Separatist Movement in Pakistan and Iran

The Soros and Rockefeller Networks Financially Support the Separatist Movement in Pakistan and Iran
Author : Hendrajit - Executive Director of Global Future Institute (GFI)
Several international funding connected with George Soros and Rockefeller dynasty  have been actively involved in provoking the separatist movement Baluchistan, southwest's Pakistan province, and the possible insurgency conducted by the other ethnic minority groups in Kurdish minority, Baluch and Arab. The George Soros funded groups and think-thank consist of Human Right Watch, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Ford Foundation.
The agent that seems to be instructed to run that clandestine operation is  Selig Harrison, from Center for International Policy, a think-thank financially funded by Soros' Open Society Institute.  The first signal over an active involvement o the Soros networks in supporting a separatist group in Pakistan is an activity conducted by Human Right Watch portraying the latest spat of violence in Pakistan's southwest Baluchistan province as the result of Pakistani government brutality. The reports emanating from HRW have been compiled by USZ State Department mouthpiece Radio Free Europe Radio (RFERL) and published in Foreign Policy Magazine. In identical form to the propaganda campaigns being conducted by the nefarious, corporate-serving USZ State Department in nations across the planet, we see yet another concerted effort to play on the emotions of the liberal-progressives that line the majority of the West's NGO networks. And at the same time, the State Deaprtmen mouthpiece Radio Free Europe has claimed that he Baluchistan minority is waging the latest in a long series of armed insurrections against Pakistan's Islamabad government, the latest of which is claimed to have started in 2004. The report also describes how the Baluchi minority can be found on the other side of Pakistan's border in Iran as well. In Iran, the Baluchi are claimed to also be subjected to "oppression." The principle aim of such propaganda condemning the use of violence and repression in Baluchistan is to provoke the emotions of what they called liberal-progressives that line the majority of the West's NGO networks.  In reality, several sources said through http://pakistancyberforce.blogspot.com that the unrest in Baluchistan on both the Pakistani and Iranian sides of the border, has been the subject of US' planning, organizing, funding, and outright calls to arm the Baluchi minority to literally take over the province and carve it out of Pakistan's sovereign territory – not for "democracy" or "human rights" but for the expressed purpose of derailing China's investments and logistical networks built in cooperation with the Islamabad government. According the facts researched by Global Future Institute, In regards to Iran, a 2009 report titled, "Which Path to Persia?" from the Brookings Institution, a Fortune 500-funded (page 19 of PDF) USZ think tank, talked of arming Iran's Baluchi minority and having them wage war against the government in Tehran. The following passage also makes mention of the Kurdish minority currently running amok between Iran, Iraq, and now Syria's borders. Broking Institution is a kind of think-thank under the auspice of the US State Departmen, is financially funded by among other things, Fortune 500. It strategic agenda is to support several separatist movements like ethnic minority in Pakistan and Iran. Quite understandable if those research institutes focused their attention of financially assisting the Kurdish minority in Irak, Iran and Syria.  Thus, the United States of Zionism could opt to work primarily with various unhappy Iranian ethnic groups (Kurds, Baluch, Arabs, and so on) who have fought the regime at various periods since the revolution. A coalition of ethnic opposition movements, particularly if combined with dissident Persians, would pose a serious threat to regime stability. In addition, the unrest the groups themselves create could weaken the regime at home. At the least, the regime would have to divert resources to putting down the rebellions. At most, the unrest might discredit the regime overtime, weakening its position vis-à-vis its rivals."  One of the principle agent behind the Soros Foundation is Selig Harrison, from Center for International Policy. Harrison's February 2011 piece, "Free Baluchistan," calls to "aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression." He continues by explaining the various merits of such meddling by stating, "Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.  Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, "The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis." He begins by stating, "China's expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. " He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, "to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States of Zionism should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar." The role played by Harrison deserves special attention. At the International Conference on Free Baluchistan, Harrison makes incessant calls for "international intervention" on behalf of the Baluchi opposition. Most of the Baluchi opposition leaders live in exile in the US, UK, and France.  And at the other international conference on Baluchistan, Selig Harrison is also a regular attendee at these "Balochistan International Conferences" and frequently reiterates his calls for a "An independent Baluchistan." With him is Washington lobbyist Andrew Eiva, a former special forces operator who took part in supporting the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He proposes a vision of a bright future where Baluchis will enjoy their gas and oil wealth one day in their own autonomous, free nation. Active participations shown by Harrison through international forums, is possible because of  financial support given by Ford Foundation, George Soros' Open Society Institute and Rockefeller's Family and Associates to Harrison's research study Center for International Policy. Or Eiva's flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function-funded by oil giants Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America and Shell International.   Whose Center for International Policy is funded by the Ford Foundation, George Soros' Open Society Institute, and Rockefeller Family and Associates, or Eiva's flights of petroleum-fueled fancy at a Carnegie Endowment function – funded by oil giants Exxon, Chevron, BP Corporations of North America, the GE Foundation, Shell International.

My dear Baluchees!  Not only Baluchistan but whole Pakistan is yours.

Struggle to save it  from the enemies and convert it into a Real Islamic State.

God bless Pakistan.

Nayyer Shakeb Khan
Director Information,

--
Shahzad Afzal
http://www.pakistanprobe.com/

Long Live American Democracy, Long Live Islamic (So Called) States!!!

In December 2009, Yemen's air force claimed it had killed 30 suspected al-Qaeda operatives during an airstrike on a training camp in the southern Abyan province.


This version of events was circulated around the world but when Yemeni journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye managed to get to the scene, the remains of the missiles he found were clearly marked 'Made in the  USA'. And among the dead were 14 women and 21 children.


Shaye's subsequent report incriminated the US in a military operation in which they had been so keen to deny any involvement. Yemen dismissed the report and the US refused to comment - and Shaye became a marked man. He was accused of being an al-Qaeda operative and has been behind bars ever since.


Last month, the Yemeni government pardoned Shaye and was about to release him. But it took just one phone call from the US president urging them to reconsider, and the government backtracked.


Shaye remains locked up.




http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2012/03/2012323201744332607.html 

--
Shahzad Afzal
http://www.pakistanprobe.com

Washington's enemy is not "terrorism" but the principle of free speech and voices of conscience

In The Assange Case We Are All Suspects Now

Washington's enemy is not "terrorism" but the principle of free speech and voices of conscience within its militarist state. 

By John Pilger

February 01, 2012 "Information Clearing House" --- This month's Supreme Court hearing in the Julian Assange case has profound meaning for the preservation of basic freedoms in western democracies.

This is Assange's final appeal against his extradition to Sweden to face allegations of sexual misconduct that were originally dismissed by the chief prosecutor in Stockholm and constitute no crime in Britain.

The consequences, if he loses, lie not in Sweden but in the shadows cast by America's descent into totalitarianism. In Sweden, he is at risk of being "temporarily surrendered" to the US, where his life has been threatened and he is accused of "aiding the enemy" with Bradley Manning, the young soldier accused of leaking evidence of US war crimes to WikiLeaks.

The connections between Manning and Assange have been concocted by a secret grand jury in Virginia that allowed no defence counsel or witnesses, and by a system of plea-bargaining that ensures a 90 per cent conviction rate. It is reminiscent of a Soviet show trial.

Moral choice

The Obama administration's determination to crush Assange is revealed in secret Australian government documents, released under Freedom of Information, which describe Washington's pursuit of WikiLeaks as "unprecedented". It is unprecedented because it subverts the First Amendment of the US constitution, which protects truth-tellers such as WikiLeaks.

In 2008 Barack Obama said, "Government whistleblowers are part of a healthy democracy and must be protected from reprisal." Obama has since prosecuted twice as many whistleblowers as all previous US presidents.

With US courts demanding to see the worldwide accounts of Twitter, Google and Yahoo, the threat to Assange, an Australian, extends to any internet user anywhere. Washington's enemy is not "terrorism" but the principle of free speech and voices of conscience within its militarist state and those journalists brave enough to tell their stories.

"How do you prosecute Julian Assange and not the New York Times?" a former administration official told Reuters.

The threat is well understood by the New York Times, which in 2010 published a selection of the WikiLeaks cables. The editor at the time, Bill Keller, boasted that he had sent the cables to the state department for vetting. His obeisance extended to his denial that WikiLeaks was a "partner" - which it was - and to personal attacks on Assange.

The message to all journalists was clear: do your job as it should be done and you are traitors; do your job as we say you should and you are journalists.

Much of the media's depiction of Bradley Manning illuminates this. The world's pre-eminent prisoner of conscience, Manning remained true to the Nuremberg principle that every soldier has the right to a "moral choice".

But according to the New York Times, he is weird or mad, a "geek". In an "exclusive investigation", the Guardian reported him as an "unstable" gay man who got "out of control" and who "wet himself" when he was "picked on".

Such psycho-hearsay serves to suppress the truth of the outrage Manning felt at the wanton killing in Iraq, his moral heroism and the criminal complicity of his military superiors. "I prefer a painful truth over any blissful fantasy," he reportedly said.

The treatment handed out to Assange is well documented, though not the duplicitous and cowardly behaviour of his own government. Australia remains a colony in all but name. Australian intelligence agencies are branches of the main office in Washington. The Australian military has played a regular role as US mercenary.

When Prime Minister Gough Whitlam tried to change this in 1975 and secure Australia's partial independence, he was dismissed by a governor general using archaic "reserve powers" who was revealed to have intelligence connections.

Don't explain

WikiLeaks has given Australians a rare glimpse of how their country is run. In 2010, leaked US cables disclosed that top government figures in the Labor Party coup that brought Julia Gillard to power were "protected" sources of the US embassy: what the CIA calls "assets". Kevin Rudd, the prime minister Gillard ousted, apparently had displeased Washington by being disobedient, even suggesting that Australian troops withdraw from Afghanistan.

In the wake of her portentous rise to power, Gillard attacked WikiLeaks's actions as "illegal" and her attorney general threatened to withdraw Assange's passport. Yet the Australian Federal Police reported that Assange and Wiki­Leaks had broken no law.

Freedom of Information files have since shown that Australian diplomats have colluded with the US in its pursuit of Assange. This is not unusual. The government of John Howard ignored the rule of law and conspired with the US to keep David Hicks, an Australian citizen, in Guantanamo Bay, where he was tortured.

Australia's principal intelligence organisation, Asio, is allowed to imprison refugees indefinitely without explanation, prosecution or appeal.

Every Australian citizen in grave difficulty overseas is said to have the right to diplomatic support. The denial of this to Assange, bar the perfunctory, is an unreported scandal.

Last September his London lawyer, Gareth Peirce, wrote to the Australian government warning that Assange's "personal safety and security has become at risk in circumstances that have become highly politically charged". Only when the Melbourne Age reported that she had received no response did a dissembling official letter turn up.

In November, Peirce and I briefed the Australian consul general in London, Ken Pascoe. One of Britain's most experienced human rights lawyers, Peirce told him she feared a unique miscarriage of justice if Assange was extradited and his government remained silent. The silence remains

John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger," wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him."

This article was forst posted at www.newstatesman.com

--
Shahzad Afzal
http://www.pakistanprobe.com/

New "Mother of All Bombs" Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) to be used against Iran

January 28, 2012

Russia Today , Global Research US toothless against Iran rock: Pentagon seeks new superbomb Having considered the toughness of the rock-hidden Iranian nuclear facilities, America's Nutcracker military command has decided to save jaw and develop a new conventional superbomb, since the US still plans to do the job in Iran without nukes. Washington has once again reminded Tehran that it has the military capability to crack Iranian hard-target nuclear sites with conventional weapons, leaking to the Wall Street Journal plans to develop an even more effective bunker-buster bomb. The American military is no longer in love with the most powerful non-nuclear weapon it possesses, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 13,600-kilogram mammoth capable of penetrating deep underground facilities. The Pentagon paid around $330 million to Boeing to develop and produce 20 MOP bombs, specially developed to destroy bunkers in countries like Iran and North Korea. Now, the Defense Department intends to spend another $82 million, to make those bombs even more effective. An MOP is capable of penetrating 60 meters of reinforced concrete or 38 meters of hard rock, delivering 2,700 kg of explosives deep down, to reliably demolish anything manmade. Yet, in the case of Iran's Persian mountains, even this doesn't seem enough. In hiding its nuclear work, Tehran clearly considered the experience of Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad, who lost their research nuclear reactors in 1981 and 2007 respectively. Iranians really had to turn into fairytale dwarves, digging deep into the mountains but with a very un-fairytale intention: not to find something precious, but to safely hide their nuclear program. In our times, when bombing a sovereign state into Stone Age is an easy walk, as we see from Libya's example, such a precautionary measure does not appear superfluous. But this is exactly what makes American generals nervous – they need 100% guarantees that the targets they cannot destroy do not exist, particularly in Iran. For example, military experts are not sure an MOP can get to Iran's Fordow enrichment plant facility that has 60 meters of hard rock mountain above it. At the moment, only a tactical nuclear weapon of several dozen kilotons could guarantee the site's elimination. "Once things go into the mountain, then really you have to have something that takes the mountain off," an unnamed US military official is reported to have said. But no, using nukes would set a precedent for all the other proud owners of atomic arms worldwide. Countries like China, North Korea and – God forbid – Russia would get a free hand to blindside America with nukes at the first breath of suspicion. The last time the US used nuclear weapons against a civilian population was in Japan in 1945, and that fact is still well-remembered, and not just in Japan. That is why today, the American military lays its hopes on conventional explosives with expanded capabilities, putting tactical nukes by for a rainy day. And just in case you were wondering, none of the abovementioned has anything to do with Israel. Though Tel-Aviv has never tried out its almost proven nuclear arsenal on anybody, they rather like saber-rattling, saying they would protect the Jewish state at any cost – and preemptively. Their fingers are apparently itching on the trigger switch, in forgetfulness that the country starting a war is not necessarily the one that finishes it.

--
Shahzad Afzal
http://www.pakistanprobe.com/

Cost of supplying Afghan War increases 600%

Zachary Keck

, DC Foreign Policy Examiner

January 19, 2012 

The cost of supplying the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan has increased 600% since Pakistan closed its borders in November, the Associated Press reported on Thursday.  

Using a Northern route to supply the Afghan War costs the United States $104 million dollars a month, an increase of $87 million from the $17 million it cost Washington when supplies were mainly sent through Pakistani territory, the AP report said.

Pakistan has refused to allow NATO supply convoys use its territory since a NATO airstrike killed 24 Pakistani troops last November. Pakistani political and military officials claimed that the killing of its troops was deliberate and refused to join a NATO investigation into the incident. Along with closing its border, Islamabad responded to the incident by forcing Washington to close down a base in Pakistan that it used to conduct drone strikes, as well as by refusing to attend an international conference on the future of Afghanistan held in Bonn, Germany in earlier December.

The NATO probe, which the Pentagon released in late December, said mistakes were made by both sides and that "inadequate coordination" and poor maps had led NATO air forces to mistakenly target the Pakistani soldiers. While expressing its "deepest regret" for the loss of life-and offering its "sincere condolences," to the Pakistani people, government and families of the soldiers that were killed- the Obama administration refused to apologize for the event. Pakistan rejected the conclusions of the report.

Since the November incident U.S.-Pakistani relations have reached their lowest point in the decades-long usually turbulent relationship. The United States has given Pakistan roughly $20 billion in foreign aid since 9/11. Recent reports, however, have cited unnamed U.S. and Pakistani officials saying they expect a more limited relationship in the future. On Wednesday, Pakistan refused to receive U.S. special envoy for AfPak issues, Marc Grossman, who was scheduled to visit Islamabad as part of a broader regional trip. Pakistani officials said Grossman's visit wasn't appropriate because they are currently revaluating their ties with Washington.

On Thursday an unnamed Pakistani official told Reuters his country intended to re-open supply routes to NATO, but would impose higher tariffs on the alliance. The official did not give a date for when the routes would actually be reopened.

--
Shahzad Afzal
http://www.pakistanprobe.com/

Immunity in Switzerland procedure, MUST READ it plz.

Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) 
Bundeshaus West 
CH-3003 Bern 
Tel. +41 (0)31 322 21 11 
Fax +41 (0)31 324 90 47   

Link http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/topics/intorg/chres/imdig.html

 

Immunity of holders of political office and of states:

 To enable them to exercise their office unhindered, heads of state enjoy full immunity against legal proceedings abroad. Heads of government and foreign ministers can also claim immunity when travelling abroad. In certain circumstances, this also applies to other members of government in the exercise of their duties.

 

Besides the personal immunity of officeholders, states and their property also enjoy immunity.

 

Immunity of holders of political office

 

While abroad, serving heads of state enjoy absolute immunity against criminal proceedings in all actions that otherwise would have been subject to the jurisdiction of these states. The immunity of heads of state is a principle embodied in customary international law.

 

According to the Federal Supreme Court, immunity is weakened in the following two cases:
When a state expressly waives the immunity of its head of state, the head of state cannot invoke immunity.
When a head of state leaves office, immunity no longer holds. A former head of state can claim immunity at most for actions undertaken in the exercise of official functions. If such a connection does not exist, the former head of state can be legally prosecuted.

 

Decision of the Federal Supreme Court in the Marcos case (115 Ib 496, p. 500) (fr) 
 Heads of state have no immunity in the case of war crimes. The statutes of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunals for for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda make provision for the fact that a defendant's official position for qualified war crimes, e.g. as head of state, does not relieve such person of criminal responsibility. 
The case of Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, revived the debate over the criminal responsibility of former heads of state for qualified crimes committed while in office. General Pinochet was held not to be immune from arrest for alleged acts of torture.

 

In contrast to criminal proceedings, there is less agreement on the immunity of heads of state with respect to offences under civil law. One body of legal doctrine holds that both the official actions and the private actions of heads of state enjoy immunity from civil law proceedings. Another body takes the view that immunity extends only to official, and not private, actions. 
Immunity of states and their property

 

In Europe, the European Convention on State Immunity of 16 May 1972 regulates protection of the property of foreign states. Non-member states of the Council of Europe may also accede to this convention. Very few states have ratified the convention. In Switzerland, the convention entered into force on 7 October 1982.

 

On 2 December 2004, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UNO) adopted a universal convention on the jurisdictional immunities of states and their property. Switzerland will sign this convention.

 

Switzerland does not have a law that regulates the application of the immunity of states under international law. In accordance with the Federal Supreme Court, under certain conditions a foreign state can be summoned before a Swiss court. A distinction must be drawn between
whether the foreign state acted in the exercise of sovereign authority (sovereign act or act of state, "acta iure imperii") or
whether it acted as a subject of private law equal to a private person (legal transactions, "acta iure gestionis").

 

Only in the first case can the state claim jurisdictional immunity. In the second case, by contrast, the state can be summoned before a Swiss court, but only on condition that there is a connection between the civil legal relationship and Swiss territory.

 

According to the Federal Supreme Court, Switzerland can also impose sanctions on the foreign state. What holds for jurisdictional immunity also holds in principle for immunity from measures of constraint: Measures of constraint may not be taken against assets and property intended for the performance of public functions.

 

A state can expressly waive its immunity from jurisdiction and constraint. Such a waiver can take place in various ways, either before a dispute materializes or ad hoc in a lawsuit.

 

Since 1918, the Federal Supreme Court has followed a restrictive line on the immunity of states.

--
Shahzad Afzal
http://www.pakistanprobe.com/

US Marine Kills Women Children Gets 3 Months

Marine Reaches Plea in Haditha Massacre 

By CBS/AP 

January 23, 2012 "CBS" -- CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - A Marine accused of killing unarmed Iraqi women and children pleaded guilty Monday to dereliction of duty in a deal that will mean a maximum of three months confinement and end the largest and longest-running criminal case against U.S. troops to emerge from the Iraq War.

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich of Meriden, Conn., led the Marine squad in 2005 that killed 24 Iraqis in the town of Haditha after a roadside bomb exploded near a Marine convoy, killing one Marine and wounding two others.

It was a stunning and muted end to a case once described as the Iraq War's version of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

Watch Wuterich's interview with CBS' "60 Minutes" in 2007 http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2582353n The incident in Iraq is considered among the war's defining moments, further tainting America's reputation when it was already at a low point after the release of photos of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison.

Eight Marines were charged with killing the Iraqis, with Wuterich facing the possibility of life behind bars. In the end, seven Marines were acquitted or had charges dropped, and Wuterich pleaded to the single, minor charge.

The killings still fuel anger in Iraq after becoming the primary reason behind demands that U.S. troops not be given immunity from their court system.

Wuterich's plea interrupted his trial at Camp Pendleton before a jury of combat Marines who served in Iraq.

In a hearing to determine if the facts of the plea were accurate and that he agreed, Wuterich acknowledged he was negligent in his duties because he told his squad to shoot first and ask questions later, or words to that effect.

Honestly, I probably should have said nothing," Wuterich told the judge, Lt. Col. David Jones. "I think we all understood what we were doing so I probably just should have said nothing."

Later he added: "I shouldn't have done that and it resulted in tragic events, sir."

Wuterich acknowledged he had been trained in rules of engagement before going to Iraq and again when he was deployed.

He admitted he did not positively identify his targets, as he had learned to do in training. He said he ordered his troops to assault the homes based on the guidance of his platoon commander at the time.

Wuterich faces a maximum of three months confinement, two-thirds forfeiture of pay and a rank demotion to private when he's sentenced, likely on Tuesday. The plea agreement calls for manslaughter charges to be dropped.

"No one denies that the events ... were tragic, most of all Frank Wuterich," defense attorney Neal Puckett told the North County Times. "But the fact of the matter is that he has now been totally exonerated of the homicide charges brought against him by the government and the media. For the last six years, he has had his name dragged through the mud. Today, we hope, is the beginning of his redemption."

Phone messages left by The Associated Press for Puckett and co-counsel Mark Zaid weren't immediately returned.

The issue at the court martial was whether Wuterich reacted appropriately as a Marine squad leader in protecting his troops in the midst of a chaotic war or disregarded combat rules and ordered his men to shoot and blast indiscriminately at Iraqi civilians.

Wuterich was charged with nine counts of manslaughter, among other charges.

Prosecutors said he lost control after seeing the body of his friend blown apart by the bomb and led his men on a rampage in which they stormed two nearby homes, blasting their way in with gunfire and grenades. Among the dead were women, children and elderly, including a man in a wheelchair.

Wuterich's former squad members testified that they did not take any gunfire during the 45-minute raid on the homes or find any weapons. Still, several squad members testified they do not believe they did anything wrong because they feared insurgents were inside hiding.

The prosecution was further hurt by the testimony of Wuterich's former platoon commander who said the squad was justified in its actions because the house was declared hostile, and from what he understood of the rules of combat at the time that meant any use of force could be used and Marines did not need to positively identify their targets.

Wuterich has said he regretted the loss of civilian lives but believed he was operating within military combat rules.

After Haditha, Marines commanders ordered troops to try and distinguish between civilians and combatants.

The trial was delayed for years by pre-trial wrangling between the defense and prosecution, including over whether the military could use unaired outtakes from an interview Wuterich gave in 2007 to "60 Minutes." Prosecutors eventually won the right to view the footage.

In case you missed it

Iraqi Girl tells of US Attack in Haditha

Ten-year-old Iman Walid witnessed the killing of seven members of her family in an attack by American marines last November. The interview with Iman was filmed exclusively for ITV News by Ali Hamdani,our Iraqi video diarist.

05/30/06 ITV

--
Shahzad Afzal
http://www.pakistanprobe.com/

Village that stood up to corruption a sign of hope for others

Lin Zuluan succeeds Xue Jinbo, who died in December. Picture: Getty

By JAMES POMFRET IN WANGGANG, CHINA 
Published on Tuesday 24 January 2012 00:00

AS CHINA gears up for a leadership transition later this year, a small fishing village that stood up to official corruption and rural land grabs has become a touchstone for other communities striving to fight back against grassroots abuses.

Since the uprising in December in Wukan, a coastal village of 15,000 in southern Guangdong province, which challenged and won key concessions from provincial officials, other rural communities have taken note.

About 1,000 residents of Wanggang, a gritty suburb of leather factories and shabby tenement blocks, recently massed outside the gates of the provincial capital Guangzhou, holding a rare large-scale protest against a major city government.

For some people, Wukan has become a new rallying cry for their own battle against public corruption.

"If China doesn't change and help … vulnerable residents in villages, every village might develop into a Wukan," said Mr Li, 33, a protester who took part in the rally against Wanggang's Communist Party village chief, Li Zhihang. He is accused of plundering land, committing widespread fraud and using a gang of thugs from the country's north to intimidate locals.

Guangdong province – China's most populated and a major manufacturing hub – has seen its share of unrest, including riots in Zengcheng over oppressive behaviour against migrant workers. The province's prominent party boss, Wang Yang, must avoid serious policy mistakes which would damage his prospects for promotion in a leadership transition late this year.

By invoking the name of Wukan, Wanggang villagers believe they won a swifter response from edgy officials.

Mr Li said: "They are forcing us to take this road."

After the villagers threatened to turn Wanggang into a "second Wukan", a Guangzhou vice-mayor, Xie Xiaodan, met them and promised an inquiry into alleged abuses.

But despite their bravado, Wanggang is no Wukan.

Wukan's residents were in open revolt, expelling officials and police and barricading themselves in for ten days until provincial government intervention brought an end to the siege.

Wangang appears less united, its residents split among numerous clans. Most are city dwellers holding urban jobs, less desperate to reclaim farmland for subsistence than those in Wukan.

For Wukan, Mr Wang chose conciliation instead of force, sending a key deputy to intervene and offer concessions on seized land. In a remarkable twist, the rebel village leader, Lin Zuluan, 65, was later named party secretary of Wukan.

Despite the softer approach, some experts say Wukan will not change China's iron-fisted approach to dissent.

Willy Lam, an academic and veteran China watcher in Hong Kong, said: "The fact that Wang Yang decided to use more conciliatory methods regarding Wukan doesn't mean a change of policy on the part of Beijing, nor does it mean that leaders in other provinces will follow.

"The leaders of other provinces cannot afford to allow the Wukan case to become a sort of a model because this will damage the authority of the party."

The legacy of Wukan still echoes in other villages. A man in Luogang village complained about officials bragging about new cars, as he  dug taro roots and spring onions in a field.

"We want to be like Wukan, all the villagers here do," said the elderly man, squelching barefoot through the mud. "It's very encouraging, we hope everywhere can fight back and beat the corrupt officials."

--
Shahzad Afzal
http://www.pakistanprobe.com/

Georgia judge orders Obama to court on citizenship complaint

   http://youtu.be/Xff7Vsf7T1U

A Georgia judge has ordered PresidentBarack Obama to appear in court Thursday in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint he isn't a natural-born citizen and should not be on the state's primary ballot in March, reports the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer.

A Georgia resident made the complaint that prompted the order. It is one of many such complaints made across the country. So far, none of the complaints have been successful.

An Obama campaign aide said any attempts to involve the president personally will fail and that such complaints have no merit, the newspaper reported.

Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up, the Ledger-Enquirer said.

--
Shahzad Afzal
http://www.pakistanprobe.com/

Sinking the Petrodollar in the Persian Gulf

Pepe Escobar at 10:37am, January 17, 2012.

These days, with a crisis atmosphere growing in the Persian Gulf, a little history lesson about the U.S. and Iran might be just what the doctor ordered.  Here, then, are a few high- (or low-) lights from their relationship over the last half-century-plus:

Summer 1953: The CIA and British intelligence hatch a plot for a coup that overthrows a democratically elected government in Iran intent on nationalizing that country's oil industry.  In its place, they put an autocrat, the young Shah of Iran, and his soon-to-be feared secret police.  He runs the country as his repressive fiefdom for a quarter-century, becoming Washington's "bulwark" in the Persian Gulf -- until overthrown in 1979 by a home-grown revolutionary movement, which ushers in the rule of Ayatollah Khomeini and the mullahs.  While Khomeini & Co. were hardly Washington's men, thanks to that 1953 coup they were, in a sense, its own political offspring.  In other words, the fatal decision to overthrow a popular democratic government shaped the Iranian world Washington now loathes, and even then oil was at the bottom of things.

1967: Under the U.S. "Atoms for Peace" program, started in the 1950s by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Shah is allowed to buy a 5-megawatt, light-water type research reactor for Tehran (which -- call it irony -- is still playing a role in the dispute over the Iranian nuclear program).  Defense Department officials did worry at the time that the Shah might use the "peaceful atom" as a basis for a future weapons program or that nuclear materials might fall into the wrong hands.  "An aggressive successor to the Shah," went a 1974 Pentagon memo, "might consider nuclear weapons the final item needed to establish Iran's complete military dominance of the region."  But that didn't stop them from aiding and abetting the creation of an Iranian nuclear program.

The Shah, like his Islamic successors, argued that such a program was Iran's national "right" and dreamed of a country that would get significant portions of its electricity from a string of nuclear plants.  As a 1970s ad by a group of American power companies put the matter: "The Shah of Iran is sitting on top of one of the largest reservoirs of oil in the world.  Yet he's building two nuclear plants and planning two more to provide electricity for his country.  He knows the oil is running out -- and time with it."  In other words, the U.S. nuclear program was the genesis for the Iranian one that Washington now so despises.

September 1980: Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein launches a war of aggression against Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran.  In the early 1980s, he becomes Washington's man, our "bulwark" in the Persian Gulf, and we offer him our hand -- and also "detailed information" on Iranian deployments and tactical planning that help him use his chemical weapons more effectively against the Iranian military.  Oh, and just to make sure things turn out really, really well, the Reagan administration also decides to sell missiles and other arms to Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran on the sly, part of what became known as the "Iran-Contra Affair" and which almost brings down the president and his men.  Success!

March 2003: Saddam Hussein is, by now, no longer our man in Baghdad but a new "Hitler" who, top Washington officials claim, undoubtedly has a nuclear weapons program that could someday leave mushroom clouds rising over U.S. cities.  So the Bush administration launches a war of aggression against Iraq, which like Iran just happens to -- in the words of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz -- "float on a sea of oil."  (Bush officials hope, in the wake of a "cakewalk" of a war to revive that country's oil industry, to privatize it, and use it to destroy OPEC, driving down the price of oil on world markets.)  Nine years later, a Shiite government is in power in Baghdad closely allied with Tehran, which has gained regional strength and influence thanks to the disastrous U.S. occupation.

So call it an unblemished record of a kind not easy to find.  In more than 50 years, America's leaders have never made a move in Iran (or near it) that didn't lead to unexpected and unpleasant blowback.  Now, another administration in Washington, after years of what can only be called acovert war against Iran, is preparing yet another set of clever maneuvers -- this time sanctions against Iran's central bank meant to cripple the country's oil industry and crack open the economy followed by no one knows what.

And honestly, I mean, really, given past history, what could possibly go wrong?  Regime change in Iran?  It's bound to be a slam dunk and if you don't believe it, check out Pepe Escobar, that fabulous peripatetic reporter for Asia Times

--
Shahzad Afzal
http://www.pakistanprobe.com/