Untitled Document

2-2-08

Treason - Neocon led USA Military Fighting in Pakistan without US Congressional Authority

Articles posted on the Internet during the last week of January 28, 2008 informs us the Neocon led USA military is engaging in treason - Missile Strikes Suspected Terrorist Safehouse in Pakistan, Killing Top al-Qaida Commander or ANALYSIS-US strike (Pakistan) on Qaeda leader seen as limited success or Pakistani minister says unable to confirm al-Qaida commander's killing and U.S. won't say who killed militant
Pakistan too is mum on who launched strike on a top Al Qaeda leader.

All the articles say basically the same thing, the USA military is in Pakistan fighting - a war that the US Congress has not authorized. This is treason, mi amigo. Start impeachment proceedings against the Executive is the US Congress only option. Failure of Congress to start impeachment proceedings against the Executive Branch puts the US Congress in contempt of the US Constitution and exposes members of Congress to charges of treason and impeachment as well. Who files charges of treason against the entire body of Congress for failure to keep their Oath of Office to Protect and Defend the US Constitution? The entire US Constitution becomes null and void when members of Congress hold the Constitution in contempt and fail to keep their Oath of Office to Protect and Defend the US Constitution. At the present time the United States in living without a charter and we are in a state of Civil War. Merry Christmas. Thank you comrade Little George and members of Congress. Your legacy is treason and destruction of the US Constitution.

A missile from a U.S. Predator drone struck a suspected terrorist safe house in Pakistan and killed a top al-Q aida commander believed responsible for a brazen bomb attack during a visit last year by Vice President Dick Cheney to Afghanistan, a U.S. official said Thursday.

One article mentions Dick Cheney by name. Is this the Neo cons' way of saying our military is taking orders from the Vice President. Glenn Greensward wrote an interesting article February 1, 2008 explaining that the United States is a lawless country.

Our country's lawlessness has even spilled over to the Super Bowl where logic dictates the New England Patriots threw the big game to the New York Giants. This country's lawlessness is out of control. The United States' lawlessness is comrade Little George's legacy. If Little George turns out to be the antiChrist, as I believe he is, "antiChrist" and "Father of Lies" will be added to his legacy. What are the chances comrade Little George will slime off the scene at the end of this year? Not good. Why? Jacob Rothschild and the Neocons can turn this world upside down but they will never find another US citizen who will break his/her Oath of Office to Protect and Defend the US Constitution more than fourth generation commune$t Little George has and does. "Violator of his Oath of Office, Destroyer of the US Constitution," may actually be the heart of comrade Little George's legacy.

What really blows my mind is the number of Republicans, in many cases a 100% of Republican members of the US Senate who violate their Oath of Office to Protect and Defend the US Constitution. It is almost as if one is a Republican and elected to Office he/she agrees to some sort of Yale type "Skull and Bones" secrete pact which gives Jacob Rothschild, the Rockefellers, and the Neocons permission to kill them if they do not vote to overthrow the US Constitution. Maybe Jacob Rothschild gives them heroine? Mind suggestion? Max Baucus has stood up against privatizing Social Security and the Neocons murder the family's beloved nephew Phillip Pat Tillman style. Too bad Max does not fight for our Constitution as hard as his nephew does. David Vitter stands up for Louisiana and the Neocons blew up a levee protecting New Orleans during Katrina and smear him. Baucus and Vitter are obviously in many cases outstanding Americans, and yet they have voted for unConstitutional bills. How can so called conservatives who say they believe in God and Christianity break their most important Oath to Protect and Defend the US Constitution? Will their spin be if they get the needle for making war on the United States, "Nobody told me making war on the USA, treason, included voting in favor of unConstitutional laws." It's your job to know. Click on picture above or click here to go to a page of New Hampshire pictures.

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law: (Violates US Constitution Amendments I & IV.)

GOP - 48-0

Dems - 12-36

To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General: 1-09-07 US Senate Confirms September 11 Co-Conspirator, Mike Mukasey, US Attorney General

GOP - 46-0

Dems - 7-40

Protect America Act : Another communi$t type anachronism. Gives control of Internet to Neocons.

GOP - 44-0

Dems - 20-28

The Military Commissions Act: Passed cowardly right before November elections in 2006 when the people were focused on the election. Gives the US President the right lock up any US citizens for any reason forever with no legal rights. Co 911 Conspirator Mike Mukasey did this with Jose Padilla.

GOP - 53-0

Dems - 12-34

To renew the Patriot Act: Original Patriot Act was passed because of Sept.11, which all thinking people know 911 is a scam and did not happen the way the 911 Commission said 911 happened. The Patriot Act had been under construction for years which logic dictates Sept.11 was planned and implemented to part to get the bill passed. Bill basically puts the American people in a communi$t police state.

GOP - 54-0

Dems - 34-10

Another major bit of US Congressional lawlessness pertains to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, and the Protect America Act, PAA. In my opinion these acts give power to some entity in our country to control the Internet. Several of my e-mails have not been sent to the e-mail list. Neocons in Internet land read my e-mail as it is in the process of being written, don't kid yourself, the technology exists for Big Brother to do this, even if you are not logged on the Internet!, and when one writes about the Federal Reserve Fraud, Jacob Rothschild, or how the Rothschilds murdered Henry Flagler and slimed into own part of our banking system, and the Neocons don't like what you have written, they merely prevent your e-mail from being sent. We know big media in the United States is controlled and is nothing more than a propaganda tool the Neocons. So logic dictates the real teeth in FISA and PAA is that they give control of the Internet to the Neocons. Neocons can not exist where truth exists. Truth is found on the Internet, so the Neocons must get rid of the truth on the Internet, and incorporate the Internet in to their coward world of lies.

Another bit of lawlessness was admitted 2-4-08 that American military forces were authorized to pursue former members of Saddam Hussein's government across iraq's borders into Iran and Syria.

More treason. The US military cannot go in to any country that the US Congress does not authorize them to go, and the US Congress has not authorized the US military to step one foot inside Syria and Iran. What we know, now, is our Executive is engaging in treason by ordering our military to enter Pakistan, Iran, and Syria, without being directed to do so by Congress. What our brave kids are dying is Executive lawlessness and treason. With the lawlessness we have in the United States are Americans expected to think a Neocon led USA will allow less lawlessness to exist in Iraq than we have in the USA. I don't think so.

We know John Negroponte has built up death squads in every country he has worked. One million people have been murdered in Iraq, many by John Negroponte death squads. communi$t$ are dumb and do the same tricks over and over and over. There are many signs John Negroponte death squads are embedded in SWAT teams in the United States. There was an article on the Internet which alluded to death squads in New York City.

Right: Massive checkpoint West of Wilmington, NC on 74/76 @ Leland Exit Friday night December 28, 2007 delays traffic 30 minutes.

Left: Interrogation, water boarding?, and holding facilities concealed as "Fire and Rescue" equipment.

Jews welcome John Negroponte's death squads in NYC, the likely spin the heavily armed police are there to protect them. Protect Jews from Jews. Make sense? Nope. John Negroponte's death squads are in training in NYC and one day logic dicates they will be used to cart Jews off to Haliburton prisons and Jacob Rothchild gas chambers.

Many Jewish people are suckers. Many Jewish people follow the buck too closely. Chasing the buck has gotten some Jewish people in trouble in the past. I can see a plan in the works to set up many Jewish people to be totally and completely Holocaust ed again. Jacob Rothschild is going to screw Jewish people. Money and power is being given to some Jewish people, probably to concentrate wealth and power among a few Jewish people. Why? Jacob Rothschild is trusted by Jews, he knows where they hide their money, all of which will make it easy for Rothschilds' and Rockefellers to steal Jewish money. We know Hitler was financed. By whom? Logic dictates Jacob Rothschild's family financed Hitler. Hitler did what his financiers told him to do. Hitler Holocaust ed Jews because he was ordered by the Rothschilds to do so. Part of the reason Jews were Holocaust ed was to give them a choice. Go to the Mid East, establish Israel, or take a shower in a Rothschild gas chamber. Another big reason for Holocaust Jews was to steal their money. Like father, like son. Jacob Rothschild or the next Rothschild in line is going to Holocaust Jews. It is not whether Rothchilds Rockefellers Holocaust Jews again, it is when. Why? Jews have the money.

There are two big scams tied to our brave soldiers in Iraq and the Mid East which can't be repeated enough. September 11 is a scam. The one picture to the left is all the proof you need. It shows bombs exploding in WTC Bldg. 7, which was not hit by a plane. Attorney General Mike Mukasey is a co conspirator of Sept. 11. The other big scam is that the Neocon directed US military in Iraq is fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein, al-Queda, and Sunni Baathist. They are communi$t$ and the Neocons are communi$t$. Why are 911 clean up workers sick and dying in NYC. The bombs that brought down the buildings were nuclear and and the clean up workers are dying of radiation poisoning. Jacob Rothschild, Liittle George, and the Neocons will never help the dying clean up workers because they don't care about human life, except their lives, and they would have to admit Sept. 11 did not happen the way Karl Rove said it happened. Why does the Neocon directed US military bomb Saddam Hussein's Baathist if they are on the same side? Why did the Rothschilds Holocaust Jews? Build Israel. The Neocon directed US military is killing Sunni, the side the side the US military is on, to get Sunni to kill our brave soldiers. Make sense? It does because if Sunni do not kill our brave soldiers the war is over. The Neocon directed US military want the United States to loose. The biggest enemy of the United States are the people in the USA who are making war on the USA - Neocons, Big and Little George, big media, Jacob Rothschild, Republican and Democrats who are members of Congress who are making war on the US Constitution. Do you know what is so cool about Thomas Jefferson and the treason clause in the US Constitution? Thomas Jefferson knew over two hundred years ago who would make war on the USA, the Rothschilds and their minions living in the USA. Mr. Jefferson figured out the Rothschild evil when he was living in France and crafted our treason clause especially for them. The good news is one day we will get to watch Jacob Rothschild and his Satanic minions, Rockefellers, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, and all the other treasonous members of Congress making war on the USA, twitch.

So where is all the lawlessness in the United States going to lead us. Russia has said if the United States puts missiles in Poland Russia will take them out. China is building their military, to the chagrin of the Neocons. China, India, and Russia want the American people to stop the Neocons. The last seven years is proof the American people cannot stop the Neocons. The American people vote against war and the US Congress funds and gives the military permission to expand the war anyway. Jocob Rothschild and the Rockefellers are banking on their ability to find enough people like themselves, people who can be bought, to make the world their communi$t fiefdom. The Bible Book of Revelations directs my thinking and actions on what is going to happen to stop the planet's incredible evil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/nyregion/02machinegun.html?_r=2&ex=1359694800&en=0190dc1754bf64b0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times
Counterterrorism teams like these city detectives armed with M-4 rifles will patrol the subways.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04rules.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Leak on Cross-Border Chases From Iraq

By ERIC SCHMITT and MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: February 4, 2008
WASHINGTON — American military forces in Iraq were authorized to pursue former members of Saddam Hussein’s government and terrorists across Iraq’s borders into Iran and Syria, according to a classified 2005 document that has been made public by an independent Web site.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/31/mukasey/index.html

Glenn Greenwald
Thursday January 31, 2008 04:08 EST
Mukasey's radical worldview is now the norm
Yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, featuring day-long testimony from Attorney General Michael Mukasey, was extraordinary for only one reason: for our country, what happened in the hearing is now completely ordinary. While Mukasey may be marginally more straightforward than Alberto Gonzales was -- more willing to conform to the procedural formalities of independence -- he is, ideologically, a clone of John Yoo and David Addington and is as much of a loyal adherent to the Bush/Cheney extremist worldview as Gonzales ever was.

Mukasey explicitly embraces the most extreme theories of presidential omnipotence and lawlessness and displays as much Cheney-ite contempt for the notion of Congressional oversight as the Vice President himself. He repeatedly endorsed patently illegal behavior -- including torture -- and refused even to pretend that he cared what the Senate thought about any of it. He even told Republican Senators that they have no right to pass a whistleblower law allowing federal employees who learn of lawbreaking to inform Congress about it, because such a law would infringe on the President's constitutional powers. In Mukasey's worldview, the President has unlimited power and Congress has none.

Why I'm for Hillary and Can't Wait for MoveOn.Org to send me another E-mail

One of my favorite expressions is, "The world has a choice, stop the racism, or die." That said, some people may say I am a racist for supporting Hillary. Actually the opposite is true. I think comrades Jacob Rothschild, Big George, Omega Agency and the Neocons are supporting Barack Obama, now, so they can direct their media to play the race card against him during the General. What they want, I don't. Big media has convinced me they are the biggest racist around, and they are not thinking about changing my opinion of them even though big media is not making fun of Obama for the time being. I don't trust them. The instant Barack Obama is given the nod by the Democrats to be their presidential candidate in the General we can expect the New York Times and USAToday to stop supporting Obama and start pointing out he is an inexperienced Muslim and fill their newspapers with their usual ethnic slurs, but then against Obama. To my mind all this big media so called support of Obama is insincere. The reason. Jacob Rothschild and the Neocons are counting on the race card to defeat Obama and keep the presidency in the hands of the Republicans. It is illogical to think the New York Times, the biggest racist newspaper in the history of the Universe, are not going to belittle Obama during the run up for the General election. Also I suspect Jacob Rothschild and the Neocons are rigging voting machines to favor Obama in the primaries and but will rig them against him in the General. Since 100% of the Republicans US Senators are making war on the USA with some of their votes, it is clear how important it is to keep presidency in Republican hands. Dean, Kerry, and the DNC are working with the GOP to make Obama the Democratic presidential candidate. Expect trust me and one party united talk. Maybe Dean, Kerry, the GOP, and the DNC want Civil War so they can put the country in a communi$t police state ruled by Martial Law, and feel Obama is the ticket.

A vote fraud twist may be in the making. Rigged machines in favor of Obama in the primaries, rigged voting machines against him in the General. This would confuse and help communi$t$' sell Diane Fienstein's s.1487, 6-19-07 Mafia Mistress, Dianne Feinstein, President Picks Who Gets Elected Bill, s. 1487 - A Constitutional Heresy

Can't you hear comrades Big George, Little George, JEB, Barbara and crew laughing over Christmas lunch and musing, "Is it more fun to kill Kennedys or use them for our agenda?"

MoveOn.org supports Obama so this tells me MoveOn.org is on the side of Jacob Rothschild and the Neocons. I can't wait until MoveOn.Org sends me another e-mail so I can list them as spam and block their e-mail from ever coming to my e-mail box again. If Move-On.Org doesn't realize Neocons are using them, then they don't have much insight, and I don't want to listen to an organization which doesn't realize its being used by the guys they say they oppose.

Asked on Super Duper Tuesday to choose between a black candidate, Barack Obama, and a white candidate, Hillary Clinton, Latinos chose both -- and neither. In a Democratic race in which the issue of race has played a definitive role, racially fluid and ambiguous Latinos delivered a loud and historic message to the candidates and pundits and to the country as a whole: the black-white electorate of yesteryear is dead.

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=28343

Top al-Qaida commander dies in Pakistan

Missile Strikes Suspected Terrorist Safehouse in Pakistan, Killing Top al-Qaida Commander

ROBERT H. REID and PAMELA HESS
AP News

Jan 31, 2008 20:27 EST

A missile from a U.S. Predator drone struck a suspected terrorist safehouse in Pakistan and killed a top al-Qaida commander believed responsible for a brazen bomb attack during a visit last year by Vice President Dick Cheney to Afghanistan, a U.S. official said Thursday.

The strike that killed Abu Laith al-Libi was conducted Monday night or early Tuesday, said the official, who would neither confirm nor deny that the U.S. carried it out. The attack was against a facility in Pakistan's north Waziristan region, the lawless tribal area bordering Afghanistan. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the strike publicly.

The killing of such a major al-Qaida figure is likely to embarrass Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, who has repeatedly said he would not sanction U.S. military action against al-Qaida members believed to be regrouping in the wild borderlands near Afghanistan.

An estimated 12 people were killed in the strike, including Arabs, Turkeman from central Asia and local Taliban members, according to an intelligence official in the area who spoke on condition of anonymity. He said the bodies of those killed were badly mangled by the force of the explosion and it was difficult to identify them.

The Predator is an unmanned aircraft developed by the CIA that can be armed with Hellfire anti-tank missiles.

The CIA first used the remotely piloted reconnaissance aircraft as a strike plane in November 2002 against six alleged al-Qaida members traveling in a vehicle in Yemen.

In January 2006, Ayman Al-Zawahri, al-Qaida's second-in-command, was the target of a missiles allegedly fired from a CIA Predator drone near Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. The terror leader was not at the site, but officials said four key al-Qaida operatives were killed.

The U.S. says al-Libi — whose name means "the Libyan" in Arabic — was likely behind the February 2007 bombing at the U.S. base at Bagram in Afghanistan during a visit by Cheney. The attack killed 23 people but Cheney was deep inside the sprawling base and was not hurt.

The bombing added to the impression that Western forces and the shaky government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai are vulnerable to assault by Taliban and al-Qaida militants.

Terrorism experts said al-Libi's death was a significant setback for al-Qaida because of his extensive ties to the Taliban, but they said the terror network would likely regroup and replace him.

"Al-Libi has been waging jihad for more than 10 years and it will be a blow to both al-Qaida and the Taliban, but not in a way that will lead to the downfall of those organizations," said Eric Rosenbach, terror expert and executive director of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School.

Pakistani officials denied any knowledge of al-Libi's death. A Web site that frequently carries announcements from militant groups said al-Libi had been "martyred with a group of his brothers in the land of Muslim Pakistan" but gave no further details.

Residents near the Pakistani town of Mir Ali in North Waziristan said they could hear U.S. Predator drones flying in the area shortly before the explosion, which destroyed the compound.

The Pakistani newspaper Dawn said the victims were buried in a local cemetery.

Rumors spread Thursday in the border area that al-Libi or his deputy died in the missile strike. But Pakistan's Interior Ministry spokesman, Javed Iqbal Cheema, insisted authorities had "no information" indicating al-Libi was dead.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he did not "have anything definitive" to say on reports of al-Libi's death.

The Libyan-born al-Libi was among the most high-profile figures in al-Qaida after its leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy al-Zawahri.

Al-Libi also led an al-Qaida training camp and appeared in a number of al-Qaida Internet videos.

In spring 2007, al-Qaida's media wing, Al-Sahab, released a video interview with a bearded man identified as al-Libi. In it, he accuses Shiite Muslims of fighting alongside American forces in Iraq, and claimed that mujahedeen would crush foreign troops in Afghanistan.

Al-Libi also led an al-Qaida training camp and appeared in a number of al-Qaida Internet videos.

He was known to maintain close ties with tribes living on the Pakistani side of the mountainous border, where U.S. officials believe al-Qaida has been regrouping.

"Al-Libi's death is a significant blow to al-Qaida the organization because he is one of the few people left in the organization who has a historical track record," said Farhana Ali, terror expert at the RAND corporation.

But, she added, "al-Qaida's strength is that it knows how to secure membership and recruitment, and because the movement will continue, al-Libi will be replaced."

A Pakistani intelligence official said that al-Libi was based near Mir Ali until late 2003 when he moved back into Afghanistan to take charge of al-Qaida operations on both sides of the border area. But he retained links with North Waziristan, the official said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

Mir Ali is the second-biggest town in North Waziristan and has a strong presence of foreign militants, mostly Uzbeks with links to al-Qaida who fled to Pakistan's tribal regions after the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001.

The 2006 Predator attack that failed to hit al-Zawahri drew criticism from Pakistan which said that the 17 killed were people from in the village of Damadola in the Bajur tribal area, about four miles inside Pakistan.

Pakistani security officials said the four top operatives were believed killed in the strike. They included Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, who the U.S. Justice Department called an explosives and poisons expert; Abu Obaidah al-Masri, the al-Qaida chief responsible for attacks on U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan; and Abdul Rehman al-Maghribi, a Moroccan and relative of al-Zawahri, possibly his son-in-law. Some of the officials also said a fourth man, Khalid Habib, the al-Qaida operations chief along the Afghan-Pakistan border, was believed to be dead.

Rosenbach said militants who rise to No. 3 al-Qaida positions, like al-Libi, are often in charge of planning operations, exposing them to capture or death. Others he named included Mohammed Atef, who was killed, and Abu Faraj al-Libbi, who was captured.

"It has to be one of the most dangerous jobs on earth. They generally don't last longer than a year — mostly because the al-Qaida chief of operations has a large 'signature' resulting from planning operations," he said. "Our intelligence has done an excellent job in tracking them down."

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=29637

ANALYSIS-US strike on Qaeda leader seen as limited success

Randall Mikkelsen
Reuters North American News Service

Feb 01, 2008 15:47 EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. success in killing a top al Qaeda operative this week showed that cooperation with Pakistan can be fruitful but security analysts said there were limits to what the present strategy can achieve.

Analysts said the unmanned Predator air strike that apparently killed Abu Laith al-Libi in a remote area of Pakistan demonstrated that the United States has the military reach and intelligence sources to carry out a precision attack on a specific target with Pakistani consent.

But U.S. participation in a ground offensive against al Qaeda strongholds along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is unlikely. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has publicly opposed it and the Pakistani military may not be able to mount effective operations deep in tribal frontier regions.

"The arrangement that appears to have been reached between the United States and Pakistan is that it's OK to cooperate on targeted strikes against al Qaeda leaders," said Seth Jones, a RAND Corp terrorism analyst who recently returned from the border region.

"But it's not OK at the moment for U.S. forces to try to clear and hold territory that is controlled by al Qaeda or al Qaeda related groups in Pakistan," he said.

Libi, whom Western officials described as a senior member of al Qaeda's global leadership and a top military commander in Afghanistan, appears to have been one of 13 foreign militants killed in Pakistan's North Waziristan border area.

An al Qaeda-linked Web site and Western authorities confirmed the death but did not discuss the circumstances. The Pentagon denied taking part in the attack. The CIA, which also flies Predator missions, declined to comment.

MANY VISITORS

The strike followed a push in recent weeks by U.S. officials to extend cooperation with Pakistan. CIA Director Michael Hayden, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell and Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. military commander in the region, all visited Pakistan last month.

It was unclear whether the strike on Libi was a direct consequence. However, Jones said, "There has been a constant communication over the last couple of months ... it's a drumbeat that's coming from Washington," that the crackdown against al Qaeda must be stepped up.

A series of plots against Western targets that have been linked to al Qaeda in Pakistan raised the sense of urgency in the United States and its NATO allies, Jones said.

He said there had been "minimal activity" in targeting al Qaeda leaders in their strongholds, partly because U.S. officials were wary of provoking more anti-Americanism within the population.

U.S. involvement has been limited to training Pakistani security forces, supplying equipment such as night vision goggles, and collecting intelligence, analysts said.

Similar Predator strikes against al Qaeda leaders have met opposition in Pakistan when civilians were killed.

Henry Crumpton, who led the CIA's operations in Afghanistan when al Qaeda and the Taliban were routed after the Sept. 11 attacks, said Pakistan has been cooperative.

But it lacks control over the region and has to reckon with the fact al Qaeda and the Taliban retain a firm hold over the border tribes, through intimidation and alliances. Pakistan's turbulent national politics has also made it more difficult for the government and military to take decisive action.

Crumpton told Reuters the strikes against al Qaeda leadership were one leg of a three-legged strategy necessary to neutralize the group's threat. The other two were removing its safe havens and addressing the region's economic and social needs to win tribal support.

"When you see progress in all three of those areas in the tribal lands, then I think you're going to see some real progress," he said in a speech earlier this month. "We cannot wait. We need to address this issue because it's getting worse, not better."

Source: Reuters North American News Service

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/01/content_7546662.htm

Pakistani minister says unable to confirm al-Qaida commander's killing

www.chinaview.cn 2008-02-01 21:33:46 Print

ISLAMABAD, Feb. 1 (Xinhua) -- Pakistani Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz Khan on Friday said the government had no information to confirm reports that a top al-Qaida operative had been killed in Pakistan, the official Associated Press of Pakistan reported.

Talking to reporters at the National Database Registration Authority headquarters here, Hamid Nawaz said the place where the explosion occurred in Mir Ali had already been cleared by militants when security personnel reached there.

"We cannot confirm al-Libi's death because the militants had removed bodies from the site where the explosion happened and the security personnel did not find any corpse," he said.

Media reports said that Abu Laith Al Libi, a senior al-Qaida commander had been killed in a missile attack in Mir Ali of North Waziristan bordering Afghanistan late Monday.

Libi was named in al-Qaida videos as a senior field commander in Afghanistan, who was suspected of involvement in a suicide bombing attack that killed 23 people outside Bagram air base in Afghanistan during a visit by Vice President of the U.S. Cheney in February 2007.

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/mayfaire/latimes99.htm

By Josh Meyer
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
U.S. won't say who killed militant
Pakistan too is mum on who launched strike on a top Al Qaeda leader.

February 2, 2008

WASHINGTON — The top U.S. military officer on Friday described the airstrike that killed a leading Al Qaeda commander in Pakistan as an important victory, but he refused to say whether the U.S. government had anything to do with it.

"The strike was a very important one, it was a very lethal one," Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon news conference. He brushed aside questions about any role the Pentagon may have played.

The CIA and the Pakistani government also refused to say who might have fired the missile or missiles that are believed to have killed Abu Laith al Libi and perhaps other Al Qaeda leaders in a small compound in northwest Pakistan this week.

The U.S. government's reluctance to take public credit for the killing of Al Libi underscores the growing tensions between the United States and Pakistan over how to attack Al Qaeda as it entrenches itself on Pakistani territory, current and former U.S. officials and other experts said.

The government in Islamabad won't allow U.S. forces onto its soil to conduct counter-terrorism missions, so Washington has resorted to airstrikes launched from across the border in Afghanistan. But despite the occasional success, few in the counter-terrorism community believe that airstrikes are enough, and some have been openly pressing for more access.

In recent weeks, Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell and CIA Director Michael V. Hayden made a trip to Pakistan to press for more cooperation from military and intelligence officials there. And Friday, Mullen said he too would be traveling to Islamabad this month to meet with Pakistani leaders, including the army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiani.

"While this particular strike was very successful, and we were very pleased with the outcome, there is still a great deal more work to do," Mullen said.

He said the U.S. remained "concerned about the safe havens" in the tribal areas near the Afghan border, a concern heightened by an increase in Al Qaeda and Taliban violence against targets in Pakistan in recent months.

"Being able to have an impact in a safe haven, I think, is an important one," Mullen said. "We're very committed to working with the Pakistanis on this."

He acknowledged that the United States was essentially powerless to do anything within Pakistan without the government's cooperation. He said he hoped to establish a personal relationship with Kiani and the rest of the Pakistani leadership and to "make sure that I understand his concerns and in fact work very hard to support them. . . . We will only do what is requested by Pakistan."

President Pervez Musharraf has maintained that Pakistani forces are capable of defeating Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other militants in the tribal areas. He has remained silent on Al Libi's death, which was announced this week on some Al Qaeda-affiliated websites.

Local officials had said about 12 people were killed in the strike late Monday or early Tuesday, most of them "foreigners" -- Arabs and Central Asians not from the area -- which fits the profile of Al Qaeda fighters in the tribal areas.

Residents had reported a missile strike on the small compound just outside the town of Mir Ali, which is considered a militant stronghold. Witnesses said they heard what they believed were Predator drones flying in the area shortly before the compound was hit.

Two Predator airstrikes were launched at suspected Al Qaeda targets, including Ayman Zawahiri, the network's second in command, in the tribal areas in 2006, but both appeared to be unsuccessful. One of them, on Jan. 13, 2006, in Damadola, sparked outrage among Pakistanis because at least 13 civilians were killed, prompting a sharp rebuke from Musharraf.

On Friday, some current and former U.S. counter-terrorism officials said Predator strikes would have little impact on Al Qaeda, especially given its increasingly strong connections to the Taliban and to tribal groups that also appear to be throwing in their lot with Osama bin Laden, or at least protecting his network out of loyalty or in return for financial compensation.

Bruce Riedel, a veteran Pakistan expert formerly with the CIA, State Department and National Security Council, said the silence surrounding who was behind the airstrike was designed to hide the fact that the U.S. was being forced to fight Al Qaeda at a distance without the full support of the Pakistani government.

"That no one seems to be responsible shows just how delicate and fragile our relationship . . . with Pakistan is," Riedel said. He said the situation in Pakistan had deteriorated significantly in recent months, and that the U.S. has grown more concerned with the spread of Taliban militants, especially since the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and given the Musharraf government's preoccupation with winning parliamentary elections this month.

"We are now seeing a huge Al Qaeda and Taliban presence in Pakistan, and a Pakistan government that is not capable of dealing with it itself, and is reeling because of its own domestic political problems, and we have to resort to fighting it indirectly through unacknowledged Predator strikes. That is far from an optimal way of going about it," said Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a centrist Washington think tank.

Lisa Curtis, who was a Pakistan expert at the CIA, the State Department and as a professional staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the silence on who launched this week's attack was understandable given that a large percentage of Pakistanis have said they oppose their government's cooperation with the United States on counter-terrorism.

"The reason the United States and the Pakistanis don't talk openly about the details is because there is a possibility of a backlash among the general population, parts of which have sympathies with the Taliban," said Curtis, a senior research fellow on South Asia issues at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

"We have to assume that there is more cooperation than Musharraf wants to discuss publicly. The Pakistanis generally want to resolve the extremist problem in other ways beyond just military operations," Curtis said, adding that Washington was cooperating with Islamabad on some of these efforts.

josh.meyer@latimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/nyregion/02machinegun.html?_r=2&ex=1359694800&en=0190dc1754bf64b0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times
Counterterrorism teams like these city detectives armed with M-4 rifles will patrol the subways.

By AL BAKER
Published: February 2, 2008
In the first counterterrorism strategy of its kind in the nation, roving teams of New York City police officers armed with automatic rifles and accompanied by bomb-sniffing dogs will patrol the city’s subway system daily, beginning next month, officials said on Friday.

Under a tactical plan called Operation Torch, the officers will board trains and patrol platforms, focusing on sites like Pennsylvania Station, Herald Square, Columbus Circle, Rockefeller Center and Times Square in Manhattan, and Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn.

Officials said the operation would begin in March.

Financing for the program will be funneled to the Police Department and will come from a pool of up to $30 million taken from $153.2 million in new federal transit grants to the state.

Michael Chertoff, the secretary of homeland security, and Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced the grants at a news conference on Friday at Grand Central Terminal, where Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly outlined his plans to add a layer of security to the city’s 24-hour transit system.

Mr. Kelly’s plan to heighten security and monitor a subway system that carries nearly five million people a day along 656 miles of tracks reflects the city’s continuing concerns about a possible attack.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, police patrols increased in the subways, particularly at the entrances to the 16 underwater tunnels. As terrorists have hit rail systems around the world, the police in New York have reacted with strategies tailored to thwart similar attacks.

For instance, after the bombings of three trains and a bus in London on July 7, 2005, police officials in New York took steps to protect the city’s subways, including random inspections of train riders’ backpacks and packages, a program that continues today.

“New York remains at the top of the terrorist target list, and mass transit remains a concern because it has been targeted many times around the world,” Mr. Kelly said in a statement released by his chief spokesman, Paul J. Browne. “There have been several thwarted plots against New York’s subway system as well.”

Each team in the operation will comprise a bomb-sniffing dog and six officers: a dog handler and a sergeant and four officers from the Emergency Service Unit who will be outfitted in heavy, bullet-resistant vests and Kevlar helmets and will carry automatic weapons, either an M-4 rifle or an MP5 submachine gun.

The officers will work in shifts of 12 hours to provide as much coverage of the subway system as possible, Mr. Browne said.

Officers with high-powered rifles have patrolled sensitive sites above ground in New York, like the Empire State Building, and have guarded subway entrances after attacks in other cities, but have never made daily patrols. .

Michael A. L. Balboni, the state’s deputy secretary for public safety, said that since May, National Guardsmen armed with automatic rifles have patrolled the platforms of the PATH train system in New York and in New Jersey.

Mr. Balboni said that having heavily armed city officers routinely patrol the subways was an important first step.

But more broadly, he said, linking security plans for the disparate rail systems in the metropolitan region was “key in securing additional funding from the Department of Homeland Security.” He said that Mr. Chertoff praised the state for collaborating across geographic regions, since transit systems in New Jersey and Connecticut would also be affected.

“Going forward, the New York metropolitan transit system is getting a $50 million increase over last year’s funding for transit security,” Mr. Balboni said. “What we did was pull together eight agencies, three states and a multitude of police agencies to come up with regional funding priorities.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/04rules.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Skip to next paragraph
Reach of War
Go to Complete Coverage The document, which was disclosed by the organization Wikileaks and which American officials said appeared authentic, outlined the rules of engagement for the American division that was based in Baghdad and central Iraq that year.

It also provided instructions for how to deal with the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr: his status as a hostile foe was “suspended,” and he and his key associates were not to be attacked except in self-defense.

Wikileaks, a Web site that encourages posting of leaked materials, says its goal in disclosing secret documents is to reveal “unethical behavior” by governments and corporations. It has previously posted the United States military’s manual for operating its prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; a military assessment of a 2004 attack in Falluja; and lists of American military equipment in Iraq.

The American military command in Baghdad on Sunday sharply criticized the group’s decision to post the document.

“While we will not comment on whether this is, in fact, an official document, we do consider the deliberate release of what Wikileaks believes to be a classified document is irresponsible and, if valid, could put U.S. military personnel at risk,” said Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, a spokesman for the command.

Rules of engagement in Iraq, which cover the procedures for using force on a battlefield in which insurgents and terrorists mix with civilians, have long been considered highly classified. The American military’s concern is that adversaries will be able to adjust their tactics if they know the rules that describe the specific circumstances in which force may and may not be used.

The 2005 document covers the procedures used by Multi-National Division Baghdad, the American unit that operated in the Iraqi capital and central Iraq. At a time when sectarian divisions had brought Iraq to a low-level civil war, the document suggests that capturing and killing former members of Mr. Hussein’s government was still a concern.

In a section on crossing international borders, the document said the permission of the American defense secretary was required before American forces could cross into or fly over Iranian or Syrian territory. Such actions, the document suggested, would probably also require the approval of President Bush.

But the document said that there were cases in which such approval was not required: when American forces were in hot pursuit of former members of Mr. Hussein’s government or terrorists.

Approval by the defense secretary “is not required to conduct uninterrupted pursuit and engagement of positively identified former regime military aircraft, terrorist and senior [former] military leadership and senior nonmilitary elements of former Iraqi regime command and control across international borders,” the document said.

It stated that the American commander engaged in the pursuit, however, should consult with top commanders in Baghdad, “time permitting.”

It is not known if the authority to conduct hot pursuits across the Iranian and Syrian borders was ever used or what authority exists today. In October 2005, The New York Times reported that there had been a series of clashes between Army Rangers and Syrian troops along the border with Iraq. According to the 2005 document, American forces were also authorized to respond to a “hostile force” that used Syrian or Iranian territory to attack American troops in Iraq or that posed an “imminent threat” to American operations there. They were instructed to consult with a senior American commander if there was time.

Apparently in a carryover from the intelligence failures of the Iraq invasion in early 2003, the document says the United States Central Command, which oversees operations in the Middle East, gave American commanders in Iraq the authority to attack mobile “W.M.D. labs”; such labs for making germ weapons were later determined not to exist.

The 2005 document also referred to a Central Command list of the “hostile forces” that may be “engaged and destroyed.” It focused heavily on Mr. Hussein’s former security forces, like the Special Republican Guard and members of the Baath Party militia that were said to have shifted from “overt conventional resistance to insurgent methods of resistance.”

Reflecting the clash the year before between American forces and Mr. Sadr’s militia, the document said the militia and other armed supporters of the cleric had also been on the list of paramilitary forces deemed to be “hostile.” L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the American occupation authority in Iraq until June 2004, had branded Mr. Sadr an outlaw, and an Iraqi judge had issued a secret warrant for his arrest.

But a truce was later worked out with Mr. Sadr, and Iraqi politicians sought to bring him into the political process. Apparently as a result of those developments, the rules of engagement were modified. Referring to Mr. Sadr and the Mahdi Army, the document says: “Their status as a declared hostile force, however, is suspended and such individuals will not be engaged except in self-defense.”

More Articles in Washington »

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/31/mukasey/index.html

And none of this is particularly surprising, given that -- as I emphasized after his nomination was announced -- Mukasey is the federal judge who, when presiding over the Padilla case in 2002, endorsed the most tyrannical and un-American power there is, when he ruled that the President even has the power to imprison U.S. citizens indefinitely, even when detained on U.S. soil, with no process of any kind -- a position he refused to repudiate during his confirmation hearing.

None of what he said yesterday is extraordinary, despite how radical and jarring it is. Mukasey repeatedly insisted that even his most lawlessness-endorsing views are within our political mainstream, and he's right about that. It's now been seven years that our country has functioned under the radical executive power theories of the Bush administration, which include the right of the President to break the law. Congress long ago decided it would do nothing about any of it, would acquiesce to it, and thus -- as was predictable and predicted -- it has all become normalized.

Yesterday's hearing was the most potent illustration we've seen of that normalization. But it was potent not because anything happened yesterday, but precisely because nothing did happen -- and nothing will.

* * * * *

All day long, in response to Mukasey's insistence that patent illegalities were legal, that Congress was basically powerless, and that the administration has no obligation to disclose anything to Congress (and will not), Senators would respond with impotent comments such as: "Well, I'd like to note my disagreement and ask you to re-consider" or "I'm disappointed with your answer and was hoping you would say something different" or "If that's your position, we'll be discussing this again at another point." They were supplicants pleading for some consideration, almost out of a sense of mercy, and both they and Mukasey knew it.

Mukasey can go and casually tell them to their faces that the President has the right to violate their laws and that Congress has no power to do anything about it. And nothing is going to happen. And everyone -- the Senators, Bush officials, the country -- knows that nothing is going to happen. There is nothing too extreme that Mukasey could say to those Senators that would prompt any consequences greater than some sighing and sorrowful expressions of disapproval. We now live in a country where the President -- and those acting at his behest (see Lewis Libby, AT&T, and Verizon)-- have the power to break the law and ignore Congress and every other aspect of government, and can do so with impunity.

Digby yesterday noted:

[CNN's] Kelli Arena says the good news is that this is a very cordial hearing, without the "apoplectic fits" one is accustomed to from this committee. I don't think Kelli has ever heard about the "banality of evil."
Arena's description was absolutely correct. It was a strikingly cordial, really quite boring, atmosphere all day. Virtually every Democratic Senator, after expressing some "disappointment" in Mukasey's answers, then proceeded to lavish him with praise, eagerly assuring him that they did not want conflict and were not attempting to be partisan or acrimonious. Mukasey would nod politely and acknowledge their pleas, assuring them that he wasn't offended by their questioning, almost embarrassed at times by how obsequious they were.

The Senators and Mukasey spoke all day long about torture with such dispassion that one would have thought it was nothing more than the latest bureaucratic HUD program. They don't even use the euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques" any more. That phrase has been so normalized that they now all know and use an abbreviation for it -- "EIT." So Senators ask questions about when "EITs" can be used and the Attorney General outlines the elusive formula he applies to determine its legality and all controversy, all passion, all intensity is completely drained out of the discussion in the U.S. Senate of our torture policies. "Torture" is now an EIT Unit.

Mukasey himself is at the extreme end of the ideological spectrum, a throwback to the pre-Comey/Goldsmith 2002 era of John Yoo. Harper's Scott Horton, who was a law partner of Mukasey's and originally endorsed his confirmation -- on the grounds that he would be more likely than other potential nominees to exhibit independence (an assessment I shared) -- had this to say after watching the hearing yesterday:

Watching Mukasey was a painful experience. . . .The Senate Judiciary Committee put Michael Mukasey to the test yesterday. And he left the hearing room as an embarrassment to those who have known and worked with him over the last twenty years, and who mistakenly touted his independence and commitment to do the right thing, come what may.
Prior to Mukasey's confirmation, Horton changed his mind about Mukasey's nomination. But Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, who single-handedly enabled Mukasey's confirmation, should be very proud.

* * * * *

I long ago stopped blaming the Bush administration -- at least exclusively -- for what has happened to our political system. They were responsible in the first instance, but the rest of the country's institutions -- its media, its Congress, the "opposition" party, even the courts -- all allowed it to happen, choosing to do nothing -- or to endorse it -- once it all began to be disclosed. It wouldn't have surprised the Founders that we would have corrupt and lawbreaking political leaders, including in the White House. The idea was that there would be numerous checks on that corruption. But when those other institutions fail, or are complicit, the fault is collective.

Consider how normalized this has all become: President Bush this week issued one of his most brazen signing statements yet, contesting the right of Congress even to exercise its spending power to bar the use of funds for permanent bases in Iraq. The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin noted that not a single journalist other than The Boston Globe's indefatigable Charlie Savage even reported on this event. As Froomkin said:

The overall message to Congress was clear: I'm not bound by your laws. . . . But it's Bush's cavalier dismissal of the ban on funding for permanent military bases that really speaks volumes -- not just about his view of the role of the legislative branch, but also about his intentions for Iraq. . . . Looking for a news story about all this in your morning paper? You won't find one in The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times or the Wall Street Journal.
In one sense, I understand Froomkin's indignance. It ought to be newsworthy, to put it mildly, when the President announces that he has the power to violate the law at will. But in another sense, it's not really newsworthy any longer. It's been going on for years and we've chosen to do nothing about it. We have a Government where the President is not bound by the law, and it is just as simple as that.

Almost two years ago, my book on Bush's executive power theories, How Would a Patriot Act?, was published, written immediately after disclosure of the President's illegal spying programs, and in it I wrote:

Our basic system of constitutional liberties is at risk. I say that because we are a country in which the president has said -- expressly and repeatedly -- that he has the power to act without restraints, including the power to break the law. He has not only claimed these powers but has exercised them repeatedly over the course of several years. And he still has more than two and a half years left in office. . . .

The series of controversies over the last five years involving radical and extreme government actions -- from the use of torture to illegal eavesdropping to the lawless detention of U.S. citizens -- cannot be viewed in isolation. They are but the symptoms -- the ones we have learned about thus far -- of a crisis in this country brought about by the fact that the president of the United States believes he has the power to act without restraint and to break the law. . . . What we have in our federal government are not individual acts of lawbreaking or isolated scandals of illegality, but instead a culture and an ideology of lawlessness. . . .

Whether we become a country in which the president can exercise unlimited power -- whether we will fundamentally change the type of nation we are -- will be determined by whether we allow this behavior to continue.

We have allowed it to continue, and now these "theories" are ones which people who are considered to be "reasonable," squarely within our political mainstream, can openly espouse -- just as Mukasey repeatedly pointed out yesterday. We live in a system of government where the President seized the power to act without restraints and we allowed that to happen, and so Bush's signing statement and Mukasey's defiant posture are all now normal.

* * * * *

This is why Congress, when they learn of Bush lawbreaking, ends up doing nothing other than voting after the fact to legalize it. They learn Bush has been illegally spying on Americans with no warrants and they enact The Protect America Act to legalize it. They learn Bush has been systematically torturing detainees and imprisoning people with no process and they enact the Military Commissions Act to legalize it.

They learn that telecoms have deliberately broken the law for years -- laws which the Congress passed specifically to make it illegal for telecoms to cooperate with warrantless government spying on Americans -- and they are about to provide full retroactive immunity for the lawbreakers. When they do pretend to investigate, they meekly allow the administration literally to ignore their Subpoeans. Congress does that because we live in a system of lawlessness -- we have decided that the President has the power to break the law without consequences -- and because legalizing the President's lawbreaking is the only way they can be relevant.

I recall watching a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing back in 2002 -- by which time it was evident that the administration was intent on invading Iraq. Joe Biden, the Committee's Chairman, was practically begging the administration to allow Congress to vote to authorize the invasion. Biden knew that Bush would invade Iraq regardless of whether there was Congressional authority, and so he pleaded with the administration to recognize that there was no need to proceed without a vote since, Biden promised, Congress would vote for the war.

Biden begged the administration to realize that it would be a Better War if Congress was permitted ceremoniously to endorse it. That's the only reason the administration sought a vote -- because Congress promised ahead of time that they would give the administration everything it wanted. That has become Congress' only role, its only power: to endorse what the President decrees. Like the sad, impotent Roman Senate which existed only to lend its imprimatur to the Emperor's conduct, the Congress' only choices are -- as it did yesterday -- to plead for "re-consideration," and then, when it's not forthcoming, either do nothing or endorse the President's behavior.

The Bush administration will be gone in 11 months, but -- in the absence of some meaningful accountability -- all of this will remain. It remains to be seen whether, if there is a Democrat in the White House, any of these trends will be reversed (their two leading candidates are expressing opposition to most of these theories). Even if they are, eight years is a long time, and if we simply allow Bush to serve out the remainder of his term and have these theories remain undisturbed and unchallenged, and have all of these crimes go uninvestigated and unpunished, that will have an even more profound impact on changing our national character, in further transforming the type of country we are.

-- Glenn Greenwald

The least dangerous least expensive way to stop the Federal Reserve Fraud and the bad guys is contribute to Randy Crow - Democrat for President.