Washington, July 16: US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has once again highlighted that Pakistan is a terror safe haven and said that Al-Qaeda's leadership is based in that country.

Clinton's comments came a day before her significant visit to India, where she will be meeting the country's leadership. The impending threat of terrorism and several other important issues are expected to come up for discussions during her visit.
Addressing a think tank at the Council of Foreign Relations Wednesday, Clinton said that the US is ready to negotiate with the Taliban if it severs its ties with Al-Qaeda, lays down arms and participates in building a democratic Afghanistan.
She said success in Afghanistan required co-operation from Pakistan as well.
The News quoted Clinton, as saying that both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban pose an equal threat to the region, and therefore it is important to crush both.
"We and our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects Al-Qaeda and depends on it for support. To eliminate Al-Qaeda, we must also fight the Taliban," she said.

Copyright Asian News International/DailyIndia.com

Special Reports

By Wayne Madsen
WMR has learned from U.S. intelligence veterans that the secret intelligence operation run by Vice President Dick Cheney was not under the aegis of the Central Intelligence Agency but was a component of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the Department of Defense.
The JSOC unit carried out assassinations of foreign individuals, including politicians in countries friendly to the United States, under the direct orders of Cheney. One former intelligence official described the operation as a new “Phoenix Program.”
During the Vietnam War, the CIA’s Phoenix program, carried out, with the cooperation of U.S. Special Operations forces, identified key Vietcong leaders in South Vietnamese villages and towns and later assassinated them. What the CIA was involved with from the days subsequent to the 9/11 attacks was a similar operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan that identified key leaders of “Al Qaeda” and the Taliban and planned their assassinations.
However, what the CIA abandoned was Cheney’s use of the operation, in part organized under then-CIA director George Tenet’s “Worldwide Attack Matrix” or “WAM,” to target real or perceived political enemies in other countries, possibly including individuals in the United States. CIA director Leon Panetta officially terminated the CIA’s residual role in the assassination program after an eight-year involvement and informed Congress that they had been misled about the nature of the program.
The only actual part of the CIA that worked with the Pentagon’s assassination unit under JSOC was the Special Activities Division (SAD) of the CIA, itself largely comprised of former U.S. Special Operations personnel, including a number of former Delta Force members.
Far from being concerned about revelations about the program, WMR has learned that rank-and-file CIA officers are ecstatic about the revelations concerning Cheney’s operations. In knowing that most in the CIA, perhaps with the noted exceptions of deputy director of the CIA, Stephen Kappes, and acting CIA general counsel John Rizzo, were not involved in Cheney’s assassination ring, which is considered by many CIA officers to have been illegal, there is a certain amount of glee in realizing that Cheney may soon face the legal music on ordering illegal assassinations.
One retired CIA officer who was involved in the original clandestine targeting program before it was altered by Cheney, believes that the CIA has Cheney “by the balls” over the new revelations about the death squads.
WMR has been told by a U.S. intelligence source that the one person who poses the greatest threat to Cheney is former CIA director George Tenet, who claims that Cheney’s operation was so secretive he was not aware of its details. Tenet has been described as having few friends from the Bush-Cheney administration and has nothing to lose by making public what he knows about Cheney’s role in the assassination operation. Although the Cheney/JSOC operation continued under CIA directors Porter Goss and General Michael Hayden, neither are considered particularly vulnerable, except for their possible testimonies under oath before congressional committees.
The most high-profile target of the secret Cheney assassination squad, according to high-level CIA sources, allegedly was former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, assassinated on December 27, 2007, in Rawalpindi, the heart of Pakistan’s military and intelligence community.
WMR reported the assassination as follows on December 27, 2007: “Bhutto was reportedly first shot in the neck and chest and then killed in a suicide bomb blast at a campaign rally. Bhutto’s closest advisers immediately suspected the involvement of Pakistan’s military and intelligence complex in the assassination, an event which is thought by many to strengthen the hand of Musharraf and Pakistan’s dictatorship. The global corporate media, in practical unison, began echoing the tired tripe that ‘Al Qaeda’ was responsible for Bhutto’s assassination. However, ‘Al Qaeda’ was fostered by Pakistan’s military and intelligence community with large amounts of funding from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.”
According to our CIA sources, Cheney decided that every effort should be made to ensure that his friend, Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, remain in power in Pakistan and not be replaced by Bhutto. Cheney allegedly authorized his secret assassination unit to hit Bhutto and then maximize his political gain by blaming the attack on “Al Qaeda.”
Cheney’s alleged hit on Bhutto also involved U.S. and Pakistani electronic surveillance of her communications. On February 21, 2008, WMR reported: “The late former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto knew that all her phone conversations and e-mails were being monitored by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and ‘other intelligence agencies,’ according to her long time friend and co-author Mark Siegel. Siegel made his comments last night in a speech at the National Press Club highlighting ‘Reconciliation,’ a book he co-authored with Bhutto shortly before her assassination. Siegel said he and Bhutto were convinced that during her five years of exile in Dubai that all their phone calls between Washington, DC, and Dubai were being monitored by ISI. Since ISI does not possess its own significant eavesdropping capability in the United States, Bhutto’s reference to ‘other agencies’ is an indication that the US National Security Agency (NSA) was eavesdropping on Bhutto and passing some of the intelligence to the ISI and the government of Pakistani dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf.”
The House Intelligence Committee is promising to investigate the details of the program and on July 12, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said he believes there will be additional revelations forthcoming about the super-secret Cheney program.

Occupied Jerusalem: Two Israeli warships sailed through the Suez Canal on Tuesday, Israeli and Egyptian officials said, a move that appeared to be a new signal to Iran that Israel's reach could quickly extend to its arch enemy's backyard.
The Suez Canal is a strategic waterway linking the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, the gateway to the Gulf. Use of the Egyptian-controlled canal means Israeli naval vessels could reach waters off Iran in a matter of days, instead of taking a much longer route around Africa.
Israeli vessels regularly use the canal. But what is noteworthy in recent weeks is that the navy's moves have been publicised, albeit unofficially, by Israel.
Two of Israel's Saar class missile boats crossed through the Suez Canal and into the Red Sea, Israeli defense officials said.
Speaking on condition of anonymity because the move was not officially publicised, they said it was connected to "the navy's recent activities around the Red Sea."
A Suez Canal official in Egypt confirmed the report.
Israel considers Iran its most serious threat, citing Tehran's nuclear program, its support for anti-Israel militant groups and bellicose statements by its hardline president.
Israel believes Iran is developing nuclear weapons - a charge Iran denies - and has refused to rule out military action if Iran pushes forward with its atomic program.
Earlier this month, Israeli defense officials said one of the navy's Dolphin class submarines had also sailed to the Red Sea through the Suez Canal in June, returning July 5.
Beyond the ability to threaten shipping, some foreign media reports say Dolphins can fire nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and serve as Israel's deterrent "second-strike" capability, allowing Israel to launch nuclear weapons from afar even if the country itself is targeted by a nuclear attack.
"There is nothing unusual about the navy being in those waters - they often train there," said Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli general and a security expert at the Institute for National Security Studies.
"What is unusual, though, is that this information was made public. I believe it was likely leaked on purpose in order to signal to Iran that Israel has the capability of reaching them," Brom said.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Aboul Gheit said that under a long-standing treaty, warships can freely sail through Suez as long as they have no hostile intentions against the state that owns the canal.
He declined to say whether the maneuver was aimed at sending a message, saying "I don't want to analyse an issue that I am not fully aware of."

Food: Assassination tool of the Israelis which they are using against the Muslims

By Sara Roy
July 14, 2009 "Electronic Intifada" -- The recent meeting between US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu generated speculation over the future relationship between America and Israel, and a potentially changed US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Analysts on the right and left are commenting on a new, tougher American policy characterized by strengthened US demands on Israel. However, beneath the diplomatic choreography lies an agonizing reality that received only brief comment from Obama and silence from Netanyahu: the ongoing devastation of the people of Gaza.
Gaza is an example of a society that has been deliberately reduced to a state of abject destitution, its once productive population transformed into one of aid-dependent paupers. This context is undeniably one of mass suffering, created largely by Israel but with the active complicity of the international community, especially the US and European Union, and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Gaza`s subjection began long before Israel`s recent war against it. The Israeli occupation -- now largely forgotten or denied by the international community -- has devastated Gaza`s economy and people, especially since 2006. Although economic restrictions actually increased before Hamas` electoral victory in January 2006, the deepened sanction regime and siege subsequently imposed by Israel and the international community, and later intensified in June 2007 when Hamas seized control of Gaza, has all but destroyed the local economy. If there has been a pronounced theme among the many Palestinians, Israelis and internationals who I have interviewed in the last three years, it was the fear of damage to Gaza`s society and economy so profound that billions of dollars and generations of people would be required to address it -- a fear that has now been realized.
After Israel`s December assault, Gaza`s already compromised conditions have become virtually unlivable. Livelihoods, homes and public infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed on a scale that even the Israeli army admitted was indefensible. In Gaza today, there is no private sector to speak of and no industry. Eighty percent of Gaza`s agricultural crops were destroyed and Israel continues to snipe at farmers attempting to plant and tend fields near the well-fenced and patrolled border. Most productive activity has been extinguished.
One powerful expression of Gaza`s economic demise -- and the Gazans` indomitable will to provide for themselves and their families -- is its burgeoning tunnel economy that emerged long ago in response to the siege. Thousands of Palestinians are now employed digging tunnels into Egypt -- around 1,000 tunnels are reported to exist although not all are operational. According to local economists, 90 percent of economic activity in Gaza -- once considered a lower middle-income economy (along with the West Bank) -- is presently devoted to smuggling.
Today, 96 percent of Gaza`s population of 1.4 million is dependent on humanitarian aid for basic needs. According to the World Food Program, the Gaza Strip requires a minimum of 400 trucks of food every day just to meet the basic nutritional needs of the population. Yet, despite a 22 March decision by the Israeli cabinet to lift all restrictions on foodstuffs entering Gaza, only 653 trucks of food and other supplies were allowed entry during the week of 10 May, for example, at best meeting 23 percent of required need.
Israel now allows only 30 to 40 commercial items to enter Gaza compared to 4,000 approved products prior to June 2006. According to the Israeli journalist Amira Hass, Gazans still are denied many commodities (a policy in effect long before the December assault): building materials (including wood for windows and doors), electrical appliances (such as refrigerators and washing machines), spare parts for cars and machines, fabrics, threads, needles, candles, matches, mattresses, sheets, blankets, cutlery, crockery, cups, glasses, musical instruments, books, tea, coffee, sausages, semolina, chocolate, sesame seeds, nuts, milk products in large packages, most baking products, light bulbs, crayons, clothing and shoes.
Given these constraints, among many others -- including the internal disarray of the Palestinian leadership -- one wonders how the reconstruction to which Obama referred will be possible. There is no question that people must be helped immediately. Programs aimed at alleviating suffering and reinstating some semblance of normalcy are ongoing, but at a scale shaped entirely by the extreme limitations on the availability of goods. In this context of repressive occupation and heightened restriction, what does it mean to reconstruct Gaza? How is it possible under such conditions to empower people and build sustainable and resilient institutions able to withstand expected external shocks? Without an immediate end to Israel`s blockade and the resumption of trade and the movement of people outside the prison that Gaza has long been, the current crisis will grow massively more acute. Unless the US administration is willing to exert real pressure on Israel for implementation -- and the indications thus far suggest they are not -- little will change. Not surprisingly, despite international pledges of $5.2 billion for Gaza`s reconstruction, Palestinians there are now rebuilding their homes using mud.
Recently, I spoke with some friends in Gaza and the conversations were profoundly disturbing. My friends spoke of the deeply-felt absence of any source of protection -- personal, communal or institutional. There is little in society that possesses legitimacy and there is a fading consensus on rules and an eroding understanding of what they are for. Trauma and grief overwhelm the landscape despite expressions of resilience. The feeling of abandonment among people appears complete, understood perhaps in their growing inability to identify with any sense of possibility. The most striking was this comment: `It is no longer the occupation or even the war that consumes us but the realization of our own irrelevance.`
What possible benefit can be derived from an increasingly impoverished, unhealthy, densely crowded and furious Gaza alongside Israel? Gaza`s terrible injustice not only threatens Israeli and regional security, but it undermines America`s credibility, alienating our claim to democratic practice and the rule of law.
If Palestinians are continually denied what we want and demand for ourselves -- an ordinary life, dignity, livelihood, safety and a place where they can raise their children -- and are forced, yet again, to face the destruction of their families, then the inevitable outcome will be greater and more extreme violence across all factions, both old and increasingly new. What looms is no less than the loss of entire generation of Palestinians. And if this happens -- perhaps it already has -- we shall all bear the cost.

Sara Roy is a senior research scholar at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard University. She is the author of Failing Peace: Gaza and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict. This article was originally published by The Harvard Crimson and is republished with the author`s permission.

A 14-year-old boy, Irfan, was crossing the road near his house in Delhi when a Tavera car screeched to a halt near him, he was bundled into the car and pinned down under the heavy feet with pistol kept to his head.
The mother kept searching for the boy. Had it not the car's numberplate and the judiciary's help, the boy may not have been tracked and released in ten days, from a secret Abu Gharaib-like torture cell in faraway Gujarat where he underwent such torture which even the adults can't even dream to endure.
This explosive story by news magazine 'The Week' has caused ripples in administrative circles. After a long time, a news magazine has done such an investigative story that brings to light something which was either not known or just talked about in whispers.
The magazine's journalist has unearthed and located these secret detention camps a la Abu Ghraib in Iraq, which are present in several Indian cities. The Week's managing editor Philip Mathew has written a special full page introduction for the story and the purpose of this extraordinary revelation. He writes:
..The muffled cry will never reach you. Nor the snap of bone. It is a strange silence, as if tranquilised by terror....the cover story is vastly different from Hitlerian terror, what is common though is the sadistic streak that strips a human of his dignity and sometimes his life...
The Week's cover story on secret torture champers comes at a time when mature democracies are pausing to listen to their conscience....many innocents suffer grievously as they were picked up on mere suspicion and had no access to legal help, nor their families know where they had been taken...
The extensive groundwork and the interviews by The Week's senior correspondent Syed Nazakat are a revelation. Yes, terrorists need to be treated differently. But does the organised might of the state need to torture 14-year-old innocent minor by abducting them and keeping them in soundproof cells that don't have windows and where new definitions of torture are scripted every minute?
Many are traumatised for their life and others die in these chambers without anybody's knowledge. Former DGP and Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer, Dr KS Subramanian's interview is also an eye-opener. He doesn't deny about such practices and says, "...in terrorist-related cases, the police may feel incentive to describe people as terrorists and kill them for professional reasons and career advancement.'
He mentions how farmers were killed in the name of Naxalites. The exhaustive report also tells about the exact location of these terror cells in Kolkata, Palanpur (Gujarat), Delhi, Mumbai and Guwahati--often in houses faraway from police stations.
The importance of the story lies in the fact that often journalists working on a particular beat get sympathetic and close to the system, rather than the citizens. In turn, they turn their back on such grave abuse of human rights. However, the issue is that we always feel it is 'the other' who suffers, not us and we forget.
When women get gang raped in custody, many feel that such incidents keep happening to Dalits and Tribals or perhaps to that particular class of 'poor'. When innocents get killed in encounters, we remain indifferent. And in process cede our rights and liberties.
The use of drugs through injections, water boardings, attaching electrodes on genitals and other techniques of torture (as described by the magazine) are not something which any civilised state should allow on innocent citizens.
As the Week's editor writes, "...Irfan is not just Tasleema's 14 year old son. He is an Indian citizen with rights, just like your son and mine..... ". Read the story. Link to the editor's introduction and the story 'India's secret torture chambers'. It's chilling and shocking to say the least. Congratulations to the writer and the magazine for their courage.

Maoists have a presence in 182
districts of India


The number of policemen killed in an attack
by suspected Maoist rebels in India's Chhattisgarh
state has risen to 29, police say.
The attack took place in Rajnandgaon, 90km (56 miles) from capital Raipur.
Two officers were killed initially, and a larger force sent to the scene was then attacked, according to police reports
The district police chief was also killed in what is said to be one of the worst attacks by rebels in the state.
Maoist rebels are fighting for communist rule in a number of states. The conflict has killed more than 6,000 people in 20 years.
Convoy ambushed
The first attack took place in Madanwada early Sunday morning in which two policemen were killed.
Superintendent of police for Rajnandgaon, Vinod Kumar Choubey, was killed when he was leading police reinforcements to the area, the deputy inspector general of police, Pawan Dev, said.
His convoy was ambushed between Khoregaon and Karkoti villages.
Between 200 and 300 rebels attacked the police convoy.
The two sides fought a fierce gun battle in which Mr Choubey and several other policemen were killed, Mr Dev said.
A total of 29 bodies had been recovered and search operations were continuing in the area, he said.

It comes as little surprise that Pakistanis harbor antipathy toward the United States. Support for a country’s oppressive dictator and its geopolitical enemy tends to garner a little wrath. The United States has known for some time that its policies toward Pakistan and South Asia peeved off the Pakistanis but it was a price that U.S. officials were willing to pay to achieve greater strategic goals. However callous a calculation this may seem, there now exists an equally practical strategic reason for trying to win the hearts and minds of Pakistanis: China is making inroads.
A recent poll from World Public Opinion found that Pakistan’s perception of the United States under the Obama administration has not changed substantively from its perception of the United States during George W. Bush’s reign. Only 30% of Pakistanis polled had any confidence that the U.S. president would do “the right thing regarding world affairs.” Contrast this with Pakistani opinion of China’s president, Hu Jintao, who received an 80% confidence vote on the same question.
Pakistan’s favorable view of China is consistent with political realities. India is a historical rival of Pakistan’s and a strategic rival of China’s; India even fought a brief war against China in 1962. China’s strict policy of noninterference in the domestic affairs of other nations also distinguishes it quite favorably from the United States, which has long meddled in Pakistan’s domestic affairs, most recently supporting Pakistan’s strongman dictator, General Pervez Musharaf, in spite of the will of the Pakistani people to remove him from office. As recently as the Fall of 2008, China even provided a $500 million financial aid package to Pakistan to help with its balance of payments crisis as it worked out a deal with the International Monetary Fund.
Meanwhile, the United States has provided 200-400% greater military aid to Pakistan than non-military aid since 2002. On the basis of allocations of assistance alone, it is clear where U.S. priorities have been relative to China’s. While it supported Pakistan’s dictator militarily, politically, and financially, the United States simultaneously became a closer ally with India, Pakistan’s historic rival. In 2005, the Bush administration even attempted to construct a nuclear fuel agreement with India--but not Pakistan--in clear contravention of the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Pakistanis, perhaps rightly, have little faith in U.S. policy toward South Asia while viewing their relationship with China as a positive one. In the coming age of multi-polarity, it is unlikely that China and the United States will become open enemies but, even as strategic allies, they will probably remain strategic competitors. In this context, the United States will increasingly rely on its influence, popularity, and credibility--that is, its soft power--to attain U.S. interests. Ceding soft power to a rising competitor in strategically important countries like Pakistan is no way to preserve U.S. interests. The Obama administration has started signaling that it could be changing its policy toward Pakistan and well it should. Momentum should continue to build behind this kind of change.