Showing posts with label investigation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label investigation. Show all posts

February 12, 2011

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.

gdaeman_scroll_small

July 19, 2010

Fitzgerald "Irony" or "poke-in-the-eye"?

Back in late 2008, the most popular question posed on President-Elect Obama's Change-dot-Gov web-Question Box, in 'round 2, came from Bob Fertik, of New York City, which read:

Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor (ideally Patrick Fitzgerald) to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?

According to the July/August 2010 Mother Jones magazine, Fitzgerald has been assigned to investigate the CIA and torture. Unfortunately, the investigation is targeted not at the torturers, but at human rights investigators whose trails led them to CIA operatives.

You see, if, as a human rights attorney, your trail leads you to CIA personnel, and you put pictures of them in photo line-ups for your torture-victim clients to identify... then maybe you're exposing the identity CIA personnel even if you don't expose the person's name. Yes, as predicted by George Orwell and others, it's a wicked web that has been woven by the powers-that-be.

But it strikes me... is this simply irony that Fitzgerald would be given this assignment, or is it a poke-in-the-eye of the people calling for a full investigation of the US torture activities?

Sources:

Mother Jones Magazine, July/Aug. 2010.

gdaeman_scroll_small

March 2, 2010

Noose Tightening for Tony Blair

It might be true that Britain's Chilcot investigation is toothless, but such inquiries can take on a life of their own. On March 2, The Independent of the UK ran the headline:


An invasion of Iraq was discussed within the Government more than two years before military action was taken – with the Foreign Office warning that an invasion would be illegal...

Secret Foreign Office strategy papers drawn up by senior civil servants at the end of 2000 have been obtained by this newspaper and are published for the first time today. The Iraq: future strategy document considers options for dealing with the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The document also calls into question Mr Blair's claim that using troops to bring down Saddam Hussein was only discussed after the 9/11 terror attacks on New York – and will increase pressure on the inquiry to call Mr Blair back to give further public evidence this summer.

At some point facts emerge that are an existential threat to a government's legitimacy. The potential loss of legitimacy forces the government into an inescapable calculus: Is it worse for the entire government to loose its legitimacy or is it worse to throw a former Prime minister under the bus? The calculus is easy, Tony Blair must be sacrificed for the greater good, for the stability of society that depends on preserving the legitimacy of the government.

Sources:

Credit to Ten Percent for drawing this to my attention.

The Independent UK, "Blair warned in 2000 Iraq war was illegal: Secret papers withheld by Chilcot inquiry reveal Foreign Office fears over invasion," March 2, 2010.

By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent

gdaeman_scroll_small

September 19, 2009

GDAE Podcast - Episode 18

American Exceptionalism
  • Exploring "American Exceptionalism" with journalism professor Robert Jensen
  • MUSIC: "If I had a Rocket Launcher," by Ryan Harvey
  • Recession Vs Depression
  • Worse than 1930s Depression? Insights from Nixon advisor Kevin Phillips
  • Prosecuting Bush Officials: Rogue CIA Agents who went beyond the torture memos.

Play GDAE Podcast Episode 18 from this page.

Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:

GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

GDAE Podcast Episode 17 August 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 16 July 30, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 15 June 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 14 June 10, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 13 May 22, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 12May 5, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 9 March 28, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009

gdaeman_scroll_small

August 19, 2008

Target the Insider Democrats

Here is one perspective on why the Democrat Party leadership is giving George W. Bush a pass on his numerous crimes, and a strategy for doing something about it.

1. A small number of Democrats, in key leadership positions, were privy to classified briefings prior to the Iraq war. They were also informed, in advance, of Bush's warrantless domestic spying program and a number of other constitutional abuses.

2. Many of these abuses are felony crimes, which can be prosecuted outside of the congressional impeachment process. [See footnote on Vincent Bugliosi, author of "The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder."]

3. As witnesses with advanced knowledge, these insider Democrats might be legally liable for "tacit approval" of the Bush administration's crimes. Short of that, this hand full of Democrats are at risk to potential career-ending shame if the details of the Bush administration crimes get out.

4. Most of these same Democrat party leaders continue to control the Congressional agenda, including whether or not the Bush administration will be investigated. Most famously, one of them, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, says no, "Impeachment is off the table."

5. The logic suggests that this small number of insider Democrats might be the blocking investigation of Bush due to fear of their own implication if the details were to come out.

6. If this small number of insider Democrats are blocking the investigation, then their removal from power would greatly increase the prospect of learning the details of Bush's crimes.

7. This suggests a political strategy. All of these Democrat insiders should be targeted for removal from office; it's a small group, therefore, the possibility of succeeding in their removal is within reason.

8. Cindy Shehan is an example of this strategy playing out. She is running against Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

9. Targets for removal include:
Jane Harmon (D-CA) the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee,
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee,
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Minority Leader
Harry Reid (D-NV), Senate Minority Leader

Notes:

As an aside, Vincent Bugliosi has laid out a solid case that Bush, Rice and Cheney (maybe even Rove) are likely guilty of capital murder. The mock cross examination of Bush, who has to take the stand or looks guilty, is perhaps the best part of the book. Imagine the prosecutor's line of questioning leading Bush down a dangerous verbal path from which there is no escape... high pitched courtroom drama.

gdaeman_scroll_small

February 7, 2008

Mukasey: We Cannot Indict Ourselves for Waterboarding


Orwell would say, "I told you so."

Attorney General Mukasey explains why his department cannot initiate a criminal probe of waterboarding:
Waterboarding, because it was authorized to be part of a program ... cannot possibly be the subject of a Justice Department investigation,

OK, then we need a higher authority than the Department of Justice to do the investigation. Now we know another reason the dark side doesn't want to be part of the international court.

We've heard of "Justice delayed is justice denied." In this case, it's simply "justice denied."

Sources:

Washingon Post, Mukasey Rejects Criminal Probe into Waterboarding, February 7, 2008.
W

June 24, 2007

Tim Griffin Investigation Requested

In December 2006, Timothy Griffin was named interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin replaced Bud Cummins, one of the controversial eight fired US Attorneys. Griffin was a Republican political operative who worked closely with Karl Rove. On June 1, 2007, Tim Griffin resigned as his central role in a plot to suppress votes unraveled.

Now US Senators Kennedy and Whitehouse have asked the Justice Department to initiate a formal investigation. According to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the investigation request covers four separate issues (See Press Release and Full text of Request):

1. Did voter caging take place to suppress Democratic voters? There is evidence that this tactic was employed by the Republican Party in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

2. What was Timothy Griffin's role in the voter caging? There is substantial evidence that Griffin led the plot under the direction of Bush's brain, Karl Rove.

3. How was Timothy Griffin cleared, or vetted, to become an interim US attorney, given the serious allegations that he might have been involved in criminal conduct?

4. When the allegations surfaced within the Justice Department, why was the matter not referred to the relevant authorities for evaluation and potential action?

Contact the US Justice Department: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Direct your request to Glenn A. Fine, Inspector General. Urge the Inspector General to conduct a thorough investigation into the request made on June 18, 2006, by Senators Kennedy and Whitehouse, into "Voter Suppression Allegations" and the potential role of Timothy Griffin.

Sources:

Ring of Fire interview with Sheldon Whitehouse, June 23, 2007.

Press Release and Letter from US Senators Kennedy and Whitehouse to Attorney General Gonzalez requesting an investigation into voter suppression, June 18, 2007.