FROM BOSTON TO PAKISTAN

From Boston To Pakistan,

Entire World Is A Battlefield: Pentagon

Prepare For The Long Haul!

It’ll Take 10-20 Years.

Pentagon/Zionists Have Hijacked The U.S. Constitution

Congress Becomes A Rubber Stamp.

(‘Democracy Now’ published this report on its website on May 16, 2013, with video).

http://m.democracynow.org/web_exclusives/1756

Pentagon officials today claimed President Obama and future presidents have the power to send troops anywhere in the world to fight groups linked to al-Qaeda, based in part on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed by Congress days after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Speaking at the first Senate hearing on rewriting the AUMF, Pentagon officials specifically said troops could be sent to Syria, Yemen and the Congo without new congressional authorization. Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, predicted the war against al-Qaeda would last at least 10 to 20 more years. Senator Angus King (I-Maine) challenged the Pentagon’s interpretation of the Constitution and that the entire world is a battlefield. "This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing I’ve been to since I’ve been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution here today," King said. "You guys have invented this term 'associated forces' that’s nowhere in this document. ... It’s the justification for everything, and it renders the war powers of Congress null and void."

This excerpt of the hearing includes Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); Robert Taylor, acting general counsel, Department of Defense; Michael Sheehan, assistant secretary of defense for special operations/low-intensity conflict, Department of Defense; and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine).

TRANSCRIPT

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Do you agree with me, the war against radical Islam, or terror, whatever description you like to provide, will go on after the second term of President Obama?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Senator, in my judgment, this is going to go on for quite a while, and, yes, beyond the second term of the president.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: And beyond this term of Congress?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir. I think it’s at least 10 to 20 years.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: So, from your point of view, you have all of the authorization and legal authorities necessary to conduct a drone strike against terrorist organizations in Yemen without changing the AUMF.

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir, I do believe that.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: You agree with that, General?

BRIG. GEN. RICHARD GROSS: I do, sir.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: General, do you agree with that?

GEN. MICHAEL NAGATA: I do, sir.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: OK. Could we send military members into Yemen to strike against one of these organizations? Does the president have that authority to put boots on the ground in Yemen?

ROBERT TAYLOR: As I mentioned before, there’s domestic authority and international law authority. At the moment, the basis for putting boots on the ground in Yemen, we respect the sovereignty of Yemen, and it would—

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about: Does he have the legal authority under our law to do that?

ROBERT TAYLOR: Under domestic authority, he would have that authority.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I hope that Congress is OK with that. I’m OK with that. Does he have authority to put boots on the ground in the Congo?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir, he does.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: OK. Do you agree with me that when it comes to international terrorism, we’re talking about a worldwide struggle?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Absolutely, sir. [inaudible]

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Would you agree with me the battlefield is wherever the enemy chooses to make it?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir, from Boston to the FATA [the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan].

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I couldn’t agree with you more. We’re in a—do you agree with that, General?

BRIG. GEN. RICHARD GROSS: Yes, sir. I agree that the enemy decides where the battlefield is.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: And it could be anyplace on the planet, and we have to be aware and able to act. And do you have the ability to act, and are you aware of the threats?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir. We do have the ability to react, and we are tracking threats globally.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: From my point of view, I think your analysis is correct, and I appreciate all of your service to our country.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Senator King.

SEN. ANGUS KING: Gentlemen, I’ve only been here five months, but this is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I’ve been to since I’ve been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution here today. The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, clearly says that the Congress has the power to declare war. This—this authorization, the AUMF, is very limited. And you keep using the term "associated forces." You use it 13 times in your statement. That is not in the AUMF. And you said at one point, "It suits us very well." I assume it does suit you very well, because you’re reading it to cover everything and anything. And then you said, at another point, "So, even if the AUMF doesn’t apply, the general law of war applies, and we can take these actions." So, my question is: How do you possibly square this with the requirement of the Constitution that the Congress has the power to declare war?

This is one of the most fundamental divisions in our constitutional scheme, that the Congress has the power to declare war; the president is the commander-in-chief and prosecutes the war. But you’re reading this AUMF in such a way as to apply clearly outside of what it says. Senator McCain was absolutely right: It refers to the people who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11. That’s a date. That’s a date. It doesn’t go into the future. And then it says, "or harbored such organizations"—past tense—"or persons in order to prevent any future acts by such nations, organizations or persons." It established a date.

I don’t disagree that we need to fight terrorism. But we need to do it in a constitutionally sound way. Now, I’m just a little, old lawyer from Brunswick, Maine, but I don’t see how you can possibly read this to be in comport with the Constitution and authorize any acts by the president. You had testified to Senator Graham that you believe that you could put boots on the ground in Yemen now under this—under this document. That makes the war powers a nullity. I’m sorry to ask such a long question, but my question is: What’s your response to this? Anybody?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Senator, let me take the first response. I’m not a constitutional lawyer or a lawyer of any kind. But let me talk to you a little—take a brief statement about al-Qaeda and the organization that attacked us on September 11, 2001. In the two years prior to that, Senator King, that organization attacked us in East Africa and killed 17 Americans in our embassy in Nairobi, with loosely affiliated groups of people in East Africa. A year prior to 9/11, that same organization, with its affiliates in Yemen, almost sunk a U.S. ship, the U.S.S. Cole, a billion-dollar warship, killed 17 sailors in the port of Aden. The organization that attacked us on 9/11 already had its tentacles in—around the world with associated groups. That was the nature of the organization then; it is the nature of the organization now. In order to attack that organization, we have to attack it with those affiliates that are its operational arm that have previously attacked and killed Americans, and at high-level interests, and continue to try to do that.

SEN. ANGUS KING: That’s fine, but that’s not what the AUMF says. You can—you can—what I’m saying is, we may need new authority, but don’t—if you expand this to the extent that you have, it’s meaningless, and the limitation in the war power is meaningless. I’m not disagreeing that we need to attack terrorism wherever it comes from and whoever is doing it. But what I’m saying is, let’s do it in a constitutional way, not by putting a gloss on a document that clearly won’t support it. It just—it just doesn’t—it just doesn’t work. I’m just reading the words. It’s all focused on September 11 and who was involved, and you guys have invented this term "associated forces" that’s nowhere in this document. As I mentioned, in your written statement, you use that—that’s the key term. You use it 13 times. It’s the justification for everything. And it renders the war powers of the Congress null and void. I don’t understand. I mean, I do understand you’re saying we don’t need any change, because the way you read it, you can—you could do anything. But why not say—come back to us and say, "Yes, you’re correct that this is an overbroad reading that renders the war powers of the Congress a nullity; therefore, we need new authorization to respond to the new situation"? I don’t understand why—I mean, I do understand it, because the way you read it, there’s no limit. But that’s not what the Constitution contemplates.

(Courtesy: Democracy Now: www.democracynow.org)

George Galloway on Altaf Hussain

British MP Galloway Calls Upon London Police Chief:

Arrest British Citizen Altaf Hussain

“Godfather of Karachi”

For Incitement To Murder

(Courtesy: George Galloway MP’s Blog) 

Altaf Hussain, Godfather of Karachi - resident of the London borough of Edgware Posted: 19 May 2013 02:41 AM PDT On his blog George Galloway posted this about Altaf Hussain. This entry was posted on May 14, 2013, in Pakistan and tagged Altaf Hussain, election, Imran Khan, Karachi, MQM, terrorism. Bookmark the permalink. Yesterday I called upon the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to arrest a British citizen for incitement to murder. It is an open and shut case. You can watch his lips move on television, broadcast from London, in the wake of the controversial election count in the giant port city of Karachi, Pakistan. Hussain openly threatened the young democracy protesters agitating for a re-run of the election there that he would have them cut them down with swords. No-one should think this mere rhetoric, Hussain is already convicted in Pakistan for multiple murder extortion organised crime and terrorist offences. That’s why he lives in Edgware. In fact he is chief suspect in over 100 murder cases, including in England in the murder of one of his own leading comrades. Five years ago I gave a speech in Parliament asking why the then New Labour government was not only tolerating the presence in this country of a mafia style chief making regular broadcasts from London ordering crimes to be committed in a friendly country, but had actually given the Don a British passport! The previous, Conservative, government had, I believed, refused citizenship to Altaf Hussain. New Labour as just one of many crimes against the people of the Muslim world thought differently and conveyed upon a convicted murderer all the rights of citizen upon him. This at a time when a secret treaty with the United States had been signed by New Labour allowing the extradition of British citizens to the US merely on the say-so of American prosecutorial authorities without a scintilla of evidence that they had been involved in terrorism of any kind. So much for the war on terror, I said. The reply to my speech, from the now disgraced former Blair War leader Geoff Hoon is worth watching as a study in smug smirking malevolent arrogance, such a hallmark of the Tony Blair/New labour era. If you can’t bear to watch let me tell you that answer came there none to my salient question; why was Altaf Hussain being allowed to mastermind terrorist operations in Pakistan from London in full view of the authorities? And why was he awarded British citizenship? There the story would have lain – like the ten dead bodies a day in Karachi for which Altaf Hussain is responsible – stone dead. Until this week, when in a broadcast extraordinary even by his standards he openly threatened death, disfigurement, murder, mayhem and secession in Pakistan. From his well-stuffed sofa in the capital city of the United Kingdom, chief adjutant state in the War on Terror. I have tabled questions, which must be answered tomorrow, to the British Prime Minister David Cameron and the Home Secretary Theresa May, on this latest crime. Many millions of people in Britain, in Pakistan and around the world are waiting for the answers. Watch this space.

Galloway again calls for Altaf Hussain's British citizenship to be pulled after Karachi killing

Posted: 19 May 2013 03:04 AM PDT

George Galloway, in a series of parliamentary questions and a parliamentary motion, has asked the British Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to remove MQM leader Altaf Hussain's British citizenship.

Hussain is currently living in London after successfully applying for citizenship during the tenure of the last Labour government. He says that he fears for his life were he to return to Pakistan.

Galloway asked the government to examine whether the MQM leader should be thrown out of the country after Hussain made a serious of inflammatory broadcasts. However, following the assassination of the vice-president of Imran Khan's party, the PTI, which is blamed on the MQM, Galloway is once again raising Altaf Hussain's status in the British Parliament. Zara Shahid Hussain was shot dead outside her house as Karachi votes in a partial re-run of the Pakistan general election.

Imran Khan blames MQM's Altaf Hussain for Karachi killing

The shooting happened on the eve of a highly-contested vote

Imran Khan, the leader of Pakistan's PTI party, has blamed one of his political rivals for the killing of PTI vice-president Zahra Shahid Hussain.

She was shot dead outside her home in Karachi by gunmen on a motorcycle.

On his Twitter feed, Mr Khan said he was holding the leader of Karachi's dominant MQM party, Altaf Hussain, responsible for her death - a claim the MQM has strongly denied.

It comes as Karachi votes in a partial re-run of Pakistan's general election.

Police are investigating whether Mrs Hussain's killing was the result of an attempted robbery or a politically motivated murder.

Her funeral will take place later on Sunday at a mosque in Karachi.

Doctors at Karachi's Jinnah Hospital have told the BBC their initial examination showed two bullet marks on her body.

A full post-mortem report is expected within 24 hours.

Mr Khan said Mr Hussain, who is in self-imposed exile in London, had "openly threatened PTI workers and leaders through public broadcasts".

He said he was also holding the British government responsible, as he said he had warned them about Mr Hussain.

Mr Khan tweeted his accusations from his hospital bed, where he is recovering from a back injury sustained during a fall at an election rally in Lahore.

Last week, police in London confirmed they were investigating complaints that Mr Hussain had broken UK laws by issuing threats in a speech he made the day after the vote.

In response to accusations of electoral fraud, he is alleged to have threatened his accusers with violence.

Mr Hussain says that his remarks were taken out of context.

He has lived in the UK since 1991, saying his life would be at risk if he returned to Pakistan.

Sunday's electoral re-run in Karachi was ordered after Mr Khan's party accused the MQM of widespread vote-rigging and intimidation.

The MQM - which took most of the seats in Karachi - denies any irregularities and is boycotting the vote, which is taking place under tight security.

Voter turn-out appears slow but steady, says the BBC's Shahzeb Jillani, in Karachi.

The PTI is hoping to win the vote and make inroads in Pakistan's commercial capital, our correspondent adds.

Whatever the outcome of the re-run, it will not overturn the result of last week's vote, in which conservative leader Nawaz Sharif secured an unprecedented third term in power.

Zahra Shahid Hussain

·                                 Believed to be in her 60s

·                                 Retired university professor

·                                 Founder member of Imran Khan's PTI (Movement for Justice)

·                                 Central vice-president of the PTI

·                                 Former president of the PTI women's wing in Sindh provinc. Led a PTI protest in November against a Nato air strike which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers near the Afghan border

__________

The MQM is seen as a perpetrator - as well as a victim - of violence in Karachi, our correspondent says.

Since the 1980s, it has won every election it has contested there.

But it also stands widely accused of ruling Karachi by fear and through vote-rigging, our correspondent says.

The general election on 11 May marked the first transition of power from one democratically elected government since the creation of the state of Pakistan in 1947.

However, the campaign was marred by violence in which about 150 people were killed across the country.

Mrs Hussain was shot by gunmen on a motorcycle outside her home in Karachi's upmarket Defence area, the family neighbourhood of assassinated Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

The MQM (Muttahida Qaumi Movement) is supported mainly by Muslim Urdu-speaking people whose families moved to Sindh province at the time of the partition of India in 1947.

Voting in Karachi on 11 May was disrupted by a bomb attack outside the office of the ANP party, in which 11 people were killed and more than 40 injured.

The bombing happened in the Landhi district of Karachi, where Taliban militants are known to be active.

(Courtesy: BBC)

********