Thursday, November 24, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Occupy Congress!
Home | Headline Tags: Palin | Congress | Entrenched | Corruption
"Sarah Palin: Congress Rife With 'Entrenched Corruption'
"Friday, 18 Nov 2011 06:21 PM
"By David A. Patten
"Former Alaska governor and GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin blasted rampant corruption in the marbled halls of Congress Friday, calling it an “endemic problem” affecting both parties.
“The only solution to entrenched corruption is sudden and relentless reform,” she wrote.
"Palin’s remarks came in an op-ed column in The Wall Street Journal, in response to revelations this week that Congress has exempted itself from the prohibitions against insider trading that all other Americans are subject to.
"Under current law, members of Congress are free to profit off of equity swings tied to pending legislative actions decisions they are privy to as members of Congress.
"The Center for Responsive Politics has determined that 47 percent of all members of Congress are millionaires. This compares to about 1 percent of the population generally.
“How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires?” Palin asks in her column. “How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians’ stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge fund managers?”
"Palin’s answer: “Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.”
"Special exemptions that Congress has written for itself to insider trading and other laws have come under intense scrutiny this week, in part due to the illuminating new book by Hoover fellow Peter Schweizer titled: “Throw Them All Out.”
“The very idea that politicians trade stocks while they are considering major bills comes as a shock to many people, but it is standard practice in Washington,” Schweizer writes in the book. As to Palin’s WSJ column, he tells Newsmax: “Governor Palin understands how Washington works and the battle that needs to be fought.”
A CBS 60 Minutes expose on Sunday highlighted trades made by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and by Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., chairman of the House Financial Services committee.
"Schweizer said Bachus received private briefings in 2008 from the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve warning that the financial system was about to implode. He then made a series of investments that would generate profits as the market tanked. Bachus disputes Schweizer’s allegations, however.
"Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, also has denied making any inappropriate investments. Sources say Pelosi and husband Paul, an investor, bought stock in Visa when the House was considering a bill that would limit credit card companies’ ability to levy fees on consumers -- a significant source of their revenues. In response, Pelosi has touted her record as a champion of pro-consumer reforms.
"Among the “money-making opportunities” for members of Congress Palin exposes in her column:
"Insider Trading – using government information not available to the public at large to predict which companies’ stocks will rise or fall.
IPO Gifts – While it is illegal for members of Congress to accept cash gifts from interested parties, there is no restriction on their being offered initial public offerings in firms, which can be very profitable.
Self-Serving Earmarks – Some members of Congress have submitted infrastructure earmark requests for their districts that appeared to increase their value of their real estate holdings.
"Encouraging Campaign Donations – Palin calls this “subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry.”
"Palin wrote that the revelations don’t surprise her, owing to her experience fighting cronyism as governor of Alaska. She said that Congress has largely exempted itself from compliance with the Freedom of Information Act used to obtain public documents. Also, unlike other government officials, members of Congress can punish staff members who expose abuses with impunity, because they aren’t subject to whistleblower laws, she said.
"Palin called for “real transparency."
“From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest, and insider trading laws,” wrote Palin. “Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it.”
"On Tuesday, GOP Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts filed a bill to make it illegal for members of Congress or their staffs to disclose information or make investments related to pending legislation based on nonpublic government knowledge.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Sarah Palin: Congress Rife With 'Entrenched Corruption'"
I agree with Hoover fellow Peter Schweizer: "Throw Them All Out.” But you may say "only a millionaire knows how I feel on the issues". Balderdash! Most people feel the same on the issues. Just because a person is not a millionaire does not mean that they are not qualified to be a Congressman. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a person must be a millionaire in order to qualify as a Congressman. My position is that I would vote in the best interest of ordinary people. I guess, by one definition, that makes me a populist. Is your Congressman a populist? Does your Congressman vote in the best interest of ordinary people like yourself? Does Congress vote in the best interest of ordinary people like yourself? What can you do about it? “Throw Them All Out.” Kenneth Stepp.
"Sarah Palin: Congress Rife With 'Entrenched Corruption'
"Friday, 18 Nov 2011 06:21 PM
"By David A. Patten
"Former Alaska governor and GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin blasted rampant corruption in the marbled halls of Congress Friday, calling it an “endemic problem” affecting both parties.
“The only solution to entrenched corruption is sudden and relentless reform,” she wrote.
"Palin’s remarks came in an op-ed column in The Wall Street Journal, in response to revelations this week that Congress has exempted itself from the prohibitions against insider trading that all other Americans are subject to.
"Under current law, members of Congress are free to profit off of equity swings tied to pending legislative actions decisions they are privy to as members of Congress.
"The Center for Responsive Politics has determined that 47 percent of all members of Congress are millionaires. This compares to about 1 percent of the population generally.
“How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires?” Palin asks in her column. “How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians’ stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge fund managers?”
"Palin’s answer: “Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.”
"Special exemptions that Congress has written for itself to insider trading and other laws have come under intense scrutiny this week, in part due to the illuminating new book by Hoover fellow Peter Schweizer titled: “Throw Them All Out.”
“The very idea that politicians trade stocks while they are considering major bills comes as a shock to many people, but it is standard practice in Washington,” Schweizer writes in the book. As to Palin’s WSJ column, he tells Newsmax: “Governor Palin understands how Washington works and the battle that needs to be fought.”
A CBS 60 Minutes expose on Sunday highlighted trades made by former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and by Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., chairman of the House Financial Services committee.
"Schweizer said Bachus received private briefings in 2008 from the Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve warning that the financial system was about to implode. He then made a series of investments that would generate profits as the market tanked. Bachus disputes Schweizer’s allegations, however.
"Pelosi, a Democrat from San Francisco, also has denied making any inappropriate investments. Sources say Pelosi and husband Paul, an investor, bought stock in Visa when the House was considering a bill that would limit credit card companies’ ability to levy fees on consumers -- a significant source of their revenues. In response, Pelosi has touted her record as a champion of pro-consumer reforms.
"Among the “money-making opportunities” for members of Congress Palin exposes in her column:
"Insider Trading – using government information not available to the public at large to predict which companies’ stocks will rise or fall.
IPO Gifts – While it is illegal for members of Congress to accept cash gifts from interested parties, there is no restriction on their being offered initial public offerings in firms, which can be very profitable.
Self-Serving Earmarks – Some members of Congress have submitted infrastructure earmark requests for their districts that appeared to increase their value of their real estate holdings.
"Encouraging Campaign Donations – Palin calls this “subtly extorting campaign donations through the threat of legislation unfavorable to an industry.”
"Palin wrote that the revelations don’t surprise her, owing to her experience fighting cronyism as governor of Alaska. She said that Congress has largely exempted itself from compliance with the Freedom of Information Act used to obtain public documents. Also, unlike other government officials, members of Congress can punish staff members who expose abuses with impunity, because they aren’t subject to whistleblower laws, she said.
"Palin called for “real transparency."
“From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest, and insider trading laws,” wrote Palin. “Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it.”
"On Tuesday, GOP Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts filed a bill to make it illegal for members of Congress or their staffs to disclose information or make investments related to pending legislation based on nonpublic government knowledge.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Sarah Palin: Congress Rife With 'Entrenched Corruption'"
I agree with Hoover fellow Peter Schweizer: "Throw Them All Out.” But you may say "only a millionaire knows how I feel on the issues". Balderdash! Most people feel the same on the issues. Just because a person is not a millionaire does not mean that they are not qualified to be a Congressman. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a person must be a millionaire in order to qualify as a Congressman. My position is that I would vote in the best interest of ordinary people. I guess, by one definition, that makes me a populist. Is your Congressman a populist? Does your Congressman vote in the best interest of ordinary people like yourself? Does Congress vote in the best interest of ordinary people like yourself? What can you do about it? “Throw Them All Out.” Kenneth Stepp.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
CRIKEY MATE, ARE THEY CRAZY?
From Sydney Morning Herald:
"More United States troops will train in Australia, starting next year with a force of up to 250 Marines that will be eventually expanded to a force of 2500.
"Prime Minister Julia Gillard made the announcement on Wednesday alongside President Barack Obama, saying the plan would build on the 60-year-old ANZUS alliance between the two nations.
"The expansion of the existing collaboration between the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the US Marine Corps and US Air Force will allow America to enhance its presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
"The deployments of a company size rotation of 200 to 250 Marines at Darwin's Robertson barracks in the Northern Territory for six months stints will begin in mid-2012.
"Over a number of years we intend to build on this relationship in a staged way to a full force of around 2500 personnel, that is a full Marine Air-Ground Task Force," Ms Gillard told reporters in Canberra.
"She said US aircraft would make greater use of RAAF bases in the NT and the US would also preposition some equipment and supplies in Australia to support training activities at ranges including Bradshaw, Delamere air weapons range and Mount Bundey.
"As well, the US would probably send more warships, including nuclear powered ships and submarines through the Australian naval base at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.
"Taken together these two initiatives make our alliance stronger. They strengthen our co-operation in our region," Ms Gillard said.
"Ms Gillard said the ADF will increase its capabilities by training with the US Marines.
"It will mean that we are postured to better respond together along with other partners in the Asia-Pacific to any regional contingency including the provision of humanitarian assistance and dealing with natural disasters," she said.
"President Obama said the US had no stronger ally than Australia and the alliance would be indispensable to their shared future.
"These rotations which are going to be taking place on Australian bases will bring our militaries even closer and make them even more effective," he said.
"It will enhance our ability to train, exercise and operate with allies and partners across our region and that in turn will allow us to work with these nations to respond even faster to wide range of challenges including humanitarian crises and disaster relief as well as promoting security co-operation across the region."
"Opposition Tony Abbott welcomed the plan to give US troops more access to Australian military bases, saying it continued the work begun between the US and Australia under the Howard Coalition government.
"This is in Australia's security interests and will assist the US, the bedrock of global security and stability, in its objectives of maintaining a strong military presence in the Asia-Pacific region and of dispersing its forces," he said in a statement.
"Greens leader Bob Brown said while his party welcomed the president's visit, plans to increase training of US troops in Australia should be subject to a parliamentary debate.
"Australia should have an independent relationship with its neighbours, its own region and the world, on its own terms," he said in a statement.
"Any penalties for other regional relationships of the increases troop presence should be fully scrutinised by parliament first."
"A Lowy Institute poll earlier this year found strong support for the ANZUS alliance, with 82 per cent of Australians declaring it very important or fairly important for national security.
"On the issue of permanently basing some US forces in Australia, a majority - 55 per cent - were in favour."
Crikey Mate, are they crazy. We don't need any Ameriocan Troops in Australia. It's time to send the Republicans home and bring the American Troops home, too. We don't need American troops in Libya, nor Australia, nor New Zealand, nor the other 130 nations where we have them stationed. Oust the Interventionist Hal Rogers from Congress and replace him with a true Democrat! Kenneth Stepp.
"More United States troops will train in Australia, starting next year with a force of up to 250 Marines that will be eventually expanded to a force of 2500.
"Prime Minister Julia Gillard made the announcement on Wednesday alongside President Barack Obama, saying the plan would build on the 60-year-old ANZUS alliance between the two nations.
"The expansion of the existing collaboration between the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the US Marine Corps and US Air Force will allow America to enhance its presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
"The deployments of a company size rotation of 200 to 250 Marines at Darwin's Robertson barracks in the Northern Territory for six months stints will begin in mid-2012.
"Over a number of years we intend to build on this relationship in a staged way to a full force of around 2500 personnel, that is a full Marine Air-Ground Task Force," Ms Gillard told reporters in Canberra.
"She said US aircraft would make greater use of RAAF bases in the NT and the US would also preposition some equipment and supplies in Australia to support training activities at ranges including Bradshaw, Delamere air weapons range and Mount Bundey.
"As well, the US would probably send more warships, including nuclear powered ships and submarines through the Australian naval base at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.
"Taken together these two initiatives make our alliance stronger. They strengthen our co-operation in our region," Ms Gillard said.
"Ms Gillard said the ADF will increase its capabilities by training with the US Marines.
"It will mean that we are postured to better respond together along with other partners in the Asia-Pacific to any regional contingency including the provision of humanitarian assistance and dealing with natural disasters," she said.
"President Obama said the US had no stronger ally than Australia and the alliance would be indispensable to their shared future.
"These rotations which are going to be taking place on Australian bases will bring our militaries even closer and make them even more effective," he said.
"It will enhance our ability to train, exercise and operate with allies and partners across our region and that in turn will allow us to work with these nations to respond even faster to wide range of challenges including humanitarian crises and disaster relief as well as promoting security co-operation across the region."
"Opposition Tony Abbott welcomed the plan to give US troops more access to Australian military bases, saying it continued the work begun between the US and Australia under the Howard Coalition government.
"This is in Australia's security interests and will assist the US, the bedrock of global security and stability, in its objectives of maintaining a strong military presence in the Asia-Pacific region and of dispersing its forces," he said in a statement.
"Greens leader Bob Brown said while his party welcomed the president's visit, plans to increase training of US troops in Australia should be subject to a parliamentary debate.
"Australia should have an independent relationship with its neighbours, its own region and the world, on its own terms," he said in a statement.
"Any penalties for other regional relationships of the increases troop presence should be fully scrutinised by parliament first."
"A Lowy Institute poll earlier this year found strong support for the ANZUS alliance, with 82 per cent of Australians declaring it very important or fairly important for national security.
"On the issue of permanently basing some US forces in Australia, a majority - 55 per cent - were in favour."
Crikey Mate, are they crazy. We don't need any Ameriocan Troops in Australia. It's time to send the Republicans home and bring the American Troops home, too. We don't need American troops in Libya, nor Australia, nor New Zealand, nor the other 130 nations where we have them stationed. Oust the Interventionist Hal Rogers from Congress and replace him with a true Democrat! Kenneth Stepp.
Friday, November 11, 2011
FEDERAL ESTATE TAX FIVE MILLION DOLLAR EXCLUSION.
The Federal Estate Tax has a Five Million Dollar Exclusion which is soon to expire. The Five Million Dollar Exclusion is the result of an Estate Tax Compromise. It expires soon. The Federal Government should extend the Estate Tax Compromise of the Five Million Dollar Exclusion for another additional five years. That way, an Estate (or a Gift) of less than five million dollars would not be subject to paying an Estate Tax nor a Gift Tax. Let's extend that tax cut compromise for another five years. Kenneth Stepp.
U.S. Drone Strike Kills Sixteen Year Old Kid!
Pratap Chatterjee.Author, Halliburton's Army: How A Well-Connected Texas Oil Company Revolutionized the Way America Makes War
GET UPDATES FROM Pratap Chatterjee
"The CIA's Unaccountable Drone War Claims Another 16-year-old Casualty
Posted: 11/10/11
"Last Friday, I met a boy, just before he was assassinated by the CIA. Tariq Aziz was 16, a quiet young man from North Waziristan, who, like most teenagers, enjoyed soccer. Seventy-two hours later, a Hellfire missile is believed to have killed him as he was travelling in a car to meet his aunt in Miran Shah, to take her home after her wedding. Killed with him was his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan.
"Over 2,300 people in Pakistan have been killed by such missiles carried by drone aircraft such as the Predator and the Reaper, and launched by remote control from Langley, Virginia. Tariq and Waheed brought the known total of children killed in this way to 175, according to statistics maintained by the organisation I work for, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
"The final order to kill is signed allegedly by Stephen Preston, the general counsel at the CIA headquarters. What evidence, I would like to know, does Mr Preston have against Tariq and Waheed? What right does he have to act as judge, jury and executioner of two teenage boys neither he nor his staff have ever met, let alone cross-examined, or given the opportunity to present witnesses?
"It is not too late to call for a prosecution and trial of whoever pushed the button and the US government officials who gave the order: that is, Mr Preston and his boss, President Barack Obama.
"There are many people whom I know who can appear as witnesses in this trial. We - a pair of reporters, together with several lawyers from Britain, Pakistan and the US - met the victim and dozens of other young men from North Waziristan for dinner at the Margalla hotel in Islamabad on Thursday 27 October. We talked about their local soccer teams, which they proudly related were named for Brazil, New Zealand and other nations, which they had heard about but never visited.
"The next morning, I filmed young Tariq walking into a conference hall to greet his elders. I reviewed the tape after he was killed to see what was recorded of some of his last moments: he walks shyly and greets the Waziri elders in the traditional style by briefly touching their chests. With his friends, he walks to a set of chairs towards the back of the hall, and they argue briefly about where each of them will sit. Over the course of the morning, Tariq appears again in many photographs that dozens of those present took, always sitting quietly and listening intently.
"Tariq was attending a "Waziristan Grand Jirga" on behalf of drone strike victims in Pakistan, which was held at the Margalla hotel the following day. As is the Pashtun custom, the young men, each of whom had lost a friend or relative in a drone strike, did not speak. For four hours, the Waziri elders debated the drone war, and then they listened to a resolution condemning the attacks, read out by Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a lawyer from the Foundation for Fundamental Rights. The group voted for this unanimously.
"Neil Williams, a volunteer from Reprieve, the British legal charity, sat down and chatted with Tariq after the jirga was over. Together, they traveled in a van to the Pakistani parliament for a protest rally against drone strikes led by Imran Khan, a former cricketer, and now the leader of the Tehreek-e-Insaaf political party.
"The next day, the group returned home to Waziristan. On Monday, Tariq was killed, according to his uncle Noor Kalam.
"The question I would pose to the jury is this: would a terrorist suspect come to a public meeting and converse openly with foreign lawyers and reporters, and allow himself to be photographed and interviewed? More importantly, since he was so easily available, why could Tariq not have been detained in Islamabad, when we spent 48 hours together? Neither Tariz Aziz nor the lawyers attending this meeting had a highly trained private security detail that could have put up resistance.
"Attending that jirga, however, were Clive Stafford Smith and Tara Murray, two US lawyers who trained at Columbia and Harvard. They tell me, unequivocally, that US law is based on the fact that every person is innocent until proven guilty. Why was Tariq, even if a terrorist suspect, not offered an opportunity to defend himself?
"Let me offer an important alternative argument - the US government has a record of making terrible mistakes in this covert war. On 2 September 2010, the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan claimed to have killed Muhammad Amin, the alleged Taliban deputy governor of Takhar province in Afghanistan, in a drone strike. There was only one problem: Michael Semple, a Taliban expert at Harvard University, subsequently interviewed Muhammad Amin and confirmed that he was alive and well and living in Pakistan in March 2011.
"The man who was killed was Zabet Amanullah, who was out campaigning in parliamentary elections - along with nine of his fellow election workers. This was confirmed by exhaustive research conducted by Kate Clark, a former BBC correspondent in Kabul who now works for the Afghanistan Analysts Network, who had met with Zabet Amanullah in 2008. The error could have been avoided, Clark points out in her report, if US military intelligence officers had just been "watching election coverage on television", instead of living in its "parallel world" remote from "normal, everyday world of Afghan politics".
"If Barack Obama's CIA believed in justice and judicial process, they could have attended the Islamabad jirga last Friday and met with Tariq. It was, after all, an open meeting. They could have arrested and charged Tariq with the help of the Pakistani police. If a prosecution is ever mounted over the death of Tariq, those of us who met him on several occasions last week would be happy to testify to the character of the young man that we had met. But if the CIA has evidence to the contrary, it should present it to the world.
"Unless the CIA can prove that Tariq Aziz posed an imminent threat (as the White House's legal advice stipulates a targeted killing must in order for an attack to be carried out), or that he was a key planner in a war against the US or Pakistan, the killing of this 16 year old was murder, and any jury should convict the CIA accordingly.
"Pratap Chatterjee is a reporter with The Bureau of Investigative Journalism."
Do you remember watching Arnold Schwartzenegger playing a bad terminator robot and later playing a good terminator robot in TERMINATOR I, TERMINATOR II, and TERMINATOR III? Those were science fiction movies made about thirty years ago about a world where the robots have rebelled against their human masters and are out there killing humans right and left, and travelling back in time to kill the future U.S. President while he is just a kid. That view of terminator robots that look like people was a horrific view of the future starring the then-future Gobernator as a terminator robot sold a lot of movie tickets. Recently I ran a blog where one of our unmanned drones had killed an American citizen as it was directed to. We killed bin Laden. We killed an American citizen with a deliberate drone strike. Now we've killed a sixteen year old kid with a deliberate drone strike. It is time to bring our troops home and to bring home our deadly drones, and place them safely inactive in hangars. In science fiction, the first duty of a robot is "Do no harm." The American drones, robots, and troops should "do no harm" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, stand down, and come home on inactive status.
GET UPDATES FROM Pratap Chatterjee
"The CIA's Unaccountable Drone War Claims Another 16-year-old Casualty
Posted: 11/10/11
"Last Friday, I met a boy, just before he was assassinated by the CIA. Tariq Aziz was 16, a quiet young man from North Waziristan, who, like most teenagers, enjoyed soccer. Seventy-two hours later, a Hellfire missile is believed to have killed him as he was travelling in a car to meet his aunt in Miran Shah, to take her home after her wedding. Killed with him was his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan.
"Over 2,300 people in Pakistan have been killed by such missiles carried by drone aircraft such as the Predator and the Reaper, and launched by remote control from Langley, Virginia. Tariq and Waheed brought the known total of children killed in this way to 175, according to statistics maintained by the organisation I work for, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
"The final order to kill is signed allegedly by Stephen Preston, the general counsel at the CIA headquarters. What evidence, I would like to know, does Mr Preston have against Tariq and Waheed? What right does he have to act as judge, jury and executioner of two teenage boys neither he nor his staff have ever met, let alone cross-examined, or given the opportunity to present witnesses?
"It is not too late to call for a prosecution and trial of whoever pushed the button and the US government officials who gave the order: that is, Mr Preston and his boss, President Barack Obama.
"There are many people whom I know who can appear as witnesses in this trial. We - a pair of reporters, together with several lawyers from Britain, Pakistan and the US - met the victim and dozens of other young men from North Waziristan for dinner at the Margalla hotel in Islamabad on Thursday 27 October. We talked about their local soccer teams, which they proudly related were named for Brazil, New Zealand and other nations, which they had heard about but never visited.
"The next morning, I filmed young Tariq walking into a conference hall to greet his elders. I reviewed the tape after he was killed to see what was recorded of some of his last moments: he walks shyly and greets the Waziri elders in the traditional style by briefly touching their chests. With his friends, he walks to a set of chairs towards the back of the hall, and they argue briefly about where each of them will sit. Over the course of the morning, Tariq appears again in many photographs that dozens of those present took, always sitting quietly and listening intently.
"Tariq was attending a "Waziristan Grand Jirga" on behalf of drone strike victims in Pakistan, which was held at the Margalla hotel the following day. As is the Pashtun custom, the young men, each of whom had lost a friend or relative in a drone strike, did not speak. For four hours, the Waziri elders debated the drone war, and then they listened to a resolution condemning the attacks, read out by Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a lawyer from the Foundation for Fundamental Rights. The group voted for this unanimously.
"Neil Williams, a volunteer from Reprieve, the British legal charity, sat down and chatted with Tariq after the jirga was over. Together, they traveled in a van to the Pakistani parliament for a protest rally against drone strikes led by Imran Khan, a former cricketer, and now the leader of the Tehreek-e-Insaaf political party.
"The next day, the group returned home to Waziristan. On Monday, Tariq was killed, according to his uncle Noor Kalam.
"The question I would pose to the jury is this: would a terrorist suspect come to a public meeting and converse openly with foreign lawyers and reporters, and allow himself to be photographed and interviewed? More importantly, since he was so easily available, why could Tariq not have been detained in Islamabad, when we spent 48 hours together? Neither Tariz Aziz nor the lawyers attending this meeting had a highly trained private security detail that could have put up resistance.
"Attending that jirga, however, were Clive Stafford Smith and Tara Murray, two US lawyers who trained at Columbia and Harvard. They tell me, unequivocally, that US law is based on the fact that every person is innocent until proven guilty. Why was Tariq, even if a terrorist suspect, not offered an opportunity to defend himself?
"Let me offer an important alternative argument - the US government has a record of making terrible mistakes in this covert war. On 2 September 2010, the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan claimed to have killed Muhammad Amin, the alleged Taliban deputy governor of Takhar province in Afghanistan, in a drone strike. There was only one problem: Michael Semple, a Taliban expert at Harvard University, subsequently interviewed Muhammad Amin and confirmed that he was alive and well and living in Pakistan in March 2011.
"The man who was killed was Zabet Amanullah, who was out campaigning in parliamentary elections - along with nine of his fellow election workers. This was confirmed by exhaustive research conducted by Kate Clark, a former BBC correspondent in Kabul who now works for the Afghanistan Analysts Network, who had met with Zabet Amanullah in 2008. The error could have been avoided, Clark points out in her report, if US military intelligence officers had just been "watching election coverage on television", instead of living in its "parallel world" remote from "normal, everyday world of Afghan politics".
"If Barack Obama's CIA believed in justice and judicial process, they could have attended the Islamabad jirga last Friday and met with Tariq. It was, after all, an open meeting. They could have arrested and charged Tariq with the help of the Pakistani police. If a prosecution is ever mounted over the death of Tariq, those of us who met him on several occasions last week would be happy to testify to the character of the young man that we had met. But if the CIA has evidence to the contrary, it should present it to the world.
"Unless the CIA can prove that Tariq Aziz posed an imminent threat (as the White House's legal advice stipulates a targeted killing must in order for an attack to be carried out), or that he was a key planner in a war against the US or Pakistan, the killing of this 16 year old was murder, and any jury should convict the CIA accordingly.
"Pratap Chatterjee is a reporter with The Bureau of Investigative Journalism."
Do you remember watching Arnold Schwartzenegger playing a bad terminator robot and later playing a good terminator robot in TERMINATOR I, TERMINATOR II, and TERMINATOR III? Those were science fiction movies made about thirty years ago about a world where the robots have rebelled against their human masters and are out there killing humans right and left, and travelling back in time to kill the future U.S. President while he is just a kid. That view of terminator robots that look like people was a horrific view of the future starring the then-future Gobernator as a terminator robot sold a lot of movie tickets. Recently I ran a blog where one of our unmanned drones had killed an American citizen as it was directed to. We killed bin Laden. We killed an American citizen with a deliberate drone strike. Now we've killed a sixteen year old kid with a deliberate drone strike. It is time to bring our troops home and to bring home our deadly drones, and place them safely inactive in hangars. In science fiction, the first duty of a robot is "Do no harm." The American drones, robots, and troops should "do no harm" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, stand down, and come home on inactive status.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
