Banner Advertiser

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

[ALOCHONA] iraq




A look back at 8 years of war in Iraq
Eight years after the US entered Iraq to topple Saddam and liberate the people, conditions are worse than ever.
 Last Modified: 21 Mar 2011 11:57






March 19 marks the eighth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, a nation that had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the 9/11 attacks.
It was sold to the American public as a war to defend our nation and free the Iraqi people.
US deputy secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz said our soldiers would be greeted as liberators and that Iraqi oil money would pay for the reconstruction.
Vice president Dick Cheney said the military effort would take "weeks rather than months". And assistant defence secretary Ken Adelman predicted that "liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk".
Eight years on, it's time to look back at that "cakewalk".






__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Climate change fund: Irregularities



Climate change fund: Irregularities





http://www.eprothomalo.com/index.php?opt=view&page=16&date=2011-03-23


http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-03-23/news/140885


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] HC says Zia masterminded cold-blooded murder of Taher



Taher trial illegal :HC says Zia masterminded cold-blooded murder of Taher




The trial and execution of freedom fighter Col Abu Taher in 1976 was masterminded by the then chief martial law administrator, Gen Ziaur Rahman, the High Court said yesterday declaring the military tribunal and the trial illegal and unconstitutional.


"The so-called trial and execution of Colonel Abu Taher was a cold blooded assassination which was masterminded by a person no other than Ziaur Rahman," the court said after weeks of hearing on pleas by Taher's family and others to call the entire trial illegal.

Col Taher was a sector com mander during the 1971 Liberation War of Bangladesh. His supporters say he had a role in the soldiers' uprising on Nov 7, 1975 that saw Ziaur Rahman's release from confinement in Dhaka Cantonment.

Taher was later arrested and put to trial by a military tribunal that sentenced him to death on charges of mutiny and treason. He was executed on July 21, 1976.

Sixteen others including politicians Sirajul Alam Khan, ASM Abdur Rab, Maj (retd) Zia Uddin, Hasanul Huq Inu, Sharif Nurul Ambia, and Mahmudur Rahman Manna were also tried on the same charges and sentenced to various jail terms.

Delivering a judgment on four separate writ petitions, the HC bench of Justice AHM Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik and Justice Sheikh Md Zakir Hossain yesterday said, "Ziaur Rahman is not available now to face the murder charge as he is already dead, Abdul Ali will be prosecuted for killing Taher under the order of Ziaur Rahman." Abdul Ali is the only living judge of the military tribunal.

Senior judge of the bench Justice Shamsuddin Chowdhury Manik announced the verdict saying, "The so-called pretentious trial of Colonel Abu Taher, Hasanul Huq Inu, Mahmudur Rahman Manna, Major (retired) Zia Uddin and others was a hoax, a sham, and a fiction."

"The sentence passed by the fake tribunal is hereby set aside and quashed, as if it is set that such fictitious and farcical trial never took place."

The court ruled that Col Taher will be treated as a martyr and a patriot instead of a traitor, and the others tried and convicted on false sedition charges will be treated as patriots as well. The court directed the authorities to amend relevant records to that effect.

Family members of Taher and Hasanul Huq Inu were present in the courtroom during the delivery of the verdict. US journalist and writer Lawrence Lifschultz, who had covered the trial of Taher in 1976, was also present.They termed the judgment historic, and expressed satisfaction.

Justice Manik said the military tribunal and the so-called trial was not in accordance with any recognised law of the country.The camera trial, which was held inside a prison, was in total violation of all norms of justice, he went on.

The court said there was no process of charge framing against the so-called accused, no first information report or charge sheet, and the accused were not told about the charges they were about to face.

The accused were neither allowed to have access to lawyers, nor to cross examine the prosecution witness, they were barred from appealing against the verdict and from seeking a review, the bench said. They were not even allowed to submit mercy petitions, it noted.

The so-called tribunal had no document before it for holding the trial, and it did not allow the accused to defend themselves either, the HC observed.

"In short it was not even a show-trial as Lawrence Lifschultz stated before us. The purported trial was arranged only to justify Zia's decision to kill Taher with a view to establishing autocracy," Justice Manik said.The HC asked the government to seriously consider the question of compensating the victims of the military tribunal including the family members of Taher for the wrongs done to them by Ziaur Rahman.

The court said apart from Lawrence Lifschultz, Hasanul Huq Inu, and Mahmudur Rahman Manna, Zia's close associates Gen (retd) Nurul Islam Shishu and Moudud Ahmed also confirmed that Zia alone had decided to kill Taher even before formation of the so-called tribunal.

The bench castigated those who had said that Lawrence Lifschultz had come to Bangladesh as a government-hired agent.

Although the remark is tantamount to contempt of court, the bench is not bringing any charge, said the court adding that the persons who made the comment must refrain from making such remarks on sub-judice matters.The bench also directed the government to constitute a high profile committee to investigate the allegation that Ziaur Rahman was "directly involved in the killing of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman" on August 15, 1975, and after 1975 in the killing of several thousand military personnel who had been freedom fighters.

The committee will be comprised of retired judges of the Supreme Court, lawyers, journalists, human rights activists, civil society members, retired senior military and police officials, and civil servants, the bench said.

Justice Manik gave a list of actions by Ziaur Rahman that "prove his anti-liberation stand".

The justice said Zia erased the slogan Joy Bangla; changed the basic principles of the liberation war including secularism; appointed Shah Azizur Rahman, one of the worst collaborators of the Pakistani occupying army, as the prime minister; and appointed other collaborators Mustafizur Rahman and Abdul Alim as ministers after usurping the state power.

Ziaur Rahman introduced the politics of religious fundamentalism in the country, accommodated all war criminals and collaborators of the occupying army, "immunised" the killers of Bangabandhu Shekih Mujibur Rahman, and gave them respectable jobs, Justice Manik said.

He also said Ziaur Rahman converted Suhrawardi Uddyan -- the relic of Bangabandhu's historical March 7 speech, and the place where Pakistani armed forces surrendered -- into Shishu Park only to wipe out the memory of the liberation war.Ziaur Rahman also made the government-controlled media stop terming the then Pakistani forces as occupation forces, he added.

Taher's widow Lutfa Taher; his brother M Anwar Hossain; and Fatema Yusuf, wife of Yusuf Ali Khan, who was given life sentence by the military court; jointly filed a writ petition on August 22 last year challenging the legality of the military tribunal and the trial.

On August 23 last year, the HC issued a rule asking the government to explain why the martial law regulation under which Taher was tried and executed should not be declared illegal and unconstitutional.

Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal President Hasanul Huq Inu and its Vice-president Rabiul Alam, Maj (retd) Zia Uddin, and Abdul Majid, who were also tried and punished by the same military tribunal, filed three other writ petitions with the HC on similar grounds in January this year.

The HC on different days in January issued separate rules on the government.During hearings on the rules, a number of senior lawyers placed submissions before the court as amici curiae (friends of the court), saying that the trial of Taher and others was illegal and unconstitutional.

Lawrence Lifschultz also placed separate statements before the HC bench.Dr Kamal Hossain, Barrister M Amir-Ul Islam, Dr M Zahir, Barrister MI Farooqui, Advocate Yusuf Hossain Humayun, Dr Akther Imam, among others, placed submissions on the matter as well.

Barrister Rokanuddin Mahmud and Dr Shahdeen Malik argued for the petitioners, while Attorney General Mahbubey Alam, Additional Attorney General MK Rahman, and Deputy Attorney General ABM Altaf Hossain appeared for the government.

http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=178777


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Foreign Secretary's tirade against Daily Star



Editorial
Top diplomat's not so diplomatic words

Our foreign secretary, known for his refined taste for works of art, poetry, literature etc. took an uncharacteristic and extremely uncharitable swipe at this newspaper for its editorial of March 20 titled "Repatriation hampered", subtitled "Let our government do more to help". Starting his press briefing by singling out the Star's diplomatic correspondent and subjecting him to some personal remarks, he termed the editorial as an example of "sad journalism" , "bad journalism" journalism meant to "discredit the government" and damage the "image of the country", as an example of "not so healthy mind". He also castigated its editor for "not saying sorry to him" by 5.30 pm (time of the briefing) even though he had called him earlier. He questioned how could an editor not know what an editorial contained (we have no idea why he said so) and said this was not "professional" (of course it is not).

We are obviously shocked, and wonder what could have provoked an otherwise pleasant and soft-spoken diplomat to speak as such. The normal procedure is to send a "clarification", "rejoinder" or even a "protest" to the paper and wait to see what action the paper takes. The foreign ministry did send a "rejoinder" which we carry it (elsewhere) today, as we carry the one from IOM, both with our replies. So what was need for that "on the record" tirade when a rejoinder was being sent.

From the FS's remarks one would get the impression that the editorial was the only thing we wrote on the Libyan affair. In fact we have written six editorials to date. In these editorials we have mentioned the various actions being taken, and not taken, by the government, praising it for some of its actions. We are perhaps the only newspaper that has sent a reporter to the Tunisian-Libyan border for eye-witness reports. In addition we cover the daily briefing of the foreign ministry, making for large number of stories, articles and opinions on the subject.

In the background of all that we have written, to single out one editorial critical of the government only so far as speed and volume of repatriation from the Tunian-Libyan border is concerned is highly exaggerated, to put it most mildly.

The whole episode- using a common briefing to single out one paper, to call it names, question its professionalism, make it appear as if we are working against our national interest, and insist that he was saying everything " on record" - is, to us, indicative of a narrowing mindset.

http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=178727

-------------------------


The Daily Star has received two rejoinders sent separately by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in response to an editorial the paper carried on March 20 and a front page report published on March 18, both dealing with the issue of repatriation of Bangladeshis from troubled Libya.

Here we publish both the rejoinders; first the foreign ministry's followed by our reply and then the IOM's and our response to that prepared by our special correspondent, who has been reporting on the issue from the spot at Libya-Tunisia border.

FOREIGN MINISTRY
Our attention has been drawn to the editorial captioned "Repatriation hampered" appearing in The Daily Star dated March 20, 2011. This editorial is an exercise of less-than-professional journalism.

The editorial makes some sweeping remarks about the ongoing repatriation of Bangladeshis who had moved from Libya to the borders of Egypt and Tunisia, alleging that the government's "determination to bring back all Bangladeshis home" has not been backed by "concrete measures". The editorial would have us believe that officials of the ministry dispatched to oversee the repatriation process have "not contacted the IOM or UNHCR people working on the ground".

There have also been references to IOM officials being "plainly exasperated" at Biman flights not appearing "despite reports of Biman aircraft flying in to fly out the stranded Bangladeshis". We have also been sermonised to "strive more energetically to orchestrate the repatriation exercise". It is sad, to say the least, especially when the diplomatic correspondent of The Daily Star regularly covers the briefings and updates given by the foreign secretary on the repatriation exercise.

The repatriation process has been thought through and conducted in a coordinated manner in which the ministries of Foreign Affairs, Expatriates' Welfare and Overseas Employment and Civil Aviation and Tourism as well as other agencies concerned of the government are involved. We consulted with the IOM and other humanitarian organisations on a repatriation plan, including temporary shelter for the returnees at the borders. The IOM began repatriation on March 1 by chartered aircraft on an understanding of cost sharing with the government. It also mobilised additional resources from donors and partnered with other agencies. The ministry dispatched officers and consular staff from the headquarters and other missions in the region to the borders in Egypt and Tunisia as well as to Crete, Greece for servicing our nationals, especially with the issuance of travel documents. Biman was also mobilised to supplement the chartered flights, operating one flight a day from Alexandria in Egypt, beginning March 13 . Till date, a total of 29,801 Bangladesh nationals have been safely repatriated home.

There is now a residual 2,500 Bangladeshis awaiting repatriation in Tunisia, while the case-loads in Greece or in Egypt have all been repatriated. The Biman flights are now being transferred to Djerba, Tunisia beginning March 21.

On March 13, Foreign Minister Dr Dipu Moni and the foreign secretary saw the first Biman flight off from Alexandria. The foreign minister also visited Al-Saloum on the Libya-Egypt border to see for herself the situation there and to meet the stranded Bangladeshis.

The foreign secretary travelled to the Tunisia border, discussed the situation in the camps with heads of agencies working there, including Tunisian authorities, and met Bangladesh nationals at the border as well as those boarding return flights from Djerba airport.

The Minister for Expatriates Welfare and Overseas Employment Khandaker Musharraf Hossain is currently in Tunisia also to oversee the repatriation process. On March 19, he addressed returnees at Djerba airport and on March 20, he visited the camps at the border, was briefed by the agency heads and met Bangladeshis there.

OUR REPLY
Comments on the editorial by the foreign ministry are totally misplaced. The facts mentioned above have mostly been covered through our coverage of press briefings of the ministry. Our editorial comment was based on reports by our correspondent at the Tunisian-Libyan border. (see below and also see today's editorial).

We have printed various reports and editorials on how the government has been handling the Libyan issue. This editorial was meant for urging the government to do more for the stranded people in Tunisian border.

IOM
It has come to the notice of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) office in Dhaka that reporting from and commentary attributed to IOM on the Bangladeshi migrants by The Daily Star correspondent Morshed Ali Khan from the Tunisian border is not accurate. Today's (March 20, 2011) editorial "Repatriation Hampered: Let our government do more to help" also inaccurately attributes comments to IOM (and the UNHCR) on the repatriation situation and that the Government of Bangladesh is not making any efforts to return its nationals.

The IOM would like to inform that IOM and the Government of Bangladesh have been working closely for the past three weeks to bring the Bangladeshis affected by the Libya crisis back from North Africa (Egypt and Tunisia). A total of 29,895 Bangladeshis have returned till today--March 20--since repatriation of Bangladeshi migrants started on February 28. Of them, 24,856 people have been brought back by the IOM and in coordination with the governments of Bangladesh, Egypt and Tunisia.

In Dhaka, the IOM is working closely with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Expatriate Welfare and Overseas Employment, Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Bangladesh Police. This massive repatriation operation has been possible through the excellent collaboration between the respective governments including Bangladesh and the IOM and other UN and international organisations such as UNHCR and ICRC.

OUR REPLY
On the ground in Choucha camp, where thousands of displaced migrant workers, mainly Bangladeshis who had been working in Libya, swarmed, there was no trace of any representative from Bangladeshi government. The local volunteers as well as host of international bodies, including the IOM, desperately trying to communicate with the Bangladeshi displaced workers, faced increasing challenges every day. Since my arrival at Choucha on March 13, until the arrival of the Bangladeshi minister on March 20, I did not meet anyone who saw any of our government representatives on the ground.

Aid workers here told me that they had heard of some Bangladeshi officials stationed at the airport. I rushed there to find none, even though some aid workers reported seeing "two Bangladeshi officials."

With the IOM drastically reducing flights for the Bangladeshi stranded workers since Friday, there was no word from the national career Biman. Had there been timely efforts to dispatch its own aircraft, the 2,200 Bangladeshis would have been home now.

We stand by our report.

http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=178800



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] The man for whom Obama lied



The man for whom Obama lied

by Rahnuma Ahmed

[Today's column is dedicated to those who believe US presidents don't lie, that only politicians of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ghana, Nigeria, Iran etc., etc., those who belong to the uncivilised south, or to fundamentalist Muslim countries, do].

"We've got a very simple principle here that every country in the world that is party to the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations has upheld in the past and should uphold in the future," said Obama at a press conference (February 15, 2011) where he declared that by not releasing Raymond Davis, accused of killing two Pakistanis point-blank in Lahore (January 27, 2011), Pakistan was violating the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

"If our diplomats are in another country, then they are not subject to that country's local prosecution." "We expect Pakistan, that's a signatory and recognises Davis as a diplomat, to abide by the same convention."

It was rich coming from the president of a country which has violated international law in its treatment of foreign nationals. Which captured and abducted scores of men in Afghanistan, sent them off to Guantanamo hooded, shackled, bound and drugged, locked them up in small cages and tortured them. International conventions do not apply, said Donald Rumsfeld, when defense secretary, for they are "unlawful combatants." No insignia, no chain of command, carrying arms openly. True of the Taliban, but true as well of American special forces who eased in the Northern Alliance's victory. They wore civilian clothes, and kept their weapons out of sight (Patrick Martin, "Afghan POWs at Guantanamo base: bound and gagged, drugged, caged like animals," WSWS, 14 January 2002).

It was rich coming from the president of a country which has failed to observe the Vienna Convention on Consular Access to which the US is a signatory, which obliges countries to notify foreign govenments when their citizens have been detained. US states regularly flout Vienna conventions, to the extent of executing foreign nationals without allowing them to contact their embassy officials, a practice upheld by the US Supreme Court. More bizarre was the reason advanced by the state of Texas when George Bush was governor. The international treaty applied only to the federal government, not to Texas. The latter was not a signatory.

Full diplomatic immunity is enjoyed only by diplomatic agents, by those who are head of the mission or a member of the mission's diplomatic staff i.e., those having diplomatic rank (ambassador to third secretary), explains Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan 2002-2004 who was removed from his ambassadorial position for criticising Western support for the dictatorial Karimov regime. A second category exists, writes Murray, the mission's "administrative and technical staff" enjoy limited diplomatic immunity but it specifically excludes "acts performed outside the course of their duties" ("This CIA agent is no diplomat," Guardian, 28 February 2011.

Raymond Davis was not one of Obama's "our diplomat." There was no reason for the president not to know that, if he didn't, he seems too ill-informed to be the president of the United States.

According to news reports, sources in the Pakistan Foreign Office said, the US had pressurised them to forge backdated documents to allow the US to claim that Davis worked for the US Embassy. But Davis himself had told arresting police officers that he was "just a contractor" working out of the Lahore Consulate (Dave Lindorff, The Case Mounts Against The CIA's Raymond Davis, Eurasia Review, 25 Feb 2011). Further, a week before the shooting, the US Embassy had submitted a list of its Embassy workers to the Foreign Office. Forty-eight names, no Davis. A day after the shooting, a "revised" list was submitted by the Embassy. Sorry. The earlier list had "overlooked" Davis. To make matters (lies) worse, Davis was carrying a regular passport when arrested. A day after the shooting, however, Lahore Consulate officials rushed over with a shiny new diplomatic passport; it was not accepted. To complicate matters even further, Davis was carrying a Department of defense contractor ID when arrested.

But it wasn't only Obama. Other top-ranking US officials too, lied. Hillary Clinton, in a message to Pakistan's president Asif Zardari insisted that Raymond Davis should be released immediately. Senator John F. Kerry, chair, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went to Pakistan to advise the government to respect the international law which grants diplomatic immunity to consulate officials.

These lies were backed up by threats. All bilateral contracts with Pakistan were put on hold until Davis's release. The dispute, said diplomatic sources, could affect three major events: president Asif Zardari's planned visit to Washington this year; the next round of US-Pakistan strategic dialogue, and the trilateral talks between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the US (Dawn, February 8, 2011). Foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was told that secretary Clinton would probably not meet him in the Munich international security conference. Qureshi postponed his visit (only to be fired later for not agreeing to change Davis' record; he'd rather resign, he said, than become "an accessory to multiple murder"). http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/129647/world/qureshi-lost-foreign-ministry-portfolio-for-opposing-immun The row could also affect $1.5 billion annual assistance to Pakistan. It could affect a $7.5 billion, 5-year civilian aid package. Official visits. Official meetings. In short, it could cast a shadow on everything. Until and unless Raymond Davis was released.

Outside the US, commentators began wondering very early on what on earth Davis ("our diplomat," our "administrative and technical staff") was doing with the items found in his car: a 9mm Glock pistol, GPS tracker, satellite phone, telescope, five magazines, 75 bullets of prohibited bore, two cutters, two cell phones, ATM cards, first aid kit, PIA tickets, maps, a digital camera which included photographs of sensitive military installations, bridges and Ack Ack gun positions near bridges and bunkers facing the Indian border, masks, make-up kit. A police investigation of calls later showed calls to 33 Pakistanis, including 27 militants from the banned Pakistani Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a group identified as a "terrorist" organisation by both Pakistan and US governments, one that is blamed for prime minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination and Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl's slaying.

But it wasn't only top-ranking US officials, the US press too, lied. After the Guardian and the Associated Press reported that Raymond Davis is "beyond a shadow of doubt" employed by the CIA (Guardian, February 20, 2011), that the arrested US official is "actually a CIA contractor" (AP, February 21, 201), the New York Times 'fessed up. Alongwith major US news organisations, wrote its editor, the NYT too had agreed to the "request of the Obama administration" to withold Davis' CIA connections from the American public. Despite knowing fully well, the American press had regurgitated endlessly that Davis was one of "our diplomats," that he enjoyed "diplomatic immunity." NYT's editor agreed that their stance which had led to misleading the public was "unpalatable," but he didn't "regret" the judgment.

Muhammad Faheem and Faizan Haider, had been on a motorbike which swerved in front of Davis's Honda Civic when he stopped at a red light. A former special forces soldier, Davis, whipped out his semi-automatic Glock pistol and opened fire from behind the wheel of his car. Five shots sliced through the windscreen and killed Faheem. Faizan began running, Davis got out of his car and fired another five shots. According to the post-mortem report, Faizan's body had three bullets in the front, two in the back. Davis walked back to the car, called for help on a military-style radio, took out his camera and started photographing the dead men. All in broad daylight. A rescue squad soon appeared driving at high speed down the opposite end of the road, it killed motorcyclist Ibadur Rahman. Not finding Davis who had by then fled, the rescue car sped off in the direction of the Lahore Consulate jettisoning items which included 100 bullets, knives, gloves, a blindfold, a piece of cloth with the American flag. While fleeing, one of its doors swung open and, according to witnesses, an American brandished a rifle and threatened to fire anyone who got in the way (Declan Walsh, A CIA spy, a hail of bullets, three killed and a US-Pakistan diplomatic row, Guardian, February 20, 2011). The rescue car men were spirited out of the country, Davis was caught.

There was a fourth death. On February 6, Shumaila Kanwal, 26 year old widow of Faheem, committed suicide by taking insecticide. The killer should be shot like my husband was shot. I want blood for blood. He is being treated favorably instead. He will soon be set free. "I do not expect any justice from this government" (Dawn, February 7, 2011).

On March 16 Raymond Davis was released. According to official reports, $2.34 million in Diyat (blood money) had been paid to the legal heirs of those killed. When asked, Hillary Clinton denied that the US had paid "any compensation." "Did someone else, to your knowledge?" "You will have to ask whoever you are interested in asking about that," was her reply. According to the NYT, the money had been paid by members of the Pakistan government, to be reimbursed later by the US government, while others think, it was arranged by the Saudi government, anxious, because the Americans were "getting impatient." Both Faheem and Faizan's family went missing several days before the court hearing where diyat was agreed upon, some had been taken away by unidentified men. They were delivered to the court on the day of the hearing, also by unidentified men. When the judge asked them whether they had pardoned Davis, they replied in the affirmative but 19 family members have subsequently vanished. Were they forced to accept the deal? Were they afraid of retaliation because they had? Many in Pakistan think so. The lawyer representing Faizan has said, "I and my associate were kept in forced detention for hours" before the trial. Lawyers for both families have claimed that the family members were "forcibly taken to Kot Lahkpat Jail by unidentified men and made to sign papers pardoning Davis" (Dave Lindorff, Raymond Davis Walks, CounterPunch, March 17, 2011).l The issue of compensation was first raised when senator Kerry visited Islamabad to press for Davis' release (Dawn, March 18, 2011).

Davis, writes Dawn's former editor Abbas Nasir, was but a "pawn on a chessboard." His near-two months long captivity and the gravity of charges were being used as "bargaining chips" in a larger game. Being played on a much wider stage, across a much broader canvas. Others think, the now-resolved dispute will lead to closer collaboration between Pakistan's ISI and the CIA.

Lies. Threats. Intimidation. Many accessories to multiple murders.

CIA killer Raymond Davis being escorted to court by Pakistan police.

Shumaila Kanwal, Faheem's widow, who committed suicide.

http://www.shahidulnews.com/2011/03/the-manfor whom-obama-lied/




__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Farce thy name is BNP’s parliament attendence



Farce thy name is BNP's parliament attendence

Give speech

Walk out

Give speech

Walk out

Walk out

Boycott

Wait for 89 days until they risk losing their seats

Give speech about giving another chance to the government and not reveal the real reason to join the parliament

Join parliament

Give Speech

Walk out   and the cycle continues.....

Forget about representing their constituencies.

Yet, the opposition leader wants mid-term election for a new parliament?   Why?

In the mean time, we have Ashrafi 'Mike dey' Papia to keep us entertained.

http://unheardvoice.net/blog/2011/03/22/farce-thy-name-is-bnps-parliament-attendence/


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Foreign interference unacceptable



Foreign interference unacceptable

Rashed Khan Menon, president of the left-leaning Workers Party of Bangladesh, a component of the Awami League-led ruling alliance, has rightly pointed out in the parliament that foreign countries, particularly the United States, is interfering in the internal affairs of the country. Menon was referring to the case of removal of Dr Muhammad Yunus from the post of the Grameen Bank's managing director by the government and the US administration's repeated demand that a negotiated settlement be reached between the two parties.

Menon observed that such interference was 'unacceptable.' We cannot agree with him more. While we do not accept the visible governmental efforts to malign Dr Yunus, or any person for that matter, on the basis of yet-to-be proved allegations of financial corruptions, we have no reason to accept the foreigners' continued pressures, direct or indirect, on our elected government to reach a negotiated settlement of a legally controversial issue, pending with the country's highest court. If Dr Yunus has flouted the law of the land to retain his administrative position in the bank, he should be removed from the position for the sake of the rule of law, which promises equal treatment of all citizens by the state. If Dr. Yunus is genuinely considered still indispensable for the Grameen Bank, the government is free to amend the law concerned, increasing the age-limit for the managing directors of all the banks.

However, a truly nationalist government committed not only to the political, economic and cultural interests of the people but also to the national sense of dignity can make sincere efforts to avoid foreign pressures in conducting the affairs of 'nation state.' The ruling Awami League-Jatiya Party coalition, like its BNP-Jamaat predecessor, has hardly displayed its sense of dignity in governing the state on its own. The Wikileaks report showed only the other day that the government's foreign affairs adviser had 'briefed the US administration' about the contents of the agreements signed between the prime ministers of Bangladesh and India which have never been properly disclosed to our people. Besides, the country's ruling class politicians of rival camps have long been seen, to the disgust of the ordinary millions, rushing to the foreign missions in Dhaka to complain against each other and seek their interventions in resolving local political disputes.

It is too much to expect that the country's political class voluntarily seeking foreign interference in the local affairs would now be able to resist interference with the domestic affairs by foreigners. So, who knows, the incumbents may eventually surrender to the US and its Western allies and work out a negotiation and thus make Yunus and his foreign friends have the last laugh. However, Yunus, claiming to be a big champion of nationalist causes, should not have allowed his powerful foreign friends to interfere in the country's internal affairs so nakedly. He should have rather resisted the governmental wrath against him, if there is any, with the active support of the millions of the poor that he claims to be supporting him for years now.

Meanwhile, the democratically oriented sections of our people need to organise themselves politically against the political class vulnerable to foreign pressures at any given time. Tolerating foreign interference, after all, is inconsistent with the people's spirit of the liberation war that they fought 40 years ago.


http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/editorial/12555.html

US interference unacceptable: Hanif
http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=190626&cid=2


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Separating Northeast From India Can be a Response From Beijing



Separating Northeast From India Can be a Response From Beijing- Suggests Chinese Blogger

-- On
Tue, 3/22/11, Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

The article contains both Indian and Chinese views on Arunachal (as the Indians call it) or Southern Tibet (as the Chinese call it). The article has also been published in Eurasia Review, as follows:
(http://www.eurasiareview.com/china-southern-tibet-arunachal-invaded-by-india-analysis-21032011/) on 21 March 2011.
 
The situation there, in my view, has gone past the phase of psywar, as the Indian mobilisation of troops has now reached more than 200,000. It is now eyeball to eyeball. From the chinese point of view the writer 'Zao An' has noted three options for China
 
"(i) Maintain 'low-intensity war status quo' with India, (ii) Actually launch a 'low intensity war against India', which can be upgraded into a 'middle intensity war' and (iii) prepare for a protracted confrontation with India which may mean a division of India. Explaining the last mentioned, the Blog has revealed that it may involve China's cutting of India from its North Eastern parts along the Siliguri line, leading to creation of a new 'Eastern Hindustan State' and its seeking support for this purpose from Myanmar, Bangladesh etc."  
 
It is clear from the above that Bangladesh will be dragged into the dispute, more likely directly than indirectly. We must observe and analyse the geo-strategic and geo-political developments and decide on our course of action and accordingly interact with the regional and global powers who are involved. 
 

China: "Southern Tibet" (Arunachal) 'Invaded' by India; Separating Northeast From India Can be a Response From Beijing

 

"What we see therefore is an India which is getting aggressive with the sole purpose of defeating China, occupying more land and reestablishing a new great Hindustan!"  

Full Article:

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers44%5Cpaper4390.html



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Naming Names: Your Real Government



Naming Names: Your Real Government

When dark deeds unfold, point the finger in this direction

by Tony Cartalucci

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html

This is your real government; they transcend elected administrations, they permeate every political party, and they are responsible for nearly every aspect of the average American and European's way of life. When the "left" is carrying the torch for two "Neo-Con" wars, starting yet another based on the same lies, peddled by the same media outlets that told of Iraqi WMD's, the world has no choice, beyond profound cognitive dissonance, but to realize something is wrong.

What's wrong is a system completely controlled by a corporate-financier oligarchy with financial, media, and industrial empires that span the globe. If we do not change the fact that we are helplessly dependent on these corporations that regulate every aspect of our nation politically, and every aspect of our lives personally, nothing else will ever change.

The following list, however extensive, is by far not all-inclusive. However after these examples, a pattern should become self-evident with the same names and corporations being listed again and again. It should be self-evident to readers of how dangerously pervasive these corporations have become in our daily lives. Finally, it should be self-evident as to how necessary it is to excise these corporations from our lives, our communities, and ultimately our nations, with the utmost expediency.




International Crisis Group
www.crisisgroup.org

Background: While the International Crisis Group (ICG) claims to be "committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict," the reality is that they are committed to offering solutions crafted well in advance to problems they themselves have created in order to perpetuate their own corporate agenda.

Nowhere can this be better illustrated than in Thailand and more recently in Egypt. ICG member Kenneth Adelman had been backing Thailand's Prime Minster Thaksin Shinwatra, a former Carlyle Group adviser who was was literally standing in front of the CFR in NYC on the eve of his ousting from power in a 2006 military coup. Since 2006, Thaksin's meddling in Thailand has been propped up by fellow Carlyle man James Baker and his Baker Botts law firm, Belfer Center adviser Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers, and now Robert Amsterdam's Amsterdam & Peroff, a major corporate member of the globalist Chatham House.

With Thailand now mired in political turmoil led by Thaksin Shinwatra and his "red shirt" color revolution, the ICG is ready with "solutions" in hand. These solutions generally involve tying the Thai government's hands with arguments that stopping Thaksin's subversive activities amounts to human rights abuses, in hopes of allowing the globalist-backed revolution to swell beyond control.

The unrest in Egypt, of course, was led entirely by ICG member Mohamed ElBaradei and his US State Department recruited, funded, and supported April 6 Youth Movement coordinated by Google's Wael Ghonim. While the unrest was portrayed as being spontaneous, fueled by the earlier Tunisian uprising, ICG's ElBaradei, Ghonim, and their youth movement had been in Egypt since 2010 assembling their "National Front for Change" and laying the groundwork for the January 25th 2011 uprising.

ICG's George Soros would then go on to fund Egyptian NGOs working to rewrite the Egyptian constitution after front-man ElBaradei succeeded in removing Hosni Mubarak. This Soros-funded constitution and the resulting servile stooge government it would create represents the ICG "resolving" the crisis their own ElBaradei helped create.

Notable ICG Board Members:

George Soros
Kenneth Adelman
Samuel Berger
Wesley Clark
Mohamed ElBaradei
Carla Hills

Notable ICG Advisers:

Richard Armitage
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Stanley Fischer
Shimon Peres
Surin Pitsuwan
Fidel V. Ramos

Notable ICG Foundation & Corporate Supporters:

Carnegie Corporation of New York
Hunt Alternatives Fund
Open Society Institute
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Morgan Stanley
Deutsche Bank Group
Soros Fund Management LLC
McKinsey & Company
Chevron
Shell




Brookings Institute
www.brookings.edu

Background: Within the library of the Brookings Institute you will find the blueprints for nearly every conflict the West has been involved with in recent memory. What's more is that while the public seems to think these crises spring up like wildfires, those following the Brookings' corporate funded studies and publications see these crises coming years in advance. These are premeditated, meticulously planned conflicts that are triggered to usher in premeditated, meticulously planned solutions to advance Brookings' corporate supporters, who are numerous.

The ongoing operations against Iran, including US-backed color revolutions, US-trained and backed terrorists inside Iran, and crippling sanctions were all spelled out in excruciating detail in the Brookings Institute report, "Which Path to Persia?" The more recent UN Security Council resolution 1973 regarding Libya uncannily resembles Kenneth Pollack's March 9, 2011 Brookings report titled "The Real Military Options in Libya."

Notable Brookings Board Members:

Dominic Barton: McKinsey & Company, Inc.
Alan R. Batkin: Eton Park Capital Management
Richard C. Blum: Blum Capital Partners, LP
Abby Joseph Cohen: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Suzanne Nora Johnson: Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Richard A. Kimball Jr.: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Tracy R. Wolstencroft: Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Paul Desmarais Jr.: Power Corporation of Canada
Kenneth M. Duberstein: The Duberstein Group, Inc.
Benjamin R. Jacobs: The JBG Companies
Nemir Kirdar: Investcorp
Klaus Kleinfeld: Alcoa, Inc.
Philip H. Knight: Nike, Inc.
David M. Rubenstein: Co-Founder of The Carlyle Group
Sheryl K. Sandberg: Facebook
Larry D. Thompson: PepsiCo, Inc.
Michael L. Tipsord: State Farm Insurance Companies
Andrew H. Tisch: Loews Corporation

Some Brookings Experts:
(click on names to see a list of recent writings.)

Kenneth Pollack
Daniel L. Byman
Martin Indyk
Suzanne Maloney
Michael E. O'Hanlon
Bruce Riedel
Shadi Hamid

Notable Brookings Foundation & Corporate Support:

Foundations & Governments

Ford Foundation
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
Government of the United Arab Emirates
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Rockefeller Brothers Fund

Banking & Finance

Bank of America
Citi
Goldman Sachs
H&R Block
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Jacob Rothschild
Nathaniel Rothschild
Standard Chartered Bank
Temasek Holdings Limited
Visa Inc.

Big Oil

Exxon Mobil Corporation
Chevron
Shell Oil Company

Military Industrial Complex & Industry

Daimler
General Dynamics Corporation
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Siemens Corporation
The Boeing Company
General Electric Company
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Raytheon Co.
Hitachi, Ltd.
Toyota

Telecommunications & Technology

AT&T
Google Corporation
Hewlett-Packard
Microsoft Corporation
Panasonic Corporation
Verizon Communications
Xerox Corporation
Skype

Media & Perception Management

McKinsey & Company, Inc.
News Corporation (Fox News)

Consumer Goods & Pharmaceutical

GlaxoSmithKline
Target
PepsiCo, Inc.
The Coca-Cola Company



Council on Foreign Relations
www.cfr.org

Background & Notable Membership: A better question would be, who isn't in the Council on Foreign Relations? Nearly every self-serving career politician, their advisers, and those populating the boards of the Fortune 500 are CFR members. Many of the books, magazine articles, and newspaper columns we read are written by CFR members, along with reports, similar to Brookings Institute that dictate, verbatim, the legislation that ends up before the West's lawmakers.

A good sampling of the most active wings of the CFR can be illustrated best in last year's "Ground Zero Mosque" hoax, where CFR members from both America's political right and left feigned a heated debate over New York City's so-called Cordoba House near the 3 felled World Trade Center buildings. In reality, the Cordoba House was established by fellow CFR member Feisal Abdul Rauf, who in turn was funded by CFR financing arms including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, chaired by 9/11 Commission head Thomas Kean, and various Rockefeller foundations.

Notable CFR Corporate Support:

Banking & Finance

Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co
American Express
Barclays Capital
Citi
Morgan Stanley
Blackstone Group L.P.
Deutsche Bank AG
New York Life International, Inc.
Prudential Financial
Standard & Poor's
Rothschild North America, Inc.
Visa Inc.
Soros Fund Management
Standard Chartered Bank
Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
Veritas Capital LLC
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Moody's Investors Service

Big Oil

Chevron Corporation
Exxon Mobil Corporation
BP p.l.c.
Shell Oil Company
Hess Corporation
ConocoPhillips Company
TOTAL S.A.
Marathon Oil Company
Aramco Services Company

Military Industrial Complex & Industry

Lockheed Martin Corporation
Airbus Americas, Inc.
Boeing Company,
DynCorp International
General Electric Company
Northrop Grumman
Raytheon Company
Hitachi, Ltd.
Caterpillar
BASF Corporation
Alcoa, Inc.

Public Relations, Lobbyists & Legal Firms

McKinsey & Company, Inc.
Omnicom Group Inc.
BGR Group

Corporate Media & Publishing

Bloomberg
Economist Intelligence Unit
News Corporation (Fox News)
Thomson Reuters
Time Warner Inc.
McGraw-Hill Companies

Consumer Goods

Walmart
Nike, Inc.
Coca-Cola Company
PepsiCo, Inc.
HP
Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
De Beers

Telecommunications & Technology

AT&T
Google, Inc.
IBM Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Sony Corporation of America
Xerox Corporation
Verizon Communications

Pharmaceutical Industry

GlaxoSmithKline
Merck & Co., Inc.
Pfizer Inc.



The Chatham House
www.chathamhouse.org.uk

Background & Membership: The UK's Chatham House, like the CFR and the Brookings Institute in America, has an extensive membership and is involved in coordinated planning, perception management, and the execution of its corporate membership's collective agenda.

Individual members populating its "senior panel of advisers" consist of the founders, CEOs, and chairmen of the Chatham House's corporate membership. Chatham's "experts" are generally plucked from the world of academia and their "recent publications" are generally used internally as well as published throughout Chatham's extensive list of member media corporations, as well as industry journals and medical journals. That Chatham House "experts" are submitting entries to medical journals is particularly alarming considering GlaxoSmithKline and Merck are both Chatham House corporate members.

No better example of this incredible conflict of interest can be given than the current Thai "red" color revolution being led by Chatham House's Amsterdam & Peroff with consistent support lent by other corporate members including the Economist, the Telegraph and the BBC.

In one case, the Telegraph printed, "Thai protests - analysis by Dr Gareth Price and Rosheen Kabraji," within which Price and Kabraji make a shameless attempt at defending the Western-backed, Maoist themed, violent protests. While the Telegraph mentioned that Price and Kabraji were both analysts for the Chatham House, they failed to tell readers that the Telegraph itself retains a corporate membership within the Chatham House as does the Thai protest leader's lobbyist, Robert Amsterdam and his Amsterdam & Peroff lobbying firm.

Notable Chatham House Major Corporate Members:

Amsterdam & Peroff
BBC
Bloomberg
Coca-Cola Great Britain
Economist
GlaxoSmithKline
Goldman Sachs International
HSBC Holdings plc
Lockheed Martin UK
Merck & Co Inc
Mitsubishi Corporation
Morgan Stanley
Royal Bank of Scotland
Saudi Petroleum Overseas Ltd
Standard Bank London Limited
Standard Chartered Bank
Tesco
Thomson Reuter
United States of America Embassy
Vodafone Group

Notable Chatham House Standard Corporate Members:

Amnesty International
BASF
Boeing UK
CBS News
Daily Mail and General Trust plc
De Beers Group Services UK Ltd
G3 Good Governance Group
Google
Guardian
Hess Ltd
Lloyd's of London
McGraw-Hill Companies
Prudential plc
Telegraph Media Group
Times Newspapers Ltd
World Bank Group

Notable Chatham House Corporate Partners:

British Petroleum
Chevron Ltd
Deutsche Bank
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Royal Dutch Shell
Statoil
Toshiba Corporation
Total Holdings UK Ltd
Unilever plc

Conclusion


These organizations represent the collective interests of the largest corporations on earth. They not only retain armies of policy wonks and researchers to articulate their agenda and form a consensus internally, but also use their massive accumulation of unwarranted influence in media, industry, and finance to manufacture a self-serving consensus internationally.

To believe that this corporate-financier oligarchy would subject their agenda and fate to the whims of the voting masses is naive at best. They have painstakingly ensured that no matter who gets into office, in whatever country, the guns, the oil, the wealth and the power keep flowing perpetually into their own hands. Nothing vindicates this poorly hidden reality better than a "liberal" Nobel Peace Prize wearing president, dutifully towing forward a myriad of "Neo-Con" wars, while starting yet another war in Libya.

Likewise, no matter how bloody your revolution is, if the above equation remains unchanged, and the corporate bottom lines left unscathed, nothing but the most superficial changes will have been made, and as is the case in Egypt with International Crisis Group stooge Mohamed ElBaradei worming his way into power, things may become substantially worse.

The real revolution will commence when we identify the above equation as the true brokers of power and when we begin systematically removing our dependence on them, and their influence on us from our daily lives. The global corporate-financier oligarchy needs us, we do not need them, independence from them is the key to our freedom.

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___