Ever since the United States began to engage in systematic military incursions and airstrikes against perceived terrorist targets in Pakistan, the Pakistani government has been vocally criticizing the Bush Administration for its “counterproductive” methods, which do not help “meet the objectives of the war on terror”, in the words of Mohammed Sadiq, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman.
Now a new report by The Washington Post has disclosed that the US airstrikes and military incursions are in fact covered under a secret US-Pakistani high-level agreement, according to which “the US government refuses to publicly acknowledge the attacks while Pakistan’s government continues to complain noisily about the politically sensitive strikes”. Under the deal, the US government is said to have temporarily halted ground incursions, but regular airstrikes against targets in Pakistani territory have intensified.
Although this report will be denied by the Pakistani leadership, it rings accurate and is substantiated by the long and telling history of US-Pakistani security relations. It essentially signifies the continuation of the fundamentals of these relations, which appears to have remained untouched despite the recent change of guard in Islamabad.
The obvious ironic element in this development is highlighted by the recent comments of Pakistan’s President, Asif Ali Zardary, who candidly —and accurately— stated that the US strikes on Pakistani soil are “not good for our position of winning the hearts and minds of people”. Time magazine reports that “[o]pinion polls routinely show that an overwhelming majority of ordinary Pakistanis oppose US actions inside their country”. Yet “[t]he government has to respond to public sentiment, leading to harsh, uncompromising language from political and military leaders”.
This new development must not terminate the debate about the legality of the US military actions inside Pakistan. Even if the Pakistani government has authorized these actions, they still constitute extrajudicial assassinations. The latter are not justified by their reported sanctioning by the country’s elected regime. Nevertheless, this latest repot strengthens the increasing consensus of observers that, despite the recent change of guard in Islamabad, it is still business as usual in Pakistan’s relations with Washington. [JF]
.
intelNews.org 
What will be Obama’s stance on warrantless wiretapping?
November 18, 2008 Leave a comment
Back in the early stages of the presidential election campaign, US President-elect Barack Obama repeatedly came out against the increasing use of warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency (NSA). Eventually he switched sides and voted for the continuation of this program, which many in the legal profession condemn as essentially unconstitutional. Today The New York Times has published an article reminding the President-Elect’s transitional team that the Obama administration is likely to have to make some early decisions about the legal standing of the NSA’s domestic communications interception operations. This is because a number of groups have challenged the Justice Department’s sanctioning of warrantless wiretapping. Under directives from the Bush Administration the Department has so far blocked these challenges by claiming broad and undefined “national security and national secrets” clauses. Is the Obama Administration likely to continue this policy? His transition team has so far denied all requests to discuss domestic surveillance, or even how the President-elect plans to deal with this issue. It is indeed too early to tell. Yet considering some of the people Obama is thinking of appointing to high-level intelligence establishment positions, one may be excused for thinking the Bush Administration’s policy is likely to survive mostly intact the change of guard in the White House. [IA]
.
Filed under Expert news and commentary on intelligence, espionage, spies and spying Tagged with Barack Obama, domestic intelligence, National Security Agency, News, wiretapping