Christian militia members charged in Michigan
DETROIT
(Reuters) - Nine members of a Christian militia group were indicted on charges of conspiring to wage war against the U.S. government, federal prosecutors said on Monday.
U.S.
According to the grand jury indictment unsealed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the eight men and one woman were members of a group called the Hutaree that planned to kill a police officer in Michigan and then ambush the law enforcement officers who attended his funeral.
The indictment said the group believed the attacks would "serve as a catalyst for a more widespread uprising" against the government.
Eight people were arrested by the FBI over the weekend in raids in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois. One of the accused, Joshua Stone, 21, is still at large.
The arrests followed a federal grand jury indictment handed down in Detroit charging them with seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence.
The weapons of mass destruction charge referred to improvised explosive devices with projectiles, the indictment said.
Seven of the eight in custody were arraigned on Monday. On Wednesday, U.S. Magistrate Donald Scheer will consider the prosecutor's request that the defendants be held without bail. The status of the eighth person was not immediately clear.
The group's website, hutaree.com, says the term Hutaree means "Christian warrior" and characterizes the group as "preparing for the end time battles to keep the testimony of Jesus Christ alive." It also features a Bible quotation from John 15:13: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
The indictment said the leader of the group is David Brian Stone Sr., 45, of Clayton, Michigan, who was among those arrested.
A woman identifying herself as Donna Stone, who said she was David Brian Stone Sr.'s ex-wife, appeared at Monday's court hearing. She told reporters that her ex-husband's increasing obsession with firearms had been the cause of the divorce.
She said: "When he got carried away from handguns to big guns, I said, 'I'm done.'"
Monday, March 29, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Congress clears historic health care bill
WASHINGTON – Summoned to success by President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled Congress approved historic legislation Sunday night extending health care to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and cracking down on insurance company abuses, a climactic chapter in the century-long quest for near universal coverage.
Widely viewed as dead two months ago, the Senate-passed bill cleared the House on a 219-212 vote, with Republicans unanimous in opposition.
Congressional officials said they expected Obama to sign the bill as early as Tuesday.
A second measure — making changes in the first — was lined up for passage later in the evening. It would then go to the Senate, where Democratic leaders said they had the votes to pass it.
Crowds of protesters outside the Capitol shouted "just vote no" in a futile attempt to stop the inevitable taking place inside a House packed with lawmakers and ringed with spectators in the galleries above.
Across hours of debate, House Democrats predicted the major bill, costing $940 billion over a decade, would rank with other great social legislation of recent decades.
"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, partner to Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in the grueling campaign to pass the legislation.
"This is the civil rights act of the 21st century," added Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking black member of the House.
Republicans readily agreed the bill would affect everyone in America, but warned repeatedly of the burden imposed by more than $900 billion in tax increases and Medicare cuts combined.
"We have failed to listen to America," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, leader of a party that has vowed to carry the fight into the fall's midterm elections for control of Congress.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. If realized, the expansion of coverage would include 95 percent of all eligible individuals under age 65.
Far beyond the political ramifications — a concern the president repeatedly insisted he paid no mind — were the sweeping changes the bill held in store for millions of individuals, the insurance companies that would come under tougher control and the health care providers, many of whom would face higher taxes.
For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Much of the money in the bill would be devoted to subsidies to help families at incomes of up to $88,000 a year pay their premiums.
The measure would also usher in a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. Coverage would be required for incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014.
The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, would come under new federal regulation. They would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.
Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case.
A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion would go into high gear.
The final obstacle to passage was cleared a few hours before the vote, when Obama and Democratic leaders reached a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers whose rebellion had left the outcome in doubt. The president issued an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion, satisfying Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and a handful of like-minded lawmakers.
A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed skepticism that the presidential order would satisfy the church's objections.
For the president, the events capped an 18-day stretch in which he traveled to four states and lobbied more than 60 wavering lawmakers in person or by phone to secure passage of his signature domestic issue. According to some who met with him, he warned that the bill's demise could cripple his still-young presidency.
After more than a year of political combat, Democrats piled superlative upon superlative across several hours of House debate.
Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York read a message President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress in 1939 urging lawmakers to address the needs of those without health care, and said Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Richard Nixon had also sought to broaden insurance coverage.
Republicans attacked the bill without let-up, warning it would harm the economy while mandating a government takeover of the health care system.
"The American people know you can't reduce health care costs by spending $1 trillion or raising taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars. The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over one-half trillion dollars without hurting seniors," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.
"And, the American people know that you can't create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding spending and the deficit."
Obama has said often that presidents of both parties have tried without success to achieve national health insurance, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt early in the 20th century.
The 44th president's quest to succeed where others have failed seemed at a dead end two months ago, when Republicans won a special election for a Massachusetts Senate seat, and with it, the votes to prevent a final vote.
But the White House, Pelosi and Reid soon came up with a rescue plan that required the House to approve the Senate-passed measure despite opposition to many of its provisions, then have both houses pass a fix-it measure incorporating numerous changes.
To pay for the changes, the legislation includes more than $400 billion in higher taxes over a decade, roughly half of it from a new Medicare payroll tax on individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. A new excise tax on high-cost insurance policies was significantly scaled back in deference to complaints from organized labor.
In addition, the bills cut more than $500 billion from planned payments to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other providers that treat Medicare patients. An estimated $200 billion would reduce planned subsidies to insurance companies that offer a private alternative to traditional Medicare.
The insurance industry warned that seniors would face sharply higher premiums as a result, and the Congressional Budget Office said many would return to traditional Medicare as a result.
The subsidies are higher than those for seniors on traditional Medicare, a difference that critics complain is wasteful, but insurance industry officials argue goes into expanded benefits.
Widely viewed as dead two months ago, the Senate-passed bill cleared the House on a 219-212 vote, with Republicans unanimous in opposition.
Congressional officials said they expected Obama to sign the bill as early as Tuesday.
A second measure — making changes in the first — was lined up for passage later in the evening. It would then go to the Senate, where Democratic leaders said they had the votes to pass it.
Crowds of protesters outside the Capitol shouted "just vote no" in a futile attempt to stop the inevitable taking place inside a House packed with lawmakers and ringed with spectators in the galleries above.
Across hours of debate, House Democrats predicted the major bill, costing $940 billion over a decade, would rank with other great social legislation of recent decades.
"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, partner to Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in the grueling campaign to pass the legislation.
"This is the civil rights act of the 21st century," added Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking black member of the House.
Republicans readily agreed the bill would affect everyone in America, but warned repeatedly of the burden imposed by more than $900 billion in tax increases and Medicare cuts combined.
"We have failed to listen to America," said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, leader of a party that has vowed to carry the fight into the fall's midterm elections for control of Congress.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. If realized, the expansion of coverage would include 95 percent of all eligible individuals under age 65.
Far beyond the political ramifications — a concern the president repeatedly insisted he paid no mind — were the sweeping changes the bill held in store for millions of individuals, the insurance companies that would come under tougher control and the health care providers, many of whom would face higher taxes.
For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Much of the money in the bill would be devoted to subsidies to help families at incomes of up to $88,000 a year pay their premiums.
The measure would also usher in a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. Coverage would be required for incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014.
The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, would come under new federal regulation. They would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.
Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case.
A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion would go into high gear.
The final obstacle to passage was cleared a few hours before the vote, when Obama and Democratic leaders reached a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers whose rebellion had left the outcome in doubt. The president issued an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion, satisfying Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and a handful of like-minded lawmakers.
A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed skepticism that the presidential order would satisfy the church's objections.
For the president, the events capped an 18-day stretch in which he traveled to four states and lobbied more than 60 wavering lawmakers in person or by phone to secure passage of his signature domestic issue. According to some who met with him, he warned that the bill's demise could cripple his still-young presidency.
After more than a year of political combat, Democrats piled superlative upon superlative across several hours of House debate.
Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York read a message President Franklin Roosevelt sent Congress in 1939 urging lawmakers to address the needs of those without health care, and said Democrat Harry Truman and Republican Richard Nixon had also sought to broaden insurance coverage.
Republicans attacked the bill without let-up, warning it would harm the economy while mandating a government takeover of the health care system.
"The American people know you can't reduce health care costs by spending $1 trillion or raising taxes by more than one-half trillion dollars. The American people know that you cannot cut Medicare by over one-half trillion dollars without hurting seniors," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich.
"And, the American people know that you can't create an entirely new government entitlement program without exploding spending and the deficit."
Obama has said often that presidents of both parties have tried without success to achieve national health insurance, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt early in the 20th century.
The 44th president's quest to succeed where others have failed seemed at a dead end two months ago, when Republicans won a special election for a Massachusetts Senate seat, and with it, the votes to prevent a final vote.
But the White House, Pelosi and Reid soon came up with a rescue plan that required the House to approve the Senate-passed measure despite opposition to many of its provisions, then have both houses pass a fix-it measure incorporating numerous changes.
To pay for the changes, the legislation includes more than $400 billion in higher taxes over a decade, roughly half of it from a new Medicare payroll tax on individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. A new excise tax on high-cost insurance policies was significantly scaled back in deference to complaints from organized labor.
In addition, the bills cut more than $500 billion from planned payments to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other providers that treat Medicare patients. An estimated $200 billion would reduce planned subsidies to insurance companies that offer a private alternative to traditional Medicare.
The insurance industry warned that seniors would face sharply higher premiums as a result, and the Congressional Budget Office said many would return to traditional Medicare as a result.
The subsidies are higher than those for seniors on traditional Medicare, a difference that critics complain is wasteful, but insurance industry officials argue goes into expanded benefits.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Mullah Baradar arrest: UN envoy criticizes Pakistan for arrests
Kai Eide, the UN's special representative to Afghanistan until earlier this month, has attacked Pakistan for having arrested prominent Taliban leaders who were taking part in back-channel peace talks.
Eide, a Norwegian, confirmed for the first time since leaving office that he had held what seemed to him to be promising discussions with senior Taliban representatives, but that channels of communication had shut down after the arrests.
These arrests had a "negative effect" on prospects for continuing the political process, he told the BBC World Service. The talks had taken place with at least the tacit assent of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, Eide believed. "I find it unthinkable that such contact would take place without his knowledge," he said.
Eide was tasked with bringing impetus to peace efforts in Afghanistan two years ago when relations between Kabul and the international community were in crisis. He left his post 10 days ago.
The US is sceptical about negotiations, though Britain wants greater efforts to talk to the Taliban about cutting ties with al-Qaida and ending a conflict which has cost more than 270 British lives and is being intensified by Kabul's inefficiency and corruption.
"Of course I met Taliban leaders during the time I was in Afghanistan," Eide said. "Anything else would have been unthinkable." He said that the first contacts were made last spring, with a lull until after the August 2009 election. But they ended a few weeks ago when US and Pakistani intelligence arrested Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the number two in the Taliban command, in Karachi. Up to 14 others were also detained.
Baradar's seizure was reported as a breakthrough in co-operation between the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, but a key figure in back-channel talks involving Saudi Arabia described his arrest as "a huge blow" to the fledgling peace initiative.
Eide was highly critical of Pakistan and questioned its motives. "If your question had been, 'do I believe that Pakistan plays the role it should in promoting a political dialogue that is so necessary for ending the conflict in Afghanistan?' – then my answer would be no, the Pakistanis did not play the role that they should have played. They must have known about this; I don't believe that these people were arrested by coincidence. They must have known who they were, what kind of role they were playing; and you see the result today."
Eide said he believed Pakistan wanted to stop the UN and Afghan talks with the Taliban to retain control of the process.
The diplomat also took issue with senior US military and political officials, including General David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, who argue that peace talks are premature and that the Taliban will only begin to negotiate in good faith once they have felt the full force of the US-led military surge.
"I believe, on the contrary, that talks are long overdue, and had we really engaged in them some time ago then we could have progressed further than we have today," Eide said in the BBC interview.
"I think I have experienced, over 35 years of engagement in international affairs, that we very often misjudge our opponents, or the other side. We did that in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s. We did it in the 1990s. And we do it again, I believe; and that, perhaps if we had seen it from the point of view of the Taliban, maybe we would have come to a different conclusion than the one we've come to today. I believe that what has happened over the last few weeks may well have hardened the Taliban, rather than moved them closer to the table."
Eide had previously argued that talks with the Taliban were the best way to end the eight-year-old war and expressed concern that Barack Obama's decision to send 30,000 to 35,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan is coming without a concurrent political surge.
Courtesy: guardian.co.uk
Eide, a Norwegian, confirmed for the first time since leaving office that he had held what seemed to him to be promising discussions with senior Taliban representatives, but that channels of communication had shut down after the arrests.
These arrests had a "negative effect" on prospects for continuing the political process, he told the BBC World Service. The talks had taken place with at least the tacit assent of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, Eide believed. "I find it unthinkable that such contact would take place without his knowledge," he said.
Eide was tasked with bringing impetus to peace efforts in Afghanistan two years ago when relations between Kabul and the international community were in crisis. He left his post 10 days ago.
The US is sceptical about negotiations, though Britain wants greater efforts to talk to the Taliban about cutting ties with al-Qaida and ending a conflict which has cost more than 270 British lives and is being intensified by Kabul's inefficiency and corruption.
"Of course I met Taliban leaders during the time I was in Afghanistan," Eide said. "Anything else would have been unthinkable." He said that the first contacts were made last spring, with a lull until after the August 2009 election. But they ended a few weeks ago when US and Pakistani intelligence arrested Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the number two in the Taliban command, in Karachi. Up to 14 others were also detained.
Baradar's seizure was reported as a breakthrough in co-operation between the CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, but a key figure in back-channel talks involving Saudi Arabia described his arrest as "a huge blow" to the fledgling peace initiative.
Eide was highly critical of Pakistan and questioned its motives. "If your question had been, 'do I believe that Pakistan plays the role it should in promoting a political dialogue that is so necessary for ending the conflict in Afghanistan?' – then my answer would be no, the Pakistanis did not play the role that they should have played. They must have known about this; I don't believe that these people were arrested by coincidence. They must have known who they were, what kind of role they were playing; and you see the result today."
Eide said he believed Pakistan wanted to stop the UN and Afghan talks with the Taliban to retain control of the process.
The diplomat also took issue with senior US military and political officials, including General David Petraeus, the head of Central Command, who argue that peace talks are premature and that the Taliban will only begin to negotiate in good faith once they have felt the full force of the US-led military surge.
"I believe, on the contrary, that talks are long overdue, and had we really engaged in them some time ago then we could have progressed further than we have today," Eide said in the BBC interview.
"I think I have experienced, over 35 years of engagement in international affairs, that we very often misjudge our opponents, or the other side. We did that in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s. We did it in the 1990s. And we do it again, I believe; and that, perhaps if we had seen it from the point of view of the Taliban, maybe we would have come to a different conclusion than the one we've come to today. I believe that what has happened over the last few weeks may well have hardened the Taliban, rather than moved them closer to the table."
Eide had previously argued that talks with the Taliban were the best way to end the eight-year-old war and expressed concern that Barack Obama's decision to send 30,000 to 35,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan is coming without a concurrent political surge.
Courtesy: guardian.co.uk
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Karzai wants talks with Taliban 'brothers': US, UK and Pakistan on board
LONDON — Afghanistan’s president declared Thursday that reaching out to the Taliban’s leadership would be a centerpiece of his plan to end the eight-year-old war in his country, setting in motion a risky diplomatic gambit that could aggravate frictions with the United States.
A 65-nation conference here intended to muster money and support for an Afghan war strategy instead exposed divisions between the Afghan government and its allies over the timetable for drawing down foreign forces and whether and how to reconcile with the leaders of the Taliban insurgency.
“We must reach out to all of our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers,” President Hamid Karzai said. In the coming weeks, he said, he will invite Taliban leaders to a tribal assembly to try to persuade them to lay down their weapons and join the government.
Mr. Karzai’s proposal went much further than the strategy preferred by many American officials, who favor luring back low- and midlevel Taliban fighters. The Obama administration is in the middle of a spirited debate over the implications of negotiating with top Taliban leaders who sheltered Osama bin Laden and still have ties to Al Qaeda.
American officials pointedly did not talk about “reconciliation” on Thursday, and they were caught off guard by Mr. Karzai’s plans for a tribal peace conference. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did not endorse Mr. Karzai’s strategy, though she voiced sympathy for his ultimate goal.
“You don’t make peace with your friends,” Mrs. Clinton said after the meeting, which reflected a growing urgency to wind down the West’s military involvement. “You have to be willing to engage with your enemies if you expect to create a situation that ends an insurgency.”
Still, the Afghan government’s ambitious plan to lure back the Taliban — foot soldiers and commanders — faces equally probing questions at home. Across Afghan society, there are grave doubts about how the Taliban could be brought into the fold.
Dangling jobs and money before the Taliban could breed resentment among other poor Afghans who have little to show for their loyalty to the government. And it could deepen ethnic divisions with minorities like the Tajiks and Hazaras, who fought the Taliban for 15 years. They may see the rewards as an unfair windfall for the Pashtuns, who make up most of the Taliban’s recruits.
Among former Taliban members who have taken part in previous government reconciliation programs, there is deep skepticism that a new program will be any better than earlier versions, which left them impoverished, jobless and at risk of being attacked by their former comrades.
“Everyone understands that this ‘reconciliation’ process is just a name because they leave us in the lurch,” said Mullah Abdul Majed, a former Taliban commander who laid down his weapons in 2008 only to find himself abandoned by the government he had hoped to join.
Mullah Majed’s story illustrates the pitfalls. After laying down their weapons, he and 12 of his fellow fighters were each given about $140 and promised housing. When they returned to their home province, Kandahar, they found no money, no housing, no jobs and no protection from Taliban reprisals.
“The Taliban are warning us that ‘If you remain loyal to the government, we will kill you,’ ” he said. “So we can’t go outside the city to work. Last year one of our friends was killed by Taliban, and one was injured.”
Mullah Majed and a friend, who also signed up for the previous reconciliation program, are on the verge of returning to the Taliban because they cannot find work to provide for their families, the mullah said.
This time, with the NATO forces backing the plan, it will be easier to ensure that the fighters are not arrested, Afghan officials said. “There has to be proper protection for them,” said Shaida Mohammed Abdali, the Afghan deputy national security adviser. “There has to be amnesty, a guarantee for them that once they are reconciled, they can have a life like all others.”
The London conference was intended to help cure some of those problems. It raised $140 million for a fund intended to ease the reintegration of Taliban fighters. Some $500 million was pledged in all, but it is unclear whether all that money will materialize.
Mrs. Clinton praised Japan for giving $50 million to the fund, but she said the United States had no immediate plans to follow. The Treasury Department would have to approve such financing, because it classifies the Taliban as a terrorist organization.
The Pentagon is authorized to use its funds for that purpose: American military commanders, for example, agreed to steer $1 million in development projects to a large Pashtun tribe in eastern Afghanistan in return for its pledge to back the government and battle the Taliban.
A senior American official said that Taliban members who took part in the peace conference should disavow ties to Al Qaeda, but whether top Taliban leaders can be persuaded to jettison their longtime Qaeda allies remains uncertain. Mr. Karzai laid down no such conditions, and the traditions governing such a meeting, known as a jirga, give him wide latitude about whom to invite.
For their part, the Taliban leaders have rejected talk of an olive branch, saying their fighters will not be influenced by financial inducements and will not join talks until foreign forces leave Afghanistan. American officials said that was evidence of the Taliban’s insecurity.
This week, the United Nations removed the names of five Taliban members from its blacklist — a move considered important because it would allow them to travel to take part in negotiations. Mr. Karzai said he wanted to see more names taken off the list.
He also asked for help from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, whose country has longstanding ties to elements of the Taliban, to help broker negotiations. And he appealed to Pakistan, where many Taliban leaders have sought haven in the rugged region bordering Afghanistan. Iran was invited to the meeting but did not attend.
While the differences over reconciling with the Taliban dominated the meeting, that was not the only divide. Even before it began, Mr. Karzai opened another chasm with his allies, once again raising the prospect of a far more drawn-out foreign troop presence before Afghans would be able to assume full responsibility for their own security.
It could take 5 to 10 years for Afghan forces to take over from the American-led coalition, he told the BBC in an interview, and even longer to end his country’s dependence on financial aid to sustain its military.
That is far longer than President Obama’s goal to begin drawing down American forces by the summer of 2011. Other Western leaders, too, have been pushing for a tighter timetable. Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain noted that targets had been set for the total Afghan Army and police strength to rise above 300,000 by October 2011. Allied commanders have said that could take three years or more.
A 65-nation conference here intended to muster money and support for an Afghan war strategy instead exposed divisions between the Afghan government and its allies over the timetable for drawing down foreign forces and whether and how to reconcile with the leaders of the Taliban insurgency.
“We must reach out to all of our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers,” President Hamid Karzai said. In the coming weeks, he said, he will invite Taliban leaders to a tribal assembly to try to persuade them to lay down their weapons and join the government.
Mr. Karzai’s proposal went much further than the strategy preferred by many American officials, who favor luring back low- and midlevel Taliban fighters. The Obama administration is in the middle of a spirited debate over the implications of negotiating with top Taliban leaders who sheltered Osama bin Laden and still have ties to Al Qaeda.
American officials pointedly did not talk about “reconciliation” on Thursday, and they were caught off guard by Mr. Karzai’s plans for a tribal peace conference. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did not endorse Mr. Karzai’s strategy, though she voiced sympathy for his ultimate goal.
“You don’t make peace with your friends,” Mrs. Clinton said after the meeting, which reflected a growing urgency to wind down the West’s military involvement. “You have to be willing to engage with your enemies if you expect to create a situation that ends an insurgency.”
Still, the Afghan government’s ambitious plan to lure back the Taliban — foot soldiers and commanders — faces equally probing questions at home. Across Afghan society, there are grave doubts about how the Taliban could be brought into the fold.
Dangling jobs and money before the Taliban could breed resentment among other poor Afghans who have little to show for their loyalty to the government. And it could deepen ethnic divisions with minorities like the Tajiks and Hazaras, who fought the Taliban for 15 years. They may see the rewards as an unfair windfall for the Pashtuns, who make up most of the Taliban’s recruits.
Among former Taliban members who have taken part in previous government reconciliation programs, there is deep skepticism that a new program will be any better than earlier versions, which left them impoverished, jobless and at risk of being attacked by their former comrades.
“Everyone understands that this ‘reconciliation’ process is just a name because they leave us in the lurch,” said Mullah Abdul Majed, a former Taliban commander who laid down his weapons in 2008 only to find himself abandoned by the government he had hoped to join.
Mullah Majed’s story illustrates the pitfalls. After laying down their weapons, he and 12 of his fellow fighters were each given about $140 and promised housing. When they returned to their home province, Kandahar, they found no money, no housing, no jobs and no protection from Taliban reprisals.
“The Taliban are warning us that ‘If you remain loyal to the government, we will kill you,’ ” he said. “So we can’t go outside the city to work. Last year one of our friends was killed by Taliban, and one was injured.”
Mullah Majed and a friend, who also signed up for the previous reconciliation program, are on the verge of returning to the Taliban because they cannot find work to provide for their families, the mullah said.
This time, with the NATO forces backing the plan, it will be easier to ensure that the fighters are not arrested, Afghan officials said. “There has to be proper protection for them,” said Shaida Mohammed Abdali, the Afghan deputy national security adviser. “There has to be amnesty, a guarantee for them that once they are reconciled, they can have a life like all others.”
The London conference was intended to help cure some of those problems. It raised $140 million for a fund intended to ease the reintegration of Taliban fighters. Some $500 million was pledged in all, but it is unclear whether all that money will materialize.
Mrs. Clinton praised Japan for giving $50 million to the fund, but she said the United States had no immediate plans to follow. The Treasury Department would have to approve such financing, because it classifies the Taliban as a terrorist organization.
The Pentagon is authorized to use its funds for that purpose: American military commanders, for example, agreed to steer $1 million in development projects to a large Pashtun tribe in eastern Afghanistan in return for its pledge to back the government and battle the Taliban.
A senior American official said that Taliban members who took part in the peace conference should disavow ties to Al Qaeda, but whether top Taliban leaders can be persuaded to jettison their longtime Qaeda allies remains uncertain. Mr. Karzai laid down no such conditions, and the traditions governing such a meeting, known as a jirga, give him wide latitude about whom to invite.
For their part, the Taliban leaders have rejected talk of an olive branch, saying their fighters will not be influenced by financial inducements and will not join talks until foreign forces leave Afghanistan. American officials said that was evidence of the Taliban’s insecurity.
This week, the United Nations removed the names of five Taliban members from its blacklist — a move considered important because it would allow them to travel to take part in negotiations. Mr. Karzai said he wanted to see more names taken off the list.
He also asked for help from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, whose country has longstanding ties to elements of the Taliban, to help broker negotiations. And he appealed to Pakistan, where many Taliban leaders have sought haven in the rugged region bordering Afghanistan. Iran was invited to the meeting but did not attend.
While the differences over reconciling with the Taliban dominated the meeting, that was not the only divide. Even before it began, Mr. Karzai opened another chasm with his allies, once again raising the prospect of a far more drawn-out foreign troop presence before Afghans would be able to assume full responsibility for their own security.
It could take 5 to 10 years for Afghan forces to take over from the American-led coalition, he told the BBC in an interview, and even longer to end his country’s dependence on financial aid to sustain its military.
That is far longer than President Obama’s goal to begin drawing down American forces by the summer of 2011. Other Western leaders, too, have been pushing for a tighter timetable. Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain noted that targets had been set for the total Afghan Army and police strength to rise above 300,000 by October 2011. Allied commanders have said that could take three years or more.
UN Official in Kabul meets Taliban Leaders
THE United Nations representative to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, met active members of the Taliban insurgency in Dubai this month for "talks about talks", a UN official said today.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, could not say which members of the Taliban were at the meeting but said it was held at the request of the militants.
"The Taliban had made overtures to the Special Representative to talk about peace talks," the official said.
"That information was shared with the Afghan government, and the UN hopes that the Afghan government will capitalise on this opportunity," the official added.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, could not say which members of the Taliban were at the meeting but said it was held at the request of the militants.
"The Taliban had made overtures to the Special Representative to talk about peace talks," the official said.
"That information was shared with the Afghan government, and the UN hopes that the Afghan government will capitalise on this opportunity," the official added.
Terror Trials: White house bows to pressure- No trials in NYC
Bowing to intense and deepening bipartisan opposition to conducting the criminal trials for the 9/11 hijackers in the heart of New York City, the Obama White House has begun discussing alternate locations with the Justice Department, senior officials told Fox late Thursday.
The White House denies ordering Justice to find a new location for the trials, which are sure to attract massive publicity and require intense security preparations wherever they are held.
But senior administration officials confirmed alternate trial locations are being sought because Congress is almost sure to deny Obama the funds necessary to conduct the trials, as originally planned, in the federal courthouse mere blocks away from the Twin Towers - the epicenter of the attacks that took the lives of nearly 3,000 civilians on September 11, 2001.
"The discussions are under way in case the option of holding the trials in New York City is foreclosed upon at either the state or the federal level," an Obama administration official said.
The discussions on alternate trial locations signal the New York City trial plan is all but dead.
Congressional and Democratic sources said Fox White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has told lawmakers the administration will stand down if the House and Senate, as appears likely, deny funds for 9/11 trials in the Big Apple.
Rep. Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, has introduced legislation to block funds for a 9/11 trial in New York City.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg opposes the trials of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other defendants in his city, citing concerns about security and cost.
More than half a dozen senators have forged a bipartisan coalition against funding 9/11 trials in Gotham.
The White House has concluded political opposition will only intensify and the only way to mitigate the damage is to acknowledge discussions on alternate trial sites.
No timetable has been set for resolving the impasse. Military charges against Mohammed and his co-defendants have been dropped.
Criminal charges are pending resolution of a final trial site
The White House denies ordering Justice to find a new location for the trials, which are sure to attract massive publicity and require intense security preparations wherever they are held.
But senior administration officials confirmed alternate trial locations are being sought because Congress is almost sure to deny Obama the funds necessary to conduct the trials, as originally planned, in the federal courthouse mere blocks away from the Twin Towers - the epicenter of the attacks that took the lives of nearly 3,000 civilians on September 11, 2001.
"The discussions are under way in case the option of holding the trials in New York City is foreclosed upon at either the state or the federal level," an Obama administration official said.
The discussions on alternate trial locations signal the New York City trial plan is all but dead.
Congressional and Democratic sources said Fox White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has told lawmakers the administration will stand down if the House and Senate, as appears likely, deny funds for 9/11 trials in the Big Apple.
Rep. Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, has introduced legislation to block funds for a 9/11 trial in New York City.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg opposes the trials of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other defendants in his city, citing concerns about security and cost.
More than half a dozen senators have forged a bipartisan coalition against funding 9/11 trials in Gotham.
The White House has concluded political opposition will only intensify and the only way to mitigate the damage is to acknowledge discussions on alternate trial sites.
No timetable has been set for resolving the impasse. Military charges against Mohammed and his co-defendants have been dropped.
Criminal charges are pending resolution of a final trial site
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Kabul Attack Shows Resilience of Afghan Militants
Kabul Attack Shows Resilience of Afghan Militants
By DEXTER FILKINS
KABUL, Afghanistan — A team of militants launched a spectacular assault at the heart of the Afghan government on Monday, with two men detonating suicide bombs and the rest fighting to the death only 50 yards from the gates of the presidential palace.
The attack paralyzed the city for hours, as hundreds of Afghan commandos converged and opened fire. The battle unfolded in the middle of Pashtunistan Square, a traffic circle where the palace of President Hamid Karzai, the Ministry of Justice and the Central Bank, the target of the attack, are located.
As the gun battle raged, another suicide bomber, this one driving an ambulance, struck a traffic circle a half-mile away, sending a second mass of bystanders fleeing in terror. Afghan officials said that three soldiers and two civilians — including a child — were killed, and at least 71 people were wounded.
The assault was the latest in a series of audacious operations by insurgents meant to shatter the calm of the Afghan capital. The Taliban are a mostly rural phenomenon in a mostly rural country; the overwhelming majority of United States troops are deployed in small outposts in the countryside. On most days, the war does not reach the urban centers.
But increasingly the Taliban are bringing the fight into the cities, further demoralizing Afghans and lending to the impression that virtually no part of the country is safe from the group’s penetration.
The Monday attack seemed intended to strike fear into the usually quiet precincts of downtown Kabul — and to drive home the ease with which insurgents could strike the United States-backed government here.
In that way the assault succeeded without question. Five hours after the attack began, gunfire was still echoing through the downtown as commandos searched for holdouts in a nearby office building. The Faroshga market, one of the city’s most popular shopping malls and a place where some militants holed up, lay in ruins, shattered and burning and belching black smoke.
The seven militants who carried out the attack died; five were gunned down and two killed themselves. The corpses of two of the militants lay splayed under blankets, their heads and bodies riddled with bullets and smashed.
The streets of Kabul emptied. Merchants closed their shops, and Afghans ran from their offices. Even guards assigned to Mr. Karzai came to join the fighting; it was that close.
“All of a sudden three men came in wrapped in shawls — and then they pulled them off and we could see their guns and grenades,” said an Afghan man who witnessed the attack and who had been in the market. “They told us to get out, and then they went to the roof and started firing.”
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. Reached by telephone, a spokesman said the group had sent 20 suicide bombers for the operation. That was an exaggeration.
“Some of our suicide bombers have blown themselves up, bringing heavy casualties to government officials,” said Zabihullah Mujahid, the spokesman.
At the height of the battle, women and men, some of them clutching babies, ran down the streets, some bleeding, some sobbing. Even a stray dog, frightened by one of the blasts, dashed wildly down a street.
A second Taliban representative, also reached by telephone, said the attack was intended to answer American and Afghan proposals to “reconcile” with and “reintegrate” Taliban fighters into mainstream society. The plan is a central part of the United States-backed campaign to turn the tide of the war, and it will be showcased this month at an international conference in London.
“We are ready to fight, and we have the strength to fight, and nobody from the Taliban side is ready to make any kind of deal,” Mr. Mujahid said.
The style of the Monday attack has become increasingly familiar. In October, militants wearing suicide belts attacked a United Nations guesthouse in Kabul and killed eight people, including five of the organization’s workers. In December, a suicide car bomber struck the Heetal Hotel, killing eight people and wounding 48.
The prototype of Monday’s operation was the assault on the Ministry of Justice, which a team of guerrillas, including suicide bombers, stormed last February. The militants killed the guards, got inside and stalked the halls for victims. At least 10 people died, not including the militants, whose bodies the police dumped in the streets.
That is what the militants clearly intended Monday. The attack began at 9:30 a.m., when the streets of downtown Kabul were jammed with traffic. A man wearing a suicide belt approached the gates of the Central Bank, which regulates the flow of currency in the country, and tried to push past the guards. The guards shot him, but not before the bomber managed to detonate his explosives in the street.
The other militants, who were apparently intending to follow the suicide bomber into the bank, took cover in the Faroshga market, a five-story building next door. They expelled the shoppers and shopkeepers, ran to the higher floors, and began shooting. Other fighters slipped into the Ministry of Justice and the Ariana theater, the police said, but a survey of both sites revealed no evidence of that.
Within minutes, hundreds of Afghan commandos, soldiers and police officers surrounded Pashtunistan Square and attacked. Some of the Afghan fighters were part of specially formed antiterrorism squads. Monday’s gun battle was notable for the absence of United States soldiers: a small group of commandos from New Zealand were the only Western soldiers on the scene.
One group of Afghan commandos said they had come straight from a training class.
“We were going through drills when we got the word,” said Bawahuddin, a young member of an antiterrorism squad, standing behind a wall as he prepared to join the fight. Bawahuddin flashed a thumbs-up sign. “We’re ready — we’re ready.”
And then his unit got the word — “Go now, go now!” — and the men began to run. Bawahuddin’s eyes flashed with fear.
“Either we are going to kill them, or they are going to kill us,” said Saifullah Sarhadi, a commando on the edge of the fight.
Bullets flew in every direction, thousands of them. The militants, holed up on the upper floors of the market, fired and fought as their building exploded and burned. A blast sounded, and then another — the sounds of heavy guns firing inside.
With the battle raging, a shock wave rippled from another part of town — a suicide car bomber. His van, complete with a siren and light, was marked Maiwand Hospital on its sides and front, so the police let it through. It exploded in Malik Asghar Square, creating a crater in the street and shaking the ground for a mile.
Afterward, the remains of the ambulance lay in the road, its twisted shards still smoking. Police officers pulled out the pieces of a man — dark skinned and heavy set. An Arab, they said. But no one seemed to know for sure.
By DEXTER FILKINS
KABUL, Afghanistan — A team of militants launched a spectacular assault at the heart of the Afghan government on Monday, with two men detonating suicide bombs and the rest fighting to the death only 50 yards from the gates of the presidential palace.
The attack paralyzed the city for hours, as hundreds of Afghan commandos converged and opened fire. The battle unfolded in the middle of Pashtunistan Square, a traffic circle where the palace of President Hamid Karzai, the Ministry of Justice and the Central Bank, the target of the attack, are located.
As the gun battle raged, another suicide bomber, this one driving an ambulance, struck a traffic circle a half-mile away, sending a second mass of bystanders fleeing in terror. Afghan officials said that three soldiers and two civilians — including a child — were killed, and at least 71 people were wounded.
The assault was the latest in a series of audacious operations by insurgents meant to shatter the calm of the Afghan capital. The Taliban are a mostly rural phenomenon in a mostly rural country; the overwhelming majority of United States troops are deployed in small outposts in the countryside. On most days, the war does not reach the urban centers.
But increasingly the Taliban are bringing the fight into the cities, further demoralizing Afghans and lending to the impression that virtually no part of the country is safe from the group’s penetration.
The Monday attack seemed intended to strike fear into the usually quiet precincts of downtown Kabul — and to drive home the ease with which insurgents could strike the United States-backed government here.
In that way the assault succeeded without question. Five hours after the attack began, gunfire was still echoing through the downtown as commandos searched for holdouts in a nearby office building. The Faroshga market, one of the city’s most popular shopping malls and a place where some militants holed up, lay in ruins, shattered and burning and belching black smoke.
The seven militants who carried out the attack died; five were gunned down and two killed themselves. The corpses of two of the militants lay splayed under blankets, their heads and bodies riddled with bullets and smashed.
The streets of Kabul emptied. Merchants closed their shops, and Afghans ran from their offices. Even guards assigned to Mr. Karzai came to join the fighting; it was that close.
“All of a sudden three men came in wrapped in shawls — and then they pulled them off and we could see their guns and grenades,” said an Afghan man who witnessed the attack and who had been in the market. “They told us to get out, and then they went to the roof and started firing.”
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. Reached by telephone, a spokesman said the group had sent 20 suicide bombers for the operation. That was an exaggeration.
“Some of our suicide bombers have blown themselves up, bringing heavy casualties to government officials,” said Zabihullah Mujahid, the spokesman.
At the height of the battle, women and men, some of them clutching babies, ran down the streets, some bleeding, some sobbing. Even a stray dog, frightened by one of the blasts, dashed wildly down a street.
A second Taliban representative, also reached by telephone, said the attack was intended to answer American and Afghan proposals to “reconcile” with and “reintegrate” Taliban fighters into mainstream society. The plan is a central part of the United States-backed campaign to turn the tide of the war, and it will be showcased this month at an international conference in London.
“We are ready to fight, and we have the strength to fight, and nobody from the Taliban side is ready to make any kind of deal,” Mr. Mujahid said.
The style of the Monday attack has become increasingly familiar. In October, militants wearing suicide belts attacked a United Nations guesthouse in Kabul and killed eight people, including five of the organization’s workers. In December, a suicide car bomber struck the Heetal Hotel, killing eight people and wounding 48.
The prototype of Monday’s operation was the assault on the Ministry of Justice, which a team of guerrillas, including suicide bombers, stormed last February. The militants killed the guards, got inside and stalked the halls for victims. At least 10 people died, not including the militants, whose bodies the police dumped in the streets.
That is what the militants clearly intended Monday. The attack began at 9:30 a.m., when the streets of downtown Kabul were jammed with traffic. A man wearing a suicide belt approached the gates of the Central Bank, which regulates the flow of currency in the country, and tried to push past the guards. The guards shot him, but not before the bomber managed to detonate his explosives in the street.
The other militants, who were apparently intending to follow the suicide bomber into the bank, took cover in the Faroshga market, a five-story building next door. They expelled the shoppers and shopkeepers, ran to the higher floors, and began shooting. Other fighters slipped into the Ministry of Justice and the Ariana theater, the police said, but a survey of both sites revealed no evidence of that.
Within minutes, hundreds of Afghan commandos, soldiers and police officers surrounded Pashtunistan Square and attacked. Some of the Afghan fighters were part of specially formed antiterrorism squads. Monday’s gun battle was notable for the absence of United States soldiers: a small group of commandos from New Zealand were the only Western soldiers on the scene.
One group of Afghan commandos said they had come straight from a training class.
“We were going through drills when we got the word,” said Bawahuddin, a young member of an antiterrorism squad, standing behind a wall as he prepared to join the fight. Bawahuddin flashed a thumbs-up sign. “We’re ready — we’re ready.”
And then his unit got the word — “Go now, go now!” — and the men began to run. Bawahuddin’s eyes flashed with fear.
“Either we are going to kill them, or they are going to kill us,” said Saifullah Sarhadi, a commando on the edge of the fight.
Bullets flew in every direction, thousands of them. The militants, holed up on the upper floors of the market, fired and fought as their building exploded and burned. A blast sounded, and then another — the sounds of heavy guns firing inside.
With the battle raging, a shock wave rippled from another part of town — a suicide car bomber. His van, complete with a siren and light, was marked Maiwand Hospital on its sides and front, so the police let it through. It exploded in Malik Asghar Square, creating a crater in the street and shaking the ground for a mile.
Afterward, the remains of the ambulance lay in the road, its twisted shards still smoking. Police officers pulled out the pieces of a man — dark skinned and heavy set. An Arab, they said. But no one seemed to know for sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)