Saturday, December 13, 2014

Study of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program

    Select Committee on Intelligence Report

              : Study of the CIA's Detention
                   Interrogation Program

  - Foreword, Findings and Conclusions,

                      Executive Summary

                                CLICK  THE   URL  BELOW


                       READ THE REPORT|||Senate


Current Investigations

Collection System in the News

NSA Domestic Surveillance 

Reforms / Policy

Foreign Intelligence

Friday, December 12, 2014

Terra Incognita: Pakistan and Terror.

    Terra Incognita: Pakistan and Terror.

             "We know what we know . 

      We don't know what we don't know."

Man holds poster of Osama bin Laden at rally
Man holds poster of Osama bin Laden at rally in Pakistan 311. (photo credit:REUTERS/Naseer Ahmed)

In the film Zero Dark Thirty, one of the CIA men in Pakistan tells his station chief, in regard to the hunt for Osama bin-Laden,
“We don’t know what we don’t know.”
To which the chief replies,
 “what the f--- is that supposed to mean?”

 A good question. The above statement is a tautology, a self-reinforcing argument. However, in unraveling the support network for terrorism in Pakistan we are often presented with this narrative that it is


But as a recent report reveals, we know what we know:

Pakistan is a bankroller of terrorism, and has supported operations in India, including bombings in Mumbai and attacks in Kashmir, for years. It has also sought to colonize Afghanistan with Islamic extremism, the Taliban being its latest creature.

Yet, like a child who doesn’t learn from touching the hot stove, the West, and particularly America, has time and again forgotten what it knows. Some of this is willful blindness, motivated and necessitated by a Pakistani- created narrative that “we need them” as interlocutors with the Afghans. The border is porous, so the narrative goes. “We wouldn’t want something to happen,” the Pakistanis whisper, like a Mafioso telling a store owner that “sometimes fires happen.”

Let’s dispense with the parables. In a frontpage article in The International Herald Tribune, Carlotta Gall described her first-hand experience in Pakistan over the past decade trying to pinpoint how the Pakistanis gave aid and comfort to Osama bin-Laden. “In trying to prove that the ISI [Pakistani intelligence service] knew of Bin Laden’s whereabouts and protected him,” she writes, “I struggled for more than two years to piece together something other than circumstantial evidence and suppositions.” Gall put her life on the line investigating the dark secret of Pakistan’s dirty war. The truth came one winter evening in 2012. “I got the confirmation I was looking for,” she writes.

It turns out the ISI had a whole desk assigned


 “handle” (read: “protect”) bin-Laden.

Gall pinpoints the correct conclusion: “Americans fail to understand and actively confront Pakistan on its support and export of terrorism,” but makes the wrong assertion about the import of the information, claiming this is

 “one reason [Afghan] President [Hamid] Karzai had  become disillusioned with the US.”

Forget Karzai. The “revelation” of Pakistani support for bin-Laden is not about Karzai, it is about the whole charade of US operations in Afghanistan.

             It reveals that America is,

 in essence, funding a war against itself.

On the one hand US soldiers man the lonely and ruggedly beautiful landscape of Afghanistan, and on the other hand, America works with the devil in Islamabad by supporting the Pakistan government financially. Pakistan in turn supports part of the Taliban, and the Taliban fights America.

We already knew this in the 1990s.

 We knew it in 2001 on 9/11.


we keep pretending that we don’t know it.

          The first time I became privy to this
           “secret” information was in 2000.

The vice-president of my fraternity was a Pakistani gentleman whose family were wealthy industrialists. Over a game of tennis one night he boasted,

“You know this war in Afghanistan, where this Northern Alliance is causing such trouble to the government”?

I didn’t.

“Well, the real story is that the ISI created the Taliban that runs the country and we are the main reason they won’t fall. This is a national security interest for us, we can’t have enemies on our border.”

Not long after, the Film LOC-Kargil came out.

It depicts how a Pakistani soldiers and their allied Islamist militia invaded India in 1999.

Overrunning a few Indian border units, it threatened to sweep down into the vale of Kashmir. The film depicts the heroism of the Indian army as units are dispatched piecemeal into battle against an unseen enemy.

“When I was a young man, sometimes a wolf would break into the village and we would shoot it. Something similar has happened here, wolves have broken into our house,” explains one commander to his men.

Except the Islamist militias in Kashmir, such as Laskar e-Taiba, were not wild animals; they were directed by the Pakistani ISI.

Like many intelligence services, the ISI views itself as above the state; it is the “sword around the throne.”


 Pakistan is a failed state, so the ISI in fact runs a kind of parallel state to keep Pakistan from imploding

 The ISI state supports terror throughout Pakistan, against “internal enemies,” and throughout the region. It believes that if Afghanistan and India can be kept permanently unstable through financing Islamist insurgencies, then they will not be able to meddle in Pakistan’s crumbling internal affairs.

During the long war against the Soviets, the ISI actively recruited, trained, paid and encouraged specific commanders. In 1989 it was the main reason a peace agreement was not worked out when the Soviets left. In 1992 when Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani prime minister, tried to arrange a cease-fire in Afghanistan, according to Ahmed Rashid,

 “one section of the ISI helped Mr. Sharif broker his talks, another tried to stage a coup by smuggling hundreds of fighters loyal to the extremist warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar into Kabul.”

The failure of the West is misunderstanding the nature of the ISI. It is more akin to the Revolutionary Guards in Iran than it is to the intelligence service of a “friendly” state. The problem is that the US became an unwitting ally of Pakistan in the 1970s. America conveniently ignored the radical Islamic government and its threat in the 1990s. Instead it coddled the ISI. For instance when they demanded that assistance to the mujahideen being funneled through Pakistan not be labeled as coming from America. So the Pakistanis passed off billions of aid as “from your Islamic brothers” as they sent it over to fight the Soviets.

In the 1990s the Arab Islamists who had drifted in from Saudi Arabia, and other places, such as China’s Xinjiang, Bosnia, Algeria, all passed through Pakistan. Murderers around the world received their training in Pakistan and the bases it funds across the border in Afghanistan. Mohammed Merah, the killer of French Jews in Toulouse, traveled to Pakistan in 2011. The London bombers traveled to Pakistan in 2003, the Times Square Bomber, and many others, were all connected to a Pakistan network. The Mumbai attackers were in regular phone contact with their Pakistani handlers in 2008 throughout their murder spree.

Ahmed Rashid, the Pakistani author, has argued for years that America is naïve in its dealings with Pakistan. He revealed in his 2008 book Descent into Chaos that in 2001

the US even allowed ISI agents working with the Taliban a window to escape Afghanistan through a Pakistani operation called the Kunduz airlift.

The ISI, which helped direct Taliban operations, which worked with bin-Laden, was allowed to safely exit the country.

Those that evacuated were partially responsible for 9/11, and the US gave them a carte blanche.

Rashid argues that after the US invasion

 the ISI set up a parallel department to back the Taliban, while at the same time pretending to work with the Americans.

 He writes

 “The ISI sent memos to [Pakistan president Pervez] Musharraf stating that the Americans would not stay long in Afghanistan and that the Taliban should be kept alive.”

Meanwhile the US gave almost $12 billion in aid to Pakistan, of which 80 percent went to the military. Some was funneled back into the Taliban. Only after the departure of US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Rashid argues, did the US begin listening to its commanders, who were sure that ISI was behind the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan. Rashid claimed in 2010 that

“The key to more formal negotiations with Taliban leaders lies with Pakistan and the ISI.”

Consider another source, Abdul Salam Zaeef, Taliban ambassador to Pakistan in 2001.

He wrote a book in 2010, My Life with the Taliban, in which he relates that
 “since the start of the Jihad [against the Soviets] the ISI extended its roots deep into Afghanistan like a cancer puts down roots in the human body.”

                       He compares the ISI

               to a wolf invading Afghanistan.

Why hasn’t Pakistan been declared an international pariah?

Why has it not been sanctioned?

Aid withdrawn and its ISI declared a terrorist organization like Iran’s Revolutionary Guard?

Because the Pakistanis argue any reduction in aid might make them more


But how can a terrorist state become more radical? Will it support more international terrorism than it already does? Will it have more terrorist training bases than it already does? Some Pakistanis have woken up. In a letter to the International Herald Tribune, Hasan I. from Lahore writes; “I must say that the American government is responsible for wasting trillions of dollars in the wrong war and in the wrong place. So, if the ISI is the root cause of all evil (read terrorism) then, America should’ve gone after Pakistan, not give its army billions of dollars... maybe now if the Americans really wanted to make things better, they’d try to funnel the aid through civilian governments.”                   



Monday, December 8, 2014


                   Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built  into his shoe and tried to light it?Did you know his trial is over?

Did you know he was sentenced?

Did you see/hear any of the judge's comments on TV or Radio?

Didn't think so.!!!

Everyone should hear what the judge had to say.  

Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything  to say 

His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his 'allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah,' defiantlystating,

 'I think I will not apologise for my actions,'

 and told the court

 'I am at war with your country.

'Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:

Judge Young: 

 'Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the  United States  Attorney General. 

 On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively.  (That's 80 years.)

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. 

The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that's an aggregate fine of $2 million.  The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes.  It is afair and just sentence.  It is a righteous sentence.

Now, let me explain this to you.  We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid.  We are Americans.  We have been through the fire before.  There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.  Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals.

  As human beings, we reach out for justice.  

       You are not an enemy combatant. 

                        You are a terrorist.

               You are not a  soldier in any war.

                       You are a terrorist. 

To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier, you are not-----, you are a terrorist. 

 And we do not negotiate with terrorists. 

We do not meet with terrorists.  We do not sign documents with terrorists. 

            We hunt them down one by one
                                    and                                                                          bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court  You are a big fellow.But you are not that big.  You're no warrior.  I've known warriors.

                                You are a terrorist.  

 A species of criminal that is guilty of multipleattempted murders.  In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said:

'You're no big deal. '

You are no big deal.

What your able counsel and what the equally able  United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific.  What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing? 


I have an answer for you. 

 It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom.  Our individual freedom.  Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.  Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom.  It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea.  It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom, so that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.  Itis for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

We Americans are all about freedom.  Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties.  Make no mistake though.  It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.  Look around this courtroom.  Mark it well.  The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here.

The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America , the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.  The very President of the  United States    through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.See that flag, Mr. Reid? 

That's the flag of the United States of America . 

That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten.

That flag stands for freedom.

  And it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer.  Stand him down.So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets? 

 Weneed more judges like Judge Young.  Pass this around.  Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike home.

Please SEND  this----so that everyone has a chance to read it.


Saturday, November 29, 2014

रक्षा मंत्री को " ओ र ओ प " का प्रेम पत्र RAKSHA MANTRI KO "O R O P " KA PREM PATRA


                     रक्षा  मंत्री को  " ओ र ओ प " का  प्रेम पत्र 

                                                                                       29 Nov 2014

Shri Manohar Parrikar
Hon’ble Raksha Mantri
104, South Block
New Delhi


                 ONE PENSION (OROP):


Dear Shri Manohar Parrikar,

This has reference to IESM letters dated 11 Nov 2014 and 19 Nov 2014.

I am writing to you a little longer letter to express our views on a few issues concerning the Defence Fraternity.

Your track record as former Chief Minister of Goa with your no-nonsense attitude, your penchant for transparency, your practice of simplicity shunning all official perks in everyday life inspires confidence in the common man. We have been accustomed to seeing politicians in power wield authority where as you are quite the opposite. Your travelling as Union Defence Minister to attend a Defence function in Goa in Economy class in civil aircraft when you are authorized an exclusive Air Force Embraer aircraft from Communication Wing, Delhi of IAF, in spite of requests made by your bureaucrats to use it, speaks volumes of your character. We faujis are proud of you.

The Defence ministry has been neglected for the last 10 years during misrule and non-governance of UPA I & II and needed a person as Defence Minister who understands nuances of modern warfare. You fit the bill perfectly and hon’ble PM deserves kudos to spot that talent in you.

You will be interacting with bureaucrats in MoD and CGDA more often than the Service Chiefs. You must have seen the interview of Adm DK Joshi, former CNS who accepted moral responsibility for loss of naval vessels and resigned like a true soldier. He has very candidly stated authority, responsibility and accountability rests in various silos in Govt of India. Though the Services have all the responsibility, he ruefully admits as a CNS he does not have power to purchase indigenously available items for running Indian Navy efficiently.

Bureaucrats all along have been improving their service conditions by lowering defence services. Till 1965, there was no Cabinet Secretary and they have got that post created and made it equal to C-in-C Indian Army who was No 2 in pecking order in 1947 next only to Viceroy. The pension of Cabinet secretary till 1973 was only Rs 415 pm while that of Service Chief was Rs 1,000 pm. The pension of defence personnel was 70% of last pay drawn while that of Civilians was only 33.33%. A Superintendent of Police was equated to Capt of Army and he was called Captain sahib by people. A Deputy Commissioner or District Collector was equal to Major. A DIG was equal to Lt Col. All these Civil – Military equations have been systematically downgraded.

Any benefit proposed for Defence Services is opposed tooth and nail by bureaucrats by waving the threat of military coup to the politicians right from our Independence in 1947.

The Kashmir problem we have inherited is caused by Pandit Nehru who referred the matter of occupation of Kashmir by Pakistani Army prematurely to UNO, in spite of pleading by Indian Army that entire Kashmir will be cleared of Pakistani intruders in another two weeks time.

Nehru’s contempt for Army resulted in

              national disgrace in 1962.

Mr Defence Minister, I fear history is being repeated. Our conventional edge over Pakistan has been slowly eroded over the last 10 years and with no induction of any new weapon system into the three services since three decades. China on the other hand has developed infrastructure all along AGLP and they keep intruding in our territory with impunity fully knowing Indians are not capable of taking any strong action.

The Service Chiefs are only invitees in meetings of Cabinet Committee on Security. A generalist IAS officer as Defence Secretary is vested with power to safeguard India’s territorial integrity in your Rules of Business. There cannot be anything more foolishness than this. The three services are only attached offices of Ministry of Defence.

Sir, this to any professional soldier is sure recipe for disaster waiting to happen.

Either you trust Armed Forces who are most loyal and patriotic to defend our Nation who have no desire to stage coup


trust self-serving bureaucrats who have neither responsibility nor accountability.

You have to empower Service Chiefs to run their respective services.

IAS officers and IDAS officers who hold purse strings are nowhere to be seen if emergency hits our beloved country. They will never accept any responsibility and authority. They know how to survive and succeed and leave the baby to be taken care of by Armed Forces.


 your interview to The Economic Times on 18 Nov 2014, to my mind appears to be result of briefing you got from your bureaucrats in your ministry.

Though you stated that you are worried about families of men who are risking their lives, the second part of your interview on One Rank One Pension (OROP) caused immense pain and anguish to over one crore Ex-Servicemen and their families who made sacrifices while in service.

There is disquiet amongst serving fraternity also as they will soon join ranks of veterans.

I wish you had listened to stake holders on OROP ie the Bureaucrats, the Service Chiefs and reputed Ex-Servicemen organizations like IESM and IESL, Air Force Association and War Disabled Association. After hearing all of them, you could have made up your mind.


One Rank One Pension is a three decades old genuine demand of faujis.

 We got our pensions lowered from 70% to 50% in 1974. 85% of our soldiers are thrown on to streets just after 15 years when their needs are maximum. No guaranteed employment is given either by Central Govt or State Govts barring minor percentage of reservation. Most of retired soldiers do not own even a single bedroom house. Lateral movement of soldiers into Para Military and other central Govt departments are opposed tooth and nail. Had these soldiers been absorbed, Govt of India could save Rs 7,000 crores per annum on payment of pension, Gratuity, Provident fund etc.

You have highly disciplined and motivated employees available who with little bit of reorientation training could prove a great asset to any organization which employs them. He carries his soldierly qualities into departments into which he has been laterally moved into and would have great influence on indisciplined civilians to learn from him and become better citizens and employees.

 The productivity of such departments would go up.

On the other hand, Sir, you have 5 lakh civilians working in your ministry. On one hand you throw out well trained soldiers at the age of 35 – 37 years, but you spend enormous amounts to train new civilians in various departments under Min of Def. Why cannot our soldiers be absorbed firstly by Ministry of Defence and then tell other ministries the benefit of lateral
movement of soldiers on completion of their engagement for 15 years in Armed Forces?


you are being told extraneous and irrelevant things on OROP by your bureaucrats and accountants.

OROP means simply same pension for same rank and for same length of service.

This is the easiest principle any one can understand. It means a soldier who retired in 2005 today draws a pension of Rs 5,196 whereas soldier with same service retiring in Nov 2014 gets pension of Rs 8,349 i.e. Rs 3,153 less. With 107% Dearness Relief the gap in two pensions is Rs     6,306 ie 60%.

 When needs of 2005 Sepoy and 2014 Sepoy are same do you not think both should get the same pension today?


You have been misguided to believe that pensions cannot be dynamic. Unless pensions of veterans are enhanced every year, the gap between pensions of old pensioners and new pensioners can never be same. Unless all serving personnel have fixed pay like Army Commanders and Service Chiefs, you cannot have OROP in a sliding scale of pay unless pensions are enhanced. Even in 6th CPC period, a Havildar who retires on 31 Jan 2006 draws pension less than a Naik (one rank lower) who retires on 31 Jul 2014. Can there be more travesty of justice than this?

CGDA who has been tasked to finalise OROP have been dilly-dallying from Apr 2014. They keep putting unconnected conditions like average pension to be taken in a CPC period, length of service in last rank held etc which have no connection with OROP whatsoever.

Government as an employer has the power to either accept or modify or negate demands of employees. If you do not have funds to grant OROP in its accepted form then do not give assurance of grant and implementation of OROP. But do not give a watered down or diluted OROP and call it OROP.

Needless to say veterans have believed promises made by Hon’ble PM during his pre-election meetings on assurance that once his party comes to power OROP will be granted. He repeated his promise wherever he went and the latest one is in Siachen Base Camp on Diwali day. Since no implementation letter has been issued by your ministry, veterans are getting disillusioned with BJP and it may have been the reason of many of them not Voting for BJP in Maharashtra.

The figures of CGDA that it costs Rs 9,000 crores per annum is all hot air. Let them give a copy of their calculations to us and then we will show you how they went wrong in arriving at this figure.

The cost of OROP is not going to be more than Rs 5,000 crores per annum. Why cannot CGDA include ESM organizations like IESM in arriving at OROP? If Ministry of Personnel, Pensions and Public Grievances takes Pensioners into confidence while issuing any letter affecting pensioners,

 why do the Min of Def (ESW) and CGDA never consult Ex Servicemen who are primary stake holders?

Mr Raksha Mantri, it is a norm in the functioning of the Govt that before any scheme is sanctioned, the financial effect is clearly stated along with the allotment of the required funds.  The requirement of Rs 9000 crores as stated by bureaucrats must have been mentioned  and cleared for by the Govt before OROP was sanctioned on 17 Feb 2014.  Then why now the bureaucrats are raising the issue of requirement of Rs 9000 Crores?

Mr Minister, it is now up to you to have an open mind and not get influenced by one section of stake holders ie bureaucrats, Service Chiefs and ESM organizations. Please consult all stake holders, hear their versions and take the best course as you deem fit.

 However, it will be a sad day for the Nation if the Govt has to back out from the sanctioned demand of OROP as per the approved definition. 

The profession of Arms will take a severe beating.

If you, Sir, are able to spare just 30 mins on any day convenient to you, IESM can brief you on OROP and its implementation.

The credibility of BJP is at stake. I hope you will read this letter with an open mind and take a decision in the interest of veterans and the country.

Wishing you all the very best in your tenure as Raksha Mantri and assuring you of total support of veterans in your pursuit to make India a strong regional power.

With regards 

Maj Gen Satbir Singh, SM (Retd)

Chairman IESM

 Mob: +919312404269, 0124-4110570

 Email ID: