Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for February, 2021

An Innocent Muslim’s Horrific Experience of Gulag Guantanamo Bay Jail Captured In The MOVIE -The MAURITANIAN

 

The Mauritanian tells a harrowing account of injustice, brutality, and moral reckoning in the aftermath of the tragic 9/11 terrorist attacks. Based on the book “Guantanamo Diary”, the film is the true story of Mohamedou Ould Salahi, who was taken clandestinely via rendition to the prison camp in Cuba. His interrogation, tactics used, and the efforts to free him are explored in a well-acted, but overly procedural narrative. The Mauritanian makes a compelling case for introspection. We must hold the perpetrators of this heinous crime to account, but cannot trample on our bedrock values or succumb to unfettered vengeance.

The film opens on a Mauritanian beach two months after 9/11 in 2001. Mohamedou Ould Salahi (Tahar Rahim) has returned from Germany to attend a relative’s wedding. He’s taken away by local authorities as his terrified mother watches. Two years later in New Mexico, prominent civil rights attorney, Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster), is approached by a former colleague (Denis Ménochet) to review a case pro bono. Salahi’s family had reached out to him after reading an article in a German magazine. It was their first clue to Salahi’s whereabouts after disappearing.

 

An Appeal -Bring International Criminals George W.Bush Sr & George W.Bush Jr to Justice

The Mauritanian then changes perspectives to Hollander, and her junior associate, Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley), meeting Salahi for the first time in Guantanamo Bay. They are surprised he can speak English, but is fearful to speak openly. Hollander informs him that the US Supreme Court has authorized Guantanamo Bay detainees the right to legal counsel. She asks Salahi to write detailed notes about how he got to the camp and his treatment inside. Salahi had never been charged for a crime.

At the same time, the White House and Department of Defense sought the death penalty for aiding and abetting the 9/11 hijackers. Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch) is assigned to prosecute Salahi. It was supposedly an open and shut case. Salahi’s cousin worked for Osama Bin Laden. Salahi fought with the Taliban against the Russians in Afghanistan. He was a terrorist and killer that needed to die for his crimes. But as Hollander and Couch prepare for trial, they both uncover a disturbing conspiracy regarding the case. The revelations, along with Salahi’s chilling recollection of his arrest and incarceration, painted a vastly different picture of the government’s case against him.

The events of September 11, 2001 will never be forgotten. The horror and heartache will always be felt, especially for those of us who lost dear friends and family. The Mauritanian strikes at the heart of a moral and existential dilemma. Should we allow innocent people to be swept up in a ruthless search for justice? Is extrajudicial rendition, imprisonment, and torture a necessary means to an end? Nancy Hollander, Teri Duncan, and Stuart Couch were branded as traitors for seeking the truth behind Salahi’s capture. They should be seen as heroes. The Constitution, the defining principles of Americanism, is sacrosanct. This is the message the film conveys.

Tahar Rahim has received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor in a Motion Picture Drama. Mohamedou Ould Salahi was subjected to hideous torture and years of soul-crushing confinement. Rahim embodies his struggle to remain hopeful under the most dire circumstances. He delivers an incredible, nuanced performance. Propping up The Mauritanian when the narrative becomes labored. The film, despite its extraordinary content, feels like an episode of Law & Order at times. Tahir Rahim succeeds in humanizing Salahi. Thus making his awful experience relatable and teachable. The Mauritanian is a production of Wonder Street, 30 West, and BBC Films. It will be released theatrically by STX Films on February 12th.

 

, , , , , ,

No Comments

New LNG deal signed with Qatar

New LNG deal signed with Qatar

Under the 10-year accord Pakistan to import LNG at rate of 10.2% of Brent


ISLAMABAD:

Pakistan signed a 10-year new agreement with Qatar on Friday to import 200 million cubic feet per day (mmcfd) additional liquefied natural gas (LNG) at cheaper rate.

Under the deal, Pakistan will import 200 mmcfd LNG in first year, and quantity would be increased to 400mmcfd in the next two years. The government says that the price is 31% less than the LNG deal signed with Qatar in 2015 by the then Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government.

The PML-N government had signed the deal for 500mmcfd in 2015 at a rate 13.37% of Brent. However, the current PTI government has signed the agreement at a rate of 10.20% of Brent for import of 200 mmcfd LNG.


ISLAMABAD:Pakistan signed a 10-year new agreement with Qatar on Friday to import 200 million cubic feet per day (mmcfd) additional liquefied natural gas (LNG) at cheaper rate.

Under the deal, Pakistan will import 200 mmcfd LNG in first year, and quantity would be increased to 400mmcfd in the next two years. The government says that the price is 31% less than the LNG deal signed with Qatar in 2015 by the then Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) government.

The PML-N government had signed the deal for 500mmcfd in 2015 at a rate 13.37% of Brent. However, the current PTI government has signed the agreement at a rate of 10.20% of Brent for import of 200 mmcfd LNG.

After the signing ceremony, Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Petroleum Nadeem Babar said Qatar would provide LNG at the lowest rate, following successful joint efforts by the political and military leaderships.

“Today we have signed a very important agreement with Qatar,” Babar said, while sharing with the media persons the details of the agreement, which was signed in the presence of Prime Minister Imran Khan at the Prime Minister House.

The 10-year new agreement, beginning January next year, will deliver initially two ships per month – around 200 mmcfd – and then go up to 4 ships per month — 400mmcfd. The previous contract was for 15 years, beginning with 1 ship per month – 100mmcfd – and going up to five ships a month.

The agreement signed by the last PML-N government had a clause regarding the price review after 10 years that had invited lot of criticism. However, the fresh LNG contract had a clause for price review after 4 years.

Babar said the average price of total spot purchases stood at 11.9% of Brent, adding that the new price of 10.2% of Brent was still 15-16% lower. He maintained that it would ensure price stability and affordability along with supply security.

Based on the volume of new contract, Babar said that Pakistan would pay around $316million less compared to same volume under the existing long-term contract. He added that this had been calculated at $3 billion during the next 10 years.

“Pakistan is providing letters of credit (LCs) worth $170 million under the past contract. It will furnish $84 million under the new contract that amounts to almost half,” he said. “Total supplies under the fresh contract could be about 3 million tonnes against around 3.75 million tonnes of contracted quantities,” he added.

“The Pakistan State Oil (PSO) will import the LNG from Qatar under the new deal as well, but flexibility has also been incorporated in the contract in case import order is to be assigned to Pakistan LNG Limited (PLL),” he said.

Babar said that the fresh supplies would replace the existing long-term contract with the Gunvor Company that expired in December. Another contract with the PLL will expire in 14 months. “So, the new two cheaper ships will replace two expensive ships,” he added.

The special assistant to the prime minister further said that the new contract would become operational in January, 2022 but added that it also provided for at least one additional shipment “in December this year if need so arise”.

Babar said the process to strike the deal was started around two years ago, when he had accompanied the prime minister during his first visit to Qatar. He added that the agreement was discussed at the highest level of the government.

“It is correct that the deal was discussed at the highest level of the government. The prime minister himself had talked to the Amir of Qatar thrice. It took long time to strike the deal at 10.2% of the Brent, which is the lowest publicly-known contract in the world today.”

Responding to a question, he said that Pakistan’s military leadership also had dynamic relations with Qatar, which had been facilitating in Afghan peace talks. “Both the military leadership and the political leadership have the common interest to do things which are in the larger interest of the nation and it was also one of such joint efforts,” he added.

After the signing ceremony, Special Assistant to Prime Minister on Petroleum Nadeem Babar said Qatar would provide LNG at the lowest rate, following successful joint efforts by the political and military leaderships.

“Today we have signed a very important agreement with Qatar,” Babar said, while sharing with the media persons the details of the agreement, which was signed in the presence of Prime Minister Imran Khan at the Prime Minister House.

The 10-year new agreement, beginning January next year, will deliver initially two ships per month – around 200 mmcfd – and then go up to 4 ships per month — 400mmcfd. The previous contract was for 15 years, beginning with 1 ship per month – 100mmcfd – and going up to five ships a month.

The agreement signed by the last PML-N government had a clause regarding the price review after 10 years that had invited lot of criticism. However, the fresh LNG contract had a clause for price review after 4 years.

Babar said the average price of total spot purchases stood at 11.9% of Brent, adding that the new price of 10.2% of Brent was still 15-16% lower. He maintained that it would ensure price stability and affordability along with supply security.

Based on the volume of new contract, Babar said that Pakistan would pay around $316million less compared to same volume under the existing long-term contract. He added that this had been calculated at $3 billion during the next 10 years.

“Pakistan is providing letters of credit (LCs) worth $170 million under the past contract. It will furnish $84 million under the new contract that amounts to almost half,” he said. “Total supplies under the fresh contract could be about 3 million tonnes against around 3.75 million tonnes of contracted quantities,” he added.

“The Pakistan State Oil (PSO) will import the LNG from Qatar under the new deal as well, but flexibility has also been incorporated in the contract in case import order is to be assigned to Pakistan LNG Limited (PLL),” he said.

Babar said that the fresh supplies would replace the existing long-term contract with the Gunvor Company that expired in December. Another contract with the PLL will expire in 14 months. “So, the new two cheaper ships will replace two expensive ships,” he added.

The special assistant to the prime minister further said that the new contract would become operational in January, 2022 but added that it also provided for at least one additional shipment “in December this year if need so arise”.

Babar said the process to strike the deal was started around two years ago, when he had accompanied the prime minister during his first visit to Qatar. He added that the agreement was discussed at the highest level of the government.

“It is correct that the deal was discussed at the highest level of the government. The prime minister himself had talked to the Amir of Qatar thrice. It took long time to strike the deal at 10.2% of the Brent, which is the lowest publicly-known contract in the world today.”

Responding to a question, he said that Pakistan’s military leadership also had dynamic relations with Qatar, which had been facilitating in Afghan peace talks. “Both the military leadership and the political leadership have the common interest to do things which are in the larger interest of the nation and it was also one of such joint efforts,” he added.

, ,

No Comments

Biden Commits To Forever War On Afghanistan by Moon Of Alabama

Biden Commits To Forever War On Afghanistan

By

Moon Of Alabama

February 24, 2021 
The forever war on Afghanistan will continue.

The U.S. and its NATO proxy force have spent nearly 20 years and a trillion dollars to “do something” in Afghanistan. What that something was to be was never clear. There were attempts to impose some kind of enlightened model of governance on the Afghan people. But anyone with knowledge of that country knew that this would never work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bribes were handed out left and right and Afghan warlords, many of whom hold government positions, enriched themselves by scamming the occupation forces. They naturally do not want that to end. There are also Afghans who do not want to live under the heel of corrupt warlords and ignorant occupation troops. They are called Taliban and get support from Pakistan and Arab countries which the U.S. calls ‘allies’. The occupation forces tried to fight them but after nearly 20 years of wars the Taliban again rule over half of the country. Even while the warlords still have military support from the occupation forces their troops are losing in nearly every engagement.

Militarily the war against the Taliban has long been lost. Even with the 100,000 ‘western’ troops the Obama administration had sent there was no way to win it.

President Donald Trump made efforts to end the useless war on Afghanistan. He negotiated with the Taliban to remove all ‘western’ forces by May 1. The agreement also commits the Taliban to not attacking those forces and to negotiate with the warlord government in Kabul on power sharing. They agreed to that after the U.S. promised that Taliban prisoners of war, held by the Afghan government, would be released.

The Afghan government had and has of course no interest in losing power. At least not as long as still gets sponsored by ‘western’ money. It also did not want to let prisoners go as those would just turn around and again fight against it. A year ago the Trump administration threatened to withhold money should the Afghan government not follow the negotiated terms:

Facing collapse of Afghan peace talks before they even start, the Trump administration has threatened to withhold up to $2 billion in aid unless President Ashraf Ghani and his main rival put aside their political differences and open negotiations with the Taliban.

The threat was the sharpest sign yet that the Trump administration is distancing itself from its Afghan ally and moving closer to the Taliban. The longtime U.S. adversary has in effect become a wary partner as President Trump seeks to withdraw thousands of American troops before the November election and end America’s longest war.

The Kabul government is heavily dependent on international assistance. U.S. aid was expected to total $4.3 billion this year, all but $500 million of which was earmarked for training and equipping the Afghan army.

The threat worked as expected. But when it became clear that a new management would take over the White House the Afghan government again tried to stall the process. Today the talks resumed but they are unlikely to achieve any results:

Peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government have resumed in the Qatari capital Doha after weeks of delays, escalating violence and a change in US diplomatic leadership as the Biden administration began.Taliban spokesman Mohammad Naeem tweeted on Monday night the resumption of the talks, which were the outcome of an agreement between the Afghan armed group and the US in February 2020.

But the administration of President Joe Biden is reviewing the agreement, which was aimed at ending the longest war the US has fought.

When talks ended abruptly in January, days after they began, both sides submitted their wish lists for agendas which they now have to sift through to agree on negotiation items and the order in which they will be tackled.

The priority for the Afghan government, Washington and NATO is a serious reduction in violence that can lead to a ceasefire, the Taliban have until now resisted any immediate ceasefire.

Washington is reviewing the Doha peace agreement the previous Trump administration signed with the Taliban as consensus mounts in Washington that a delay of the withdrawal deadline is needed. The Taliban have resisted suggestions of even a brief extension.

Without financial pressure there is no chance that the Afghan government and the Taliban will ever reach a power sharing deal. Even if there would be an agreement there is little chance that it will be upheld by all sides. The conflict would likely reignite and the Taliban would win.

The obvious consequence should be to just follow Trump’s plan and to leave as soon as possible.

But Trump was bad and thus the Biden administration is discussing three options:

If the US leaves in the next three months, it’s likely the Taliban will overrun the US-backed Afghan government and once again make life worse for millions of Afghans, especially women and children.Staying in Afghanistan just a little bit longer would likely delay that takeover, but would also expend any diplomatic capital the US has left with the Taliban and keep US troops in harm’s way.

Finally, violating the terms of the agreement and remaining indefinitely will almost certainly lead the Taliban to restart its campaign, put on hold ahead of the May 1 deadline, to kill American service members in the country.

Biden could follow Trump’s agreement with the Taliban and order the troops home. He could sell that as a victory and a fulfillment of a campaign promise.

But with the blob again in power that option had little chance to survive:

The opinion editors at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal may not agree on much, but they are both determined to oppose bringing forces out of Afghanistan as our war there approaches its 20th anniversary, raising the specter of “withdrawing irresponsibly.” Meanwhile conservative establishmentarians like Washington Post columnist Max Boot, and his cohort on the center-left side of the dial, David Ignatius, as well as Madeleine Albright, make common cause for keeping troops in Afghanistan as Biden’s “best option.” Today’s “stay” advocates, which include Republicans like Lindsey Graham making the media rounds, may all be coming from different plot points on the Washington political grid, but keeping the United States committed to a desultory, unwinnable conflict unites them. Their messages are circulated and amplified by social media and establishment friendlies, and among big cable news outlets. Thus, a consensus is born.

The blob is usually fond of claims that “all options are on the table”. Here it was keen to take one away:

Multiple US officials told me in recent days that the administration’s Afghanistan policy review is nearing its end, with one telling me they expect Biden to make a decision “very soon.”“I don’t know which way the president will go,” said this official, who like others spoke with me on the condition of anonymity to talk freely about a sensitive national security deliberation. Another person familiar with the Afghanistan discussions told me it’s clear a full withdrawal by May 1 is “off the table.”

This again demonstrates that the U.S. is no longer agreement capable. By staying longer than May 1 the Biden administration will breach an international agreement the previous administration had made.  

It is unlikely that the Taliban will agree to a prolonged stay of any troops from such an unreliable entity. They will rescind the ceasefire and the war will again enter a bloody phase:

[F]ew think Biden will withdraw all US troops by May 1, which means he will be keeping US service members in the country with or without the Taliban’s approval. If he does it without their approval, that could lead the insurgents to attack and kill American personnel as they overtake major Afghan cities, perhaps even Kabul.At that point, withdrawing from Afghanistan would be harder, experts say, because the administration won’t want to look like it’s running away from the fight. A return to a larger war, then, would likely ensue, leading to more death and woes for the millions of Afghans who’ve already suffered tremendously.

Unfortunately the decision by the Biden administration was utterly predictable. The military-industrial complex will not allow a retreat from a profitable battlefield and Biden is way too weak to resist its pressure.

, , ,

No Comments

The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know by by James F. Tracy, Global Research

The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know

by James F. Tracy
Global Research,

Archive Article

20 January 2018

 

 

No Comments

UK Government being urged to take up Indian response to the farmers protest at UN Security Council – The Sikh Federation (UK)

UK Government being urged to take up Indian response to the farmers protest at UN Security Council

Sanctions possible as there is a serious threat to peace under Article 39 of the United Nations Charter

UK Government under pressure to demand India immediately release Jagtar Singh Johal from prison and allowed to return to his family in the UK

Monday 15 February 2021

Following the Sikh Parliamentary lobby on human rights last week all UK MPs have today been sent a detailed action note (see attached).  Preet Kaur Gill MP, the Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for British Sikhs following the issues raised at the lobby is expected to write to ask the Foreign Secretary for an urgent meeting. 

At the meeting with the Foreign Secretary the two key issues to be discussed will be the serious human rights violations against farmers protesting in Delhi and the need to take urgent action demanding India immediately release Jagtar Singh Johal from prison and returning him to his family in the UK.

 

 

 

  

 

Pressure on the UK Government to take tougher action on the farmers protest is increasing with growing demands for a UK Parliamentary debate and action at the UN Security Council. 

The UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and is currently the Chair and will be followed by the US.  Under Article 39 of the United Nations Charter the Security Council can in country-specific situations determine the existence of a threat to peace.   

The farmers protest is seen as the world’s largest ever protest, has been continuing for months with no sign of a resolution and matters have escalated in the last couple of weeks with serious violations of human rights.   It could be argued under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations the Security Council could impose sanctions against India.  The UN Security Council can resort to sanctions as an enforcement tool when peace has been threatened and diplomatic efforts have failed.

A UK Parliamentary e-petition on the farmers protest has already had 115,000 signatures that should result in a Parliamentary debate.  An associated UK Parliamentary e-petition focused on the UK Government making strong representations directly with India, at the UN Human Rights Council and UN Security Council condemning the widespread human rights violations against farmers, journalists and activists has been submitted and is in the process of being approved. Both petitions would be debated together by MPs in the House of Commons.

The UK Government is being pressed to raise concerns with regards to the treatment, abuse, attacks, arrests and disappearance of farmers protesting; restrictions on the internet and harassment, arrest, sexual abuse and imprisonment of journalists and activists like Nodeep Kaur a 23-year-old Dalit labour activist and Disha Ravi a 22-year old climate activist.  

The UK Government is also being asked to work with other member states and NGOs like Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists who have in the last few days all condemned the Indian Government’s handling of the farmers protest. The objective is to ensure the farmers protest is discussed and actions agreed at the 46th regular session of the UN Human Rights Council from 22 February to 23 March 2021.

Over 80 MPs and Peers from all the main political parties have already signed a joint letter produced by Reprieve that will be sent to the Foreign Secretary.  The letter makes clear Jagtar Singh Johal has been held in arbitrary detention for nearly three and half years and there is a risk he could be given the death penalty.  Urgent action is therefore required from the Foreign Secretary to demand India immediately release Jagtar from prison and return him to his family in the UK. 

Bhai Amrik Singh, the Chair of the Sikh Federation (UK) said:

“The serious human rights violations of the Indian Government against farmers peacefully protesting to protect their families, livelihoods and very existence have been exposed to the international community.”

“The Indian Government must be held to account at the United Nations for its actions against farmers and should have no place to hide.”    

“There is also considerable pressure from UK MPs and Reprieve for the UK Government to demand India immediately release Jagtar Singh Johal from prison as it is clear he is being arbitrarily detained and should be allowed to return to his family in the UK.”

 

Harnek Singh
National Press Secretary
Sikh Federation (UK)

 

Note 1:

The Sikh Federation (UK) is by far the largest, most prominent and influential campaigning Sikh organisation in the UK that leads on political engagement for the British Sikh community.  The organisation is often referred to as the first and only Sikh political party.  The Sikh community in the UK and throughout the diaspora look to the organisation for leadership and direction.

Note 2:

The UK Parliamentary e-petition that has been submitted reads:

Condemn human rights violations in India associated with the farmers protest

The Government must make strong representations directly with India, at the UN Human Rights Council and UN Security Council condemning the widespread human rights violations against farmers, journalists and activists associated with the world’s largest ever protest.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and currently holding the Chair the UK should strongly push for the application of Article 39 of the United Nations Charter to the farmers protest that states that the Security Council can in country-specific situations determine the existence of a threat to the peace. Under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations the UN Security Council can also impose sanctions to apply pressure on a State without resorting to the use of force.

, , ,

No Comments