Wednesday, June 10, 2009

UK: Football Association Chief and the Heir to Mussolini

"The FA were very surprised to find that Triesman had FA president Prince William on his right and Gianfranco Fini, the fascist sympathising heir to Benito Mussolini on his left in the front row of UEFA's VIP area in the Stadio Olimpico - especially as Fini had not been included in the original seating plan for the prime seats. ... "

Surprise: Triesman had FA president Prince William on his right and Gianfranco Fini (not pictured), the fascist sympathising heir to Mussolini on his left in Rome

Mail Online
29th May 2009

FA chairman Lord Triesman, who has attracted controversy ever since arriving at Soho Square, was involved in another political incident at the Champions League final in Rome when he was seated next to Italy's former leader of the Fascist party.

The FA were very surprised to find that Triesman had FA president Prince William on his right and Gianfranco Fini, the fascist sympathising heir to Benito Mussolini on his left in the front row of UEFA's VIP area in the Stadio Olimpico - especially as Fini had not been included in the original seating plan for the prime seats.

But UEFA had received a last-minute request from the protocol office of the Italian Government requesting Fini be given as prominent a position as Italian PM Silvo Berlusconi at the match, due to Fini's senior political status as president of the Italian chamber of Deputies.

The reshuffle resulted in the British ambassador in Rome, FIFA vice-president Geoff Thompson and Manchester United chief executive David Gill all having to move.

Triesman had no say in his new seating companion although as a former member of the Communist party he used to have equally extreme views from the opposing side of the political spectrum.

A UEFA spokesman said: 'There was no intention to cause embarrassment, it was purely a protocol matter.'

The hoo-ha follows the FA having to apologise for the London assembly's BNP representative Richard Barnbrook attending the 2018 World Cup bid launch.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1189276/CHARLES-SALES-SPORTS-AGENDA-FA-chief-Lord-Triesman-heir-Mussolini.html

Plane Conspiracy Case Based on Tampered Record: SC Told

Nawaz’s lawyer claims statement by former Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) director general at odds with statements by other witnesses

By Masood Rehman

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court – hearing Nawaz Sharif’s appeal against his conviction in the plane hijacking conspiracy case – was told on Wednesday that the “original communication records” of the aircraft carrying former president Pervez Musharraf were not presented in the trial court.

A five-member larger bench of Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Justice Nasirul Mulk, Justice Moosa Leghari, Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali and Justice Ghulam Rabbani presided over the proceedings on Wednesday.

Nawaz’s lawyer, Khawaja Haris, said the original record of plane conspiracy case had been tampered with – leading to a one-month delay in the registration of an FIR against Nawaz.

Haris claimed a statement by then Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) director general Aminullah Chaudhry was at odds with statements by other witnesses.

He claimed that Aminullah had recorded fabricated statements to “save his job”.

The statement recorded by Javed Iqbal, the then military secretary to Nawaz, mentioned that the army had taken over the Pakistan Television (PTV) building at 1745 hrs, following which “nothing was in control of Nawaz Sharif”, Haris added.

Haris claimed that since the prime minister had appointed a new army chief and after finding out about the movement of the army in disagreement with a decision, “Nawaz the competent authority to divert the plane from Karachi to Nawabshah in the larger interest of the country and to save the army from division”.

Haris read out statements by witnesses which revealed the Karachi airport was taken over by the army at 1830 hrs. At 1845 hrs, the airport control tower cleared the aircraft to land, but this was not done, he said.

He claimed the directions were “not coming from the prime minister at that time … someone else directing the pilot”. He said the prime minister did not order the closure of the airport.

He said the aircraft did not land for 15-20 minutes even after the clearance for landing, he said. He was still arguing when the court adjourned proceedings until today (Thursday).

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C06%5C11%5Cstory_11-6-2009_pg7_4

Buchenwald, D-Day, Communists, Hitler's Backers, Capitalism and Media

by Jay Janson
www.opednews.com
June 9, 2009

Excerpt:

... Descendants of important investors in Nazi Germany are among America’s wealthiest and most powerful political figures, for example the son and grandchildren of Prescott Bush, who had his company's assets seized in 1942 by President Roosevelt under the Trading with the Enemy Act. More than sixty years later, in Germany, two former slave labourers at Auschwitz filed a civil action for damages against the Bush family. [The Guardian, Saturday 25 September 2004]

From a strictly business point of view, the initial, long-term, and deep investments of prestigious captains of American industry and finance in Nazi Germany made sense for the huge profits that these investment ties made before, during and after the Second World War Hitler that brought about.

Secondly, America’s power elite saw building up Fascist Germany into a strong and successful nation as a bulwark against communism. The hope of the capitalist West, which originally refused Soviet proposals for a united front to oppose the German threat, was that Hitler would expand Eastward against Russia. ...

Story

Thursday, June 04, 2009

Reagan at Bitburg

"It is out of the question for the leader of the Western world to lay a wreath in a war cemetery where Nazi storm troopers are buried. ... The stated purpose, reconciliation, is being drowned in a rising flood of long-buried passions from the death camp survivors, who feel as betrayed and abandoned as they did 40 years ago. ... " - Washington Post, 23 April 1985.

eightiesclub.tripod.com

President Reagan laying a wreath at Kolmeshohe Cemetery, Bitburg, West Germany, 5 May 1985

It began as part of a well-intentioned plan to observe the 40th anniversary of V-E Day -- May 8, 1945, the day Hitler's Third Reich collapsed and Europe was freed from Nazi tyranny. Since President Ronald Reagan was scheduled to attend an economic summit in Bonn that week in 1985, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl saw an opportunity to demonstrate the strength of the friendship that existed between his nation and its former foe, the United States. During a November 1984 visit to the White House, Kohl appealed to Reagan to join him in appearing at a German military cemetery to symbolize the reconciliation of their two countries, once mortal enemies and now staunch allies. Kohl suggested the Kolmeshohe Cemetery at Bitburg, a quaint town in the Eifel hills where nearly 11,000 Americans attached to a nearby airbase lived in harmony with the same number of Germans. Approximately 2,000 German servicemen were interred at Kolmeshohe. Reagan agreed. As he later told an aide, he felt he owed Helmut Kohl, who despite considerable public and political opposition had stood steadfast with Reagan on the deployment of Pershing missiles in West Germany a few years earlier, when Reagan had been determined to respond to the placement of Soviet missiles that threatened Europe.

In February 1985, the White House deputy chief of staff, Michael Deaver, made an advance-planning visit to Bitburg. The 32 rows of headstones were covered with snow. Deaver was usually very skillful in carrying out his role as public relations maestro for Reagan, but this time he grew careless. He and his team failed to discover that 49 members of the Waffen SS were buried at Kolmeshohe -- and West German officials didn't mention the fact. A decision was made by the Reagan team not to include a visit to a concentration camp, as had been previously suggested by Kohl. The president said he didn't want to risk "reawakening the passions of the time" or offend his hosts by visiting a death camp, and his aides would later contend that the West Germans were privately pleased with this decision, implying that Kohl had made the offer only as a courtesy. Nonetheless, Reagan would soon learn he was about to reawaken passions that would place his administration in the center of a political firestorm.

In mid-April, White House press secretary Larry Speakes informed the media of the planned visit to Bitburg. When asked who was buried at Kolmeshohe, Speakes said he thought both American and German soldiers were there. Reporters soon discovered, however, that no American servicemen were in the cemetery; in fact, the remains of all U.S. soldiers had long since been removed from German soil. They also learned that a handful of the notorious SS were among the Germans interred at Kolmeshohe. The Waffen SS had been the combat branch of the Third Reich's elite guard, the Schutzstaffel. Created in 1923 to serve as Hitler's bodyguards, and expanded by Heinrich Himmler in the 1930s -- nearly one million men had served in the SS by the end of the war -- the Schutzstaffel included the Totenkopf, or "Death's Head" division, the men who had served as guards at the concentration camps. And a Waffen SS First Division battle group was responsible for the massacre of 71 American POWs at Malmedy, Belgium during the Battle of the Bulge. It wasn't clear if any of the SS troops buried at Kolmeshohe had participated in that or any other atrocity and, as Bitburg Mayor Theo Hallet pointed out, all German military cemeteries were likely to contain at least a few SS graves. Such distinctions, though, failed to placate those who were opposed to Reagan's visit on moral grounds.

One of the most eloquent of these opponents was Elie Wiesel, an author and concentration camp survivor to whom Reagan presented the Congressional Medal of Achievement during a White House ceremony just weeks prior to the president's European trip. "Mr. President," said Wiesel, in his remarks, "I am convinced . . . that you were not aware of the presence of SS graves in the Bitburg cemetery. Of course you didn't know. But now we are all aware. May I . . . implore you to do something else, to find another way, another site. That place, Mr. President, is not your place." Wiesel's protest was just one of many. The chairman of the International Network of Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, Menachem Rosensaft, called the proposed visit "so macabre and so awful that one can only wonder what possessed Reagan." Clarence M. Brown, national commander of the American Legion, warned that it would "not sit well" with veterans if Reagan were to "lay a wreath at the graves of Nazi soldiers." Former Army S/Sgt. Jim Hively mailed his World War II decorations, including a silver star and a bronze star, to Reagan in protest. In the Congress, 53 senators, 11 of them Republicans, signed a letter urging the president to cancel the visit, while 257 representatives, including 84 Republicans, signed a letter asking Chancellor Kohl to withdraw the invitation.

But Reagan would not budge, and neither would Kohl. "I will not give up the idea," said the West German leader in an interview with Time's Bonn bureau chief. "If we don't go to Bitburg, if we don't do what we jointly planned, we will deeply offend the feelings of [my] people." A poll revealed that 72% of West Germans thought the visit should go forward as planned. Kohl admitted that rarely had German-American relations been so strained. Indeed, it seemed that in the days leading up to the presidential visit, the White House and the Chancellery were pitted one against the other in the blame game. A top Reagan aide claimed the Germans had given assurances that nothing in the Bitburg visit would be an "embarrassment" for the president. "As clumsily as we handled it," said another U.S. official, "Kohl &. Co. have surpassed us in spades." A German official responded: "The Americans also have a responsibility toward the president. They must also check on the history that is beneath the ground. It was not very intelligent."

Reagan didn't help matters when he announced that he saw nothing wrong with visiting the cemetery because the German soldiers buried there were "victims of Nazism also . . . drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis." Equating Nazi soldiers with Holocaust victims, responded Rabbi Alexander M. Schindler, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, was "a callous offense for the Jewish people." Many questioned Reagan's claim that most of the SS soldiers at Kolmeshohe had been teenagers drafted against their will into serving the Third Reich. But further research revealed that, indeed, most of the 49 SS dead were between the ages of 17 and 20. Kohl confirmed that in the last days of the war he was able to avoid service in the SS because he was only 15, "but they hanged a boy from a tree who was perhaps only two years older with a sign saying TRAITOR" because he had tried to run away rather than serve.

Kohl made a call to the White House just days before Reagan's visit to make sure the president wasn't wavering in the face of withering criticism, not to mention pressure from many quarters (including from the First Lady, Nancy Reagan) to cancel the Bitburg ceremony. The Chancellor's aide, Horst Teltschik said: "Once we knew about the SS dead at Bitburg -- knowing that these SS people were seventeen to eighteen years of age, and knowing that some Germans were forced to become members of the SS, having no alternative -- the question was, Should this be a reason to cancel?" Reagan aide Robert McFarlane said: "Once Reagan learned that Kohl would really be badly damaged by a withdrawal, he said 'We can't do that; I owe him.'" Prior to sending Deaver back to West Germany for the third time, just two days before the scheduled visit, Reagan told his deputy chief of staff: "I know you and Nancy don't want me to go through with this, but I don't want you to change anything when you get over there, because history will prove I'm right. If we can't reconcile after forty years, we are never going to be able to do it."

There was one change; Reagan opted to visit a concentration camp, after all. This gesture failed to placate some of his critics; at an annual Holocaust service held in Madison Square Garden's Felt Forum, Yeshiva University's Norman Lamm said: "A courtesy call at a conveniently located concentration camp cannot compensate for the callous and obscene scandal of honoring Nazi killers." But before visiting Bitburg on Sunday, May 5th, Reagan and Kohl appeared at the Bergen-Belsen death camp. The president's speech there, according to Time, was a "skillful exercise in both the art of eulogy and political damage control." "All these children of God," said Reagan, "under bleak and lifeless mounds, the plainness of which does not even hint at the unspeakable acts that created them. Here they lie, never to hope, never to pray, never to live, never to heal, never to laugh, never to cry. . . . And then, rising above all this cruelty, out of this tragic and nightmarish time, beyond the anguish, the pain and suffering, and for all time, we can and must pledge: Never again."

Reagan spent only eight minutes at the Kolmeshohe Cemetery. Along with Kohl, 90-year-old General Matthew Ridgway, who had commanded the 82nd Airborne in World War II, and Luftwaffe ace General Johannes Steinhoff, Reagan placed a wreath at a wall of remembrance. Security was heavy; the three-mile route from the NATO airbase to Kolmeshohe was lined with 2,000 policemen -- one posted every twelve feet. As it turned out, relatively few protesters showed up. Reagan then made one last appearance with Kohl, at the airbase, before 7,500 spectators waving American and West German flags. Kohl thanked the president for staying the course; "This walk . . . over the graves of soldiers was not an easy walk. I thank you personally as a friend that you undertook this walk with me." Reagan responded candidly: "This visit has stirred many emotions in the American and German people too. Some old wounds have been reopened, and this I regret very much, because this should be a time of healing."

The political storm caused by the Bitburg visit came at a particularly bad time for the president. Though he had just won a landslide victory in his bid for a second term, Reagan was beset with problems. Despite a hard-sell campaign by the president, Congress rejected any kind of aid to the contra rebels battling Nicaragua's Sandinista regime. The U.S.-USSR arms control talks in Geneva were deadlocked. America's three-year economic expansion showed signs of a slowdown. And Reagan hoped to use the Bonn economic summit to persuade the other G7 nations (Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Japan and West Germany) to negotiate a reduction of trade barriers that posed a grave threat to the world economy. The last thing the administration needed was the distraction caused by the Bitburg fiasco -- a fiasco that had lingering effects, as it left some to wonder whether Reagan, a master of political symbolism endowed with previously impeccable political instincts, was beginning to lose his magic touch.
*******
What the newspapers said about the Bitburg visit:

The Washington Post (23 April 1985): "President Reagan cannot go to Bitburg. It is out of the question for the leader of the Western world to lay a wreath in a war cemetery where Nazi storm troopers are buried. . . . The stated purpose, reconciliation, is being drowned in a rising flood of long-buried passions from the death camp survivors, who feel as betrayed and abandoned as they did 40 years ago."

New York Post (26 April 1985): "[T]hough it will be hard to convince the administration of this, some good has come of the Bitburg business. That good made itself evident in the strong popular reaction against the trip, a reaction which proves that -- though our century's history, and its meaning, may have escaped all concerned at the White House, it has not escaped most Americans."

New York Times (6 May 1985): "It's over, but the Bitburg blunder, too, should not be forgotten. President Reagan's regret at having promised such a cemetery tribute was palpable. He walked through it with dignity but little reverence. He gave the cameras no emotional angles. All day long he talked of Hell and Nazi evil, to submerge the event. . . . Not even Mr. Reagan's eloquent words before the mass graves of Bergen-Belsen could erase the fact that his visit there was an afterthought, to atone for the inadvertent salute to those SS graves."

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id342.htm

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

MSNBC's Pat Buchanan Laughs about his Support for White Supremacist

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200906020040
June 02, 2009

On Hardball tonight, Pat Buchanan noted that he supported Nixon Supreme Court nominee Harrold Carswell:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: How well does she [Sonia Sotomayor] compare to Howard [sic] Carswell?

BUCHANAN: Harrold Carswell? I would think probably she's right in the same league, Chris.

MATTHEWS (laughing): Pat, that's an insult, and you know it. That -- Lawrence --

BUCHANAN (laughing): I supported Carswell!

Buchanan not only supported Carswell when Nixon nominated him in 1970, he continues to defend Carswell against charges of racism. In a 2005 column, Buchanan claimed "Liberals smeared Nixon nominees [Clement] Haynesworth and Carswell as racists."

Now, where ever would anyone have gotten the idea that Harrold Carswell was a racist? Maybe from a speech Carswell gave at an American Legion gathering in which he said: "I believe that segregation of the races is proper ... and the only practical and correct way of life in our states. I yield to no man in the firm, vigorous belief in the principles of white supremacy and I shall always be so governed."

Yeah, that's probably it. ...

Continued

GM to Lose Opel After Nurturing It Through Recessions, Nazi Era

By Patrick Donahue and Sabine Pirone

June 1 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp.’s insolvency brings to a close an 80-year history with the German Opel unit, a relationship book-ended by global economic crises and fraught by dealings with the Nazi regime.

In 1929, with markets plunging in Germany and political chaos foreshadowing the rise of Hitler’s fascist dictatorship, Opel’s family owners agreed to sell an 80 percent stake to the Detroit-based carmaker for just less than $26 million.

By purchasing a firm founded by Adam Opel in 1862 to make sewing machines and bicycles, GM won a dominant position among carmakers in Germany, Europe’s largest economy. The automaker was the country’s largest at the start of the 1930s, with a market share of almost 40 percent, according to the company.

“Money was cheap, assets were cheap, labor was cheap and General Motors was strong,” said Edwin Black, who has documented GM’s relationship with the Nazi regime in books such as “Internal Combustion.”

The U.S. automaker filed for bankruptcy protection today and will be majority-owned by the government as it reinvents itself with fewer brands. Germany, which led the search for an Opel investor, on May 30 named Magna International Inc., a Canadian car-parts maker, as preferred buyer. Italy’s Fiat SpA and RHJ International SA, a Brussels-based fund, also bid.
Magna said today that it has negotiated a “conceptual framework” with German officials, the U.S. Treasury and GM that should allow Opel to avoid bankruptcy. Opel is being placed under a trust that shields it from GM’s insolvency.

Ascendancy Before Hitler

General Motors was guiding Opel to the top position among European carmakers by the time Hitler seized power in 1933, achieving the top spot in the mid-1930s with production of more than 120,000 vehicles a year. It made the “Blitz” truck, which was used in Germany’s “Blitzkrieg” invasion of Poland in September 1939, the start of World War II.

“Most of the sales were to the military -- it became part of the Nazi war machine,” Black said in a telephone interview from his office in Washington.
GM’s reliance on the Nazis culminated in 1938, when a vice president, James Mooney, was awarded the Order of the German Eagle by Hitler for his contribution to the fatherland.

During the war, Hitler forced Opel to halt production of passenger cars in favor of equipment for the German Luftwaffe. Opel plants churned out bomber engines, landmines and torpedo heads, Black said.

Distance From Atrocities

GM says it played no role in supporting Hitler between 1941 and 1945, when the Nazi regime killed millions of people in the Holocaust and used forced labor for manufacturing. The company says it supported the U.S. war effort against Germany.

“General Motors finds the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime abhorrent and among the darkest days of our collective history,” Tom Wilkinson, a GM spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement. “General Motors deeply regrets any role the company or its vehicles played in the Nazi era.”

As Europe was rebuilt with U.S. funding after the war, GM picked up the pieces of Opel. The plant in Ruesselsheim, largely destroyed, was rebuilt, while production facilities in Soviet- occupied Germany were dismantled by the Red Army.

From the 1950s, Opel became a symbol of West Germany’s postwar “economic miracle” with models such as the Kadett, the Corsa and the sporty Manta. The slogan for the GT car of that era: “Only flying is better.” By 1972, the company reasserted itself as West Germany’s largest automaker with about a fifth of the country’s market.

Failure to Renew

Opel’s fortunes began to fade in the mid-1990s because of an aging product line, prompting customers to turn to newer models from rivals such as Volkswagen AG. The company also had frequent management changes and difficulty breaking out of its working-class customer base.

Chief Executive Officer Robert Hendry resigned following a loss in 2000 and Opel started “Project Olympia” to resurrect the manufacturer. The plan included cutting production and scaling back work hours, as well as increasing research and development to produce more new models.

“GM Europe never really restructured,” said Alain Michelis, an analyst at Societe Generale. “They cut costs but they continued to sell their cars to the wrong people, with the wrong margins.”

Opel captured just 8 percent of the German market in 2008, while the company’s Vauxhall brand in the U.K. was responsible for 14 percent of sales in Britain. Opel lagged behind VW, Daimler’s Mercedes-Benz and BMW in Germany, and was No. 2 in the U.K. behind Ford Motor Co., according to a GM report.

The German division was run mainly to generate revenue to prop up GM in the U.S., which was “bleeding cash like hell,” Paris-based Michelis said.
GM’s difficulties in Europe were finally compounded by the worst economic crisis since the one it used to first gain traction in Germany.

“They got Opel in the economic collapse and they’re losing Opel because of the economic collapse,” Black said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Patrick Donahue in Berlin at at pdonahue1@bloomberg.net. Sabine Pirone in London at spirone@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=arx7oO3G8FCE&refer=home

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

The Most Deadly US Foe in Afghanistan

The Haqqani network, born of the Russian war and nurtured by the CIA, is behind many spectacular assaults in Afghanistan.

By Anand Gopal
www.csmonitor.com
May 31, 2009

GARDEZ, AFGHANISTAN - Sitting in an open field, three Taliban-allied insurgents carefully pore over a map of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan.

"This is where we will be staying," one says, pointing.

In the next scene from this insurgent propaganda video, one fighter shows the others a video of an empty room with a window. "You will shoot at Karzai from this window," he explains to the others. "We have people on the inside who will help you."

The assassination attempt on President Hamid Karzai, which took place in April 2008 during a military parade, nearly succeeded. The president escaped, but three people died.

The fighters in this video had detailed intelligence of the area. They knew how to slip by police checkpoints, and they had people in the Afghan government telling them exactly where Mr. Karzai would be standing on the parade ground.

Afghan insurgents often film their operations from start to finish, edit the result, and release it as a propaganda video. This video was purchased in Quetta, Pakistan.

Afghan intelligence officials have identified one of the three men in the video as part of the assassination team. All are members of Afghanistan's most lethal group, the Haqqani network, a shadowy outfit that many officials consider to be the biggest threat to the American presence in the country.

"The Haqqani network has proven itself to be the most capable [of the insurgent groups], able to conduct spectacular attacks inside Afghanistan," says Matthew DuPee, researcher at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.

The network, which is independent of (but allied with) the Taliban, showed its mettle again on May 12, when nearly a dozen fighters stormed government buildings in Afghanistan's southeastern city of Khost. The coordinated attack featured multiple suicide bombers and was one of the most brazen to take place in the city in years.

The Haqqani network is considered the most sophisticated of Afghanistan's insurgent groups. The group is alleged to be behind many high-profile assaults, including a raid on a luxury hotel in Kabul in January 2008 and a massive car bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul that left 41 people dead in July 2008.

The group is active in Afghanistan's southeastern provinces – Paktia, Paktika, Khost, Logar, and Ghazni. In parts of Paktika, Khost, and Paktia, they have established parallel governments and control the countryside of many districts. "In Khost, government officials need letters from Haqqani just to move about on the roads in the districts," says Hanif Shah Husseini, a parliamentarian from Khost.

The leadership, according to US and Afghan sources, is based near Miramshah, North Waziristan, in the Pakistani tribal areas. Pakistani authorities and leading Haqqani figures deny this, although former Haqqani fighters say this is indeed the case.

The network is better connected to Pakistani intelligence and Arab jihadist groups than any other Afghan insurgent group, according to American intelligence officials.

These links go back a long way. It was here – in the dusty mountains of Paktia Province, near the Pakistani border – that the group's putative leader, Jalaluddin Haqqani, first rose to fame. Born into an influential clan of the Zadran tribe, Mr. Haqqani morphed into a legendary war hero for his exploits against the Russians in the 1980s. Many in the southeastern provinces of the country fondly recall his name, even those who are now in the government.

"He is a virtuous and noble man, with an unwavering belief in Islam," says Hanif Shah Hosseini, a member of the Afghan parliament from Khost. He is one of Haqqani's childhood friends.

Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson, who worked closely with the anti-Soviet insurgency (inspiring the 2007 Tom Hanks film "Charlie Wilson's War"), once called Haqqani "goodness personified."

In the 1980s, Haqqani quickly established himself as one of the preeminent field commanders. "He could kill Russians like you wouldn't believe," says one US intelligence officer who knew him at the time. The Central Intelligence Agency forged close links with him, and through the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency funneled large amounts of weapons and cash his way.

Unlike many commanders, Haqqani was often in the line of fire himself and would at times retreat to Saudi Arabia to convalesce from his wounds. It is believed that his trips to the Gulf helped him forge close links with Arab militants, and he became one of the first Afghan commanders to host foreign fighters. His ties with Arab fighters and Al Qaeda continue to this day, say US and Afghan military officials.

Although he joined the Taliban government in the mid-1990s, Haqqani was never formally part of the Taliban movement. "The Taliban wanted to create an Islamic emirate, but Haqqani favored an Islamic republic," claims Maulavi Saadullah, who was a close friend at the time.

"During those years, [Haqqani's son] Siraj used to complain to me about how heavy-handed and dogmatic the Taliban were in their interpretation of Islam," recalls Waheed Muzjda, an Afghan-based policy analyst who knew the family.

Still, the Taliban saw Haqqani's usefulness as a commander and enlisted him in the fight against the Northern Alliance. On the eve of the American invasion in October 2001, Haqqani was named the head commander for all of the Taliban forces.

But for a few months after the US-led coalition invaded Afghanistan, Haqqani was on the fence as to whether to join the new Afghan government or fight against it, according to those who knew him at the time. A series of American bombing raids killed members of Haqqani's family, and he disappeared across the Pakistani border, telling friends that "the Americans won't let me live in peace," according to Mr. Saadullah. American officials, however, countered that he was abetting Al Qaeda fighters in their escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan and was not a neutral figure.

During the early years of the current Afghan war, Haqqani was merely one Taliban commander among many. But his close ties with Pakistan's ISI and Arab militants enabled him to raise funds and build training camps. Soon he was able to fight independently against the Americans, without help from the Taliban leadership. By 2007 his network had emerged as a distinct insurgent group.

Haqqani's son Sirajuddin has now taken the reins of the organization, according to intelligence officials. The younger Haqqani has proved more dynamic than his father, expanding the network greatly in the last few years. "He is not content with his father's methods," says one US intelligence officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "He's a lot more worldly than his father."

Sirajuddin took credit for planning the assassination attempt on the Afghan president in a rare interview with NBC News in July 2008.

The father has been reported to be dead, ailing, or incapacitated in some way. He last appeared in a March 2008 propaganda video of another insurgent attack.

Unlike most of the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network often works closely with foreign militant groups. For instance, the Islamic Jihad Union, an Uzbek militant group, reportedly has ties to the Haqqanis. The IJU brings militants from as far afield as Turkey to conduct attacks in Afghanistan. They are also allegedly behind plots to attack targets in Europe.

The Haqqani network also works more closely with the Pakistani Taliban than other Afghan insurgent groups. (See accompanying story, right.)

The Haqqanis pioneered the use of suicide attacks in Afghanistan, an import from Al Qaeda in Iraq. Haqqani attacks are more likely to use foreign bombers, whereas Afghan Taliban attacks tend to rely on locals. The suicide attacks are an innovation of Sirajuddin's, according to US intelligence officials.

In addition to suicide attacks, the Haqqanis are known for their well-orchestrated attacks. US intelligence officials and Haqqani insiders say that this is largely a result of close cooperation with the Pakistani ISI – something Pakistani officials have denied.

Every major attack "is planned in detail with the ISI in camps in Waziristan," says one former Haqqani commander, who declined to be named for fear of retribution. Officials say the Haqqanis use money from Al Qaeda-linked sources, and also possibly from timber smuggling, to finance their operations.

"The majority of Haqqani fighters are young," says the former Haqqani commander, "and their fathers had fought for Haqqani during the Russian jihad." Many joined after the Afghan government and the Americans failed to live up to their promises, he adds.

Here in Paktia Province, the Haqqani network is so extensive that some subcommanders have emerged as nearly distinct threats in their own right. For instance, longtime commander Saif Rahman Mansour, who had been fighting under Haqqani's banner, has been operating more independently of late, Afghan government officials say.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0601/p10s01-wosc.html?page=2

Philippine Death Squads: A Murderous Plague

by Kenneth Roth
www.hrw.org
MAY 19, 2009
Published in the Far Eastern Economic Review

When does closing one’s eyes to mass murder become encouragement? The Philippines present that question head-on. An electoral democracy with a vibrant press and competing political parties, the country has moved beyond most aspects of the Marcos dictatorship. But at least one legacy of that dark time remains—a dangerous willingness to use execution as a clandestine tool of government.

Until recently, the victims tended to be leftist party members and activists as well as sympathetic journalists and clergy. International condemnation led the government to curtail these extrajudicial killings, although the failure to prosecute the perpetrators remains worrying. Today, attention is turning to new categories of victims, mostly poor and marginalized, such as alleged petty criminals, drug dealers, gang members and street children.

The death squad capital of the Philippines is Davao City, the nation’s third largest city, located on the southern island of Mindanao. The city’s long-time mayor, Rodrigo Duterte, is famous for projecting an image of being tough on crime. Yet despite his hands-on approach to governance, Mr. Duterte claims ignorance about the so-called Davao Death Squad, denying that it even exists.

A recent Human Rights Watch investigation made a mockery of his denials. Nine insiders described the machinery of death. Current and former Davao police officers and local officials select the targets and equip local thugs with handguns or knives. Riding a motorcycle without license plates, the death squad members approach their victim in broad daylight, often in busy markets, and with no attempt to hide their identities, kill him in cold blood. The killers then nonchalantly drive off, confident that the police, who had been warned of the murder and thus conveniently absented themselves, will take their time to return, and will then perform at best a perfunctory investigation. Witnesses are too terrified to identify the death squad members for fear of becoming their next victim.

More than 800 Davao City residents have fallen victim to the Davao Death Squad over the last decade, and the trend is accelerating; 33 were killed this past January alone. Moreover, death squads have now sprung up elsewhere in Mindanao and beyond.

Mr. Duterte’s response to this epidemic of murder in his city has been cagey. While denying any connection to death squads, he announced this past February that if you’re a criminal, “you are a legitimate target of assassination.” No translator was needed to understand his drift. President Arroyo, who once appointed Mr. Duterte her adviser on peace and order, only recently began to confront the ugly reality of the death squads.

Mr. Duterte’s denials would be one thing if there were serious questions about the existence of the Davao Death Squad. The lack of evidence that Mr. Duterte is personally directing the killing is beside the point. Rather, his denial of the undeniable signals to death squad members and those directing them that he is willing to cover up for their murderous activities. The death squad members are not stupid; they can read between the lines. Mr. Duterte’s blinking at reality suggests a nod and a wink.

Sadly, given the continuing inadequacy of the Philippine justice system, many Filipinos seem to accept the need for such brutality in approaching the nation’s crime problem. But it’s not only wrong to summarily take someone’s life; it’s also extraordinarily dangerous.

Contrary to expectations, the Davao Death Squad has not reduced crime. In the decade since it began operating, crime in Davao City has mushroomed ten times faster than the population. That’s not surprising, since contempt for the law breeds further lawlessness.

Moreover, once the police start playing God, the temptation becomes enormous for them to expand the class of victims. Today, the city’s supposed low-life; tomorrow, political or personal enemies. As Latin America of the 1980s showed, the business of death squads can consume a country, creating an environment where no one is safe.

So it is time for the Philippine government to move beyond unconvincing denials. President Arroyo took a first step this month by ordering the police to “get to the bottom” of vigilante killings. Her powerful executive secretary, Eduardo Ermita, added that “criminality is a social malaise that can never be remedied by such executions,” which he called “illegal” and “immoral.” The test now will be whether the Philippine government takes these strong statements to heart and launches vigorous investigations and prosecutions of those behind this murderous plague.

Kenneth Roth is the executive director of Human Rights Watch.