Blasphemy law in Pakistan: The Facts and Fiction

Recently the  arrest and imprisonment of Rimsha Masih, an 11-year old Christian girl, by Pakistani authorities in the nation's capital, Islamabad, on charges of blasphemy  has created an uproar in international media. No one is bothered to killing of hundreds of Muslims in Burma and Assam in India. While criticizing any law, the local cultural, social and religious sensitivities must be kept in view.   The law of the land, sentiments and sensitivities of local population must respected. West has abandoned the Bible and law, they have allowed gay marriages, Holocaust denial is a crime in most of European countries, which seems absurd to many people including Muslims, but its their choice. If some does not like these laws he can't force his will upon them. Pakistan is in state of covert and overt war since 1979, when USSR occupied Afghanistan. The events of 9/11 gave it an other turn as USA also jumped in physically. Innocent people are being killed by US drones on one side and by suicide bombers of Taliban on the other side. This has adverse psychological effects on people, especially lowering tolerance and patience threshold. Moreover the mismanagement, economic disparity and corruption by inefficient governments fully supported by USA and co, has further aggravated the situation. However it does not mean that they are killing fellow countrymen brothers Christians. A person living in peaceful environments thousands of miles away in different cultural environments can not understand. Christians in Pakistan are as much safe or unsafe as any other Pakistani. Rather they are batter off because Muslims are killed in large numbers even while praying in mosques by suicide bombers  or by US drones. Some issues are exploited by vested interests out of proportion intentionally or due to ignorance. Effort is being made to put the issue in proper perspective.

Comments/ Opinion:

Continue reading the main story

• 
  

Blasphemy law and conviction in Pakistan: The Facts and Fiction which  every one else must know:

1. In many societies blasphemy in some form or another has been an offense punishable by law. In the Christian religion, blasphemy has been regarded as a sin by moral theologians; St. Thomas Aquinas described it as a sin against faith. For the Muslim it is blasphemy to speak contemptuously not only of God but also of Prophet Muhammad [pbuh]. The Mosaic Law decreed death by stoning as the penalty for the blasphemer. Under the Byzantine emperor Justinian I (reigned 527-565) the death penalty was decreed for blasphemy. In the United States many states have legislation aimed at the offense. In Scotland until the 18th century it was punishable by death, and in England it is both a statutory and a common-law offense. It was recognized as the latter in the 17th century; the underlying idea apparently was that an attack on religion is necessarily an attack on the state. This idea probably has been the reason why penalties have been laid down for blasphemy in some secular legal codes.[Encyclopedia Britannica]
2. The anti blasphemy law was introduced in Pakistan 23 years ago, after prolonged debates, discussions among legal, religious experts, for years which was later approved by the elected parliament for with some changes introduced on the recommendation of judiciary. All aspects including judicial, religious, cultural, social and human aspects were kept in view by the those entrusted with the task. The Federal Shari’ah Court interpreted 295c, to include all the prophet of Allah [ie, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus till Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Hence blasphemy against Moses or Jesus Christ bears same punishment as against Prophet Muhammad [pbuh]. No country in the world can boast of such a comprehensive blasphemy law.
3.  During last 23 years, total 964 cases were registered under this law:

a.    Against Muslims 479 cases,  50% of total.

b.    Christians, 119 cases,  12%

c.     Ahmadi’s [a deviant group] 340 cases,  35%

d.    Hindus 14 cases 1.5%

e.    Others 12 cases, 1.2%

3.    Which religious group is most affected? Muslims 50%, Christians are only 12%.

4.    Not a single person has been hanged through judicial process under this law, the conviction by lower courts were set aside by higher courts after judicial process, due to lack of evidence etc.

It is totally absurd to say that this law targets minorities, the statistics show 50% accused were Muslims, Christians being only 12%.

Misuse of any law can not be overruled, we know there are false cases registered for murder, robbery, corruption, rape etc, no one has ever demanded that these law should be dropped. Always efforts are made to improve upon the judicial and investigation process to nullify the misuse of any law.  

The case of Dr. Afia Siddiqui is worth mentioning. She was kidnapped form Karachi in 2003 along with her three children, taken to Afghanistan, tried in USA courts: “She was alleged to be carrying inflammable materials and maps of potential targets in the United States “in jars” in her handbag. How big these ‘jars’ were, and how many kilogrammes of explosives were being transported in them was not mentioned to astounded readers. We were also informed that the next day, Dr Siddiqui had been shot in the abdomen “at least once” by an American soldier in self-defence after coming under fire from Dr Siddiqui who had come rushing out from behind a curtain where she was being held “unrestrained” for questioning, and picking up an M4 service rifle that had been left “at his feet” by an American warrant officer, had fired at him. And that but for the timely deflection of her shot by an Afghan interpreter she should have killed the American!!!!  Dr Afia Siddiqui is accused of crimes ranging from buying blood diamonds to planning terrorist attacks to being the vilest person on earth. Yet, she was charged in court with what can only be called an impossible crime. 

Finally the Pakistani neuroscientist Dr.Aafia Siddiqui was sentenced to 86 years of imprisonment by a US federal court in Manhattan, after she was “convicted” of firing at US troops in Afghanistan while in their custody and other six charges brought against her. The world is silent on this human tragedy, but hue and cry to repeal the blasphemy law of Pakistan to save a woman convicted by local courts. What a dichotomy, hypocrisy and dual standards. 

Many European countries have law against ‘Holocaust Denial’, is it not against freedom of speech? But it is right of every country to devise laws which they think are beneficial for their people.

Why then hue and cry against Anti Blasphemy law?

It must be understood well that Muslims [practicing or non practicing] love Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him] and Qur’an more than their lives. While disciples of Prophet Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] deserted him at the time of crisis [Mt 26:56, Mr 14:50 ] , the companions of Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him] remained steadfast in critical times and even laid down their lives. Muslims believe and also love all Biblical prophets from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses till Jesus Christ [peace be upon them all], though there is slandering against them in Bible [Genesis;Chapter5-15, Genesis;19:30-38, Genesis;9:20-27, 2 Samuel;11:4, 6-25, 1 Kings 1-11 and 1 Kings;11:4-7, 9-11].

The members of the household of Prophet [peace be upon him] and his pious Companions [Sahaba], especially Four Rightly Guided Caliphs [Rashdun] are next in respect and love. While Christian West has the tradition of slandering their prophets, it is unthinkable in Islam. On the pretext of freedom of expression it can not be allowed to happen come what may!

Every one must respect the law of the land and sentiments and sensitivities of local population. West has abandoned the Bible and law, they have allowed gay marriages, according to the constitution of  Islamic Republic of Pakistan, no law can be made repugnant to Islam [Qur’an and Sunnah]. This is our country every one must respect the law. Any law can be misused, but there are safeguards, in the tiers of judiciary, that’s the reason in 23 years not a single person was hanged. Asia Bibi, who was convicted in lower court shall get justice, the judicial process must be allowed to be followed.

Mr.Salman Tasir, the so called liberal governor of Punjab took law in to his own hands by rejecting the verdict by lower court, option of appeal in higher courts still exist. He went to  police station, held a press conference, declared Asia Bibi as innocent calling it as black law, this was loose talk by a responsible official. Later he retracted and clarified that he was not against the blasphemy law but the execution methodology, which even Dt.Tahir ul Qadri also mentions. But the perceptions do not get changed quickly. President of Pakistan and Governors enjoy immunity, a common man can not hire expensive lawyers to sue Governor Salman Tasir [enjoying immunity], even clear verdict by Supreme court of Pakistan about President Asif Zardari have not been implemented so far. If there is no respect of law, people take law in their on hands, as happened in this case. He violated the law, showing disrespect to court verdict like his beloved President creating ugly circumstances culminating to his death. If we don’t respect court decisions, people shall take law in their own hands, no one wants mob justice or killing on roads. Had the rulers established respect of law, equal for all citizens, some one could have gone to courts, where Mr.Salman Tasir would have been heard about allegations against him and set free if found innocent. [We have precedence of 2^nd Caliph Omar Khattab (r.a) personally appearing in courts to face charges, but Rulers of Islamic Republic of Pakistan are the  absolute monarchs enjoying immunity from law, with billions of dollars in Swiss banks and properties abroad.]

Moral: 

1. People should respect the feelings and sensitivities of people of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, refrain from any activity which results in to violence.
2. Instead of criticising the law and demanding to leave the convicted blasphemer, should arrange good legal team to contest the case in courts. If she is innocent she will get her freedom. Higher courts exercise stringent criteria of witness and benefit of doubt is fully granted to the accused in Islamic law, the reason of no one ever punished under this law in 23 years.
3. Beware, the Muslims and People of Pakistan can not tolerate any non sense on the matters of their beloved Prophet [pbuh], Holy Qur'an, honourable members of household of Prophet [pbuh] which includes the mothers of Believers and the four pious rightly guided Caliphs under any pretext. 
4. The Blasphemy law should be amended to include appropriate punishments for those who slander honourable members of household of Prophet [pbuh], the mothers of Believers and the four pious rightly guided Caliphs. 
5. Those who falsely accuse some one for blasphemy, should be awarded strict punishment. The misuse of this law should also be considered as blasphemy.

http://peace-forum.blogspot.com/2011/01/blasphemy-law-and-conviction-in.html

More videos/ Opinions

Continue reading the main story

• 
  

Read More >>>>>

1. Prophet Muhammad's Everlasting Promise to Christians النبي محمد وعد الآخرة للمسيحيين
2. Tolerance in Islam by Pickethal
3. Minorities in Islamic State: The hand book highlights the rights of minorities.
4. Blasphemy law and conviction in Pakistan: The Facts and Fiction 
5. http://peace-forum.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-mrasif-zardari-really-most-corrupt.html
6. http://peace-forum.blogspot.com/2011/01/cia-drones-killed-over-2000-mostly.html
7. Killing of innocents by Suicide Bombers
   
8. Taliban killers of innocent people

9. 
   
   
   

   A Brief History of Terrorism 

   
   
   
   
   
   

   by the USA

   
   
   
   

America’s Lost Decade!

While Pakistan does not seek an all out confrontation with the United States, it is also not starved of the options to continue enduring a transactional relationship. Beside commonly stated reasons for American frustration, one major cause is Pakistan's recent effort to look for alternative alignments within Asia.
Recent diatribe by the American leadership was indeed a close call, hopefully the worst is behind us; however next American relapse, with spiralling effect, may not be far away. Incriminations hurled on Pakistan are rather serious. Waging of a proxy war is too sombre a blame to die down. America has indeed mouse trapped itself; these accusations would keep coming back to haunt it with snowballing effect. America will neither be able to swallow nor spit it. Descent on escalatory ladder would be much tougher than the climb.
Process of strategic divergence that started with the Raymond Davis episode has reached its peak. Public hostility towards the United States has reached new heights, exposing inherent strategic incompatibility of Pak-US relations. A decade after 9/11, Pakistan is being asked the same question “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”. Going by this fixation, America has indeed lost a decade in fruitless pursuits.
This time around American calculus is grossly out.  Much has changed since 9/11. Thanks to American Machiavellian approach towards Pakistan, gap between the public perception about America and leadership's policy evaluation about America is at its minimum. Expectations of buckling like a decade ago are misplaced. Given the spike of public antagonism, no political leader could afford to digress from collective national sentiment, at least publicly. Statements by the political leaders indicated that a national level consensus had evolved much before the convening of APC.
 Amid the prevailing confusion of jumping the fray by other countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and, India, visit by the Centcom chief was a mysterious one. In all probability he came with an ultimatum which triggered an extraordinary meeting of corps commanders which voted down any military operation in North Waziristan; thus limiting the turf for the APC.
 APC has formalised the national consensus; and sent across a strong message. Now, at national level, there is a need for the political leadership to fully assume the charge of Pakistan’s America policy and demonstrate that it could walk the APC talk. First 'to do' is to lower the tempers at political level and convert this crisis into opportunity.
Pakistan needs to evaluate its options, which are numerous; and review the courses of action available to America, that are numbered. Nevertheless, none of the sides can afford a direct confrontation without enormous risks. There are compatible capabilities on both sides, Americans are aware that in any military confrontation, Pakistan has no option but to retaliate irrespective of the losses. Americans are well aware of the limitations of employment of raw military power and crude economic sanctions.
America may not conduct conventional operations on Pakistani soil. It may encourage the cross border incursions by Afghanistan based militants to overstretch Pakistani forces. It is likely to conduct periodic special operations akin to Abbotabad attack to embarrass Pakistan’s military leadership, create an aura of insecurity amongst the general public and induce a feeling of helplessness amongst the political leadership.
In addition, the US would focus on non-operational military punishment, by severing military aid and supplies. However, this will go back in circles to haunt America as it will curtail the combat prowess of Pakistani military to carry out operations in tribal areas. That is why Admiral Mullen told the US lawmakers that a “flawed and strained engagement with Pakistan is better than disengagement”.
America understands that the relationship with Pakistan cannot be broken because of the constraints entrapping the US. A damage control effort has already been initiated by relevant American functionaries. It will be interesting to see, how America balances its compulsions and limitations.
Pakistan cannot afford escalation, likewise the US also cannot up the ante unrestricted without the risk of reaching a point of diminishing returns. By scuttling the semblance of a strategic partnership, the US has already lost most of the leverage it had over Pakistan. Though Pakistan wont opt for escalation, it is prone to respond, in kind, to the US actions.
The US could stop bilateral aid to Pakistan. But that is unlikely to hurt Pakistan too much. US aid does not help the government’s precarious fiscal situation in any meaningful way as only 12-15 per cent of the total amount is channelled for budgetary support. If $3 billion (per annum) in economic and military is disbursed fully, this accounts for less than seven per cent of the total foreign exchange earnings of the country. The increase in export revenues and remittances in the current year was almost twice that amount. As regards significance of the aid, World Bank data shows that during the previous five years, net Official Development Assistance (ODA) from all sources to Pakistan has averaged less than 1.5 per cent of its Gross National Income. Per capita aid from all sources in 2009 was $14 only! Severing of civilian aid would have only a 0.14 percent impact on Pakistan’s GDP growth. These facts do not point towards any meltdown if the American aid is withheld.
But the real concern for Pakistan’s solvency would be loss of support from international lenders like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF); both look towards the US before deciding, they may deny the requests until a nod by the White House.
A candid estimate puts losses to Pakistan’s economy due to its participation in war on terror around US$ 70 billion. The US has provided $20.7 billion to Pakistan since 2002, which makes about 0.1 percent of the American treasure spent on war on terror over the same period. The biggest head, consuming $8.9 billion, is “Coalition Support Funds.” However, a sizeable portion of it remains un-remitted. The US is getting obnoxiously stingy on reimbursements of this fund, rejecting 44 percent claims in 2009, as compared to 1.6 percent in 2005.
Beyond that lie export quotas, both bilateral and others: if the US declares Pakistan a state sponsoring ‘terrorism’ that would unleash a sanctions regime which will severely impact Pakistan. However, in view of the strong support by China, America will not be able to accomplish this. In case of an eventuality, Pakistan could respond by imposing corresponding transit charges of logistics flowing through land routes and slam a ban on transit of its military aircraft through Pakistani air space. This would literally choke the foreign troops operating in Afghanistan.
Pakistan understands that it is not in its interest to allow terrorists safe havens or allow such elements to launch attacks on other countries from inside Pakistan. A number of meaningful administrative and military related suggestions have been made by Pakistan to control the trans-border movements; to which American have shown a cold shoulder.
Pakistan needs to project itself as an agent of peace in Afghanistan. It is uniquely placed to facilitate a process of cohabitation amongst various factions of Afghan resistance.  America needs to understand that it cannot continue to slaughter the resistance forces while paying lip service to the need to reconciliation.
It is now amply clear that America wants to run away from Afghanistan at a faster pace than its advent. It does not serve long term American interests to leave behind a stable Afghanistan, so it is doing all gimmicks to spoil the pudding. Pakistan needs to take appropriate measures to minimise the impact.

America’s Lost Decade!  by Khalid Iqbal in World News

http://www.opinion-maker.org/2011/10/americas-lost-decade/#

Please visit: http://aftabkhan.blog.com

US prepares for worst-case scenario with Pakistan Nukes; Trigger WW3 ?

Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons And The United States 

Leon E. Panetta, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who replaced Robert M. Gates as defense secretary on July 1, said during his confirmation hearing last week that Pakistan, an important American ally, also remains a serious problem. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the relationship with Pakistan was "one of the most critical, and yet one of the most complicated and frustrating relationships that we have." Mr. Panetta added that Pakistan's nuclear weapons remained a concern because of "the danger that those nukes could wind up in the wrong hands." So, what will happen at that point in time? This is a part of the vision that I have seen.

US at war with Pakistan

Real facts about US plan. Implementation of NEW WORLD ORDER

Attack on Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons to result in WWW-3 

By Robert Windrem

NBC News Investigative Producer for Special Projects 

As U.S.-Pakistani relations spiral downward, the specter of a showdown between the increasingly antagonistic allies is garnering more attention, including the worst-case scenario of the U.S. attempting to “snatch” Pakistan’s 100-plus nuclear weapons if it feared they were about to fall into the wrong hands.

That would be a disastrous miscalculation, former Pakistani President and army chief Pervez Musharraf told NBC News, saying that such an incursion would lead to “total confrontation” between the United States and Pakistan.

A Medium Range Ballistic Missile Hatf V (Ghauri) missile takes off during a test fire from an undisclosed location in Pakistan on Dec. 21 in this photo distributed by the Pakistani military. The liquid-fuel missile can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads and has a range of more than 800 miles.

Privately, current and former U.S. officials say that ensuring the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons has long been a high national security priority, even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and that plans have been drawn up for dealing with worst-case scenarios in Pakistan.

The greatest success of the U.S. war on terrorism – the military operation that killed Osama bin Laden in his safehouse in Pakistan in May – has fueled the concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, increasing suspicions among U.S. officials that he had  support within the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence service, and emboldening those in Washington who believe an orchestrated campaign of lightning raids to secure Pakistan’s nukes could succeed.

It’s no secret that the United States has a plan to try to grab Pakistan’s nuclear weapons -- if and when the president believes they are a threat to either the U.S. or U.S. interests. Among the scenarios seen as most likely: Pakistan plunging into internal chaos, terrorists mounting a serious attack against a nuclear facility, hostilities breaking out with India or Islamic extremists taking charge of the government or the Pakistan army.

In the aftermath of the bin Laden raid, U.S. military officials have testified before Congress about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and the threat posed by “loose nukes” – nuclear weapons or materials outside the government’s control. And earlier Pentagon reports also outline scenarios in which U.S. forces would intervene to secure nuclear weapons that were in danger of falling into the wrong hands.

But out of fear of further antagonizing an important ally, officials have simultaneously tried to tone down the rhetoric by stressing progress made by Islamabad on the security front.

Such discussions of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, now believed to consist of as many as 115 nuclear bombs and missile warheads, have gotten the attention of current and former Pakistani officials. In an interview with NBC News early this month, Musharraf warned that a snatch-and-grab operation would lead to all-out war between the countries, calling it “total confrontation by the whole nation against whoever comes in.”

Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf met with Texas Gov. Rick Perry on July 12 in Austin to exchange ideas about improving the economy and discuss the strained relationship between the U.S. and Pakistani governments. Musharraf has been critical of the White House's recent suspension of $800 million in U.S. aid to the Pakistani military, saying the decreased aid will hurt his country and hinder its fight against terrorism.

advertisement

“These are assets which are the pride of Pakistan, assets which are dispersed and very secure in very secure places, guarded by a corps of 18,000 soldiers,” said a combative Musharraf, who led Pakistan for nearly a decade and is again running for president. “… (This) is not an army which doesn't know how to fight.  This is an army which has fought three wars.  Please understand that.”

Pervez Hoodboy, Pakistan’s best known nuclear physicist and a human rights advocate, rarely agrees with the former president. But he, too, says a U.S. attempt to take control of Pakistan’s nukes would be foolhardy. 

“They are said to be hidden in tunnels under mountains, in cities, as well as regular air force and army bases,” he said. “A U.S. snatch operation could trigger war; it should never be attempted.”

Despite such comments, interviews with current and former U.S. officials, military reports and even congressional testimony indicate that Pakistan’s weaponry has been the subject of continuing discussions, scenarios, war games and possibly even military exercises by U.S. intelligence and special operations forces regarding so-called “snatch-and-grab” operations.

“It’s safe to assume that planning for the worst-case scenario regarding Pakistan nukes has ready taken place inside the U.S. government,” said Roger Cressey, former deputy director of counterterrorism in the Clinton and Bush White House and an NBC News consultant. “This issue remains one of the highest priorities of the U.S. intelligence community ... and the White House.” 

Carefully worded assurances

Mindful of the growing distrust and suspicions between Washington and Islamabad, U.S. officials have publicly tried to defuse concerns that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could be compromised. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress two weeks ago that Pakistan’s atomic arsenal has become “physically more secure” and the U.S. has seen “training improve” for personnel charged with securing the weapons. 

But does “more secure” and “improved” training mean the Pakistanis have met U.S. standards?

Jeffrey T. Richelson, an intelligence historian, has written extensively about the possibility of a U.S. military operation aimed at Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, notably in his 2009 book “Defusing Armageddon.” The book focuses on the U.S. Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST), which might play leading a role in disarming Pakistani weapons along with elements of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). 

The nuts-and-bolts of how such an operation would work – such as whether teams would attempt to disarm or destroy the weapons – remain highly classified.

advertisement

But Richelson notes that without referring to Pakistan by name, Gen. Peter Pace, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,  in 2006 discussed two types of operations where  in which the U.S. military would seek to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of al-Qaida or other militants. 

Detailed in a military policy document titled “National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction,” the two scenarios were: “elimination operations” – defined as “operations systematically to locate, characterize, secure, disable and/or destroy a State or non-State actor’s WMD programs and related capabilities” – and “interdiction operations” – finding and seizing nuclear devices or nuclear material it has been removed from a nation’s storage bunkers but not yet delivered to a terrorist group.

Richelson also obtained an unclassified PowerPoint presentation titled “Detecting, Identifying and Localizing WMD” by the Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (SOLIC).  In it were slides referring to “clandestine or low-visibility special operations taken to: locate, seize, destroy, capture, recover or render safe WMD,” either on land or sea.  He said such a mission has been a special operations forces priority since 2002.

Neither the report nor the PowerPoint presentation specify where such operations would be considered, but Richelson says that both were prepared with Pakistan in mind.

“The focus on Pakistan,” he wrote, “is the result of its being both the least stable of the nine nuclear weapons states and the one where there has been significant support for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, not only among the general population but also within the military and intelligence forces.”

Publicly, U.S. officials don’t want to embarrass or infuriate Pakistani officials by suggesting such an operation would be possible, a point brought home in a White House press conference on April 29, 2009.  After President Barack Obama spoke of the confidence he had in the Pakistani Army’s ability to secure the nuclear weapons, NBC News’ Chuck Todd began to ask if the U.S. military would step in and seize weapons that were at risk.

Obama quickly cut him off.  “I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals of that sort.  I feel confident that nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands, OK?”

'All nuclear matters are controlled by the army'

While the U.S. has a non-proliferation policy that aims for the elimination of Third World weaponry, it also has been working with Islamabad to minimize the current threat, sending an estimated $100 million to Pakistan since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to improve the safety and security of the Pakistani nukes.

But Pakistan never permitted U.S. officials to visit the weapons bunkers or see how the U.S.-purchased equipment was working. In fact, Richelson writes, the Pakistanis have gone so far as to set up decoy bunkers to throw off anyone trying to keep track of the arsenal.

And physical security and protection from terrorists only addresses one aspect of the threat, Hoodboy said.

“Technology determines safety, but only partly,” he told NBC News. “Ultimately it depends upon the men who have control over nuclear weapons. … Governments come, governments go. But all nuclear matters are controlled by the army. The important question is whether the army has total, absolute control over its nukes. I have no idea whether this control is absolute, and doubt how anyone can know for sure.”

There are additional reasons to be concerned. In July 2009, for example, the journal of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point reported that “home-grown terrorists” had tried to enter Pakistani nuclear facilities three times between 2007 and 2008, when Pakistan was wracked by rioting and a series of destructive suicide bombings.

Shaun Gregory, director of the Pakistan Security Research Center at the University of Bradford in England, wrote of the attacks.

“These have included an attack on the nuclear missile storage facility at Sarghoda on Nov. 1, 2007, an attack on Pakistan’s nuclear air base at Kamra by a suicide bomber on Dec. 10, 2007, and, perhaps most significantly, the Aug. 20, 2008, attack when Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers blew up several entry points to one of the armament complexes at the Wah cantonment, considered one of Pakistan’s main nuclear weapons assembly sites.”

Pakistani officials have played down the seriousness of such attacks, noting that the attackers were unable to enter what are large military bases, much less penetrate the inner defenses. 

Musharraf, who was president of Pakistan during the three reported attacks, dismissed the threat in talking with NBC News. Asked if terrorists were targeting Pakistan’s nuclear assets, he replied, “I don't think so.  I don't think they are trying actively to get to our nuclear assets.  And we have no such intelligence. Never.” 

His statement is, at best, a disingenuous and narrow reading of the intelligence, according to former senior U.S. intelligence officials, who like the others quoted in this article spoke on condition of anonymity. These officials point to an August 2001 campfire meeting between bin Laden and his successor, Ayman al Zawahiri, and two Pakistani nuclear scientists, part of a so-called Islamic charity called UTN, on the other. With planning for the 9/11 attacks nearly complete, the two al-Qaida leaders wanted a tutorial on nuclear weapons development, according to U.S. intelligence reports. 

advertisement

Tenet's tense meeting

Then-CIA Director George Tenet, in fact, wrote in his memoir, “At the Center of the Storm,” of a tense discussion he had with Musharraf in Islamabad shortly after the U.S. found out about the meeting.

“After a few pleasantries … I launched into a description of the campfire meeting between (O)sama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and the UTN leaders,” Tenet wrote. “‘Mr. President,’ I said, ‘you cannot imagine the outrage there would be in my country if it were learned that Pakistan is coddling scientists who are helping bin Laden acquire a nuclear weapon. Should such a device ever be used, the full fury of the American people would be focused on whoever helped al-Qaida in its cause.”

In a testimony before Congress four months ago, the CIA’s new director, Gen. David Petraeus, left little doubt the U.S. still fears the worst. “There are certainly elements in Pakistan, the Pakistani Taliban and several other varieties of elements who generally have symbiotic relationships, the most extreme of which might, indeed, value access to nuclear weapons or other weapons that could cause enormous loss of life,” said Petraeus, then commander of NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Like others in the U.S. government, however, Petraeus felt duty bound to note, “There is considerable security for the Pakistani nuclear weapons.”  But he appeared to choose his words with care. “Considerable” does not mean “state of the art,” for example.

Not everyone thinks the U.S. is very worried about Pakistan’s nukes falling into the wrong hands. Zia Mian, a colleague of Hoodboy’s and director of the Project on Peace and Security in South Asia at Princeton, said war gaming and exercising for dire situations is something the Pentagon and CIA do all the time.

“The U.S. exercised global nuclear war. They’ve exercised attacking Iran. You’ve got to be ready,” Mian argues. “It suggests to me there are people whose job is to be worried. So when someone asks you, you say you’re worried. But when you’re reading the WikiLeaks disclosure, when you read embassy talking points, the nuclear weapons barely figure.”

Of course, the main question is if, in the last resort, the U.S. did attempt to “snatch” Pakistan’s weapons, would it work? Hoodboy thinks it’s unlikely to have the intended effect and could very well lead to one of two scenarios, both with potentially disastrous outcomes.

“An American attack on Pakistan's nuclear production or storage sites would be extremely dangerous and counterproductive,” he said. “By comparison the bin Laden operation involved only minor risks. Even if a single Pakistani nuke (out of roughly 100) escapes destruction, that last one could be unimaginably dangerous.” Hoodboy added that no seems to have thought through another scenario, one where there is confusion about who snatched the bomb. “The situation is more uncertain than even this. For one, it might trigger nuclear war with India, even if India was not involved in the snatch.”

http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/08/03/7189919-us-prepares-for-worst-case-scenario-with-pakistan-nukes

****** Comment:

Chris-749391

I am an old intelligence analyst (though of the North Korean persuasion) and had studied many of these issues (albeit pertaining primarily with chemical, biological, and "ditry" nuclear weapons) for a number of years. North Korea had a great deal of input and received a great deal of missile technology in return from Khan in this matter, so it is likelyu very pertinent.

1) This is a situation where 100% mission success is required. If only one device is not captured, it will be immediately used or will be immediately transferred to terrorists for use in order to prevent its capture.

2) Such a "focused" strike would require simultaneous penetration of numerous areas of the country. The geography of the country means that this will never happen. These weapons are not stored in an ungarded compound, as was bin Laden, but are in fortified, heavily guarded, special-purpose facilities. These are not potential SEAL targets (except for reconnaissance), but would require combined arms and air superiority. I have seen generals overreach and seen the consequences --- remember the disastrous "can't fail" attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages?

3) One thing North Korea has contributed to Pakistan is the "shell game". If the North Korean model is followed, the 100+ nukes (they increase by about 1 every two months) are stored in a minimum of 100 facilities with varying numbers of warheads at each site. The facilities are fully guarded and fully functional, but at any given time 70 of them are empty. Even the troops guarding them do not know if they are in use. The Pakistanis have sophisticated enough radar to know when there are no reconnaissance satellites overhead and use those "windows" to shuffle the weapons between sites. This means that all 70+ sites would have to be attacked simultaneously. This is too tall an order for a "snatch and grab."

4) People always forget that nuclear weapons are the weapons of losers. This is taught to every military man in every war college in the world. If you paint any country with nukes into a small enough corner, they will use their nukes as a last resort. All their weapons systems are designed and hardened or hidden with this in mind. It's the "if we lose we'll take the bastards with us" mentality. Since it is India that is targeted (though some targeting may have been shifted to places like Bagram AB) it is likely that millions of uninvolved innocents would die. 

5) We have far, far too much confidence in high technology. For my part that is too many eggs in too few baskets. We seem to think that things like MOABs, "Bunker Buster" bombs, and even nuclear weapons can destroy almost any target. That could not be further from the truth. Some are too large to be carried by stealth aircraft, others so large they have to be carried by low-flying transports, and others require that immense numbers of innocent civilians be killed along with the target. In North Korea, in the old days of the 1960's and 1970's, we planned on neutralizing a lot of North Korean facilities by using nerve gas and possibly even biological weapons such as anthrax. We have given up those wespons by treaty. We can't even use cluster bombs without risking a huge international backlash since we are one of the few nations what have not ratified the anti-cluster munitions treaty. In short, the idea that we can breach any bunker with current munitions is a wholesale myth. 

6) Both India and Pakistan are nuclear armed. And presumption that Pakistan was using or was about to use CBR weapons against ANY target, even in retaliation for a US raid, would prompt truly massive nuclear response by India who would love to rid the world of their long-time enemy who sponsored the Mumbai terrorist raid and the more recent bombings. We have virtually no control over India since Pakistan is our "friend" and India is still our "enemy" since 1948. The Indian government sees the US as a country with no credibility and a great deal of animosity toward India.

While every country has contingency plans for every thing they can think of, most of them represent the last measure of desparation when every other military and diplomatic option has failed. Virtualy all of them are suicide missions. When it comes down to brass tacks, the US military would never decide to launch a large combined arms attach against virtually all of Pakistan with the greatest liklihood being that virtually all the troops would be casualties, nuclear war could easily result, and it is highly unlikely that the mission objectives would be more than partially met in the best case and completely fubar in the worst case (again think about the attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages.) Cooler heads would mean that this would never be attempted unless the warheads were all on warheads and ready to go. And then it would be too late already.

#1.10 - Wed Aug 3, 2011 12:15 PM EDT

Comments:

If US decides to undertake this venture, it will not care for any moral, ethics or international treaties, hence use of unconventional weapons like Biological, Chemical, Electromagnetic even nuclear waves [gamma rays etc] can not be ruled out. Prior to it they shall create favourable environments to get international support through UN. Propaganda through media will be extensively used, simultaneously using their pawns [Pakistani Taliban, terrroists] to launch suicide attacks at sensitive installations [remember Mehran Naval Base]. 

They would incapacitate the defenders and complete the mission. It is up to defenders of Pakistan's Nuclear weapons how they counter it, using deception, early warning, interception, terminal defence, reserves, technology and other innovative means. If they do their homework well and do not allow themselves to be isolated internationally, highlighting their strong reaction with long term ramifications USA & co would be deterred and refrain to undertake such a foolish venture. Pakistan has to have strong political leadership ....... [Brigadier Aftab Khan (Retired)]

Related Links:  

• USA - A Friend or Foe of Pakistan-1 http://t.co/MzEkrPV
• USA Friend or Foe -2:  http://t.co/KAVIdp6
• Growing anti-Americanism in Pakistan: In April 2009 warnings by US military and intelligence officials as reported by the McClatchy News Service echoed what certain dissenting CIA operatives had said about drone strikes that they do more harm than good. 
• CIA Drones Killed Over 2000, Mostly Civilians in Pakistan Since ...: Drone strikes were a comparative rarity when President Bush was in office, but have been dramatically and repeatedly escalated by President Obama, usually in retaliation for attacks by militant groups. This has led CMC to term the 
• US has lost battle for hearts as well: A warnings by US military and intelligence officials as reported by the McClatchy News Service echoed what certain dissenting CIA operatives had said about drone strikes that they do more harm than good. ...
•  Wake up America, You are  are being Cheated - by your own leaders!!! Facts of War on Terror -- open your eyes ....... Breaking the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror from John Pilger on Vimeo. ...

US prepares for worst-case scenario with Pakistan Nukes may Trigger WW3 ? ... http://t.co/UHYla8d

Please visit: http://aftabkhan.blog.com