February 07, 2023, 08:42:48 AM

Author Topic: Somali Pirates Tell All: They’re in It for the Money  (Read 17881 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ribbit

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4294
  • T & T We Want A Goal !
    • View Profile
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #120 on: February 24, 2011, 08:26:11 AM »
dey eh striking no taliban - dey striking whomever de pakistanis want to target. de usa cyah tell a taliban from a moko jumbie anyhow.

Offline ribbit

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 4294
  • T & T We Want A Goal !
    • View Profile
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #121 on: February 24, 2011, 10:29:12 AM »
looks like de somalis call de FBI bluff ....  :-\

==

Seizing of Pirate Commanders Is Questioned

By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: February 23, 2011


WASHINGTON — When the two pirates boarded the U.S.S. Sterett off the coast of Somalia on Monday, American officials thought they were headed for a breakthrough in the four-day standoff with a gang that had seized four Americans vacationing on their 58-foot yacht.

But an F.B.I. hostage-rescue negotiator aboard the Sterett came to believe the two Somalis were not serious. So the Americans took them into custody and told the pirates back on the yacht to send over someone they could do business with.

What happened next is sharply contested and raises questions about the crucial decision to detain the pirate leaders.

American officials said the pirates on the yacht, called the Quest, seemed relieved — even “exceptionally calm” — when told their senior commander was cooling his heels in a Navy brig.

But hours later, panic ensued among young pirates. Some Americans theorized that a fight had broken out among the gang members, suddenly leaderless, and fearing they were about to be overtaken by the four Navy warships that surrounded them. One person who has talked to associates of the pirates said their leader had told them that if he did not return, they should kill the hostages, though American officials say they do not know that to be the case.

The death of the four Americans — the yacht’s owners, Jean and Scott Adam of Marina del Rey, Calif., and two crew members, Phyllis Macay and Robert A. Riggle of Seattle — is certain to add momentum to a wide-ranging review the Obama administration is conducting on how to combat the growing threat from bands of Somali pirates. The episode began last Friday, when the Quest sent out a distress signal 275 miles from the coast of Oman, in open waters between Mumbai and Djibouti. A Yemeni fishing vessel that served as a mother ship for the pirates was seen near the yacht when it was hijacked by pirates in a smaller craft, maritime officials said, but it disappeared once the American warships drew near.

As the military converged on the yacht, officials learned that there might be a way to negotiate with the pirates’ financiers and village elders, who could have acted as shore-based intermediaries if communication permitted. But for unknown reasons these contacts did not pan out.

On Monday, the two pirates boarded the Sterett, which had pulled within 600 yards of the Quest, to conduct face-to-face negotiations, apparently knowing that it was unlikely they could get away with the yacht or its passengers. One of the pirate negotiators was a seasoned commander, who had several successful hijackings under his belt, according to one person who has regular contacts with pirate cells.

The F.B.I. agent involved was a hostage negotiator from a special team based at Quantico, Va., who was experienced in both domestic and international hostage crises, a law enforcement official said Wednesday. It was unclear whether the agent had ever negotiated with Somali pirates.

The two pirates were brought on board “in a good-faith attempt to negotiate the safe release of the hostages” a military official said. Once the Americans came to believe they were not serious, the official said, the pirate commander and his ally were detained and their fellow pirates were notified.

“The pirates who were brought aboard the ship never communicated back to their pirate allies on the Quest,” said the official, who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity because of the F.B.I. investigation.

“The pirates on the Quest seemed relieved and were exceptionally calm in discussions with the negotiator,” said the military official. He said the Americans placed an offer on the table. The pirates could take the Quest, or another small Navy boat. But they had to release the hostages and could not take them to join the hundreds of travelers who are believed being held for ransom in pirate strongholds.

The pirates communicated back that they wanted to sleep on the offer, the military official said. The Americans agreed, giving them eight hours.

Whatever calm the pirates displayed on the surface masked a roiling split, according to one person who has been in contact with Somali pirate cells, including people who were in communication with others who know those aboard the Quest.

Somali pirate specialists say the pirates once had an informal code that required members to treat one another well and not harm hostages, valuable commodities who draw ransom payments on average of $4 million. But while Somali pirates might once have been a tight-knit group motivated by money, not murder, pirates and pirate experts say the lure of big money was attracting less-disciplined young Somalis hungry to share in the new riches.

Somali pirates interviewed Wednesday said something must have gone very wrong in the case of the Quest, since killing hostages is bad for business and is almost certain to draw a more aggressive response from countries like the United States. “We don’t kill hostages,” said a pirate in Hobyo who gave his middle name as Hassan. “We have many hostages here, and we treat them well. But the pirates might have been angered by the Americans.”

The person in contact with pirate cells said a gun fight had broken out below deck on the Quest, likely over money or the hostages’ fate. American officials theorize this may have been the case. Five minutes after the pirates fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the Sterett, and small arms fire erupted, 15 Navy SEAL commandos stormed the yacht. The hostages were dead or dying. American officials said it was unclear whether they had been executed or killed in the pirates’ cross-fire. Other pirate hostages have died in captivity or during rescue attempts, but there are few, if any, cases of pirates intentionally killing hostages.

The commandos shot and killed one pirate and stabbed another. Two other pirates were found dead, apparently killed by their comrades, and 13 surrendered to the Americans.

“While the pirates clearly knew, from the beginning of our negotiations, that we were not going to allow the Quest to make shore, they gave no warning, no visible signs whatsoever that the hostages’ lives were in danger,” said the military official. The senior law enforcement official added, “These incidents, by their very nature, often move at a rapid pace which requires difficult decisions in real time.”


Offline AB.Trini

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5624
  • yuh cyar take meh ancestry from meh
    • View Profile
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #122 on: February 25, 2011, 09:13:21 PM »
Put dem up against the wall:

Gash dem and light dem
For the negative vibes weh dem a bring
Gash dem and lite dem
Mi come fi mash up and wreck up
Dem senseless killing
Gash dem and lite dem
Boy haffi reverse wid dem bag a gun ting
Gash dem and lite dem
Stand guard and come outa di wages of sin."
(Gash Dem an Light Dem, Chuck Fender).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzuJu__a_LI


truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #123 on: February 26, 2011, 07:03:07 AM »
so hw come they striking Taliban in Pakistan?

Uhmm because they're fighting a war in neighboring Afghanistan... and they're striking at Taliban forces in Pakistan with Pakistani assistance/authority...

I have always read new reports that Islamabad was against the drone strikes..always.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/59575/us-should-change-its-policy-on-drone-strikes-fo/

Quote
Speaking to a news briefing, Foreign Office spokesperson Abdul Basit said drone attacks violate Pakistan’s sovereignty and the US should change its policy regarding these strikes.

The Foreign Office denied that there was any agreement between Pakistan and the US which permits America to carry out strikes in the country.

He also said that Pakistan has repeatedly objected to the attacks on its soil terming them counter-productive.

Quote
According to The New York Times, Pakistani national security adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani made an unannounced visit to Washington and voiced his country's anger in person to top White House officials.

Pakistan's upper house of parliament passed a unanimous resolution saying it "strongly condemned the missile attacks by US drones in Pakistani territory resulting in immense loss of life".

"The Senate calls upon the government to convey Pakistan's strong protest to the US" and NATO-led force in Afghanistan and seek assurances for "full respect of Pakistan's sovereignty," it said.

Such attacks are "most unfortunate" and constitute a "gross violation of our national sovereignty and territory," it went on.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdXM1vDzMxB2_m5ogZzNUuW03OCA

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/09/us-pakistan-usa-drones-idUSTRE6080IH20100109



Quote
By Michael Georgy

ISLAMABAD | Sat Jan 9, 2010 2:14am EST

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan has renewed calls for an end to U.S. drone aircraft strikes, an issue that could strain ties as the CIA hunts down Muslim militants after one of the deadliest attacks in its history in neighboring Afghanistan.

Pakistan officially objects to the operations against suspected al Qaeda and Taliban militants along its border with Afghanistan, saying they violate its sovereignty.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 07:05:51 AM by Trinity Cross »

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #124 on: February 26, 2011, 09:42:14 AM »
^^^ I'm really not sure what your contention is.  I said that there cannot be strikes against a 'sovereign' state, and you respond with asking about Pakistan.  I mention that the US is striking at the Taliban/Al Qaeda with the authorization of the Pakistani government... you now respond with talk about the Predator drones.

Are the Predator drones the sum of US operations in Pakistan?  Are the US there without permission?  The Pakistani government could "strongly condemn" all they want but the fact of the matter is that they have still given the US permission to operate in their country, thereby not violating their sovereign territorial rights.

Let's try and keep focus here.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 09:43:46 AM by Bakes »

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #125 on: February 26, 2011, 10:38:55 AM »
^^^ I'm really not sure what your contention is.  I said that there cannot be strikes against a 'sovereign' state, and you respond with asking about Pakistan.  I mention that the US is striking at the Taliban/Al Qaeda with the authorization of the Pakistani government... you now respond with talk about the Predator drones.

Are the Predator drones the sum of US operations in Pakistan?  Are the US there without permission?  The Pakistani government could "strongly condemn" all they want but the fact of the matter is that they have still given the US permission to operate in their country, thereby not violating their sovereign territorial rights.

Let's try and keep focus here.

well as I see it, if Pakistan objects to air strikes and the US goes ahead and does it anyway, then that is striking a sovereign nation.  And yes, it violates the soveriegity of that nation.

The US has a habit of striking nations in violation of their soverignity anyway.  Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia...long, long list..Syria, and more

« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 10:42:26 AM by Trinity Cross »

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #126 on: February 26, 2011, 10:50:57 AM »

well as I see it, if Pakistan objects tp air strikes and the US goes ahead and does it anyway, then that is striking a sovereign nation.  And yes, it violates the soveriegity of that nation.



I really have no patience or interest in countering this type ah nonsense talk.  If the US action violated their sovereignty (maybe you need to look up the definition of the word) then the Pakistani government would have expelled them or raised a protest to their presence to the international community.

The US has a habit of striking nations in violation of their soverignity anyway.  Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia...long, long list..Syria, and more



Do you understand the difference between war against a government and discriminate targeting of criminal elements within a sovereign nation... or are you just insisting on twisting yourself into a logical pretzel to offer tenuous justification of your argument?  When has the US ever had a military strike against Iran? When have they had military strikes against Pakistan? 

The closest argument you can make is regarding strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Syria and Somalia, and even then that was part of a larger war effort.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #127 on: February 26, 2011, 11:23:37 AM »

well as I see it, if Pakistan objects tp air strikes and the US goes ahead and does it anyway, then that is striking a sovereign nation.  And yes, it violates the soveriegity of that nation.



I really have no patience or interest in countering this type ah nonsense talk.  If the US action violated their sovereignty (maybe you need to look up the definition of the word) then the Pakistani government would have expelled them or raised a protest to their presence to the international community.

The US has a habit of striking nations in violation of their soverignity anyway.  Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Somalia...long, long list..Syria, and more



Do you understand the difference between war against a government and discriminate targeting of criminal elements within a sovereign nation... or are you just insisting on twisting yourself into a logical pretzel to offer tenuous justification of your argument?  When has the US ever had a military strike against Iran? When have they had military strikes against Pakistan? 

The closest argument you can make is regarding strikes against Al Qaeda targets in Syria and Somalia, and even then that was part of a larger war effort.

Man I doh have the energey either.  The US struck aginst Syria, you say as part of the larger war effort. when was war declare and against whom?

The so called Al Qaeda strike in Somalia turned out to be nothing more than a place making meds.  In Pakistan they have killed childrena nd women and they pay condolonce fees of 2500.00 per person..life real cheap in those places.

I stated that they made strikes against sovereign nations, and that is what I interpret military action as..even if they did not target the governments per se, they took military action against targets in those nations, and that is in violation to every international law.

You may see justification and call them pre-emptive, but that is semantics in my opinion.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #128 on: February 26, 2011, 11:30:01 AM »
What then is there to prevent the US military from making a discriminate strike against Somali pirate targets as they are disrupting US trade and are in violation of international law?

That was the justification used for making the illegal war against Iraq, and the strikes aginst Al Qaeda in Syria and Pakistan?

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #129 on: February 26, 2011, 03:26:16 PM »
Man I doh have the energey either.  The US struck aginst Syria, you say as part of the larger war effort. when was war declare and against whom?

Did the US declare war on France in WWII before engaging the Nazis there on the beaches of Normandy?  The rules of engagement for war are different... you supposed to be ex-military and yuh acting like yuh don't know that?  If a country is providing safe harbor to an enemy with which you are engaged in combat then diplomacy is the preferred route, but you are free to pursue them into that state... whatever it does for your relationship with them after that is another matter.
 
The so called Al Qaeda strike in Somalia turned out to be nothing more than a place making meds.  In Pakistan they have killed childrena nd women and they pay condolonce fees of 2500.00 per person..life real cheap in those places.

You have comprehension issues or what?  Whether you want to dispute the accuracy of the intel the fact of the matter is that they are engaged in war with Al Qaeda factions.  They didn't strike at Somalia to blow up a medicine joint... right or wrong the rationale is that they were pursuing an enemy with whom they are engaged in war.  And yuh coming back with this Pakistan talk... they are there with permission, what part of that yuh not understanding?

I stated that they made strikes against sovereign nations, and that is what I interpret military action as..even if they did not target the governments per se, they took military action against targets in those nations, and that is in violation to every international law.

You may see justification and call them pre-emptive, but that is semantics in my opinion.

You contradicting yuh own self... how can they make strikes "against" sovereign nations without targeting the government??  Is not what YOU interpret as a military violation of a nation's sovereignty... it's what international law says.  If as you say that US actions are in violation of international law then offer proof... show us the law/s it violating.

Bottom line is that the US cannot unilaterally strike at the Somali pirates... dispensing with all this long talk.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #130 on: February 26, 2011, 03:27:53 PM »
What then is there to prevent the US military from making a discriminate strike against Somali pirate targets as they are disrupting US trade and are in violation of international law?

That was the justification used for making the illegal war against Iraq, and the strikes aginst Al Qaeda in Syria and Pakistan?

The justification for the strikes in Somalia, Syria and Egypt was the declaration of war against Al Qaeda.  I feel you must be a product of the same Jamaican schools reggae-fan and them went to.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #131 on: February 26, 2011, 04:14:17 PM »
tell me when war was declared by the US Congress.  Thanks.

A military strike against any target in a foreign country without approval is a violation of international law and a violation of that country's soverenity.

I find it incredoulus that you argue differently.

Quote
The
 United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, Philip Alston, says the drone strikes may amount to summary executions, which are illegal under international law.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2335320/un_us_drone_strikes_may_violate_international.html


Quote
Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, told a debate at a leading London think tank that the pursuit of al Qaeda and Taliban extremists should be a law enforcement issue, not a military one.

“The strongest conclusion is that there is no legal right to resort to drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere where the US is not involved in armed conflict,” she told the respected Chatham House centre. She was particularly critical of strikes by the US Central Intelligence Agency in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan which border Afghanistan and are a haven for militants who use it as a base to attack NATO and Pakistani forces.

“The use of drones is causing really serious anger in Pakistan, I really seriously question the necessity for what we are doing,” she said.

O’Connell said they could not be justified because there was no open consent from Pakistan and the strikes could not be taken as an act of war because they did not happen on Afghan soil, where US troops operate.


An argument can certainly be made that searching out Al Qaeda has changed the way we deal with terror susects as they hide here and there, but certainly as the law stands we are breaking international law.

We invaded an entire country becasue the Taliban was harboring Osmam Bin Laden...why?  They struck civil;ian targts in the US and we went after them...what is so different about what they did and what the US is doing?

This is a very interesting read:

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm


Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #132 on: February 27, 2011, 10:26:44 AM »
tell me when war was declared by the US Congress.  Thanks.

A military strike against any target in a foreign country without approval is a violation of international law and a violation of that country's soverenity.

I find it incredoulus that you argue differently.

Quote
The
 United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, Philip Alston, says the drone strikes may amount to summary executions, which are illegal under international law.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2335320/un_us_drone_strikes_may_violate_international.html


Quote
Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, told a debate at a leading London think tank that the pursuit of al Qaeda and Taliban extremists should be a law enforcement issue, not a military one.

“The strongest conclusion is that there is no legal right to resort to drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere where the US is not involved in armed conflict,” she told the respected Chatham House centre. She was particularly critical of strikes by the US Central Intelligence Agency in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan which border Afghanistan and are a haven for militants who use it as a base to attack NATO and Pakistani forces.

“The use of drones is causing really serious anger in Pakistan, I really seriously question the necessity for what we are doing,” she said.

O’Connell said they could not be justified because there was no open consent from Pakistan and the strikes could not be taken as an act of war because they did not happen on Afghan soil, where US troops operate.


An argument can certainly be made that searching out Al Qaeda has changed the way we deal with terror susects as they hide here and there, but certainly as the law stands we are breaking international law.

We invaded an entire country becasue the Taliban was harboring Osmam Bin Laden...why?  They struck civil;ian targts in the US and we went after them...what is so different about what they did and what the US is doing?

This is a very interesting read:

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-ilaw.htm



Dred you still arguing about f**king drone strikes??  The US is operating within Pakistan with the expressed permission of the Pakistani government.  The only thing in question is the SCOPE of the operations... in particular the fact that the Pakistanis don't like some of what they're doing, namely the Predator strikes.  But as an initial matter they are there with permission and therefore not in violation of any international law as it relates to Pakistani sovereignty.  I find you having real problems maintaining focus.  If the Pakistanis are so upset then they can expel the US forces currently there.

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #133 on: March 17, 2011, 06:51:44 PM »
17 March 2011 Last updated at 14:31 ET Share this pageFacebookTwitter ShareEmail Print Pakistan army chief Kayani in US drone outburst
Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani warned that drone strikes undermined the militant fight Continue reading the main story
Taliban ConflictMake-or-break year ahead
Can Afghan forces step up?
Who are the Taliban?
Pakistan's very unhappy new year
Pakistan's army chief has condemned the latest raid by US unmanned drones as "intolerable and unjustified".

In a strongly worded statement, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said the attack, which killed about 40 people, was "in complete violation of human rights".

Most of the victims were believed to be civilians attending a tribal meeting near North Waziristan's regional capital, Miranshah.

Tension has been growing in recent weeks between the US and Pakistan.

The US drone attacks are a long-running source of bad feeling, but the acquittal of CIA contractor Raymond Davis of murder has sparked protests across Pakistan.

The Pakistani military often makes statements regretting the loss of life in such incidents, but rarely criticises the attacks themselves.

Gen Kayani, however, said such "acts of violence" make it harder to fight terrorism.

"It is highly regrettable that a jirga [meeting] of peaceful citizens including elders of the area was carelessly and callously targeted with complete disregard to human life," he said.

"It has been highlighted clearly that such aggression against people of Pakistan is unjustified and intolerable under any circumstances."

Pakistan's intelligence agency is often accused of complicity in the raids, either by supporting them or allowing them to happen.

Militants targeted
 
The BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Islamabad says Thursday's drone strike is the deadliest such attack since 2006.

 Officials say two drones were involved in the latest attack, in the Datta Khel area 40km (25 miles) west of Miranshah.

One missile was fired at a car carrying suspected militants. Local tribesmen say the drones then fired another three missiles at their open-air meeting, or jirga.

Our correspondent says the car was moving close to the jirga, and the missiles hit the vehicle as well as the jirga.

According to the tribesmen, the meeting was being held to discuss a local land dispute over the ownership of chromite deposits in the area. They say that no militants were present at the time.

Officials said the drones were targeting militants linked to Taliban commander Hafiz Gul Bahadur. One of his commanders, identified as Sharabat Khan, was in the vehicle hit in the attack and was killed, one local official told the BBC.

The US military and the CIA do not routinely confirm that they have launched drone operations, and Gen Kayani did not specifically name the US or mention drones.

But analysts say only American forces could deploy such aircraft in the region.

The attacks have escalated in the region since US President Barack Obama took office. More than 100 raids were reported in the area last year.

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #134 on: March 17, 2011, 07:38:18 PM »
Quote
The US drone attacks are a long-running source of bad feeling, but the acquittal of CIA contractor Raymond Davis of murder has sparked protests across Pakistan.

... didn't even realize there was a trial.

 ::)

truetrini

  • Guest
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #135 on: March 17, 2011, 08:47:28 PM »
true dat Bakes, the US paid the two faimilies fo the men killed some cash and they pardoned him and under sharia, he was released.


Quote
Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan—

A CIA contractor charged with murdering two Pakistani men was freed Wednesday after the victims' families pardoned him and accepted financial compensation. The resolution was viewed by many analysts as the best option to salve strained relations between the U.S. and Pakistan while minimizing the potential for a volatile reaction from Pakistanis who wanted the American tried and convicted.

Just hours after Lahore trial court judge Muhammad Yousaf Ojla announced Raymond Davis' formal indictment on murder charges, the 36-year-old American was on a plane headed out of the country.

Punjab provincial Law Minister Rana Sanaullah said he was freed after the families of the slain men decided to accept diyat, or "blood money," under an Islamic tradition that permits a killer to win a pardon from the heirs of a victim by paying compensation.

Sanaullah said family members of the men, Faizan Haider and Fahim Shamshad, appeared in court after the indictment was handed down and told Ojla they had agreed to pardon Davis. With that decision, the judge announced the acquittal and paved the way for Davis' swift release.

"They confirmed in court that they forgave Davis after receiving diyat," Sanaullah said. "This right to forgive is given to them by Sharia [Islamic law] and Pakistani law, and neither you nor I nor the court can snatch this right from them. They used their right, and the court released him."

The terms of the compensation had not been announced as of Wednesday evening. A Pakistani official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the families each received $1.1 million.

However, speaking in Cairo, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States did not pay any compensation to secure Davis' release, the Associated Press reported. A U.S. official who asked not to be named said there was no formal quid pro quo arrangement that paved the way for Davis' release. The official would not elaborate.

Relatives and neighbors say both families have locked up their homes and left, and their whereabouts are unknown. A senior police official who asked not to be named said Pakistani authorities assisted in helping the families quietly leave "to avoid the wrath of the public, particularly from the religious parties."

Officials at the U.S. Consulate in the eastern city of Lahore were present at Wednesday's court hearing, and left with Davis after he was released, Sanaullah said. Officials with the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad could not be reached for comment Wednesday evening.

However, in a prepared statement, U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter confirmed that the families of the men had pardoned Davis and said he was "grateful for their generosity." Munter did not reveal how much compensation was given, but he said that the U.S. Justice Department has opened an investigation of the Jan. 27 shootings in Lahore.

Davis and U.S. officials have maintained that the CIA contractor and former Special Forces soldier acted in self-defense. Davis says he was in his car in heavy traffic when the two men on a motorcycle approached and attempted to rob him. One of them brandished a handgun, he said.

Davis fired his Glock 9-millimeter handgun at the men, first through the windshield of his car and then as he stepped outside. Haider and Shamshad had five gunshot wounds each.

Police discounted Davis' claim of self-defense, saying several of the bullet wounds were in the men's backs and the gun one had was loaded but did not have a bullet in the chamber.

Another U.S. employee, rushing to Davis' aid in an embassy vehicle, struck and killed a motorcyclist. Pakistani authorities believe the driver has returned to the United States.

The case quickly became one of the trickiest tests for the already tenuous relationship between the two nations. Washington needs Pakistan's assistance to uproot Al Qaeda and the Taliban from strongholds in the volatile northwest and to help broker an end to nine years of war against Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.

The United States had repeatedly demanded Davis' release, citing the Vienna Convention of 1961 that gives immunity from criminal prosecution to all diplomats. Washington argued that it had notified Pakistani officials in January 2010 of Davis' role as "administrative and technical staff" member assigned to the U.S. Embassy, a status that afforded him diplomatic immunity under the convention.

However, Pakistan's embattled civilian government, viewed by many Pakistanis as a puppet of the U.S., feared unrest if Davis were to be freed on the grounds of immunity.

What remains to be seen is whether Pakistan's Islamist hard-line clerics and religious parties will try to mobilize large protests over Davis' release. Sporadic protests over the case broke out late Wednesday in Karachi and Lahore.

"Whether there will be a popular reaction will depend on how the parties that are whipping it up react," said Zafar Hilaly, former Pakistani ambassador to the United States.

"But don't forget, there's a gulf between the elite and the rest of the population, and this gulf is growing. So it's difficult to say how deep the resentment will be and how widespread it will be."

alex.rodriguez@latimes.com

Special correspondent Shahnawaz Khan in Lahore and Times staff writer Ken Dilanian in Washington contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

 
Related storiesFrom the L.A. Times
Pakistan court acquits CIA contractor of double murder
Pakistani officials won’t rule on American’s diplomatic immunity
’Blood money’ tradition might help resolve U.S.-Pakistani row
From KTLA
CIA Agent Released From Pakistani Jail Returning to US |ktla.com
Around the Web
Pakistan frees CIA contractor after ’blood money’ deal |chicagotribune.com
Debtors’ Court Is Now In Session |blogs.courant.com
Soldier from Antioch dies in Afghanistan |chicagobreakingnews.com
 E-mail  Print  Digg  Twitter  Facebook  Read This Later   Share
Comments (76)Add / View comments | Discussion FAQ
jaguar2009 at 10:12 AM March 17, 2011
Ah - the great merciful  Kafir Raymond Davis is free- finally Pakistan has seen reason ! That Davis has acually done good jihad and helped committed Jihadis o go to heaven to meet Allah and get 72 virgin goats. 

Of course - the matter of 2 millions - this loose change coming from American gift cheques is actually  enough to blow up entire Lahore !!

May be Davis can get back to his preferred job again!!
Dick Tator at 10:11 AM March 17, 2011
I think he shouldn't have been imprisoned in the first place. Just assuming (I could be wrong) that since he's from the CIA, there must have been a legitimate reason for him to kill those two. They could've been plotting against America for all we know.
launchme520 at 5:14 AM March 17, 2011
Davis was scheduled to be indicted for murder charges today. Security forces picked up the families last night. A payment estimated a $2 million was made to secure the release. The families are still in police custody. Davis is now at an undisclosed location, rumored to be Bagram Air Force Base in Kabul. THE REAL STORY Press stories are largely inaccurate and incomplete. This is what actually happened according to high ranking sources in the Punjab police and government officials who wish to remain anonymous. Tonight, Afzal, the uncle of Shumaila, the widow of one of the slain men who had committed suicide, went on Pakistani television. He told the audience, moments ago: Family members were told they were being taken to the police station to make statements. Instead, they were taken to a secret location and held in isolation and told that unless they signed a letter pardoning Davis, “you will never see daylight.” Ijazul Haq, Pakistan's former Minister of Religion and son of former Prime Minister Zia al Haq reports, in a VT exclusive, that members of the family and others involved, were given US citizenship to protect them from reprisals.BACKGROUND


Comments are filtered for language and registration is required. The Times makes no guarantee of comments' factual accuracy. Readers may report inappropriate comments by clicking the Report Abuse link. Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.

Offline Deeks

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 18473
    • View Profile
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #136 on: March 17, 2011, 09:05:07 PM »
In the end, money talks. f--king crazy!!!!

Offline Bakes

  • Promethean...
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 21980
    • View Profile
Re: Pirates kill hostages
« Reply #137 on: May 13, 2011, 08:57:52 PM »
Dred you still arguing about f**king drone strikes??  The US is operating within Pakistan with the expressed permission of the Pakistani government.   The only thing in question is the SCOPE of the operations... in particular the fact that the Pakistanis don't like some of what they're doing, namely the Predator strikes.  But as an initial matter they are there with permission and therefore not in violation of any international law as it relates to Pakistani sovereignty.  I find you having real problems maintaining focus.  If the Pakistanis are so upset then they can expel the US forces currently there.


As I was saying...


Denying Links to Militants, Pakistan’s Spy Chief Denounces U.S. Before Parliament
 
By JANE PERLEZ
 

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — In an unusual, and apparently heated, closed-door session of Parliament, Pakistan’s spy chief issued a rousing denunciation of the United States on Friday for its raid that killed Osama bin Laden and denied that Pakistan maintained any links with militant groups, according to lawmakers.

Rather, the spy chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, blamed an intelligence failure for the presence of Bin Laden in the city of Abbottabad, where a top military academy is located and where the leader of Al Qaeda was killed in an American raid on May 2.

General Pasha said he had offered his resignation twice to the leader of the army, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. As his presence before Parliament made clear, it was not accepted.

The two generals were called before the extraordinary 11-hour session to answer to the failures of the military and the intelligence agency that allowed a team of American commandos to enter and leave Pakistan in a stealth helicopter operation undetected.

Unusually vibrant criticism by some politicians and the Pakistani press after the raid compelled them to try to repair the reputation of the military and the intelligence agency, which the army controls.

But after recognizing the lapse, General Pasha rallied Parliament behind him, several legislators said, with strong criticisms of the United States that elicited thumps of approval from the chamber, including leading members of the Pakistan Peoples Party, the major partner in the coalition that the Obama administration supports.

At the end of the session, the leader of the opposition party, Pakistan Muslim League-N, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, who has been one of the most severe critics of the military since the raid, closed ranks behind the military. The session was organized so that “a positive message should go out to the masses,” Mr. Khan said.

A resolution that was passed at the session said Pakistan would revisit its relationship with the United States “with the view to ensuring Pakistan’s national interests were fully respected.”

In that vein, Pakistan’s chief spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISI, will not allow the Central Intelligence Agency to conduct operations in Pakistan without the full knowledge of the ISI, General Pasha said.

The spy chief did the talking. General Kayani attended the session, along with the heads of the air force and the navy, but did not speak, apparently to be spared the humiliation. Senior military officials, considered to be above civilian law and a power unto themselves, rarely appear before Parliament, or even its defense committees.

General Pasha told Parliament he had a “shouting match” with the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, over C.I.A. activities in Pakistan when they met recently in Washington, several lawmakers who attended the session said.

Reviewing the history of American relations with Pakistan, General Pasha declared that the United States, which has provided Pakistan with about $20 billion in aid over the last decade, had let Pakistan down at every turn since the 1960s, including imposing sanctions on the country in the 1990s.

“And now they have conducted a sting operation on us,” General Pasha said, according to one lawmaker. The intelligence chief was referring to the fact that the Obama administration had decided not to inform Pakistan in advance of the raid because of fears that the Pakistanis could not be trusted.

Before answering questions from the more than 400 members of Parliament from both chambers, the military gave a PowerPoint presentation that included photographs of Qaeda militants captured or killed by the ISI since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

General Pasha then explained that Pakistan should be given credit for dismantling Al Qaeda even before the United States killed Bin Laden, according to the accounts from lawmakers after the session.

In a direct assault on statements by American officials that the ISI supports jihadist militant groups, including the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, General Pasha said there was no such policy. “We have nothing to do with the Haqqani network,” he was quoted as saying.

American officials have long maintained suspicion that the Haqqani group, along with the Taliban, has been sheltered and sponsored by Pakistan, which uses them to push Pakistani interests in Afghanistan, where the insurgents attack NATO forces.

Some of the legislators asked for explanations of why the Pakistani Air Force did not detect the American helicopters that ferried the team of Navy Seal commandos into Abbottabad and out again.

The deputy chief of Air Staff Operations, Air Marshal Muhammad Hassan, said the American helicopters were equipped with stealth technology that enabled them to evade radar.

By the time the air force learned about the raid from ground reports at Abbottabad and launched fighter jets, the helicopters had completed their mission and flown out of Pakistan, he said.

But the air marshal, in answer to a question, said that the F-16 jet fighters provided by the United States to Pakistan were capable of shooting down the drones that the C.I.A. flies over the tribal areas to attack militants. The drone campaign has become increasingly unpopular among Pakistan’s politicians even as the Obama administration insists that it has no intention of halting the flights.

For the first time, according to one lawmaker, Air Marshal Hassan acknowledged that Pakistan allowed the United States to fly the drones out of Shamsi Air Base in Baluchistan.

The Pakistani government has always maintained in public that it does not condone the drone campaign, while in private it has given permission for the flights.



Salman Masood contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/world/asia/14pakistan.html?hp

Offline Dutty

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 9578
    • View Profile
Re: Somali Pirates Tell All: They’re in It for the Money
« Reply #138 on: June 21, 2011, 06:40:52 AM »
 ??? :o

Somalia sentences US, UK nationals to long prison terms over cash flown in for pirate ransom

MOGADISHU, Somalia - A Somali court on Saturday sentenced three British nationals, an American and two Kenyans to at least 10 years in prison each for bringing millions of dollars intended for pirate ransom into the country.

Two of the defendants were sentenced to 15 years in prison and a $15,000 fine, said Somali Information Ministry spokesman Abdifitah Abdinur. The other defendants were sentenced to 10 years and a $10,000 fine.

The men were arrested in Mogadishu last month after their planes were found to be carrying millions of dollars in cash. A Somali official previously said the planes are used by companies that frequently deliver ransoms to pirates.

Officials did not give further details on the jailed Westerners.

Pirates have been receiving millions of dollars in ransoms for several years now, but Saturday was the first time Westerners were sentenced for their role in paying out the ransoms.

The average ransom paid to pirates has reached nearly $5 million. The ransoms are often air-dropped down to hijacked ships.

It seemed unlikely the six defendants would have to serve their full sentences. A Western official who was not authorized to speak publicly said discussions were under way to reduce or overturn the sentences.

Asked about possible pardons or parole, Abdinur said that "everything is possible and I can't comment on the future."

Elsewhere in Mogadishu, meanwhile, Somalia's most powerful militant group, al-Shabab, executed two men over allegations of spying for the government. A man with the rank of judge in the group said the men admitted the charges against them. They were killed by a firing squad. Al-Shabab summoned residents to watch the execution.

Al-Shabab wants to impose an ultraconservative version of Islam on Somalia. The group carries out such punishments as amputations and stonings.

Somalia hasn't had a functioning central government since 1991, which has allowed pirates to flourish in the north and militants to take control of wide swaths of territory in the south.

http://www.startribune.com/world/124129659.html
« Last Edit: June 21, 2011, 06:43:16 AM by Dutty »
Little known fact: The online transportation medium called Uber was pioneered in Trinidad & Tobago in the 1960's. It was originally called pullin bull.

Offline asylumseeker

  • Moderator
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 17887
    • View Profile
Re: Somali Pirates Tell All: They’re in It for the Money
« Reply #139 on: March 07, 2012, 10:27:05 AM »
Somalis fighting back now, mortars fired at US congressman. in Somalia 

Dahis Donald Payne, a man said to be fairly supportive of CARICOM issues. He may have Caribbean roots.

The gentleman died yesterday.

From the Washington Post website:

US Rep. Donald Payne of NJ, known for civil rights work and advocacy for poor, dies at age 77

By Associated Press, Published: March 6
NEWARK, N.J. — Days before U.S. Rep. Donald Payne died of cancer, it wasn’t the phone calls of encouragement from presidents that cheered him. It was when a Washington hospital orderly recognized the New Jersey congressman as the only U.S. official to visit his village in the African nation of Eritrea.

Hearing from the orderly how much the visit had meant, and knowing he had made a difference in the lives of people struggling against violence and poverty — from his native Newark, N.J., to sub-Saharan Africa — was the reason why Donald Payne had dedicated his life to public service, his brother William said Tuesday.

“He walked with kings, but never lost the common touch,” William Payne said.

Donald Payne, the first black congressional member from New Jersey, passed away Tuesday at St. Barnabas Hospital in Livingston, N.J. He was 77.

The 12-term member of the House had announced in February that he was undergoing treatment for colon cancer and would continue to represent his district. He was flown home to New Jersey on Friday from Georgetown University Hospital as his health took a sudden turn for the worse.

He was first elected in 1988 after twice losing to former Rep. Peter Rodino, who retired after 40 years in Congress.

Payne, often considered one of the most progressive Democrats in the state’s delegation, was elected to a 12th term in 2010. He represented the 10th District, which includes the city of Newark and parts of Essex, Hudson and Union counties.

In Washington, he was remembered for his work as a defender of human rights, both at home and abroad.

President Barack Obama, who ordered flags lowered in Payne’s honor, called him a “leader in US-Africa policy, making enormous contributions towards helping restore democracy and human rights across the continent.”

Former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Payne a “force for peace and progress” in New Jersey and throughout the world.

“His impact was immeasurable and his legacy will live on in the lives he has touched,” they said.

Payne was a member of House committees on education and foreign affairs. He served as chairman of the House subcommittee on Africa, and had traveled many times to the continent on foreign affairs matters.

He was remembered Tuesday as one of the first U.S. officials to speak out on the situation in Darfur and South Sudan.

“He was fearless in describing what was happening to people; he didn’t mince words;” said Faith McDonnell, a member of the Act for Sudan coalition who worked with Payne on issues in the region. “This is a huge loss to the people of Darfur, and for all marginalized people, who I really regret won’t have his voice and his helping hand the way others did.”

During an April 2009 trip, mortar shells were fired toward Mogadishu airport as a plane carrying Payne took off safely from the Somali capital. Officials at the time said 19 civilians were injured in residential areas. Payne had met with Somalia’s president and prime minister during his one-day visit to Mogadishu to discuss piracy, security and cooperation between Somalia and the United States.

He also had been the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and a congressional delegate to the United Nations.

At home, he was remembered as a trailblazer for African-Americans, as an advocate for the underprivileged, and as a gentleman.

Newark Mayor Cory Booker called him a “a humble hero who lived an extraordinary life of contribution and distinction” and “a defender of and advocate for the rights, liberties, equal opportunities, and dignity of all people.”

Born and raised in Newark, Payne came up through the ranks of Essex County politics. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Seton Hall University in 1957 and taught in Newark schools for 15 years. He went on to become an insurance executive and member of the Newark City Council from 1982 until 1988.

It was his work with the YMCA — starting as a young volunteer at a segregated storefront office in Newark and rising to become the president of the national organization — that opened his eyes to the wider world, according to his brother. He traveled to more than 80 countries as a member of the YMCA’s international board before becoming a congressman, his brother said. But Payne always remained as firmly rooted in local politics and community concerns as he was in raising awareness on issues from armed conflict to the AIDS epidemic in Africa, his brother said.

“He was committed to causes that impacted on people who had no voice; people who were forgotten by society,” William Payne said. “My brother had a great deal of compassion, and he stepped out on a lot of unpopular causes.”

Payne was a widower with three children and four grandchildren. His son, Donald Payne Jr., is a Newark city councilman. Services haven’t been announced.

While Payne faced the prospect of a primary challenge from Newark Councilman Ronald C. Rice, his death will open the field in the heavily Democratic district.

Gov. Chris Christie’s office said Tuesday that out of deference to the congressman and his family they would not discuss whether the governor would fill the seat immediately, or let it stand vacant until a special election can be held, which has typically been done.

A public plaza between two government buildings in Newark now bears Payne’s name in tribute to his long career in public service.

___

Associated Press writer Andrew Miga in Washington contributed to this report. DeFalco reported from Trenton.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/Sew-KJEdqDk" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/Sew-KJEdqDk</a>