Sept. 8, 2008
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Sep 08, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Nearly 102,000 homeowners lost their properties to foreclosure in August, up nearly 6 percent from July and more than 80 percent higher than in August 2007, according to data released today by ForeclosureS.com, a national leader in foreclosure information.
So far this year, lenders have repossessed a record 656,545 properties nationwide -- or 8.6 of every 1,000 households in the United States -- and remain on track to repossess more than 1 million nationwide by year-end, ForeclosureS.com reported.
Year-to-date 1.45 million homeowners (19.6 of every 1,000 households) faced pre-foreclosure actions by lenders, almost double the number a year ago. ForeclosureS.com's comprehensive analysis of pre-foreclosure and foreclosure proceedings nationwide is based on the number of formal notices filed against a property during the foreclosure process. That can include notice of default, notice of foreclosure auction, and/or notice of REO (lender-owned real estate that occurs after a foreclosed property fails to sell at auction and reverts back to the lender). All pre-foreclosure filings do not end up in foreclosure.
There is some good news: pre-foreclosures actions by lenders slowed slightly from July and more than half of the pre-foreclosure as well as REO activities can be attributed to three states: Arizona, California and Florida, said Alexis McGee, president of ForeclosureS.com and author of The ForeclosureS.com Guide to Advanced Investing Techniques You Won't Learn Anywhere Else (Wiley), and The ForeclosureS.com Guide to Investing in Pre-foreclosures Without Selling Your Soul (Wiley).
Even the Mortgage Bankers Association, which last week announced more record mortgage delinquency and foreclosure rates, singled out California and Florida as culprits driving up the national numbers. The MBA in its National Delinquency Survey reported 6.41% of all mortgage loans were delinquent in the second quarter, not including those in the foreclosure process. A total of 2.75% of loans were somewhere in the foreclosure process.
"While we continue to see record numbers of foreclosures and actions that may lead to foreclosure, and despite the higher 6.1% August unemployment rate, it does appear that the overall situation is beginning to stabilize," McGee said. "Importantly, many regions of the country -- particularly the Northeast and Midwest -- have seen less-dramatic increase in foreclosures and pre-foreclosure activity in 2008 compared with 2007."
The Southwest region, in contrast, reported by far the most foreclosed property filings year-to-date, 348,019 or 12.7 filings per 1,000 households. The Southeast, meanwhile, leads the nation in pre-foreclosure actions filed year to date with 477,177, or 27.5 filings per 1,000 households.
"For investors and first-time homebuyers, the reality is that there are a lot of opportunities," says McGee. "People who watch the economic numbers and savvy investors and first-time homebuyers finally have begun to recognize that."
McGee pointed to recent economic reports, including:
-- The National Association of Realtors, for example, reported existing-home sales climbed 3.1% in July to their highest level in five months.
-- The just-released U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) climbed 3.3% in the second quarter.
-- Despite the widespread discussion of problems in the financial markets, only 10 of the nation's 8,451 FDIC-insured institutions have failed during what some have called this "worst crisis" in financial markets. That's barely $40 billion in assets out of the more that $13.3 trillion.
While buying opportunities exist in today's market, McGee cautions: "If you're considering buying a property pre-foreclosure, at auction, or REO, pay attention to its condition inside and out. That great deal could end up that horrible nightmare if you haven't accounted for possible property problems, the cost of repairs, and more. Don't expect a great deal at a foreclosure auction, either. If there is one, the pros likely beat you to it, or the 'great deal' isn't. Better still, find the right professional to teach you about foreclosure auctions, and learn how you can beat the pros in their own game."
With its data base of more than 5.5 million property listings, ForeclosureS.com has been the professional's source for accurate foreclosure property information for more than 20 years. For more information on ForeclosureS.com and its products, please visit http://www.foreclosures.com./
SOURCE: ForeclosureS.com
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/foreclosurescom-reports-more-100000-homeowners/story.aspx?guid=%7B9A360F4C-43B9-4146-9E28-5D9D14ADBBAF%7D&dist=hppr
Border Patrol agents lose last appeal over shot smugglerJerry Seper (Contact) Friday, September 12, 2008 The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans denied a request Thursday for a rehearing in an appeal by two U.S. Border Patrol agents who received lengthy prison terms for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect in the buttocks as he fled Texas into Mexico. U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, whose office prosecuted the case, said the court's ruling means that it will not hear any more arguments on the appeal, which was filed after agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were found guilty of shooting Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in February 2005. The shooting occurred after Aldrete-Davila ran from a van loaded with 743 pounds of marijuana near Fabens, Texas. "I am pleased with today's ruling, just as I was earlier this summer when a panel of the same court affirmed the convictions of the most serious charges against Mr. Compean and Mr. Ramos," Mr. Sutton said. "Today's ruling validates what this office has been saying all along - this prosecution was about the rule of law, plain and simple," he said. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who sought a presidential or congressional pardon for the agents, said the nation's justice system "has once again failed agents Ramos and Compean." "These men, as well as their families, have suffered enough," he told The Washington Times. "The only way this injustice can possibly be corrected is through a pardon or a commutation." The latest ruling means that the two agents will serve their prison sentences unless Mr. Bush pardons them or commutes their sentences. Ramos, 37, received an 11-year prison sentence, and Compean, 28, a 12-year sentence in October 2006. The White House has said that President Bush would review pardon petitions on a case-by-case basis. In July, the appeals court ruled that the agents had been "properly convicted of substantive crimes," saying the evidence presented at their trial "fully supports the jury verdict." While the ruling vacated five minor counts in a 12-count indictment against the agents, it let stand seven other charges - including assault and the discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence, which resulted in 10-year mandatory sentences. The appeals court in July also noted that U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, did not violate the agents' right to due process when she excluded evidence from the jury about the size of the marijuana load and Aldrete-Davila's suspected involvement in a second drug-smuggling venture in October 2005. Aldrete-Davila, 27, was arrested in November by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents in El Paso on a federal grand-jury indictment charging him with conspiracy and possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. The indictment said he brought a second load of 752 pounds of marijuana into the U.S. in October 2005, eight months after he had been shot by the agents. In August, Aldrete-Davila was sentenced to 9 1/2 years in federal prison in the second case. The sentence was handed down by Judge Cardone. The two Border Patrol agents were on patrol along the U.S.-Mexico border when, according to the appeals court panel, they chased "an alien drug smuggler driving a van as he speeded toward the Mexican border." The court panel said that after the "drug smuggler" abandoned the van and began to run to the border, the agents gave chase and fired their weapons at him several times. But after the chase, there was a "cover-up" that included a cleanup of the shooting site of spent shells and a failure by the agents to report they had fired their weapons - as "plainly required by well-established Border Patrol policies," the court panel said. Mr. Sutton said Thursday that those who criticized the prosecution in the case should "re-evaluate their position in light of the court record." "I believe that those who understand the record and the evidence introduced at trial will realize that the actions of Compean and Ramos in shooting an unarmed and fleeing suspect were serious crimes which had to be prosecuted in order to maintain the rule of law," he said. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/12/border-patrol-agents-lose-last-appeal-over-shot-sm/
Paulson's Actions Herald the Financial Collapse of the American Economy
Sep 08, 2008 - 05:11 PM
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the man who said that subprime was contained and that the Bazooka in his pocket would never be used, now assures us that the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be costless to taxpayers. Despite the near euphoria that the plan has sparked on Wall Street, the move will go down in history as the biggest policy blunder of all time, and will be credited as a pivotal point in the financial collapse of the American economy. The ultimate cost to Unites States citizens will be in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps more.
The original idea that gave birth to Freddie and Fannie, which is to make housing more affordable to average Americans, should now be seen as farcical. Their new goal is to keep housing prices high. Absent Freddie and Fannie, housing prices would fall sharply and the mortgage market would stabilize. Americans would once again be able to buy affordable houses with mortgages they could actually repay –just like their grandparents did. Instead they will keep overpaying for houses, burdening themselves with excessive payments in the process, and ultimately sticking taxpayers with the bill when they default.
In contrast to Paulson's continuous misreading of the market, I have consistently predicted the failure of Freddie and Fannie. I did so in my book Crash Proof , and in numerous speeches, commentaries and television appearances. If you have not yet done so, click here to watch these eight YouTube clips of my presentation back in 2006 to a convention of mortgage bankers. I also was quick to point out that Paulson's Bazooka would not remain holstered for long. See the following two commentaries “Armed and Dangerous” and ‘Congress Taps Paulson's Helmet” available here .
There is absolutely no substance to Paulson's insistence that based on the government's first claim on the future profits of Fannie and Freddie, the plan offers protection for taxpayers. There will be no future profits, just more heavy losses. Americans will now have unlimited ability to continue to overpay for houses and commit to mortgages they can't afford. In fact, the plan insures that eventual public sector losses will vastly exceed those that would have befallen the private sector in a free-market resolution.
Paulson claims that his goal is to stabilize the mortgage market. But the best way to do so would be to allow housing prices to fall to a market clearing level. As long as home prices remain artificially high, the risks of mortgage lending will keep credit tight, and the high costs of mortgage payments will keep potential buyers on the side-lines. With private lenders justly cautious, the government intends to hold open the lending spigots, without the pesky concerns over losses or financial risk. The hope is that the new lending will prevent home prices from falling further. It won't work. The government “solution” will simply delay the fall of artificially high home valuations and temporarily preserve the illusion of prosperity.
In order to preserve current home prices, the government will be forced to maintain the lax lending standards that got us into this mess in the first place. Since all the losses will now be borne by taxpayers, those lax standards will be much more problematic. The moral hazard that existed prior to this bailout has become that much more hazardous. Every mortgage now insured by Fannie and Freddie is the equivalent of a U.S. Treasury bond. This allows anyone to borrow on the full faith and credit of the U.S. government so long has the money is used to buy a house. In addition, mortgage lending will now be a government function, run with Post Office-like efficiency.
Of course the biggest collateral damage caused by Paulson's bazooka is the large hole ripped through the already tattered U.S. Constitution. If the government can do this, does anyone believe there is anything it can't do? In effect the Federal government now has absolute power to corrupt absolutely.
For a more in depth analysis of our financial problems and the inherent dangers they pose for the U.S. economy and U.S. dollar denominated investments, read my new book “Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse.” Click here to order a copy today.
By Peter Schiff Euro Pacific Capital http://www.europac.net/
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6179.html
September 03, 2008
The Terrorist Excuse for Global Financial Surveillance [Part I]
Quietly and with little fanfare, governments throughout the world have constructed a pervasive network of technology and law to eliminate financial privacy worldwide.
There are many facets to this network:
Money laundering laws that criminalize financial transactions based on the perceived motives of the individuals who conduct them;
Civil forfeiture laws that permit the confiscation of laundered money without a criminal conviction;
Tattletale laws that require citizens to report suspicious financial transactions to authorities;
Government-funded organizations (such as the Financial Action Task Force) that set "minimum standards" for anti-laundering and asset forfeiture laws globally, and impose sanctions against non-compliant countries;
A network of interconnected "financial intelligence units" (FIUs) in more than 100 countries (such as the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), often funded with the proceeds of confiscated assets. These FIUs are largely unaccountable to any political process, because they are deemed to be conducting "intelligence" operations.
Originally justified to fight the "War on Drugs," this network took on a new purpose after the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Governments have successfully convinced their citizens that they must give up their privacy in order to achieve security.
Nor are governments merely concerned with tracking the movement of "dirty money." They now seek to insure that legitimate funds aren't used for illegitimate purposes. Naturally, governments define what "illegitimate" and "legitimate" means. And since hiding your lawfully earned, after-tax funds from the government is now a crime in most countries, this effort doesn't just affect terrorists. It affects all of us.
You've no doubt noticed that you must reveal much more information than you once did to carry out even the simplest financial transactions. Take opening a bank account, for instance. I opened my first bank account at age nine, in 1964. I walked into a bank near my home and told the teller I wanted to open an account. After completing a simple one-page form, I deposited the proceeds of my piggy bank—about $20—into my newly created account. The teller told me that one of my parents would need to sign off on another simple form before I could add to or draw on the account. And that was all.
If you've opened a bank or securities account recently, the process is far more difficult today. The bank must first verify your identity through a government-issued photo ID. It must also verify your residential address. In the United States, it must also make certain your name doesn't appear on a list of U.S. political enemies compiled by an obscure Treasury bureaucracy called the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
Once you've opened the account, the bank must continuously monitor it for "suspicious transactions." Should you conduct a suspicious transaction--essentially, anything out of the ordinary--the bank will likely freeze the account, pending an investigation and perhaps placing your name on a list of suspected terrorists.
Even if this all-encompassing system actually helped to catch terrorists or other criminals, I'd still oppose it on civil liberties grounds. After all, the U.S. Bill of Rights—and comparable law in other countries—forbids searches and seizures without "probable cause" of wrongdoing. Unless we assume everyone carrying out any type of financial transaction is a criminal, this type of pervasive financial surveillance is a prima facie violation of our rights.
However, it turns out that this system isn't at all effective in catching terrorists or anyone else engaged in wrongdoing. Indeed, the main thing it accomplishes is inconveniencing legitimate account-owners who happen to do something unusual in their account, and flagging them as suspected terrorists.
In my next blog entry, I'll explain how this surveillance system has utterly failed at accomplishing its stated objective. I'll also explain what it has accomplished—and what I believe to be its actual objective: a global system of financial surveillance to be used against the political enemies of the governments that operate it.
Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann
September 04, 2008
The Terrorist Excuse for Global Financial Surveillance [Part II]
In my most recent blog entry, I described how the United States and other governments have quietly erected a network of technology and law to purportedly combat financial crime and terrorism.
However, this surveillance system has utterly failed at accomplishing its stated objective. What it has accomplished is to convert millions of innocent people into terrorist suspects.
In the United States—the country with the world's most advanced system of financial surveillance—when the FBI tried to design a profile of how terrorists might use bank accounts, it only came up with one main characteristic. That was large deposits with withdrawals of cash in a series of small amounts. Unfortunately for those FBI agents searching for terrorist needles in financial haystacks, this profile matches more than 25% of the customers of U.S. banks.
Nonetheless, U.S. financial institutions must file a "Suspicious Activities Report" (SAR) with the U.S. Treasury's financial intelligence unit, FinCEN, if you conduct a transaction that might be potentially linked to terrorism, or any other crime or regulatory violation. Financial institutions," incidentally, include not just banks, but securities brokers, insurance companies, futures and commodities brokers, money services, businesses, casinos, travel agencies, car dealers, and real estate brokers. Even the U.S. Postal Service is a "financial institution."
You might wonder how these businesses are supposed to determine what's suspicious. The law is amazingly vague. A suspicious transaction is one that exceeds US$5,000 and "has no business or apparent lawful purpose or is not the sort in which the particular customer would normally be expected to engage, and the bank knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts." For some "financial institutions," the threshholds are even lower.
For instance, say that you have an average balance in your bank account of US$2,500. One day, you sell your vehicle for US$7,500 in cash and deposit the proceeds in your bank account. Is the transaction suspicious? It could be, according to the regulations: the transaction exceeds US$5,000 and it's "not the sort in which the particular customer would be expected to engage."
You'll be happy to learn that it's illegal for the company that files the SAR to inform you that it's done so. And, once filed, every U.S. Attorney's Office and dozens of law enforcement agencies can review it. They don't need a court order, warrant, subpoena, or even a written request to do so. Indeed, law enforcement agencies can, and do, "troll" through suspicious activities reports whenever they want.
As of December 31, 2007, FinCEN had received over 5.4 million SARs. Businesses throughout the United States add approximately 100,000 SARS each month to this total. And it's no wonder. The penalties for failing to file a SAR, when FinCEN determines, after the fact, that the transaction should have aroused suspicion are draconian. You can be fined up to US$250,000 or imprisoned up to five years for failure to file a SAR.
You might wonder how many terrorists or other criminals this intrepid system of pervasive surveillance has uncovered. It's not easy to find this information. None of the self-congratulatory publications from the Treasury's FInancial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) seem to think this statistic has any relevance. Indeed, the most recent data I could uncover dates from 2004, when FinCEN received "only" 700,000 SARs. Of those 700,000 forms, FinCEN passed on fewer than 900 of them to a law enforcement agency for follow-up. Another way of looking at this is that nearly 99.9% of SARs filed identified apparently innocent activity and never led to a criminal investigation.
But the collateral damage is huge. In one case, a mistaken report caused the accounts of 1,100 innocent depositors to be frozen. Allegations have also surfaced that SARs are being made available (illegally) to private investigators and others. In the meantime, FinCEN's budget continues to grow, and more than 100 other FIUs now exist around the world with a similar mandate.
If FinCEN and similar FIUs are useless for combating terrorism or financial crime, what's their actual purpose? I'll answer that question in my next blog entry. I'll also make some recommendations to protect yourself, and your assets, in this age of all-encompassing financial surveillance.
Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann
September 08, 2008
The Terrorist Excuse for Global Financial Surveillance [Part III]
In my two most recent blog entries, I described how the United States and other governments have quietly erected a network of technology and law to eliminate financial privacy worldwide. The most visible manifestation of this network are “financial intelligence units” (FIUs) such as the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), now linked to more than 100 similar FIUs worldwide.
I also described how this surveillance system has utterly failed at accomplishing its stated objective: to unearth terrorist financing and other financial crimes.
If FinCEN and other FIUs are useless to meet their stated objectives, what's their actual purpose? I believe that purpose has nothing to do with unearthing illegal activity, although it may sometimes do so. Instead, one unacknowledged objective of this network is to permit governments worldwide to conduct politically motivated surveillance. Another is to identify assets for confiscation, thus creating a self-funding network of global surveillance.
Consider, for instance, how FinCEN could retaliate against an uncooperative congressional leader. Has that individual ever made a financial transaction that exposed an embarrassing preference or illegal activity? FinCEN and the global FIU network provides an ideal mechanism for blackmailing politically exposed persons—and anyone else.
There’s also no doubt that a global network of FIUs funded with forfeited assets creates the same conflict of interest that plagues U.S. civil forfeiture laws: the development of a worldwide bounty-hunter mentality.
Seizures of narcotics, gambling equipment, nuclear materials, child pornography and other illegal commodities generate no revenues for law enforcement. But seizing agencies keep up to 100% of the seized proceeds of the sale of such items, along with all property "involved in" such transactions. Some of this bounty is now shared with FIUs. Strong incentives thus exist for police to maximize property seizures by delaying arrests of persons engaged in illicit sales of narcotics or other illegal merchandise until they have sold all or most of their supply.
It’s inconceivable that a global network of FIUs operating under these incentives will not be misused for political purposes or private gain. Far from ending money laundering, the network will facilitate it.
This is already occurring in other "secure" government databases. Columbian drug cartels have penetrated databases operated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The U.S. wiretapping system has been similarly compromised.
Why should anyone expect FinCEN and its affiliate FIUs to be different? Certainly, terrorists and drug kingpins would pay dearly for access to FIU databases. Knowing what information FIUs have on their assets and laundering techniques, not to mention those of their competitors, would be extremely valuable.
These concerns aren't merely theoretical. In 2002, the Chief Justice of the Cayman Islands accused the head of the island's FIU of wiretapping his telephone and destroying evidence that may have proven the innocence of a bank accused of money laundering. Since FIUs are expected to generate revenues beyond their operating costs, corruption in the Cayman FIU may be only the first of many similar scandals to come. The only reason why we haven’t learned of similar scandals in other countries is that FIUs are considered “intelligence agencies” with all operations shrouded in secrecy.
Even if you’re not a criminal, muckraking politician, or other person of interest to the global network of FIUs, worldwide surveillance of virtually all financial transactions may place you at risk merely through the routine exercise of your business or profession. In my final installment of this series, I’ll outline some of the ways you can protect yourself from what can only be described as “global surveillance run amok.”
Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann
http://nestmannblog.sovereignsociety.com/
North American freshwater fish in peril By Seth Borenstein, Associated Press WASHINGTON — About four out of 10 freshwater fish species in North America are in peril, according to a major study by U.S., Canadian and Mexican scientists. And the number of subspecies of fish populations in trouble has nearly doubled since 1989, the new report says. One biologist called it "silent extinctions" because few people notice the dramatic dwindling of certain populations deep in American lakes, rivers and streams. And while they are unaware, people are the chief cause of the problem by polluting and damming freshwater habitats, experts said. In the first massive study of freshwater fish on the continent in 19 years, an international team of dozens of scientists looked not just at species, but at subspecies — physically distinct populations restricted to certain geographic areas. The decline is even more notable among these smaller groups. The scientists found that 700 smaller but individual fish populations are vulnerable, threatened, or endangered. That's up from 364 subspecies nearly two decades ago. And 457 entire species are in trouble or already extinct, the study found. Another 86 species are OK as a whole, but have subspecies in trouble. The study, led by U.S. Geological Survey researchers, is published in the current issue of the journal Fisheries. Researchers looked at thousands of distinct populations of fish that either live in lakes, streams and rivers or those that live in saltwater but which migrate to freshwater at times, such as salmon that return to spawn. Some vulnerable fish are staples of recreational fishing and the dinner plate. Striped bass that live in the Gulf of Mexico, Bay of Fundy and southern Gulf of St. Lawrence are new to the imperiled list. So are snail bullhead, flat bullhead and spotted bullhead catfish. Sockeye, Chinook, coho, chum and Atlantic salmon populations are also called threatened or endangered in the study. More than two dozen trout populations are considered in trouble. About 6% of fish populations that were in peril in 1989, including the Bonneville cutthroat trout, have made a comeback, said lead author Howard Jelks of the U.S. Geological Survey. But one-third of the fish that were in trouble in 1989 are worse off now, said the Gainesville, Fla., biologist. The study includes far more species and populations than those that are on the official U.S. government endangered species list. Jelks said the number of species in trouble was close to double what he expected and that means people should be "considerably worried." The biggest cause, Jelks said, is degraded freshwater habitat, both in quality and quantity of water for fish to live in. Invasive species crowding out native fish is also to blame, he said. Fish "live in a freshwater habitat that's pretty much under assault by people," said Duke University marine biologist Larry Crowder, who wasn't part of the study. "Things are tanking all around us. When does it have to be bad enough to get people's attention?" Many of the species in trouble or already extinct are small minnows and darters whose absence is little noticed, but they play a vital role in the food chain. Hardest hit is Mexico where nearly half the fish species are in trouble. One in three species in the United States are in peril — up from about one in five in 1989. About 10% of Canadian species dwindled. In the United States, the most vulnerable populations are in the Southeast, not counting Florida. In the U.S., 263 fish species are in trouble or are already extinct, and nearly 500 have no problems. The number of fish species and subspecies in North America that went extinct rose from 40 to 61 since 1989. Anthony Ricciardi, a McGill University biologist who was not part of the research, found that about 10 years ago freshwater extinctions were happening at a faster pace than on land or in the sea. And yet few people notice, he said. "A lot of silent extinctions are happening," Ricciardi said. "What we're doing is widespread, it's pervasive and it's rapid." http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-09-10-freshwater-fish_N.htm
We have so many Countries in play and effecting the US now and there by effecting you. Today i feature some of the more recent articles about this Government that just ousted it's leader and is in a flux.
New Bush policy authorizes raids inside Pakistan
By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times
WASHINGTON - President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow U.S. Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, senior American officials said.
The classified orders mark a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat Al-Qaida and Taliban fighters, and after months of a high-level stalemate about how to confront the militants' increasingly secure base in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
U.S. officials say they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks such as the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border but they will not ask for its permission.
"The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable," said a senior U.S. official, who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the missions. "We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued."
The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al-Qaida and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as a view that Pakistan lacks the will and capability to combat militants. The orders also illustrate lingering U.S. distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some past U.S. operations have been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details.
The Central Intelligence Agency has for several years fired missiles at militants inside Pakistan from remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But the new orders for the Special Operations forces relax what have until now been firm restrictions on conducting ground raids on the soil of an important ally without its permission.
Pakistan's top army officer said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate U.S. incursions like the one last week and that the army would defend the country's sovereignty "at all costs."
http://www.startribune.com/error/?path=%2Fworld&id=28223479New Bush policy authorizes raids inside Pakistan
By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times
WASHINGTON - President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow U.S. Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, senior American officials said.
The classified orders mark a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat Al-Qaida and Taliban fighters, and after months of a high-level stalemate about how to confront the militants' increasingly secure base in the tribal areas of Pakistan.
U.S. officials say they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks such as the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border but they will not ask for its permission.
"The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable," said a senior U.S. official, who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the missions. "We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued."
The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al-Qaida and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as a view that Pakistan lacks the will and capability to combat militants. The orders also illustrate lingering U.S. distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some past U.S. operations have been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details.
The Central Intelligence Agency has for several years fired missiles at militants inside Pakistan from remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But the new orders for the Special Operations forces relax what have until now been firm restrictions on conducting ground raids on the soil of an important ally without its permission.
Pakistan's top army officer said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate U.S. incursions like the one last week and that the army would defend the country's sovereignty "at all costs."
U.S. Crosses Pakistan Border to Raid Terror Camp
Thursday, September 04, 2008
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A senior U.S. military official has acknowledged that American forces conducted a raid inside Pakistan, in the first known foreign ground assault in the country against a suspected Taliban haven.Thursday, September 04, 2008
The Pakistan government condemned an incursion that it said killed at least 15 people.
The American official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of cross border operations, told The Associated Press that the raid occurred on Pakistani soil about one mile from the Afghan border. The official didn't provide any other details.
Pakistan's Foreign Ministry protested saying U.S.-led troops flew in from Afghanistan for the attack on a village in the country's wild tribal belt. A Pakistan army spokesman warned that the apparent escalation from recent foreign missile strikes on militant targets along the Afghan border would further anger Pakistanis and undercut cooperation in the war against terrorist groups.
The boldness of the thrust fed speculation about the intended target. But it was unclear whether any extremist leader was killed or captured in the operation, which occurred in one of the militant strongholds dotting a frontier region considered a likely hiding place for Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri.
U.S. military and civilian officials declined to respond directly to Pakistan's complaints. But one official, a South Asia expert who agreed to discuss the situation only if not quoted by name, suggested the target of any raid like that reported Wednesday would have to be extremely important to risk an almost assured "big backlash" from Pakistan.
"You have to consider that something like this will be a more-or-less once-off opportunity for which we will have to pay a price in terms of Pakistani cooperation," the official said.
Suspected U.S. missile attacks killed at least two Al Qaeda commanders this year in the same region, drawing protests from Pakistan's government that its sovereignty was under attack. U.S. officials did not acknowledge any involvement in those attacks.
But American commanders have been complaining publicly that Pakistan puts too little pressure on militant groups that are blamed for mounting violence in Afghanistan, stirring speculation that U.S. forces might lash out across the frontier.
Some administration officials have been pressing U.S. President George W. Bush to direct U.S. troops in Afghanistan to be more aggressive in pursuing militants into Pakistan on foot as part of a proposed radical shift in regional counterterrorism strategy, the AP learned. The debate was the subject of a late July meeting at the White House of some of Bush's top national security advisers.
Circumstances surrounding Wednesday's raid weren't clear, but U.S. rules of engagement allow American troops to pursue militants across the border into Pakistan when they are attacked.
However, Pakistan army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said hot pursuit wasn't an issue, adding that the attack "was completely unprovoked." He said Pakistani troops were near the village and saw and heard nothing to suggest the U.S. forces were pursuing insurgents.
The raid comes at a particularly sensitive time for the Pakistan government which is trying to overcome political divisions and choose a new president on the one hand, while the army is battling the militants on the other.
Pakistani officials said they were lodging strong protests with the U.S. government and its military representative in Islamabad about Wednesday's raid in the South Waziristan area, a notorious hot bed of militant activity.
The Foreign Ministry called the strike "a gross violation of Pakistan's territory," saying it could "undermine the very basis of cooperation and may fuel the fire of hatred and violence that we are trying to extinguish."
Prior to the U.S. military confirming the U.S. raid, Pakistan government and military officials had insisted that either the NATO force or the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan — both commanded by American generals — were responsible. A spokesman for NATO troops in Afghanistan denied any involvement.
Abbas, the Pakistani army spokesman, said the attack was the first incursion onto Pakistani soil by troops from the foreign forces that ousted Afghanistan's hard-line Taliban regime after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S.
He said the attack would undermine Pakistan's efforts to isolate Islamic extremists and could threaten NATO's major supply lines, which snake from Pakistan's Indian Ocean port of Karachi through the tribal region into Afghanistan.
American officials say destroying militant sanctuaries in Pakistani tribal regions is key to defeating Taliban-led militants in Afghanistan whose insurgency has strengthened every year since the fundamentalist militia was ousted for harboring bin Laden.
Citing witness and intelligence reports, Abbas said troops flew in on at least one big CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter, blasted their way into several houses and gunned down men they found there.
He said there was no evidence that any of those killed were insurgents or that the raiders abducted any militant leader, but he acknowledged Pakistan's military had no firsthand account.
There were differing reports on how many people were killed. The provincial governor claimed 20 civilians, including women and children, died. Army and intelligence officials, as well as residents, said 15 people were killed.
Habib Khan Wazir, an area resident, said he heard helicopters, then an exchange of gunfire.
"Later, I saw 15 bodies inside and outside two homes. They had been shot in the head," Wazir said by phone. He claimed all the dead were civilians.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,416202,00.htmlThe American official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of cross border operations, told The Associated Press that the raid occurred on Pakistani soil about one mile from the Afghan border. The official didn't provide any other details.
Pakistan's Foreign Ministry protested saying U.S.-led troops flew in from Afghanistan for the attack on a village in the country's wild tribal belt. A Pakistan army spokesman warned that the apparent escalation from recent foreign missile strikes on militant targets along the Afghan border would further anger Pakistanis and undercut cooperation in the war against terrorist groups.
The boldness of the thrust fed speculation about the intended target. But it was unclear whether any extremist leader was killed or captured in the operation, which occurred in one of the militant strongholds dotting a frontier region considered a likely hiding place for Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri.
U.S. military and civilian officials declined to respond directly to Pakistan's complaints. But one official, a South Asia expert who agreed to discuss the situation only if not quoted by name, suggested the target of any raid like that reported Wednesday would have to be extremely important to risk an almost assured "big backlash" from Pakistan.
"You have to consider that something like this will be a more-or-less once-off opportunity for which we will have to pay a price in terms of Pakistani cooperation," the official said.
Suspected U.S. missile attacks killed at least two Al Qaeda commanders this year in the same region, drawing protests from Pakistan's government that its sovereignty was under attack. U.S. officials did not acknowledge any involvement in those attacks.
But American commanders have been complaining publicly that Pakistan puts too little pressure on militant groups that are blamed for mounting violence in Afghanistan, stirring speculation that U.S. forces might lash out across the frontier.
Some administration officials have been pressing U.S. President George W. Bush to direct U.S. troops in Afghanistan to be more aggressive in pursuing militants into Pakistan on foot as part of a proposed radical shift in regional counterterrorism strategy, the AP learned. The debate was the subject of a late July meeting at the White House of some of Bush's top national security advisers.
Circumstances surrounding Wednesday's raid weren't clear, but U.S. rules of engagement allow American troops to pursue militants across the border into Pakistan when they are attacked.
However, Pakistan army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said hot pursuit wasn't an issue, adding that the attack "was completely unprovoked." He said Pakistani troops were near the village and saw and heard nothing to suggest the U.S. forces were pursuing insurgents.
The raid comes at a particularly sensitive time for the Pakistan government which is trying to overcome political divisions and choose a new president on the one hand, while the army is battling the militants on the other.
Pakistani officials said they were lodging strong protests with the U.S. government and its military representative in Islamabad about Wednesday's raid in the South Waziristan area, a notorious hot bed of militant activity.
The Foreign Ministry called the strike "a gross violation of Pakistan's territory," saying it could "undermine the very basis of cooperation and may fuel the fire of hatred and violence that we are trying to extinguish."
Prior to the U.S. military confirming the U.S. raid, Pakistan government and military officials had insisted that either the NATO force or the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan — both commanded by American generals — were responsible. A spokesman for NATO troops in Afghanistan denied any involvement.
Abbas, the Pakistani army spokesman, said the attack was the first incursion onto Pakistani soil by troops from the foreign forces that ousted Afghanistan's hard-line Taliban regime after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S.
He said the attack would undermine Pakistan's efforts to isolate Islamic extremists and could threaten NATO's major supply lines, which snake from Pakistan's Indian Ocean port of Karachi through the tribal region into Afghanistan.
American officials say destroying militant sanctuaries in Pakistani tribal regions is key to defeating Taliban-led militants in Afghanistan whose insurgency has strengthened every year since the fundamentalist militia was ousted for harboring bin Laden.
Citing witness and intelligence reports, Abbas said troops flew in on at least one big CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter, blasted their way into several houses and gunned down men they found there.
He said there was no evidence that any of those killed were insurgents or that the raiders abducted any militant leader, but he acknowledged Pakistan's military had no firsthand account.
There were differing reports on how many people were killed. The provincial governor claimed 20 civilians, including women and children, died. Army and intelligence officials, as well as residents, said 15 people were killed.
Habib Khan Wazir, an area resident, said he heard helicopters, then an exchange of gunfire.
"Later, I saw 15 bodies inside and outside two homes. They had been shot in the head," Wazir said by phone. He claimed all the dead were civilians.
Suspected U.S. missile strike kills 12 in Pakistan
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — A suspected U.S. missile strike killed 12 people in northwestern Pakistan on Friday and fighting in another militant stronghold near the Afghan border killed dozens more, officials said.
Two intelligence officials told The Associated Press that missiles struck a home near Miran Shah, the main town in the North Waziristan tribal region, before dawn.
The officials said the death toll climbed from an initial eight to 12 as agents in the area reported more details of the attack. Another 10 people were injured. The identity of the casualties was not immediately clear.
The officials asked for anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record to media.
American forces in Afghanistan are stepping up their efforts to hit Taliban and al-Qaeda militants in what they describe as safe havens in Pakistan's wild border regions, despite stiff protests from Islamabad.
With the insurgency in Afghanistan intensifying, President Bush secretly approved more aggressive cross-border operations in July, current and former American officials have told the AP.
North Waziristan is part of a belt of tribally governed territory where Pakistan's government has little control. The frontier region is considered the most likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda No.2 Ayman al-Zawahri.
Since Aug. 20, there have been at least seven reported missile strikes as well as a raid by helicopter-borne U.S. commandos. Pakistani officials insist the latter operation killed 15 people, all of them civilians.
Both the U.S. military and the CIA operate drone aircraft armed with missiles of the type believed to have killed two senior al-Qaeda commanders in Pakistani territory earlier this year.
Pakistani officials warn that the strikes — especially involving ground troops — will fan anti-American sentiment in the country and wreck efforts to win over moderate tribal leaders and bring economic development to the impoverished border region.
Authorities negotiated a peace deal with tribes in North Waziristan earlier this year. Similar efforts have failed or broken down on other parts of the northwest.
On Friday, army spokesman Maj. Murad Khan said 32 militants and 2 soldiers had died in the previous 24 hours in the Bajur region. Iqbal Khattak, a local government official, put the total for the 24-hour period higher, saying about 60 militants have died.
Officials say hundreds of militants have died there in a weeks-long offensive into Bajur. An estimated 500,000 people have fled their homes. Officials acknowledge that civilian have been killed and villages badly damaged in the fighting.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-09-12-pakistan-violence_N.htm ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — A suspected U.S. missile strike killed 12 people in northwestern Pakistan on Friday and fighting in another militant stronghold near the Afghan border killed dozens more, officials said.
Two intelligence officials told The Associated Press that missiles struck a home near Miran Shah, the main town in the North Waziristan tribal region, before dawn.
The officials said the death toll climbed from an initial eight to 12 as agents in the area reported more details of the attack. Another 10 people were injured. The identity of the casualties was not immediately clear.
The officials asked for anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on the record to media.
American forces in Afghanistan are stepping up their efforts to hit Taliban and al-Qaeda militants in what they describe as safe havens in Pakistan's wild border regions, despite stiff protests from Islamabad.
With the insurgency in Afghanistan intensifying, President Bush secretly approved more aggressive cross-border operations in July, current and former American officials have told the AP.
North Waziristan is part of a belt of tribally governed territory where Pakistan's government has little control. The frontier region is considered the most likely hiding place for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda No.2 Ayman al-Zawahri.
Since Aug. 20, there have been at least seven reported missile strikes as well as a raid by helicopter-borne U.S. commandos. Pakistani officials insist the latter operation killed 15 people, all of them civilians.
Both the U.S. military and the CIA operate drone aircraft armed with missiles of the type believed to have killed two senior al-Qaeda commanders in Pakistani territory earlier this year.
Pakistani officials warn that the strikes — especially involving ground troops — will fan anti-American sentiment in the country and wreck efforts to win over moderate tribal leaders and bring economic development to the impoverished border region.
Authorities negotiated a peace deal with tribes in North Waziristan earlier this year. Similar efforts have failed or broken down on other parts of the northwest.
On Friday, army spokesman Maj. Murad Khan said 32 militants and 2 soldiers had died in the previous 24 hours in the Bajur region. Iqbal Khattak, a local government official, put the total for the 24-hour period higher, saying about 60 militants have died.
Officials say hundreds of militants have died there in a weeks-long offensive into Bajur. An estimated 500,000 people have fled their homes. Officials acknowledge that civilian have been killed and villages badly damaged in the fighting.
Black market nuke network had sophisticated info September 12, 2008 - 7:06am
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The U.N. nuclear monitoring agency says a black market nuclear network operating from Pakistan had substantial and up-to-date information on how to make an atomic bomb.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says much of the sensitive information was passed on to customers in electronic form.
The use of e-mail attachments or CD-ROMs to spread information about how to make nuclear weapons is alarming because it gives a potentially unlimited number of customers access to the material, whether they are governments or individuals.
The IAEA's information was contained in a restricted report on Libya and based on information collected since that country renounced its efforts to make nuclear weapons in 2003. The report was made available to the AP Friday.
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The U.N. nuclear monitoring agency says a black market nuclear network operating from Pakistan had substantial and up-to-date information on how to make an atomic bomb.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says much of the sensitive information was passed on to customers in electronic form.
The use of e-mail attachments or CD-ROMs to spread information about how to make nuclear weapons is alarming because it gives a potentially unlimited number of customers access to the material, whether they are governments or individuals.
The IAEA's information was contained in a restricted report on Libya and based on information collected since that country renounced its efforts to make nuclear weapons in 2003. The report was made available to the AP Friday.
The U.S. drone aircraft involved in strikes against Taliban and Al Qaeda militants across the border have enhanced tracking ability.
By Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers September 12, 2008
WASHINGTON -- As part of an escalating offensive against extremist targets in Pakistan, the United States is deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials.The use of the specially equipped drones comes amid a fundamental shift in U.S. strategy in the area. After years of deferring to Pakistani authorities, the Bush administration is turning toward unilateral American military operations -- a gambit that could increase pressure on Islamic militants but risks alienating a country that has been a key counter-terrorism ally.
In an indication of the priority being given to the Pakistan campaign, U.S. officials said the specially equipped aircraft were being pulled from other theaters to augment aerial patrols above the tribal belt along Afghanistan's eastern border.Pakistan's government has found itself caught between Washington's demands for action and the unpopularity of the U.S. campaign, which has included half a dozen Predator strikes and a ground raid in the last few weeks.This morning, witnesses said, at least eight people were believed killed in what appeared to be a Predator strike in North Waziristan, near the Afghan border.
Pakistanis complain that U.S. raids frequently kill civilians in addition to militants.Pakistani forces also are carrying out their own campaign against the militants, and say they have killed hundreds in the last month, making the U.S. raids unnecessary.
By Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers September 12, 2008
WASHINGTON -- As part of an escalating offensive against extremist targets in Pakistan, the United States is deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials.The use of the specially equipped drones comes amid a fundamental shift in U.S. strategy in the area. After years of deferring to Pakistani authorities, the Bush administration is turning toward unilateral American military operations -- a gambit that could increase pressure on Islamic militants but risks alienating a country that has been a key counter-terrorism ally.
In an indication of the priority being given to the Pakistan campaign, U.S. officials said the specially equipped aircraft were being pulled from other theaters to augment aerial patrols above the tribal belt along Afghanistan's eastern border.Pakistan's government has found itself caught between Washington's demands for action and the unpopularity of the U.S. campaign, which has included half a dozen Predator strikes and a ground raid in the last few weeks.This morning, witnesses said, at least eight people were believed killed in what appeared to be a Predator strike in North Waziristan, near the Afghan border.
Pakistanis complain that U.S. raids frequently kill civilians in addition to militants.Pakistani forces also are carrying out their own campaign against the militants, and say they have killed hundreds in the last month, making the U.S. raids unnecessary.
(You can read the whole story here)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment