionnaires états-uniens, guidés par le professeur Seligman, ont expérimenté et amélioré chaque technique coercitive. »
Tout ceci est faux et complétement dépourvu de fondement.
Voici tout ce que je sais de la controverse sur la torture et ce qu’a été mon rôle :
J’ai donné une conférence de trois heures sponsorisée par la Joint Personnel Recovery Agency à la base navale de San Diego à la mi-mai 2002. J’ai été invité à parler de la manière dont les soldats américains et le personnel civil américain pourraient utiliser ce que l’on sait de l’impuissance apprise pour résister à la torture et éluder efficacement les interrogatoires de leurs geôliers. C’est de cela dont j’ai parlé.
On m’a dit alors que puisque j’étais (et je suis) un civil sans accréditation de sécurité, ils ne pouvaient détailler les méthodes américaines d’interrogatoire avec moi. On m’a également dit que leurs méthodes n’utilisaient ni « violence » ni « brutalité ». James Mitchell, que la presse a accusé d’être derrière le programme de torture à Guantanamo et ailleurs, était dans le public parmi 50 à 100 auditeurs.
J’ai présenté mes recherches sur l’impuissance apprise à ce public de la Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. J’ai parlé de la manière dont les soldats américains et le personnel civil américain pourraient utiliser ce que l’on sait de l’impuissance apprise pour résister à la torture et éluder efficacement les interrogatoires de leurs geôliers. Il n’y a aucune autre occasion au cours de laquelle j’ai discuté mes recherches avec Mitchell ou d’autres personnes associées à cette controverse. J’ai depuis lu dans la presse que les tortionnaires ont utilisé mes théories sur l’impuissance apprise comme base partielle pour ce qu’ils ont fait. Si cela est vrai, cela a été fait sans mon consentement, sans ma connaissance, et certainement sans ma « supervision ».
Je n’ai les ai jamais supervisé, ni quiconque associé aux programmes allégués de torture. Je n’ai jamais été invité à Guantanamo par personne.
Je n’ai pas eu de contact avec la JPRA ou le SERE depuis cette réunion de mai 2002. Je n’ai jamais travaillé sous contrat public (ou d’autres sortes de contrat) sur des aspects de la torture, ni ne serais enclin à faire un travail sur la torture.
Je n’ai jamais travaillé à des interrogatoires. Je n’ai jamais vu un interrogatoire et je n’en ai qu’un savoir passif à travers la littérature sur les interrogatoires.
Je suis peiné et horrifié que la bonne science, qui a tant aidé de personnes à surmonter l’impuissance apprise et la dépression nerveuse, ait été utilisée à des fins inhumaines.
Surtout, je n’ai jamais pratiqué, ni assisté la pratique de la torture. Je la désapprouve fermement.
Professor of Psychology (University of Pennsylvania). Former President of the American Psychological Association.
Explication de texte
L’article discuté relate les expériences de torture conduites par les équipes médicalisées du Guantánamo non pas pour extorquer des aveux, mais pour en inculquer aux détenus. Il se fonde sur une abondante littérature et sur des témoignages.
J’ai rapporté le rôle du professeur Seligman sur la base d’un témoignage dont l’auteur n’a pas souhaité s’exprimer à découvert. Je présente donc mes excuses à Martin Seligman pour avoir divulgué des imputations que je ne suis pas en mesure de prouver. En outre, je prends acte de sa ferme condamnation de l’application aux humains des principes qu’il a mis en lumière en torturant des chiens.
J’observe sa relativisation de la souffrance imposée à autrui lorsqu’il déclare n’avoir jamais pratiqué ni participé à des tortures, alors même que, dans les années 70, il préconisait et pratiquait d’infliger des électrochocs aux adolescents homosexuels pour les obliger à changer de comportement.
Ceci étant posé, la réponse qu’il nous a adressée manifeste une volonté de dissimulation. Il omet d’indiquer qu’il a été invité et rémunéré par la CIA pour la conférence citée. Il se contredit lui-même lorsqu’il déclare avoir donné un cours sur la manière de résister à la torture et non de l’administrer, alors qu’il poursuit en affirmant ne pas avoir pu discuter avec ses auditeurs des méthodes d’interrogatoire qu’ils pratiquaient parce qu’il n’y était pas habilité. Au demeurant, il joue au naïf en affirmant s’être contenté des déclarations de ses hôtes selon lesquelles ils pratiqueraient des interrogatoires sans violence ni brutalité, alors que dès janvier 2002, le Haut Commissaire des Nations Unies pour les Droits de l’homme avait dénoncé le recours des Etats-Unis à la torture. Il est inélégant lorsqu’il se disculpe en pointant la responsabilité d’un tiers, James Mitchell en l’occurrence. Il est ridicule lorsque lui, ancien président de l’American Psychological Association, évoque une « bonne » science et se dit horrifié de découvrir que le savoir humain puisse être utilisé à des fins inhumaines. Enfin, il est odieux lorsqu’il parle de « programmes de torture allégués » comme si l’existence des faits qu’il prétend condamner restait encore à prouver, au moment même où Physicians for Human Rights publie un rapport accablant Expriments in Torture.
Le rôle du professeur Seligman reste, lui, à établir.
1) That
Posts
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_eukg_2.gif)
