AP Removes Reference to "Establishment" from Musharraf Article

I recently emailed an AP article to myself on the subject of former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf being linked to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. I was particularly interested in the following reference describing a United Nations investigation of Bhutto's killing:

The U.N. officials were not tasked with finding out who the exact culprits behind the killing were. But they identified two main threats facing Bhutto — Islamist extremists like al-Qaida and the Taliban who opposed her links to the West and secular outlook, and members of the "Pakistani Establishment," the term used locally to refer to a powerful and shady network of military, intelligence, political and business leaders said to actually control the country.

When I went back to the article the reference was gone. Of course, Musharraf was part of that "establishment." Not to loose the main point of my interest, we in the United States have our own "establishment" that strongly influences both major political parties.

It's been a preoccupation of mine very recently; as Egypt was ousting Mubarak a gnawing thought kept surfacing. The ouster of Mubarak doesn't really matter unless they also challenge the broader establishment's hold on power.

Something else that was removed from the AP article was a reference to Baitullah Mehsud, the late leader of the Pakistani Taliban:

"A joint investigation team in its report to the court has found Musharraf guilty of being involved in the conspiracy and abetting to kill Benazir Bhutto," said Zulfikar Ali Chaudhry, the lead prosecutor.

He said the probe has evidence that Musharraf was "completely involved" through Baitullah Mehsud, the late leader of the Pakistani Taliban, and that prosecutors are seeking a murder trial. He did not elaborate.

Musharraf has always denied any role in Bhutto's death and scoffed at critics who said he did not do enough to protect her. Mehsud, who was killed in a U.S. missile strike in 2009, also denied targeting Bhutto.

It struck me as convenient that Mehsud is no longer around to testify.

I found the full original article saved elsewhere (February 12, 2011):

ISLAMABAD (AP) — A Pakistani court issued an arrest warrant Saturday for former President Pervez Musharraf in connection with the assassination of ex-premier Benazir Bhutto, while government investigators accused the retired general of involvement in the slaying.

Though he does not yet face any charges, the developments mark a major escalation of legal troubles for Musharraf, a one-time U.S. ally who went into self-exile in Britain in 2008 after being forced out of the presidency he secured in a 1999 military coup.

The accusations of a role in Bhutto's death were leveled by a government now run by Musharaff's rivals. They make it nearly impossible for him to fulfill pleges to return to Pakistan and lead a new political party.

Bhutto was killed Dec. 27, 2007, in a gun and suicide bomb attack after returning to Pakistan to campaign in elections Musharraf agreed to allow after months of domestic and international pressure. Musharraf blamed the Pakistani Taliban, an al-Qaida affiliated group, for the attack, but government prosecutors now allege he was part of the plot to kill the popular former premier.

"A joint investigation team in its report to the court has found Musharraf guilty of being involved in the conspiracy and abetting to kill Benazir Bhutto," said Zulfikar Ali Chaudhry, the lead prosecutor.

He said the probe has evidence that Musharraf was "completely involved" through Baitullah Mehsud, the late leader of the Pakistani Taliban, and that prosecutors are seeking a murder trial. He did not elaborate.

Musharraf has always denied any role in Bhutto's death and scoffed at critics who said he did not do enough to protect her. Mehsud, who was killed in a U.S. missile strike in 2009, also denied targeting Bhutto.

Musharraf's lawyer, Mohammad Ali Saif, said his client was innocent of any allegations but had no plans to contest them in court, where he's been ordered to appear on Feb. 19.

"This is just a drama. It is all politics," Saif told The Associated Press. He said Pakistani investigators never tried to reach Musharraf about the case, whose proceedings are closed to the public.

The new accusations and arrest warrant stem from a case against two security officials accused of being derelict in their duties to protect Bhutto. Musharraf has not been indicted, but the court is conducting preliminary hearings about the accusations against him, and he will have an opportunity to defend himself.

A U.N. investigation into the assassination said Musharraf's government didn't do enough to ensure Bhutto's security and criticized steps taken by investigators after her death, including hosing down the crime scene and failing to perform an autopsy.

The U.N. officials were not tasked with finding out who the exact culprits behind the killing were. But they identified two main threats facing Bhutto — Islamist extremists like al-Qaida and the Taliban who opposed her links to the West and secular outlook, and members of the "Pakistani Establishment," the term used locally to refer to a powerful and shady network of military, intelligence, political and business leaders said to actually control the country.

After her death, Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party rode a wave of public sympathy to garner the most seats in the February 2008 elections. Months later, the party forced Musharraf to quit the presidency by threatening impeachment. He later left for London, and has since spent a good deal of time on the lecture circuit, including in the United States.

Britain does not have an extradition treaty with Pakistan, but the British government can decide to extradite those accused of crimes on a case by case basis.

Federal Information Minister Firdous Ashiq Awan said if the court requests it, the government will contact Interpol about bringing Musharraf in.

The U.S. backed Musharraf for much of his military rule because he was, at least officially, an ally in the American-led war on global terrorism, and provided Washington assistance in pursuing militants who used Pakistan's soil as a hideout to prepare attacks in neighboring Afghanistan.

But many in Pakistan resented his alliance with the U.S., and his domestic missteps, including attempts to fire the chief justice of the Supreme Court, pummeled his popularity, leading to mass protests that ultimately forced Musharraf to bend and allow fresh elections.

The new Pakistani president and head of the ruling People's Party is Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto's widower. He also supports the U.S. and has backed offensives against militants on Pakistani territory.

Also Saturday, a man detonated explosives as army troops prepared to storm his hideout in northwest Pakistan, killing himself and wounding at least three soldiers, a senior army official said.

The blast occurred outside the town of Bhat Khela in Khyber Pakhtunkwa province after troops acting on a tip from residents surrounded a militant hideout, Brig. Saeed Ullah said. Soldiers killed a second militant in the shootout that followed the explosion.

Ullah said security forces detained five men from the area on suspicion of sheltering the militants, who he said were planning a suicide attack in the Swat Valley. Bhat Khela is located about 30 miles (50 kilometers) west of Mingora, the main town in Swat.

The Pakistani army launched a major anti-Taliban offensive in 2009 in Swat, a one-time tourist haven largely overrun by militants beginning in 2007.

Though the monthslong offensive was hailed a success, militant activity is still reported in the picturesque region and concerns are growing that the insurgents could rise again.

Originally published on Challenge the Establishment Blog.

US Dollar Glory Days are Waning

Well, we knew it was coming

Economics Nobel laureate Dr Joseph Stiglitz called for a fundamental change of the world economic order by creating a new global reserve system and new multilateral institutions to restore the global economy.

The system is broken, evidenced by an elephant in the room:

“It's clearly a very strange global economic phenomenon that the global economic system requires the richest country to consume beyond its means to keep the global economy growing.”

Stiglitz points out additional evidence of the failed corporate free market economic system:

“Growing economic inequality means that we are moving money and assets from those who can spend it at the bottom to those who cannot spend it at the top. We told the people in the bottom to consume and kept lending to them.”

He went on to emphasize that the growing inequality “is not just in the US but in most of the countries in the world.” The abundance of empty houses and homeless people in the US and the problem of poverty and massive unemployment in developing countries show “the system of bringing together supply and demand is not working”, which is “a fundamental problem [that] needs to be addressed.”

Stiglitz is not alone in his call. He led a United Nations Commission of Experts to study the world financial crisis, which issued it's draft recommendations on March 26, 2009. A final report is due in May, 2009, which will serve as an input for the United Nations conference on the financial crisis in June.

The Commission's central recommendation, according to Stiglitz is....

The central idea is that the current system of depending on a single currency and the political and economic management of that currency is volatile.... It’s a matter of moving to multiple currencies. Over time you would replace the dollar as a reserve currency. No one thinks it would happen overnight.

The international decision making body on economic policy would also change. It has been the Group of Seven (G7) nations, but recently that has shifted to the G20 nations, recognizing the reality of a shift in the wealth. But that may be short lived if the Stiglitz Commission's ideas prevail, as described in this interview exchange:

Q – You are also proposing replacing the G20 with a United Nations body. What’s this all about?

A – We are calling for a Global Economic Coordination Council. There is no rhyme or reason to the current system other than who President Bush invited to it. The new body would have more political legitimacy and a broader mandate. It could demand, for instance, that the World Bank and the IMF report to it and evaluate how they are performing.

Q – Why not fix the G20 rather than creating a new body? Is what you propose likely to happen?

A – Yes. [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel is strongly pushing the idea. People in the G20 are saying this is how we need to go.

There would also be a move to break-up and prevent "too-big-to-fail" corporations.

Further, a financial regulatory board and competition authority – which would both answer to the Coordination Council – could prevent the expansion of multi-national firms that threaten competition or become problematic when they become too big to fail, the experts said.

Get ready for the value of the dollar to drop. Inflation is on the way.

Psssst... Do Something

• Contact the Broadcast Media
  
• Contact the Newspapers
  
• Contact the US Senate
  
• Contact the House of Representatives

Sources:

Stiglitz Calls for a Change of the World Economic Order and China's Vital Role, Leanne Wang, March 17, 2009.

Business Week, The Oil and Glory interview: Joseph Stiglitz, March 25, 2009.

United Nations, Global finance structures must be revamped, says UN expert panel, March 26, 2009.



UN Expert Commission on Global Financial Crisis Releases Draft Recommendations, March 26, 2009.

Global Climate Change Accelerating

I'm debating with myself. Will George Bush go down in history as a war criminal or global climate change criminal? Perhaps both, but certainly the latter. People in the future might forget the wars, and Bush might escape prosecution on war crimes, but they will be living the global climate disaster.

When I read that scientists have concluded global warming is accelerating my thought was, "This means they are VERY certain about global warming." That comes from my physics background; detecting "acceleration" means you already know something about the velocity of the trend. By analogy, it's one thing to see a car is moving in a particular direction at some velocity, but it's more difficult to tell that it's picking up speed. Scientists have apparently confirmed the latter.

Bush's White House is just grasping the fact that the car is moving in the direction of climate change. I doubt they appreciate the fact that it's picking up speed.

The Associated Press writes, "Sharon Hays, a White House science official and head of the U.S. delegation, said the certainty of climate change was clearer now than when Bush rejected Kyoto." Hays said,

What's changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening.... Back in 2001 the IPCC report said it is likely that humans were having an impact on the climate...

The AP adds, "but confidence in human responsibility had increased since then."

Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate change official, recently said,

What's new is the clarity of the signal, how clear the scientific message is ... "The politicians have no excuse not to act.

To toss in another physics concept, the trend in global warming has inertia, which means, even if the foot is eased, the car will simply drop to a constant velocity (we'll keep getting warmer); even if the foot is taken off the gas pedal and the car slows down, it will keep going in the same direction (getting warmer); even if the brakes are applied, it will keep going in the same direction (getting warmer). Inertia.

Actually, the point about inertia isn't new, but it is news in the corporate media. This was known in the mid-1990s when I was grad school. There's a physical reason for it. As the earth warms, and the northern regions locked in permafrost get soggy, the frozen organic matter is subject to bacteria decay and gives off methane, a greenhouse gas that's at least ten-times as efficient as carbon dioxide in trapping solar radiation in the earth's changing atmosphere. As the earth warms, and permafrost melts, more of this gas is released, thereby generating more gas, leading to more warming in a positive feedback process. Inertia

In theory, this process could spin out of control, that is, lead to the "runaway greenhouse effect." It's called "runaway" because it runs away from human control to do anything about it. It could lead to the total demise of the Earth.

The sick reality is that the Bush crony capitalists, like Blackwater World Wide, are positioning themselves to profit from this emerging disaster. I've not read Naomi Klein's recent book on disaster capitalism, but I'd have to guess it touches on this topic. If not, her paperback version of The Shock Doctrine should.

Sources:

Associated Press, UN panel gives dire warming forecast, ARTHUR MAX, November 17, 2007.

Why Did Saddam Hussein say "No" to Weapons Inspectors?

Actually, at the end, the inspectors weren't "kicked out" by Saddam Hussein. They left in advance of the pending US assault.

But earlier, Hussein had said no. Why? Because he was hiding something? Mel Goodman, a 24-year veteran as a CIA analyst on the Soviet Union, with 18 years experience on the faculty of the National War College, gives us a good clue why Hussein resisted the inspectors:

... you have to realize that the best source of intelligence that the CIA had, was the fact that they had operational people on the United Nations inspector teams. They had a significant number in every round of inspection. And they were there to collect intelligence, not only in terms of WMD, but on Saddam Hussein, and on a variety of Iraqi chiefs.

When the UN inspectors left, and tried to get back in after Desert Fox, the Clinton bombing attack on Iraq in 1998, Saddam Hussein said no.

Sources:

No Quarter Blog, May 24, 2007. The transcript is to appear in the in the May 25, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Haiti: War on the Poor

What's happening in Haiti? Most don't care. But I had to say something.

It's a story repeated in many small countries. A wealthy minority is threatended by the poor masses, who have majority-rule democracy on their side. This well-connected minority convinces the well-connected minority of the U.S. that it's in their national interest to repress the poor masses. It's not hard to imagine their argument:

You can't have a bunch of unruley masses taking over and allowing a safe haven for terriorists, can you? Furthermore, "these people" don't understand the economic principles of the free market. They don't realize it's for their own good. They will undermine decades of investment in the institutions of trade liberalization. The very fabric of globalization is thretened here. Yes, this is a small country, but if they get a foothold here, it will spread.

This is the unreported story of Haiti. Haiti is a battle ground for the real war that's being waged in the world. It translates into a war on the poor, albeit, it's more nuanced than a simple class war. However, the corporate mass media fails to tell this story.

Instead, the mass media follow a predictable, superficial narrative. One-time popular leader becomes corrupt, looses popular support, a crisis develops, the leader flees to avoid a bloodbath. No mention of US-backed destabilization program to create the crisis. No mention of provocations that help create justifications. The notion of a slow-motion coup is too complex for the mainstream media to grasp, in part because of reporter down-sizing as part of the on-going media consolidation.

Now we're being told by mainstream media that the United Nations Peace Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) are conducting operations in the slums of Citè Soliel to pacify "gangs." Surely there are gangs in the slums of Citè Soliel, some are committing violent acts. They are desperate. Have they been pushed to desperation? It's a tried-and-true tactic to provoke a response and then point at the reponse as justification for violent oppression.

But, what about the organized criminals that operate on a national level, with what appears to be the complicity of elements of the interim government? What about the death squads of the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (FRAPH), founded by Emmanuel 'Toto' Constant, who claimed to be on the CIA payroll when he created FRAPH. What about Lame Ti Manchèt (the Little Machete Army). This civilian vigilante group is reported, by residents of Martissant in southern Port-au-Prince, to be responsible for the killing of freelance photojournalist Jean-Rémy Badio on January 19, 2006.[1]

Mainstream media reports have painted a simplistic picture of Lame Ti Manchèt being a "rival gang" in conflict with Baz Gran Ravin (Big Ravine Base), a group that has served a self-defense function in Martissant.[1] These reports generally fail to mention the relations that Lame Ti Manchèt have with elements in the Hatian National Police (NHP), who have their own human rights abuse problems.[2] Amnesty International describes a July 2006 massacre by Lame Ti Manchèt in the Grand Ravine neighborhood in which hundreds of homes were burned and women and children killed. These were followed by an August 20, 2006 attack at a soccer game by Lame Ti Manchèt and police killing 20 people, and an August 21, 2006 attack on Grand Ravine in which the home of Bruner Esterne, President of the Grand Ravine Community Council for Human Rights, was burned. On 21 September 2006, Bruner Esterne was killed by unknown individuals. [3]

United Nations: Enforcers of Mainstream Narrative:

The international community backed the slow-motion coup of Hatian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The US and France wanted it, and the rest of the world didn't car, surely having more immediate issues to deal with. Enter the in United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), at the request of the international community. It shouldn't come as a surprise that MINUSTAH has become an arm of the mainstream narrative.

So, we're hearing of MINUSTAH members attacking journalists, and being involved in chaotic attacks in poor neighborhoods.

The UN mission in Haiti seems to be unraveling. This is exemplified by reports of UN cover-ups of "massacres" and disproportionate use of force. UN Special Representative, Edmund Mulet, denied the UN fired from helicopters into Cite Soleil at a press conference in Washington, D.C. on January 31, 2007. Mulet said, "We never shot from a helicopter – never. We had one helicopter with a camera taking pictures and following the operation, but we never shoot from helicopters. We never use heavy artillery either.” [4]

This was contradicted by Medical Doctor John Carroll in an inteview with Pacifica Radio program Flashpoints.[5]

Medical Doctor Dr. John Carrol [using an internet phone connection]: I spoke with the mother, she was 48, I’ll call her Immacula, and a couple of daughters. And what happened, according to this family, is that [United Nations] MINUSTAH helicopters circled for about three hours above their home, above the neighborhood in Sole’ 17 … and they shot down for at least three hours over the area. As I looked up I could see about a twelve-inch hole in their roof on the right hand side of where I was standing, and then there were smaller holes on the left hand side.

She had, Immacula had three daughters a 19-year old, a 15-year old and a 17-year old. The 19-year old was hurt the worst. They all dove under their beds and did the best get out of the gun fire. The 19-year old was shot in the left shoulder and the left chest, was hospitalized at St. Catherine’s hospital about a mile down the road in Cite’ Soleil. The 15-year old girl was, ah took a shot to the left side of the head, I would call it shrapnel, the left side of her head was still shaved when I examined her and the shrapnel had been removed, she was OK. The 17-year old, ah what I’m calling shrapnel, in the mid right leg, which would be the tubual [?] area, and that wound was also uninfected.

I did check the 19-year old girl, the daughter that was injured the most, after she was released from a hospital. And I say “a hospital” because she was transferred from St. Catherine’s to another hospital and then I saw her in clinic. She’s psychologically very wounded, she’s very afraid. There’s a large scar on her left shoulder, her left arm was not working like it should from the neurological standpoint. There was also a bullet wound on the left side of her chest and on the dosum, which is the back of the right hand. But she’s alive, all the girls were alive. They’re very scared and the people in Sole are very scared.

Dennis Bernstein: You’re documenting and saying now that the United Nations flew over head of Cite’ Soleil and were firing on and off for some three hours. Is it your understanding, based on your own personal examinations that these people were shot from the air? [break up] Doctor Carrol?

Dr. Carrol: Dennis I lost you for a second.

Dennis Bernstein: Dr. Carrol, let me repeat my question because it’s crucial, be cause what we’re doing here is essentially we’re documenting a situation where the United Nations lied to the World. So, let me ask you again. Are you saying, based on your examinations as a medical doctor and your interviews that you confirm that the United Nations is lying and that these people were shot from the air.

Dr. Carrol: That’s correct. Your question is cut up quite a bit by the internet, but ah, the family stated, as I stated, that the helicopter from MINUSTAH, the United Nations, circled overhead and shot down. I saw the holes in the roofs and I saw the holes in the patients. Go ahead.

So again, just to confirm, based on your examination as a medial doctor, you confirm that the United Nations is lying when they say that they did not use a helicopter gun ship on this very poor community.

Dr. Carrol: That would be my assessment. That would be my impression, ah based on what I saw in their home, ah with the holes in the roof, with the holes in the children, ah and on the interview. I don’t know what more to say.

Sources:

[1] Jeb Sprague, January 27, 2007, Lame Ti Manchèt accused of role in killing of Photojournalist

[2] William G. O'Neill, Haiti Insight Volume 7, No. 3, National Coalition for Hatian Rights, The Haitian National Police: A Mixed Record

[3] Amnesty International, September 28, 2006. Activist’s killing shows need for disarmament programme

[4] Haiti Information Project (This is a fairly weak citation).

[5] Februray 7, 2007, Flashpoints Radio, Interview with Dr. John Carroll