US drone kills 16 suspected militants in Pakistan

droneUnmanned U.S. aircraft fired four missiles at a house in northwest Pakistan before dawn Wednesday, killing 16 suspected militants, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

The strike elicited a swift condemnation by the Pakistani government, which released a statement saying the strikes are a violation of its sovereignty.

The strike in the Sarai Darpa Khel area of the North Waziristan tribal region also wounded two suspected militants, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

The suspected militants who were targeted were believed to be from the Afghan Haqqani network. U.S. officials consider the Haqqani network to be one of the most dangerous militant factions fighting American troops in neighboring Afghanistan. The leadership of the Haqqani network pledges allegiance to Taliban chief Mullah Omar but operates fairly independently.

U.S. drone strikes have become a serious source of tension between Washington and Islamabad. The Pakistani government regularly denounces the strikes as a violation of the country’s sovereignty, even though senior officials are known to have supported some of the attacks in the past.

“The Government of Pakistan has consistently maintained that drone strikes are counter-productive, entail loss of innocent civilian lives and have human rights and humanitarian implications,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement Wednesday.

“These drone strikes have a negative impact on the mutual desire of both countries to forge a cordial and cooperative relationship and to ensure peace and stability in the region,” the ministry said.

U.S. officials rarely provide details publicly about the covert CIA drone program in Pakistan.

Elsewhere in northwest Pakistan, militants attacked a police post before dawn Wednesday and killed six policemen, said a local government administrator, Habibullah Khan.

Ten policemen were wounded in the attack about 25 kilometers (15 miles) southeast of the city of Peshawar, said another government official, Feroz Shah. The post was staffed by both paramilitary police from the Frontier Constabulary force and also by tribal policemen.

Khan said policemen retaliated in a gunbattle that lasted several hours and killed several militants.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack. But the Pakistani Taliban have carried out many similar attacks against security personnel in the area. – AP

—

Associated Press writer Riaz Khan contributed to this report.

Thank you for your service, Mr. Snowden

Ilana Mercer
Ilana Mercer

A heroic American whistleblower chooses, oh-so wisely, to expose Uncle Sam’s usurpations to the veteran reporters of the British Guardian and not to the partisan hacks of the American press. This fact tells you all you need to know about US presstitutes.

Confirmation of the degree to which American media has been co-opted by power came on June 10, again, via a British newspaper. The Mail Online divulged that Edward Snowden had “first approached the Washington Post with his leaks but the newspaper refused to comply with his publishing demands.” You see, the Washington Post had to hotfoot it back to Big Brother Obama before it would do its journalistic due diligence. “The Post broke the story on PRISM two weeks later, on Thursday, after consulting with government officials,” confirmed the Mail Online.

Even after being scooped by the Guardian, the Obama embeds at the Washington Post saw fit to inform their readers about PRISM on a purely need-to-know basis, “reprinting only four of the 41 PRISM PowerPoint slides,” and generally misrepresenting the nature of the program known as PRISM. The manufactured-in-America version of PRISM thus contradicts the “internal NSA documents” leaked to the Guardian.

According to the guardian of American freedoms at the Guardian, reporter Glenn Greenwald, the 41-slide PowerPoint presentation he acquired from Snowden has been authenticated as a document “used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program.” The presentation, pictorials with captions, handed out by the National Security Agency, boasts of having “direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple, Yahoo, PalTalk, YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL, and other servers.”

Contrary to what you’re being told, “the world’s largest surveillance organization” can and does “obtain targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain individual court orders.” And it is contrary to the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, in particular. It specifies that “warrants shall issue” only “upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Tellingly, the tools of Big Media and big government are not apprising you of these facts. Like a tortoise in its shell they’ve retreated from the watersheds that are the AP, the IRS and the NSA scandals, informing you only of what New York and Northeast elites think is important: “Most of you still like Obama.”

In light of “the disclosure that the federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation,” the Gray Lady endeavored, fleetingly, to shake off a flea or two, and adopt a slightly less reverential tone toward the godhead Obama. The New York Times quickly lay down with dogs again; the paper rushed to restore Obama’s bona fides the following day.

As to other “nimble” minds in media: Andrea Tarantula, one of the interchangeable females on a Fox News idiot’s extravaganza called “The Five,” said that, “If they are competent with my information; they can have it. If not, let me have my freedoms back.” To Andrea (who is, admittedly, not as invincibly stupid as the statist Dana Perino), the inviolable “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” is subject to the efficiency of a naturally illicit search.

Not for Greg Gutfeld are arguments from principle. Sitting in for Bill O’Reilly, Gutfeld declared that “this” was not about surveillance but about a progressive government that could not be trusted. The majority of Americans are equally adrift, oblivious to the individual liberties American Constitution makers bequeathed them. The individuals questioned by the polling professionals at the Pew Research Center were inclined to approve of the phone-call tapping of millions, if conducted by the party for which they voted.

Lawrence O’Donnell and his entourage at MSNBC—Alex Wagner and Chris Hayes, the most enthusiastic Obama bobbleheads on TV—acted all surprised about rudderless America, never implicating their daily, partisan promotionals in the process. The hosts harped on the fact that no harm had come from the NSA PRISM program. And, after all, was Obama not obligated to continue the incursions into liberty begun by Bush? C’est la vie. Wagner did display a modicum of remorse for her cover-up. She admitted that Obama had gone beyond the call of duty in expanding counterterrorism and state surveillance.

Neoconservatives such as Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal; retired United States Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, and radio talker Hugh Hewitt—all pronounced the NSA data sweep a non-scandal. Another neocon, Charles Krauthammer, saw Obama’s infractions as a vindication of Bush’s. The columnist invited Democrats now excusing Obama to pardon Bush and … party on.

Snowden came forth, in his words, “to reveal criminality.” But Fox News’ Megyn Kelly chose to mine crime from the ore of virtue. Kelly summoned a two-bit profiler, allegedly from the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit—who sounded like she’d been plucked from the set of Criminal Minds—to expose “this guy.” Not to be outperformed by Kelly, the profiler unloaded terms like “loser” and “drop-out” on a man who has held many responsible positions within the intelligence community in his young life.

Yet another Fox News personality, Neil Cavuto, went on to compare Snowden to celebrity seducer Roman Polanski, who, in 1978, sought asylum in France after being convicted of sleeping with an American minor. Chimed Cavuto, “We don’t know why [Snowden] did what he did.”

Oh yes we do. Contra Cavuto, Snowden forsook creature comforts and worldly possessions to speak truth to power—and not to any power. The 29-year-old National Security Agency contractor has gone up “against the world’s most powerful intelligence agencies,” as he stated soberly. Snowden understands his chances of prevailing are not good. “[T]ey’re such powerful adversaries that no one can meaningfully oppose them. If they want to get you, they will get you in time.”

In Snowden’s poignant words, “You can’t wait around for someone else to act. I had been looking for leaders, but I realized that leadership is about being the first to act.” “I’m neither traitor nor hero. I’m an American,” he summed-up so simply.

Yes, we need fewer personalities like Cavuto and more men of character like Snowden.

Those who’re not suspended in the moral abyss with mainstream media already know that Edward Snowden is the best of America. Let us prove ourselves worthy of his sacrifice. Come every Memorial Day—more aptly called “Dying For Nothing Day”—we direct a commonplace saying at members of a military that has not defended authentic American liberties for decades. It is, however, to a young man such as this that we should say:”Thank you for your service, Mr. Snowden.”

US seizure of journalist records called ‘chilling’

Gary Pruitt
Gary Pruitt

The US government’s secret seizure of Associated Press phone records had a “chilling effect” on newsgathering by the agency and other news organizations, AP’s top executive said Wednesday.

“Some longtime trusted sources have become nervous and anxious about talking with us,” AP president and chief executive Gary Pruitt said in a speech to the National Press Club.

“In some cases, government employees we once checked in with regularly will no longer speak to us by phone. Others are reluctant to meet in person … This chilling effect on newsgathering is not just limited to AP.

“Journalists from other news organizations have personally told me that it has intimidated both official and nonofficial sources from speaking to them as well.”

Pruitt spoke one month after the US news agency revealed that it had been notified after the fact that the US Justice Department had secret subpoenas of two months of phone records from its news operations.

The AP has said US authorities appeared to have sought out the records as part of a criminal investigation into leaked information contained in a May 2012 AP story about a foiled terror plot.

Pruitt, who previously called the seizure “a massive and unprecedented intrusion” into newsgathering, said the Justice Department “violated its own rules” on how it handles investigations of leaks to news media.

He said the collection of records pertaining to more than 100 journalists was “an overbroad and sloppy fishing expedition” and failed to follow procedures on notification.

Pruitt said that authorities maintained that by notifying the AP ahead of the sweep “it would have tipped off the leaker” but argued “that kind of reasoning would apply in every single case.”

This rationale would mean news organizations would never know when its records are being obtained, news sources would become less willing to speak and “the public will only know what the government wants them to know.”

The Justice Department has told the AP “that our phone records have been and will continue to be walled off, protected and used for no other purpose other than the leak investigation,” Pruitt said.

“We appreciate these assurances. But that does not excuse what they did. We need to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

The AP chief said the US administration should reaffirm the right of advance notice to news organizations, and use the courts to adjudicate any disputes on whether certain records are needed.

He also called for a “federal shield law with teeth” to ensure that journalists are not prosecuted for doing their jobs.

“We do not dispute that the government has the right to pursue those who leak classified information,” he said.

But he argued that “no one in this country should ever be prosecuted for committing journalism.”

Last month, Attorney General Eric Holder said the leak which prompted the seizure of journalist phone records was a “very serious” matter which “puts the American people at risk.”

Pruitt said Wednesday however that the AP waited five days before publishing the article, until after it had been assured by US officials that “the national security risk had passed.

The US administration under President Barack Obama has been aggressive in pursuing leaks of secret government information.

Authorities have said they had opened a probe into Edward Snowden, the former government contractor who leaked details about a cast US government electronic surveillance program.

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou was sentenced in January to two and a half years in prison for leaking the name of a secret agent implicated in harsh interrogations of Al-Qaeda suspects. – AP

Afrikaners will be blamed for Marikana too

Piet Swanepoel responds to R.W. Johnson’s article on the Marikana, Sharpeville and the Pondo uprisings.

Johnson’s article was very interesting and deserves to be read by anyone trying to make sense of events in Africa.

Like Johnson I also trace my involvement or interest in African political developments to Durban. Unfortunately we were not contemporaries there – I arrived in Durban in 1948 and was transferred to South West Africa in January 1961, whereas it seems that his involvement only started in 1960.

We were in different camps as well. He was a budding Marxist and I was a Special Branch detective. Our backgrounds also differed completely. He was English, (albeit our local branch of the species), whereas I was (still am) an Afrikaner.

We seem to have known the same people, for example the Arensteins, but when I came to know Rowley and Jacqueline they were living in a block of flats where there would have been no room for visiting Pondo chiefs.

Their neighbours, I remember, were Errol and Dorothy Shanley, both also listed communists like the Arensteins. What I heard only recently was that Ronnie Kasrils, our former Minister of Intelligence, and Jacqueline Arenstein, were cousins.

We also knew the same places. Like Lakhani Chambers, where the ANC had a small little office, sometimes unoccupied for weeks, whereas the Natal Indian Congress (NIC) offices in the same building were spacious with a big staff under M.P.Naicker, a very committed communist.

Some time in the early fifties I had been one of a small party of detectives, led by a visiting American intelligence officer, who entered Lakhani Hall late one night and planted a then state of the art bug in the ceiling..

Unfortunately the bug was never very effective because of the long distance to our wire recorder at the Smith Street Police station.

This article is about the massacres Mr. Johnson did not deal with, but his references to Durban in the sixties make me remember so many names which white people never knew, but to us in the Special Branch were household names.

Names like Albert John Luthuli, Massabalala Bonny Yengwa, Pitness Humphry Simelane and Wilson Zamindlela Conco. This latter fellow was a pain in the neck to me. He was the treasurer of the ANC in Natal. His father, Harry Conco, was a successful bus owner who operated a fleet of busses which passed Highflats in Southern Natal every day when I was stationed there in 1947.

Why, I asked myself, was my father a poor unschooled Boer, whose son had to start life as a labourer on the Railways, and this smart Aleck’s father a rich businessman who could send his kid to varsity to become a doctor?

But enough of that. This is about the massacres you never talk about. First of all you need to know what I call a massacre. I take my cue from Funk and Wagnells which defines a massacre as the indiscriminate killing in numbers of the unresisting or defenceless.

Johnson, as to be expected, does not deal with the most terrible massacre in the history of South Africa. English-speaking people do not share with Afrikaners, the grief and pain at the remembrance of the murders of Piet Retief and his party of some hundred Voortrekkers and their non-white grooms at King Dingane’s kraal on February 6th, 1838.

They had been invited into the kraal by the King and requested to leave their firearms with their horses, so they were absolutely defenceless when the King gave the order to have them killed.

The killing of Retief and his men was only the lesser part of the brutal murders of that week. Immediately after they had clubbed their victims to death, Dingane’s impis were dispatched to attack the old men, women and children and servants who were waiting for Retief and his party’s return.

41 Boer men, 56 Boer women, 185 Boer children and 200 Coloured and African servants were killed in the vicinity of where the town of Weenen (Weeping) stands today.

What saddens an Afrikaner like me is how a modern liberal English writer deals with the massacre I’ve described here. Anthony Sampson, in his Mandela – the authorized Biography, appears never to have heard of them.

Instead he writes “16 December was Dingane’s day, which commemorated the Afrikaners’ massacre of Zulus in 1838”. It It is unbelievable, but the Battle of Blood River has now become an Afrikaner massacre of Zulus!

Thousands of well-armed Zulu warriors attacked a laager in which some 300 Afrikaners were determined to defend themselves. Their primitive front-loader rifles enabled them to fight off the Zulus but that now becomes a massacre!

Another series of events which have been described by some people as massacres took place in Durban in January 1949. These events, like the Weenen massacres, are not frequently mentioned any more, but being one of the few remaining witnesses to the first act in that drama, I think people might be interested in what I remember of it.

As I said, it was January 1949. I had just progressed from being a detective probationer to a fully fledged detective constable. I was not yet 21 years old so I could not be issued with a firearm. (In those years detectives were issued with .38 pistols). I was on the Theft from Motor cars squad, a small unit and had just completed a motor cycle with side-car course and been issued a licence to drive a Harley Davidson.

We, child detectives, were tutored by older hands and Zulu colleagues. We knew absolutely nothing about politics or race relations or Marxism. We lived as we’d grown up. Zulu colleagues told you stories of what was going on in their communities and you told them what white people were saying.

The big story on the Zulu side was that some wealthy Indian young men were taking advantage of young Zulu girls, getting them pregnant, but refusing to marry them or pay maintenance for the children.

Only a small number of such misdeeds had apparently been committed, but it was a nice juicy type of story. None of us regarded it as anything serious, until one morning the Zulu detectives insisted on seeing the chief of the CID. There was going to be something terribly serious happening near the Bus Centre at the Indian market, they reported.

A group of men were preventing bus drivers from departing from the centre, leaving thousands of African passengers stranded in the centre. Many of them were dock workers who depended on busses to take them to the docks in Point Road. And agitators were busy among the passengers. The talk was that the time had come to rid the country of the Indians.

There was not much the CID chief and the District Commandant could do. They verified the fact that all the busses arriving at the Bus Centre near the Indian market were prevented from departing and that thousands of people were consequently massing up in the Centre. For some reason which I never really understood they decided that all the detectives at the Smith Street Police station were to be deployed in the Indian business quarter to observe what was happening. We were loaded into a few Black Marias.

If I remember correctly, I was dropped in Leopold Street, which led off from the Bus Centre to Grey Street, the heart of the Indian business centre. I stood on the pavement feeling very lonely.

We were all instructed to take up positions about 50 yards apart. The street had become eerily quiet. All the Indian shopkeepers and their families had retreated to their flats above their shops which were all locked, but in those days, unprotected by burglar fencing.

From the Bus Centre, which was approximately 300 yards from where I was standing, roars could be heard and suddenly what I thought were a million people filled the street in a mad rush in my direction.

They screamed and ululated and I knew the end of the world had come. Most of them had wooden “kieries” and these they used to smash every shop window in their way. At this stage they were not looting the contents of the shop windows. They were content to destroy the windows and did not attempt to enter further into the shops.

They were clearly in a hurry to destroy the shop window of every one of the hundreds of Indian shops in the area. And in the next hour or two they did that. Not a singleshot was fired at them. It would have been suicidal to interfere with them.

The weird thing was that they never even threatened me or any of my colleagues as I later established. Many of them stopped next to me for a few seconds and advised me to arrange that the ships in the harbour were to be instructed to receive all the Indians in Natal to take them back to their Motherland!

In the days which followed the mood changed and the rioting became very serious. Many innocent Indian people were killed and their shops looted.

Policemen were flown in from the Rand to try and restore order and eventually even Marines from the Navy with machine guns were deployed. Curfews were enforced and people ignoring them were shot.

It was a sad time. For me the saddest part came afterwards. It was an article I read years later in an American magazine. The real cause of these tragedies, it claimed, were the policies of the Afrikaners who had taken over the country the year before! In Durban, at that time, there was not a single Afrikaner councilor.

I have no doubt that eventually Marikana will be blamed on us, the Afrikaners, also.

CIA uses secret drones to kill terrorist suspects

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal appeals court judges are questioning the CIA’s efforts to block information on the use of unmanned drones to kill suspected terrorists.

A lower court federal judge sided with the CIA last year, dismissing a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking records about the use of drones. In response to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act request, the CIA refused to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records.

The ACLU counters that several high-ranking officials, from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta to President Barack Obama, have publicly acknowledged the use of drones.

Judge Merrick Garland suggested at a hearing Thursday that a speech this year by President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism chief, John Brennan, amounted to an official acknowledgment of the CIA drone program.