May 18th, 2010 - 1:57 pm ICT by ANI -
Lahore, May 18 (ANI): The Lahore High Court (LHC) has issued a notice to President Asif Ali Zardari over the legality of holding two offices of interest.
Hearing a petition filed by the Pakistan Lawyers Forum (PLF) challenging the right of Zardari to hold on to the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) chief’s post, the high court directed Zardari’s Principal Secretary to explain the legality of President dual posts.
“Since the president could not appear because of security reasons, the court asked his principal secretary to appear in court on May 25,” The Daily Times quoted PLF president A.K. Dogar, as saying.
Dogar said that though there was no constitutional bar on the President holding office in a political party, the Supreme Court had barred a president from holding a party post.”Our Supreme Court judges decided in 1993 that the president should be non-partisan. He should not involve himself in political battles. He should shun politics but here he is a party head, which is illegal,” he said.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has come out openly in favour of Zardari over the issue, saying there are no legal bar on holding two offices at a time.
President Zardari can keep two offices at a time and there is no constitutional or legal bar whatsoever, Gilani told media persons during a brief interaction here. (ANI)
Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. flatly asserted that the defendant in the Times Square bombing attempt was trained by the Taliban in Pakistan.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the Taliban in Pakistan had helped the Times Square bomber.
Mr. Holder proposed carving out a broad new exception to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling. It generally forbids prosecutors from using as evidence statements made before suspects have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer.
He said interrogators needed greater flexibility to question terrorism suspects than is provided by existing exceptions.
The proposal to ask Congress to loosen the Miranda rule comes against the backdrop of criticism by Republicans who have argued that terrorism suspects — including United States citizens like Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the Times Square case — should be imprisoned and interrogated as military detainees, rather than handled as ordinary criminal defendants.
For months, the administration has defended the criminal justice system as strong enough to handle terrorism cases. Mr. Holder acknowledged the abrupt shift of tone, characterizing the administration’s stance as a “new priority” and “big news” in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“We’re now dealing with international terrorists,” he said, “and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.”
The conclusion that Mr. Shahzad was involved in an international plot appeared to come from investigations that began after his arrest and interrogation, including inquiries into his links with the Taliban in Pakistan.
“We know that they helped facilitate it,” Mr. Holder said of the Times Square bombing attempt. “We know that they helped direct it. And I suspect that we are going to come up with evidence which shows that they helped to finance it. They were intimately involved in this plot.”
Mr. Holder’s statement, and comments by President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, were the highest-level confirmation yet that the authorities believe the Pakistani branch of the Taliban was directly involved. Investigators were still pursuing leads based on what Mr. Shahzad has told them, and the officials did not describe their evidence in detail.
Mr. Brennan appeared to say even more definitively than Mr. Holder did that the Taliban in Pakistan had provided money as well as training and direction.
“He was trained by them,” Mr. Brennan said. “He received funding from them. He was basically directed here to the United States to carry out this attack.”
He added: “We have good cooperation from our Pakistani partners and from others. We’re learning more about this incident every day. We’re hopeful we’re going to be able to identify any other individuals that were involved.”
Even before the attempted Times Square attack, the administration had been stretching the traditional limits of how long suspects may be questioned without being warned of their rights.
After the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on Dec. 25, for example, the F.B.I. questioned the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, for about 50 minutes without reading him his rights. And last week, Mr. Brennan said, the F.B.I. interrogated Mr. Shahzad for three or four hours before delivering a Miranda warning.
In both cases, the administration relied on an exception to Miranda for immediate threats to public safety. That exception was established by the Supreme Court in a 1984 case in which a police officer asked a suspect, at the time of his arrest and before reading him his rights, about where he had hidden a gun. The court deemed the defendant’s answer and the gun admissible as evidence against him.
Conservatives have long disliked the Miranda ruling, which is intended to ensure that confessions are not coerced. Its use in terrorism cases has been especially controversial because of concerns that informing a suspect of his rights could interrupt the flow of the interrogation and prompt him to stop disclosing information that might prevent a future attack.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and Republican presidential candidate, said Sunday on “This Week” on ABC that he supported Mr. Holder’s proposal. However, he also suggested that enacting it would not quell conservative criticism, arguing that it would be even better to hold suspects like Mr. Shahzad as military detainees for lengthier interrogation.
“I would not have given him Miranda warnings after just a couple of hours of questioning,” Mr. Giuliani said. “I would have instead declared him an enemy combatant, asked the president to do that, and at the same time, that would have given us the opportunity to question him for a much longer period of time.”
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the Taliban in Pakistan had helped the Times Square bomber.
Mr. Holder proposed carving out a broad new exception to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling. It generally forbids prosecutors from using as evidence statements made before suspects have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer.
He said interrogators needed greater flexibility to question terrorism suspects than is provided by existing exceptions.
The proposal to ask Congress to loosen the Miranda rule comes against the backdrop of criticism by Republicans who have argued that terrorism suspects — including United States citizens like Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the Times Square case — should be imprisoned and interrogated as military detainees, rather than handled as ordinary criminal defendants.
For months, the administration has defended the criminal justice system as strong enough to handle terrorism cases. Mr. Holder acknowledged the abrupt shift of tone, characterizing the administration’s stance as a “new priority” and “big news” in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“We’re now dealing with international terrorists,” he said, “and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.”
The conclusion that Mr. Shahzad was involved in an international plot appeared to come from investigations that began after his arrest and interrogation, including inquiries into his links with the Taliban in Pakistan.
“We know that they helped facilitate it,” Mr. Holder said of the Times Square bombing attempt. “We know that they helped direct it. And I suspect that we are going to come up with evidence which shows that they helped to finance it. They were intimately involved in this plot.”
Mr. Holder’s statement, and comments by President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, were the highest-level confirmation yet that the authorities believe the Pakistani branch of the Taliban was directly involved. Investigators were still pursuing leads based on what Mr. Shahzad has told them, and the officials did not describe their evidence in detail.
Mr. Brennan appeared to say even more definitively than Mr. Holder did that the Taliban in Pakistan had provided money as well as training and direction.
“He was trained by them,” Mr. Brennan said. “He received funding from them. He was basically directed here to the United States to carry out this attack.”
He added: “We have good cooperation from our Pakistani partners and from others. We’re learning more about this incident every day. We’re hopeful we’re going to be able to identify any other individuals that were involved.”
Even before the attempted Times Square attack, the administration had been stretching the traditional limits of how long suspects may be questioned without being warned of their rights.
After the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on Dec. 25, for example, the F.B.I. questioned the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, for about 50 minutes without reading him his rights. And last week, Mr. Brennan said, the F.B.I. interrogated Mr. Shahzad for three or four hours before delivering a Miranda warning.
In both cases, the administration relied on an exception to Miranda for immediate threats to public safety. That exception was established by the Supreme Court in a 1984 case in which a police officer asked a suspect, at the time of his arrest and before reading him his rights, about where he had hidden a gun. The court deemed the defendant’s answer and the gun admissible as evidence against him.
Conservatives have long disliked the Miranda ruling, which is intended to ensure that confessions are not coerced. Its use in terrorism cases has been especially controversial because of concerns that informing a suspect of his rights could interrupt the flow of the interrogation and prompt him to stop disclosing information that might prevent a future attack.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and Republican presidential candidate, said Sunday on “This Week” on ABC that he supported Mr. Holder’s proposal. However, he also suggested that enacting it would not quell conservative criticism, arguing that it would be even better to hold suspects like Mr. Shahzad as military detainees for lengthier interrogation.
“I would not have given him Miranda warnings after just a couple of hours of questioning,” Mr. Giuliani said. “I would have instead declared him an enemy combatant, asked the president to do that, and at the same time, that would have given us the opportunity to question him for a much longer period of time.”
U.S. Urges Action in Pakistan After Failed Bombing
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The Obama administration has delivered new and stiff warnings to Pakistan after the failed Times Square car bombing that it must urgently move against the nexus of Islamic militancy in the country’s lawless tribal regions, American and Pakistani officials said.
The American military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, met with the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, at his headquarters here on Friday and urged Pakistan to move more quickly in beginning a military offensive against the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda in North Waziristan, Americans and Pakistanis familiar with the visit said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of continuing diplomatic efforts here.
The Pakistani-American man who admitted to the Times Square attack, Faisal Shahzad, 30, told American investigators that he had received training in North Waziristan, the main base for the Pakistani Taliban, Al Qaeda and other militant groups.
The new pressure from Washington was characterized by both the Pakistani and American officials as a sharp turnaround from the relatively polite encouragement adopted by the Obama administration in recent months. And it comes amid increasing debate within the administration about how to expand the American military’s influence — and even a boots-on-the-ground presence — on Pakistani soil.
Though the bombing in Times Square failed, Mr. Shahzad’s ability to move back and forth between the United States and Pakistan has heightened fears in the Obama administration that another attempt at a terrorist attack could succeed.
“We are saying, ‘Sorry, if there is a successful attack, we will have to act’ ” within Pakistan, one of the American officials said.
That issue has been a source of growing tension between the countries. Pakistani officials, already alarmed by the increase in American drone aircraft attacks against militants in northwestern Pakistan, have been extremely sensitive about any hint that American ground troops could become involved in the fight. And attempts by the United States to increase the presence of Special Operations forces there even in an advisory or training role have been met with great resistance by the Pakistanis.
The Pakistani military has stepped up its campaigns against militants in the past year, including an offensive in South Waziristan that has been praised by American officials. It has said that it is preparing to take up the fight against militants in North Waziristan. But Pakistani officials have insisted that the expanded campaign will happen completely on their own terms, and they have warned the Obama administration not to push so hard that it uses up the good will it has tried to foster here.
But the Americans’ urgency has been increasing on multiple fronts. With an intensified American military campaign raging against the Taliban next door in Afghanistan, and now with the renewed evidence of Pakistani sources for plots to attack on American soil, it was clear the Pakistani government had to do more, and more urgently, a senior American official said Saturday.
General Kayani, with whom General McChrystal has forged a positive relationship, was essentially told, “ ‘You can’t pretend any longer that this is not going on,’ ” another American official said. “ ‘We are saying you have got to go into North Waziristan.’ ”
The American ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, met Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, after the failed bombing and used “forceful” language to convey the American point that the Pakistanis had to move more assertively against the militants threaded through the society, a Pakistani official said.
“The element of threat is definitely different from the last few months,” said Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador who also served in the United States. .
The Obama administration was planning to use the failed terrorist attack to impress on the Pakistanis of the urgency of getting American development aid in place in the tribal areas where militancy thrives, and into Karachi, the biggest city, where radical religious schools, known as madrasas, are popular.
“Last week’s incident makes it more urgent and more true” of the need to bring stability and security to these areas where the militants have multiplied, an American official said.
About $150 million was appropriated by Congress for assistance to the tribal areas in the coming period for reconstruction and other projects. But a host of problems, including American insistence on being able to monitor the money being spent, has made it a slow process.
Since Mr. Shahzad’s arrest in the Times Square attack, each country has, to some extent, blamed the other. Many Pakistanis insist that Mr. Shahzad is an American citizen who was radicalized in the United States by the difficulties he found living there as a Muslim. The Americans stress that Mr. Shahzad has traveled more than a dozen times back to Pakistan from the United States since 1999, and appeared to have received his military training in the epicenter of militancy, North Waziristan.
Mr. Shahzad’s background as the son of a senior Pakistani military officer has embarrassed the Pakistani Army, the most powerful institution in the country, and which receives generous financing from the United States. Mr. Shahzad’s father was a vice marshal in the Pakistani Air Force, and it appears that Mr. Shahzad grew up around senior military officers.
After Mr. Shahzad told American investigators that he was trained in bomb making in North Waziristan, the Pakistani Army tried to play down that claim, portraying it as unlikely.
The Pakistani Taliban took initial responsibility for the bombing attempt. Days later, though, their spokesman denied any involvement, a statement that may have been prompted by fears that their early claim of ownership of Mr. Shahzad might result in a direct attack on the North Waziristan enclave by the Americans, or the Pakistanis.
The American military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, met with the Pakistani military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, at his headquarters here on Friday and urged Pakistan to move more quickly in beginning a military offensive against the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda in North Waziristan, Americans and Pakistanis familiar with the visit said. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of continuing diplomatic efforts here.
The Pakistani-American man who admitted to the Times Square attack, Faisal Shahzad, 30, told American investigators that he had received training in North Waziristan, the main base for the Pakistani Taliban, Al Qaeda and other militant groups.
The new pressure from Washington was characterized by both the Pakistani and American officials as a sharp turnaround from the relatively polite encouragement adopted by the Obama administration in recent months. And it comes amid increasing debate within the administration about how to expand the American military’s influence — and even a boots-on-the-ground presence — on Pakistani soil.
Though the bombing in Times Square failed, Mr. Shahzad’s ability to move back and forth between the United States and Pakistan has heightened fears in the Obama administration that another attempt at a terrorist attack could succeed.
“We are saying, ‘Sorry, if there is a successful attack, we will have to act’ ” within Pakistan, one of the American officials said.
That issue has been a source of growing tension between the countries. Pakistani officials, already alarmed by the increase in American drone aircraft attacks against militants in northwestern Pakistan, have been extremely sensitive about any hint that American ground troops could become involved in the fight. And attempts by the United States to increase the presence of Special Operations forces there even in an advisory or training role have been met with great resistance by the Pakistanis.
The Pakistani military has stepped up its campaigns against militants in the past year, including an offensive in South Waziristan that has been praised by American officials. It has said that it is preparing to take up the fight against militants in North Waziristan. But Pakistani officials have insisted that the expanded campaign will happen completely on their own terms, and they have warned the Obama administration not to push so hard that it uses up the good will it has tried to foster here.
But the Americans’ urgency has been increasing on multiple fronts. With an intensified American military campaign raging against the Taliban next door in Afghanistan, and now with the renewed evidence of Pakistani sources for plots to attack on American soil, it was clear the Pakistani government had to do more, and more urgently, a senior American official said Saturday.
General Kayani, with whom General McChrystal has forged a positive relationship, was essentially told, “ ‘You can’t pretend any longer that this is not going on,’ ” another American official said. “ ‘We are saying you have got to go into North Waziristan.’ ”
The American ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, met Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, after the failed bombing and used “forceful” language to convey the American point that the Pakistanis had to move more assertively against the militants threaded through the society, a Pakistani official said.
“The element of threat is definitely different from the last few months,” said Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador who also served in the United States. .
The Obama administration was planning to use the failed terrorist attack to impress on the Pakistanis of the urgency of getting American development aid in place in the tribal areas where militancy thrives, and into Karachi, the biggest city, where radical religious schools, known as madrasas, are popular.
“Last week’s incident makes it more urgent and more true” of the need to bring stability and security to these areas where the militants have multiplied, an American official said.
About $150 million was appropriated by Congress for assistance to the tribal areas in the coming period for reconstruction and other projects. But a host of problems, including American insistence on being able to monitor the money being spent, has made it a slow process.
Since Mr. Shahzad’s arrest in the Times Square attack, each country has, to some extent, blamed the other. Many Pakistanis insist that Mr. Shahzad is an American citizen who was radicalized in the United States by the difficulties he found living there as a Muslim. The Americans stress that Mr. Shahzad has traveled more than a dozen times back to Pakistan from the United States since 1999, and appeared to have received his military training in the epicenter of militancy, North Waziristan.
Mr. Shahzad’s background as the son of a senior Pakistani military officer has embarrassed the Pakistani Army, the most powerful institution in the country, and which receives generous financing from the United States. Mr. Shahzad’s father was a vice marshal in the Pakistani Air Force, and it appears that Mr. Shahzad grew up around senior military officers.
After Mr. Shahzad told American investigators that he was trained in bomb making in North Waziristan, the Pakistani Army tried to play down that claim, portraying it as unlikely.
The Pakistani Taliban took initial responsibility for the bombing attempt. Days later, though, their spokesman denied any involvement, a statement that may have been prompted by fears that their early claim of ownership of Mr. Shahzad might result in a direct attack on the North Waziristan enclave by the Americans, or the Pakistanis.
A small victory
It is important for Pakistan to launch a massive programme for the development os terror hit areas such as Malakand division and South Waziristan in order to ensure that the people there remain loyal to the Pakistani state.
At least three major Taliban groups emerged. The first was the group headed by Mullah Omar who had led the government the Taliban had formed in Kabul in the mid-1990s. It is widely believed that this group was led by leaders of the ‘Quetta shura’ whose main goal is said to be to bring Afghanistan under the control of the Taliban. That could happen only if the Americans were made to leave Afghanistan. The bulk of support for this group came from the many local commanders involved in various insurgencies in Afghanistan.
The second group was led initially by Jalaluddin Haqqani and is now under the control of his son Sirajuddin. The older Haqqani had been helped by the Americans, the Saudis and the Pakistanis to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Having achieved that objective they were unable to work together to govern the liberated country, paving the way for the Taliban regime.
When the Americans moved into Afghanistan in late 2001 and pushed the Taliban out of Kabul, the Haqqani group shifted to Pakistan’s North Waziristan. It has remained there, supporting the insurgents in the areas adjoining their sanctuary in Pakistan. Since the senior Haqqani had served in Mullah Omar’s government his Taliban movement retained some contacts with the Quetta shura. But the linkages are believed not to be strong.
The third group had little to do with the insurgency in Afghanistan but wanted to bring about change in Pakistan. It was formed out of several small tribal groups and was given the name of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Initially led by Baitullah Mehsud who was killed last year in a drone attack, the TTP quickly expanded its reach.
Last summer its affiliate in Swat took over the district and advanced into Buner. They were only a short distance away from Islamabad. It was then that the army moved to reclaim the areas, carrying out a successful operation. It followed it up with an equally successful operation in South Waziristan. Recently, newspapers carried the story that Hakimullah Mehsud, Baitullah’s successor, had died of injuries sustained in a drone attack sometime earlier.
While Pakistan drew a sharp distinction between these three groups, the Americans were of the view that all of them had to be treated the same way. They were pleased with Pakistan’s move against the TTP in Swat, Buner and South Waziristan but were unhappy that Islamabad was not anxious to go into North Waziristan against the Haqqani group or to hit the Quetta shura.
Neither of the two groups had launched attacks against Pakistan while the TTP was involved in many terrorist activities that had killed hundreds of people in various parts of Pakistan. Also, Islamabad, worried about the political vacuum that might occur once the Americans and Nato forces began the promised withdrawal from Afghanistan. It wanted a situation where it could depend on these two groups of Taliban to help establish a regime in Kabul that would be friendlier towards it than the one headed by President Hamid Karzai. What motivated the Afghan president to dispense with his enduring antipathy towards the Taliban movement to hold out an olive branch to some of them in London?
In fact, Karzai and his associates went to London to get the support of the countries assembled there to help him win over those in the Taliban movement who were its foot soldiers for economic reasons and not out of ideological compulsions. His finance minister asked for assistance amounting to $1.2bn, with $200m dispersed immediately so that employment opportunities could be created for these people. The regime held out the assurance that this money would not be used to bribe the Taliban but for promoting development. This, in fact, is a recognition by Karzai that an important reason for his mounting troubles was of the poor governance of Pakhtun areas, most of which border Pakistan. The president was also thinking of the time when the Americans would not be present in large numbers to prop up his administration. The time had come for him to bring under his tent those Pakhtuns who were prepared to work with him.
While the outcome of the London conference vindicates Pakistan’s long-held position, it also points to the importance of focusing on economic development as a way of countering insurgency. It is important for Pakistan to launch a massive programme for the development initially of Malakand division and South Waziristan — two areas where the army has scored impressive successes — in order to ensure that the people there remain loyal to the Pakistani state.
A well-articulated programme of economic development will have the support of the West and should not impose a heavy financial burden on Islamabad. This is a good time to start work on it.
At least three major Taliban groups emerged. The first was the group headed by Mullah Omar who had led the government the Taliban had formed in Kabul in the mid-1990s. It is widely believed that this group was led by leaders of the ‘Quetta shura’ whose main goal is said to be to bring Afghanistan under the control of the Taliban. That could happen only if the Americans were made to leave Afghanistan. The bulk of support for this group came from the many local commanders involved in various insurgencies in Afghanistan.
The second group was led initially by Jalaluddin Haqqani and is now under the control of his son Sirajuddin. The older Haqqani had been helped by the Americans, the Saudis and the Pakistanis to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Having achieved that objective they were unable to work together to govern the liberated country, paving the way for the Taliban regime.
When the Americans moved into Afghanistan in late 2001 and pushed the Taliban out of Kabul, the Haqqani group shifted to Pakistan’s North Waziristan. It has remained there, supporting the insurgents in the areas adjoining their sanctuary in Pakistan. Since the senior Haqqani had served in Mullah Omar’s government his Taliban movement retained some contacts with the Quetta shura. But the linkages are believed not to be strong.
The third group had little to do with the insurgency in Afghanistan but wanted to bring about change in Pakistan. It was formed out of several small tribal groups and was given the name of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Initially led by Baitullah Mehsud who was killed last year in a drone attack, the TTP quickly expanded its reach.
Last summer its affiliate in Swat took over the district and advanced into Buner. They were only a short distance away from Islamabad. It was then that the army moved to reclaim the areas, carrying out a successful operation. It followed it up with an equally successful operation in South Waziristan. Recently, newspapers carried the story that Hakimullah Mehsud, Baitullah’s successor, had died of injuries sustained in a drone attack sometime earlier.
While Pakistan drew a sharp distinction between these three groups, the Americans were of the view that all of them had to be treated the same way. They were pleased with Pakistan’s move against the TTP in Swat, Buner and South Waziristan but were unhappy that Islamabad was not anxious to go into North Waziristan against the Haqqani group or to hit the Quetta shura.
Neither of the two groups had launched attacks against Pakistan while the TTP was involved in many terrorist activities that had killed hundreds of people in various parts of Pakistan. Also, Islamabad, worried about the political vacuum that might occur once the Americans and Nato forces began the promised withdrawal from Afghanistan. It wanted a situation where it could depend on these two groups of Taliban to help establish a regime in Kabul that would be friendlier towards it than the one headed by President Hamid Karzai. What motivated the Afghan president to dispense with his enduring antipathy towards the Taliban movement to hold out an olive branch to some of them in London?
In fact, Karzai and his associates went to London to get the support of the countries assembled there to help him win over those in the Taliban movement who were its foot soldiers for economic reasons and not out of ideological compulsions. His finance minister asked for assistance amounting to $1.2bn, with $200m dispersed immediately so that employment opportunities could be created for these people. The regime held out the assurance that this money would not be used to bribe the Taliban but for promoting development. This, in fact, is a recognition by Karzai that an important reason for his mounting troubles was of the poor governance of Pakhtun areas, most of which border Pakistan. The president was also thinking of the time when the Americans would not be present in large numbers to prop up his administration. The time had come for him to bring under his tent those Pakhtuns who were prepared to work with him.
While the outcome of the London conference vindicates Pakistan’s long-held position, it also points to the importance of focusing on economic development as a way of countering insurgency. It is important for Pakistan to launch a massive programme for the development initially of Malakand division and South Waziristan — two areas where the army has scored impressive successes — in order to ensure that the people there remain loyal to the Pakistani state.
A well-articulated programme of economic development will have the support of the West and should not impose a heavy financial burden on Islamabad. This is a good time to start work on it.
Judicial reform in Swat
In the launch of the drive to reform Swat’s legal system, it is apparent that the state is aware of the sort of steps needed to alter some of the realities that had formerly led the people of the area to extend support to the Taliban before disowning them. For nearly four decades, the area’s judicial system had been notoriously slow-moving and corrupt, leading to the erosion of the residents’ faith in the state. Little wonder then that the Taliban’s promise of a ‘quick, Sharia-based’ justice system resonated with Swat’s people. To the consternation of many, it became clear after the ‘peace deal’ brokered between the government and the militants by the Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat Mohammadi that the Taliban’s version of the Sharia consisted of beheadings, floggings, the repression of women and other gross violations of fundamental human and constitutional rights. It appears that Swat’s rejection of the Taliban has finally been seen as an opportunity by the state to win over the population by installing a judicial system that will hopefully be quick, inexpensive and unbiased.
Judicial officials have launched a drive to speed up and reform the area’s legal system. Sixteen new judges have been hired and new courts have been created with the laudable aim of processing new criminal cases within four months and civil ones in six. The backlog of cases has reportedly been reduced from 18,000 to 2,300. The significance of this reduction ought not be underestimated given that each resolved case means a large number of people with newfound confidence in the state and government, which is crucial to the project of preventing the Taliban or other anarchist elements from regaining influence in the area. Legal and judicial systems in other parts of the country must make similar efforts. According to a statistical report released recently by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 1.52 million cases were pending in the superior and lower courts at the end of 2009. Each of these represents a miscarriage of justice, since justice delayed is justice denied. The project to build Pakistanis’ faith in the state and government must include an overhaul of the judicial process.
Judicial officials have launched a drive to speed up and reform the area’s legal system. Sixteen new judges have been hired and new courts have been created with the laudable aim of processing new criminal cases within four months and civil ones in six. The backlog of cases has reportedly been reduced from 18,000 to 2,300. The significance of this reduction ought not be underestimated given that each resolved case means a large number of people with newfound confidence in the state and government, which is crucial to the project of preventing the Taliban or other anarchist elements from regaining influence in the area. Legal and judicial systems in other parts of the country must make similar efforts. According to a statistical report released recently by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 1.52 million cases were pending in the superior and lower courts at the end of 2009. Each of these represents a miscarriage of justice, since justice delayed is justice denied. The project to build Pakistanis’ faith in the state and government must include an overhaul of the judicial process.
Encouraging signs
Are consumers no longer suffering power cuts as claimed by a Pepco official? No. But the severe crisis in April has eased, partly because of the measures announced at the energy conference held in Islamabad last month and partly because of more tolerable weather in some parts of the country and more water becoming available for hydel power generation.
It is relatively clear that a large portion of the blame for the acute crisis last month can be laid at the door of the circular debt issue. During peak summer there is certainly an issue of power generation capacity, but that was not the case last month. Unfortunately, dealing with the problem of circular debt appears to have been put off, perhaps with an eye towards containing the fiscal deficit for the financial year ending in June. The government has been kept on a tight leash by the IMF, and adding to borrowings can compound the crisis. The problem for consumers, though, is that delaying the resolution of the circular debt issue may aggravate the situation in the months ahead, leading to a double whammy of sorts as the gap between supply and demand will keep growing in the summer months.
Nevertheless, it is encouraging that at long last the national and provincial leadership appears to have awakened to the need to deal with the power crisis. A second energy conference has been convened by the prime minister and once again all the provincial chief ministers have been invited. The measures taken at the last round of meetings have somewhat eased the consumers’ torment in many places. Yes, there have been problems, as evidenced by the flouting in Karachi of the ban on supplying CNG to motor vehicles one day a week. Punjab is feeling aggrieved that the other provinces have not acted with as much alacrity to implement the energy-saving measures. However, it is encouraging that there appears to be at least some commitment by all sides to continue with a national response to the energy crisis as opposed to Islamabad issuing orders that the provinces ignore.
It is relatively clear that a large portion of the blame for the acute crisis last month can be laid at the door of the circular debt issue. During peak summer there is certainly an issue of power generation capacity, but that was not the case last month. Unfortunately, dealing with the problem of circular debt appears to have been put off, perhaps with an eye towards containing the fiscal deficit for the financial year ending in June. The government has been kept on a tight leash by the IMF, and adding to borrowings can compound the crisis. The problem for consumers, though, is that delaying the resolution of the circular debt issue may aggravate the situation in the months ahead, leading to a double whammy of sorts as the gap between supply and demand will keep growing in the summer months.
Nevertheless, it is encouraging that at long last the national and provincial leadership appears to have awakened to the need to deal with the power crisis. A second energy conference has been convened by the prime minister and once again all the provincial chief ministers have been invited. The measures taken at the last round of meetings have somewhat eased the consumers’ torment in many places. Yes, there have been problems, as evidenced by the flouting in Karachi of the ban on supplying CNG to motor vehicles one day a week. Punjab is feeling aggrieved that the other provinces have not acted with as much alacrity to implement the energy-saving measures. However, it is encouraging that there appears to be at least some commitment by all sides to continue with a national response to the energy crisis as opposed to Islamabad issuing orders that the provinces ignore.
US Pressure
In the immediate aftermath of Faisal Shahzad’s arrest in the US, the Obama administration acted to reassure Pakistan that the event was not automatically going to strain ties between the two countries. However, there appears to have been some change in the tone and tenor of comments by American officials over the past couple of days.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned that there will be “severe consequences” for Pakistan if a successful terrorist attack in the US is traced to this country. Meanwhile, unnamed officials have voiced fresh concerns about militancy in Pakistan to The New York Times and The Washington Post. What are we to make of this? First of all, Ms Clinton’s comments are unfortunate and will rekindle suspicions here that America is no real friend of Pakistan. The Shahzad case is cause for serious concern and the possible nexus between American citizenship holders and Pakistan-based militants needs to be investigated thoroughly. But why is America’s top diplomat venturing into hypotheticals and suggesting an intention to visit harm on Pakistan as some sort of possible retribution? It is odd, to say the least. Perhaps Ms Clinton was speaking more to the domestic American audience, some members of which have been critical of the Obama administration’s being ‘soft’ on Pakistan. But her words were heard in Pakistan too and they would not have gone down well.
Curiously, in more or less the same time frame, Gen Petraeus, the head of the US military in this region, spoke to the Council of Foreign Relations after returning from a trip to Pakistan and struck a far more conciliatory tone. When asked if the timing of the Shahzad plot would adversely impact military-to-military cooperation between the US and Pakistan, Gen Petraeus replied: “The attempted New York attack in Times Square, if anything, may strengthen the relationship. In fact, the Pakistani intelligence services, or its police, quite quickly carried out some operations related to this.” So is this a case of the good-cop, bad-cop routine once again being rolled out to get Pakistan to ‘do more’ in the fight against militancy?
If so, it is a bad idea. The Pakistani state is unlikely to respond to threats or inducements on this count. Assistance in relation to the Shahzad case is, both sides appear to agree, being extended by Pakistan. There appears to be some friction, but disagreements are very likely in the course of such investigations. Everything is not a conspiracy; the American side, after all, almost let Shahzad fly out of America. However, the Times Square plot must not be used as a stick to beat Pakistan with. It is the common enemy — the militants — that need to be fought.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned that there will be “severe consequences” for Pakistan if a successful terrorist attack in the US is traced to this country. Meanwhile, unnamed officials have voiced fresh concerns about militancy in Pakistan to The New York Times and The Washington Post. What are we to make of this? First of all, Ms Clinton’s comments are unfortunate and will rekindle suspicions here that America is no real friend of Pakistan. The Shahzad case is cause for serious concern and the possible nexus between American citizenship holders and Pakistan-based militants needs to be investigated thoroughly. But why is America’s top diplomat venturing into hypotheticals and suggesting an intention to visit harm on Pakistan as some sort of possible retribution? It is odd, to say the least. Perhaps Ms Clinton was speaking more to the domestic American audience, some members of which have been critical of the Obama administration’s being ‘soft’ on Pakistan. But her words were heard in Pakistan too and they would not have gone down well.
Curiously, in more or less the same time frame, Gen Petraeus, the head of the US military in this region, spoke to the Council of Foreign Relations after returning from a trip to Pakistan and struck a far more conciliatory tone. When asked if the timing of the Shahzad plot would adversely impact military-to-military cooperation between the US and Pakistan, Gen Petraeus replied: “The attempted New York attack in Times Square, if anything, may strengthen the relationship. In fact, the Pakistani intelligence services, or its police, quite quickly carried out some operations related to this.” So is this a case of the good-cop, bad-cop routine once again being rolled out to get Pakistan to ‘do more’ in the fight against militancy?
If so, it is a bad idea. The Pakistani state is unlikely to respond to threats or inducements on this count. Assistance in relation to the Shahzad case is, both sides appear to agree, being extended by Pakistan. There appears to be some friction, but disagreements are very likely in the course of such investigations. Everything is not a conspiracy; the American side, after all, almost let Shahzad fly out of America. However, the Times Square plot must not be used as a stick to beat Pakistan with. It is the common enemy — the militants — that need to be fought.
Paths of terrorism lead but to Pakistan
The adoption of terrorism tactics can no longer be merely attributed to ignorance, poverty, deprivation or hardship.
Many of our neo-terrorists are schooled and brainwashed beings, with a grudge, or several grudges, imbued with bravado, intent on disrupting what is left of civilised life, with nary a care as to how many complete strangers they either blow to smithereens or maim, or how much they destroy.
Pakistan of course has its daily dose of terrorism, in one form or another. Schools are blown up with regularity in the newly-named K-P province, bodies of men executed by the local Taliban are found, men have their hands chopped off, women are ‘dishonoured’ and our main cities are under siege, bunkered and concreted, awaiting the suicide bomber from up north or from down south in Punjab where they are said to be heavily congregated (for one, Ajmal Kasab).
Unless one of those strange and much despised creatures known as VIPs or often VVIPs are targeted, suicide and other bombings no longer earn headlines in the media. They are now taken as a matter of course.
But apart from terrorism connections within Pakistan, we have those outside Pakistan, the paths of which lead straight into our heartland. The latest New York Times Square failed car bomber is but one of a string of notable Pakistanis who have garnered academic degrees and are not materially down and out in any way. What is it about Pakistan that it manages to produce so many young men who are violence prone, caring neither for their own or other people’s lives? We seriously need to ask ourselves this question.
It was asked and partially answered in the Wall Street Journal of May 3 by Sadanand Dhume under the heading ‘Why Pakistan Produces Jihadists’. He firstly asks: “Why do Pakistan and the Pakistani diaspora churn out such a high proportion of the world’s terrorists?” He cites Mir Aimal Kasi, the CIA shooter, Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Centre bomber, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of 9/11 fame, Omar Saeed Sheikh, the Daniel Pearl kidnapper, and three of the four July 2005 London train bombers as being ‘made in Pakistan’.
He goes on to list a few “whose passage to jihadism passes through” Pakistan — Osama bin Laden himself, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohamed Atta, Richard Reid and his shoe, and John Walker Lindh of the so-called American Taliban. These are not lists to be proud of. Something is radically wrong and heaven alone knows how long it will take to even start to put it right. With the governments and leadership we have suffered and still suffer it is not likely that in the foreseeable future our production line will decrease, let alone cease.
Dhume puts much of it down to the distant past, to the formation of the country when he claims it “was touched by the messianic zeal of pan-Islamism”, with men such as Muhammad Asad (an early ambassador to the UN), Said Ramadan who collaborated with Abul Ala Maududi and with the 1949 establishment by Pakistan of the world’s first transnational Islamic organisation, the World Muslim Congress.
All this possibly may have set the trend — with massive help from Liaquat Ali Khan’s 1949 Objectives Resolution — but it was not until Ziaul Haq, army general and devout worshipper at the altar of his own dangerous brand of Islam, that bigotry and the inevitable violence that must accompany it truly set in. Even the mighty army was tainted, to a certain extent brainwashed by the joys of jihad.
The seal on the full conversion of the Pakistani mind towards militancy was stamped by the support given by Zia to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and then by the adoption of the Taliban by Benazir Bhutto’s second government.
No one, not even the most nationalistic Pakistani, can deny that the country is used as a training ground for terrorists or jihadists or whatever.
It is open knowledge that both the ignorant poor and deprived and the university-educated youth, and even adult men, can come to Pakistan and learn how to make bombs to blow up themselves, if they so wish, and as many others that they can either take with them or leave dead and maimed while they flee.
Can some bright psychologist work out why Faisal Shahzad, a college graduate, son of a Pakistani air force officer, married with two children, was prompted to do what he did on May Day?
Friend I.A. Rehman has written an excellent column, finely tuned and finely balanced, published in this newspaper on May 6 on the subject of anarchy in Pakistan. It sets out many of the acts of government in recent days which come under the heading of anarchy. It should be widely disseminated so that people realise just what their lives are all about under this present dispensation which is at as much a loss with itself as it is with the governance of this unruly country. It is a sad commentary on the seemingly deliberate acts of commission and omission which so relentlessly beset us.
Strangely, the sole anarchic activity he has missed out on is the terrorism and jihad factor. Perhaps he, like so many, is hardened to the fact that it exists, that it has become a way of life and that it seemingly cannot be dealt with by the civilian government we have lurking on the ground, or will not be dealt with, for reasons we can but guess at, by the army that is the de facto ruler of this country for which the world at large has no love lost.
Many of our neo-terrorists are schooled and brainwashed beings, with a grudge, or several grudges, imbued with bravado, intent on disrupting what is left of civilised life, with nary a care as to how many complete strangers they either blow to smithereens or maim, or how much they destroy.
Pakistan of course has its daily dose of terrorism, in one form or another. Schools are blown up with regularity in the newly-named K-P province, bodies of men executed by the local Taliban are found, men have their hands chopped off, women are ‘dishonoured’ and our main cities are under siege, bunkered and concreted, awaiting the suicide bomber from up north or from down south in Punjab where they are said to be heavily congregated (for one, Ajmal Kasab).
Unless one of those strange and much despised creatures known as VIPs or often VVIPs are targeted, suicide and other bombings no longer earn headlines in the media. They are now taken as a matter of course.
But apart from terrorism connections within Pakistan, we have those outside Pakistan, the paths of which lead straight into our heartland. The latest New York Times Square failed car bomber is but one of a string of notable Pakistanis who have garnered academic degrees and are not materially down and out in any way. What is it about Pakistan that it manages to produce so many young men who are violence prone, caring neither for their own or other people’s lives? We seriously need to ask ourselves this question.
It was asked and partially answered in the Wall Street Journal of May 3 by Sadanand Dhume under the heading ‘Why Pakistan Produces Jihadists’. He firstly asks: “Why do Pakistan and the Pakistani diaspora churn out such a high proportion of the world’s terrorists?” He cites Mir Aimal Kasi, the CIA shooter, Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 World Trade Centre bomber, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of 9/11 fame, Omar Saeed Sheikh, the Daniel Pearl kidnapper, and three of the four July 2005 London train bombers as being ‘made in Pakistan’.
He goes on to list a few “whose passage to jihadism passes through” Pakistan — Osama bin Laden himself, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohamed Atta, Richard Reid and his shoe, and John Walker Lindh of the so-called American Taliban. These are not lists to be proud of. Something is radically wrong and heaven alone knows how long it will take to even start to put it right. With the governments and leadership we have suffered and still suffer it is not likely that in the foreseeable future our production line will decrease, let alone cease.
Dhume puts much of it down to the distant past, to the formation of the country when he claims it “was touched by the messianic zeal of pan-Islamism”, with men such as Muhammad Asad (an early ambassador to the UN), Said Ramadan who collaborated with Abul Ala Maududi and with the 1949 establishment by Pakistan of the world’s first transnational Islamic organisation, the World Muslim Congress.
All this possibly may have set the trend — with massive help from Liaquat Ali Khan’s 1949 Objectives Resolution — but it was not until Ziaul Haq, army general and devout worshipper at the altar of his own dangerous brand of Islam, that bigotry and the inevitable violence that must accompany it truly set in. Even the mighty army was tainted, to a certain extent brainwashed by the joys of jihad.
The seal on the full conversion of the Pakistani mind towards militancy was stamped by the support given by Zia to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and then by the adoption of the Taliban by Benazir Bhutto’s second government.
No one, not even the most nationalistic Pakistani, can deny that the country is used as a training ground for terrorists or jihadists or whatever.
It is open knowledge that both the ignorant poor and deprived and the university-educated youth, and even adult men, can come to Pakistan and learn how to make bombs to blow up themselves, if they so wish, and as many others that they can either take with them or leave dead and maimed while they flee.
Can some bright psychologist work out why Faisal Shahzad, a college graduate, son of a Pakistani air force officer, married with two children, was prompted to do what he did on May Day?
Friend I.A. Rehman has written an excellent column, finely tuned and finely balanced, published in this newspaper on May 6 on the subject of anarchy in Pakistan. It sets out many of the acts of government in recent days which come under the heading of anarchy. It should be widely disseminated so that people realise just what their lives are all about under this present dispensation which is at as much a loss with itself as it is with the governance of this unruly country. It is a sad commentary on the seemingly deliberate acts of commission and omission which so relentlessly beset us.
Strangely, the sole anarchic activity he has missed out on is the terrorism and jihad factor. Perhaps he, like so many, is hardened to the fact that it exists, that it has become a way of life and that it seemingly cannot be dealt with by the civilian government we have lurking on the ground, or will not be dealt with, for reasons we can but guess at, by the army that is the de facto ruler of this country for which the world at large has no love lost.
Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s husband breaks his silence after six years
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Claims most reports in the local media are false, suspects his two ‘missing’ children are in Karachi
KARACHI: After six years of silence, Dr Muhammad Amjad Khan, ex-husband of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, has finally spoken up and says that most of the press reports that relate to his former wife as well as his children are false. In an exclusive talk with The News, he said that most claims are being propagated to garner public support and sympathy for Dr Aafia but are one-sided and in most instances untrue.
Dr Aafia Siddiqui, suspected of having links to terrorist organizations, has been charged in a criminal complaint filed in a court of New York on account of attempting to kill US personnel during interrogation and on a charge of assaulting US officers and employees in Kabul, Afghanistan, on July 17, 2008. Subsequently Dr Aafia was imprisoned in Bagram for 18 days before being taken to the US for a trial.
Due to pressure from Aafia Siddiqui’s family, the Pakistan government has been trying to secure her release from the US claiming her to be innocent. Although the US government has guaranteed Aafia the best legal assistance and a fair trial, her family is adamant that she be sent back on grounds that the US authorities have been consistently torturing her for years.
“Aafia’s release cannot be secured by propagating stories based on falsehood and deception,” commented Dr Amjad Khan, in an interview with The News. Dr Amjad, who was married to Dr Aafia for seven years until their divorce in October 2002, said Aafia’s family and supporters should not believe that truth will not be revealed and mere lies will help in securing Aafia’s repatriation.
He added that he is disappointed with the government’s disregard for the law when officials handed over his eldest son, Ahmad, to his aunt Dr Fowzia Siddiqui on his return from Afghanistan last year instead of his legal guardian, his father. “The government made no effort to locate me despite the fact that I am Ahmad’s real and legal guardian. My address in Karachi has not changed for the past 30 years. Ever since I returned from the US after our divorce, I have been living with my family,” he said adding: “Both the Minister for Interior Rehman Malik and Dr Fowzia have been taking credit for obtaining Ahmad’s release even though there was not a stone I left unturned to locate my missing children and obtain their custody according to law.”
Providing documentary proof of the legal agreement between him and Dr Aafia following their divorce, Dr Amjad said that he had been financially supporting his three children Ahmed, Marium and Suleiman until the family stopped accepting the cheques he had been mailing. “After the agreement they accepted my cheques till March 2003. After that my cheques were being returned from Aafia’s home and that got me worried. Soon after I learnt that in April 2003, Aafia and our children had been ‘picked up’ by agencies.” Meanwhile, he received disturbing reports from the family that Aafia chose to leave Karachi with her children as she feared an attack from him.
Curious to locate the whereabouts of his children, Dr Amjad sought the help of the police and government officials to find them. “I was aware of Aafia’s violent personality and extremist views and suspected her involvement in Jihadi activities. My fear later proved to be true when during Uzair Paracha’s trial in the US in 2004, the real purpose of Aafia’s trip to the US (between December 23, 2002 and January 3, 2003) was revealed.”
Elaborating, Dr Amjad disclosed that he later learnt from media reports that Aafia’s family claimed she made this trip to the US for job interviews in December at a time when universities were closed for winter holidays. “I also found it very odd that on the one hand Aafia insisted on leaving the US after September 11, 2001, claiming the country was unsafe for us and our children because the US government was abducting Muslim children, and on the other hand took the risk of travelling to that country again without fearing that she may be captured and may never see our children again.”
While Dr Aafia was in the US, the authorities had been closely watching her, added Amjad. They soon issued the first global “wanted for questioning” alert for the couple in March 2003. “At that time, the agencies did not know we were divorced and I was also unaware of Aafia’s involvement with two other terror suspects, Majid Khan and Ammar Al-Baluchi. They wanted me to persuade Aafia to appear for the interview with them and clear the charges leveled against her just as I had done. That is when she went underground and it later became apparent why she chose to ‘disappear’,” disclosed Dr Amjad.
Sharing details of his unsuccessful marriage with Dr Aafia, Dr Amjad told The News that since their marriage was arranged, he was unaware of Aafia’s violent behaviour. “She got hysterical fits when she became angry and would physically attack me, but I put up with it for the sake of our children.”
Although Amjad and Aafia both were inclined towards religion, he found her opinion towards Jihad to be of an extreme nature that sometimes made him uncomfortable. He became particularly suspicious of his wife’s intentions when soon after the 9/11 attacks, she compelled Amjad to leave Boston (where Amjad was completing his residency) and move to Afghanistan where she claimed “he would be more useful”.
The couple, however, chose to come to Pakistan instead for a vacation and discuss the matter with Amjad’s family. It was here that his parents noticed Aafia’s violent behaviour towards their son on several occasions, particularly when she openly asked for khula (divorce) when Amjad declined to go to Afghanistan. Therefore Amjad decided to file for a divorce as Aafia was adamant she wanted to go. “I tried my best to save our marriage, but divorce was inevitable,” he recalls.
However, after mutual consent, the couple signed a legal agreement whereby the custody of the three minors was given to Aafia, while Amjad was required to pay for their education and maintenance. “Although the agreement says I am permitted to meet my children once a week, I was not allowed to do so,” claimed Amjad sharing a copy of the agreement during the interview.
Based on his past experience, Amjad says he had reason to worry about his children. “I feared Aafia might pursue her political ambitions to the detriment of our children’s welfare so I couldn’t help following her case after her family claimed she had been abducted.” Amjad added that he was tempted to use other means to try and rescue his children in these past five years especially since he had evidence that were missing or kidnapped, he claimed. “But I chose to be patient and pursued the case according to the law.” He also filed a case in court against Aafia to obtain the custody of his children.
“When the Court was unsuccessful, I requested the HRCP to include my children’s names in their missing persons petition in the Supreme Court and also appealed to the Chief Justice for Suo Moto action as this was the only case where three minors were involved.”
However, after Ahmad was released and handed over to Dr Fowzia last year, Dr Amjad requested her to allow him to visit his son, but she refused. “At first she said Ahmed was mentally unfit to talk, and then claimed that he was not my son but an orphan adopted by Aafia and US reports that his DNA matched Aafia’s were also ‘cooked’. I refused to accept any of that as I had identified my son as soon as I saw a report on the electronic media of his arrest in Afghanistan.”
When questioned on what basis was Aafia’s family†denying a meeting with his son, Amjad stated that the family is punishing him for divorcing Aafia. “Aafia’s mother and Dr Fowzia had warned me at the time of our divorce that they would take revenge†by not letting me meet the children,” he said adding “But now they are discouraging a meeting with Ahmad because they fear Ahmad will reveal the truth about Aafia’s activities and whereabouts of his siblings over these years.”
He added that Dr Fowzia had similarly threatened him several years ago by taking a picture of Aafia while she was asleep after she injured her upper lip (by a milk bottle)†in an accident. Dr Fowzia warned Amjad that if he tried to divorce Aafia, she would use the picture against him alleging him to be an abusive husband. “It was made to appear in the picture that Aafia was badly injured. Today, the same picture is being circulated in the media to claim that Aafia was tortured for years in Bagram,” he revealed.†
Furthermore, Amjad listed the several allegations leveled against him over the years to justify his not meeting his children: First they accused him of kidnapping his three children soon after his divorce with Aafia. To deny this accusation, he lodged a complaint against the family with the Sindh Police and requested officials to help him locate his children, but to no avail.
Later, Aafia’s family accused him of being an abusive husband and father preventing the children from meeting their father. “Aafia’s mother has also accused me in the media of changing the children’s names whereas in reality they had resorted to these tactics to conceal the children.”
He alleged that Dr Fowzia also used the Asian Human Rights Commission, an NGO based in Honk Kong, to mislead the government about his two missing children. “The AHRC received the information about my two missing children being in an orphanage in Afghanistan from Dr Fowzia, who was diverting attention away from the place where the children really are.” claimed Amjad.
Earlier, when Aafia’s father died, the family held Amjad responsible for his death too claiming he suffered a stroke after he saw the divorce document. “That is simply not true because I mailed the document two days after Aafia’s father died and that too because I was unaware of the unfortunate incident. Their family never kept me posted on anything in the six-week period between our verbal and written divorce. I was just as shocked at his death.”
Moreover, the family alleged that Aafia was in trouble and had been kidnapped because her former husband (Dr Amjad) handed over her personal diary to the FBI. “After this, false reports about Aafia’s arrest and Pakistani government’s involvement in handing her over to the US despite repeated denials by the Minister of Interior and other officials, started making headlines” claims the doctor, who has now re-married.
It is the whereabouts of his two children ñ Marium now aged 10, and six-year-old Suleiman ñ that worries him now, said Amjad. Like the coordinates of Dr Aafia Siddiqui remained a mystery after she was allegedly ‘picked up’ in March 2003, Dr Amjad believes Aafia’s family may be using the same tactics in the case of his two children, who are reportedly ‘missing’.
“I am sure they are around Karachi and in contact with their maternal family as both Aafia and the children were seen around their house here and in Islamabad on multiple occasions since their alleged disappearance in 2003. They may be living under an assumed identity just like Aafia and Ahmed had been living [as Saliha and Ali Ahsan] for five years before they got arrested,” believes the father. He said Dr Fowzia’s claim that the children are missing after being removed from the Bagram prison in Afghanistan ‘may be an attempt to attract sympathy of the government and the people and distract its attention from the real location.’
Claims most reports in the local media are false, suspects his two ‘missing’ children are in Karachi
KARACHI: After six years of silence, Dr Muhammad Amjad Khan, ex-husband of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, has finally spoken up and says that most of the press reports that relate to his former wife as well as his children are false. In an exclusive talk with The News, he said that most claims are being propagated to garner public support and sympathy for Dr Aafia but are one-sided and in most instances untrue.
Dr Aafia Siddiqui, suspected of having links to terrorist organizations, has been charged in a criminal complaint filed in a court of New York on account of attempting to kill US personnel during interrogation and on a charge of assaulting US officers and employees in Kabul, Afghanistan, on July 17, 2008. Subsequently Dr Aafia was imprisoned in Bagram for 18 days before being taken to the US for a trial.
Due to pressure from Aafia Siddiqui’s family, the Pakistan government has been trying to secure her release from the US claiming her to be innocent. Although the US government has guaranteed Aafia the best legal assistance and a fair trial, her family is adamant that she be sent back on grounds that the US authorities have been consistently torturing her for years.
“Aafia’s release cannot be secured by propagating stories based on falsehood and deception,” commented Dr Amjad Khan, in an interview with The News. Dr Amjad, who was married to Dr Aafia for seven years until their divorce in October 2002, said Aafia’s family and supporters should not believe that truth will not be revealed and mere lies will help in securing Aafia’s repatriation.
He added that he is disappointed with the government’s disregard for the law when officials handed over his eldest son, Ahmad, to his aunt Dr Fowzia Siddiqui on his return from Afghanistan last year instead of his legal guardian, his father. “The government made no effort to locate me despite the fact that I am Ahmad’s real and legal guardian. My address in Karachi has not changed for the past 30 years. Ever since I returned from the US after our divorce, I have been living with my family,” he said adding: “Both the Minister for Interior Rehman Malik and Dr Fowzia have been taking credit for obtaining Ahmad’s release even though there was not a stone I left unturned to locate my missing children and obtain their custody according to law.”
Providing documentary proof of the legal agreement between him and Dr Aafia following their divorce, Dr Amjad said that he had been financially supporting his three children Ahmed, Marium and Suleiman until the family stopped accepting the cheques he had been mailing. “After the agreement they accepted my cheques till March 2003. After that my cheques were being returned from Aafia’s home and that got me worried. Soon after I learnt that in April 2003, Aafia and our children had been ‘picked up’ by agencies.” Meanwhile, he received disturbing reports from the family that Aafia chose to leave Karachi with her children as she feared an attack from him.
Curious to locate the whereabouts of his children, Dr Amjad sought the help of the police and government officials to find them. “I was aware of Aafia’s violent personality and extremist views and suspected her involvement in Jihadi activities. My fear later proved to be true when during Uzair Paracha’s trial in the US in 2004, the real purpose of Aafia’s trip to the US (between December 23, 2002 and January 3, 2003) was revealed.”
Elaborating, Dr Amjad disclosed that he later learnt from media reports that Aafia’s family claimed she made this trip to the US for job interviews in December at a time when universities were closed for winter holidays. “I also found it very odd that on the one hand Aafia insisted on leaving the US after September 11, 2001, claiming the country was unsafe for us and our children because the US government was abducting Muslim children, and on the other hand took the risk of travelling to that country again without fearing that she may be captured and may never see our children again.”
While Dr Aafia was in the US, the authorities had been closely watching her, added Amjad. They soon issued the first global “wanted for questioning” alert for the couple in March 2003. “At that time, the agencies did not know we were divorced and I was also unaware of Aafia’s involvement with two other terror suspects, Majid Khan and Ammar Al-Baluchi. They wanted me to persuade Aafia to appear for the interview with them and clear the charges leveled against her just as I had done. That is when she went underground and it later became apparent why she chose to ‘disappear’,” disclosed Dr Amjad.
Sharing details of his unsuccessful marriage with Dr Aafia, Dr Amjad told The News that since their marriage was arranged, he was unaware of Aafia’s violent behaviour. “She got hysterical fits when she became angry and would physically attack me, but I put up with it for the sake of our children.”
Although Amjad and Aafia both were inclined towards religion, he found her opinion towards Jihad to be of an extreme nature that sometimes made him uncomfortable. He became particularly suspicious of his wife’s intentions when soon after the 9/11 attacks, she compelled Amjad to leave Boston (where Amjad was completing his residency) and move to Afghanistan where she claimed “he would be more useful”.
The couple, however, chose to come to Pakistan instead for a vacation and discuss the matter with Amjad’s family. It was here that his parents noticed Aafia’s violent behaviour towards their son on several occasions, particularly when she openly asked for khula (divorce) when Amjad declined to go to Afghanistan. Therefore Amjad decided to file for a divorce as Aafia was adamant she wanted to go. “I tried my best to save our marriage, but divorce was inevitable,” he recalls.
However, after mutual consent, the couple signed a legal agreement whereby the custody of the three minors was given to Aafia, while Amjad was required to pay for their education and maintenance. “Although the agreement says I am permitted to meet my children once a week, I was not allowed to do so,” claimed Amjad sharing a copy of the agreement during the interview.
Based on his past experience, Amjad says he had reason to worry about his children. “I feared Aafia might pursue her political ambitions to the detriment of our children’s welfare so I couldn’t help following her case after her family claimed she had been abducted.” Amjad added that he was tempted to use other means to try and rescue his children in these past five years especially since he had evidence that were missing or kidnapped, he claimed. “But I chose to be patient and pursued the case according to the law.” He also filed a case in court against Aafia to obtain the custody of his children.
“When the Court was unsuccessful, I requested the HRCP to include my children’s names in their missing persons petition in the Supreme Court and also appealed to the Chief Justice for Suo Moto action as this was the only case where three minors were involved.”
However, after Ahmad was released and handed over to Dr Fowzia last year, Dr Amjad requested her to allow him to visit his son, but she refused. “At first she said Ahmed was mentally unfit to talk, and then claimed that he was not my son but an orphan adopted by Aafia and US reports that his DNA matched Aafia’s were also ‘cooked’. I refused to accept any of that as I had identified my son as soon as I saw a report on the electronic media of his arrest in Afghanistan.”
When questioned on what basis was Aafia’s family†denying a meeting with his son, Amjad stated that the family is punishing him for divorcing Aafia. “Aafia’s mother and Dr Fowzia had warned me at the time of our divorce that they would take revenge†by not letting me meet the children,” he said adding “But now they are discouraging a meeting with Ahmad because they fear Ahmad will reveal the truth about Aafia’s activities and whereabouts of his siblings over these years.”
He added that Dr Fowzia had similarly threatened him several years ago by taking a picture of Aafia while she was asleep after she injured her upper lip (by a milk bottle)†in an accident. Dr Fowzia warned Amjad that if he tried to divorce Aafia, she would use the picture against him alleging him to be an abusive husband. “It was made to appear in the picture that Aafia was badly injured. Today, the same picture is being circulated in the media to claim that Aafia was tortured for years in Bagram,” he revealed.†
Furthermore, Amjad listed the several allegations leveled against him over the years to justify his not meeting his children: First they accused him of kidnapping his three children soon after his divorce with Aafia. To deny this accusation, he lodged a complaint against the family with the Sindh Police and requested officials to help him locate his children, but to no avail.
Later, Aafia’s family accused him of being an abusive husband and father preventing the children from meeting their father. “Aafia’s mother has also accused me in the media of changing the children’s names whereas in reality they had resorted to these tactics to conceal the children.”
He alleged that Dr Fowzia also used the Asian Human Rights Commission, an NGO based in Honk Kong, to mislead the government about his two missing children. “The AHRC received the information about my two missing children being in an orphanage in Afghanistan from Dr Fowzia, who was diverting attention away from the place where the children really are.” claimed Amjad.
Earlier, when Aafia’s father died, the family held Amjad responsible for his death too claiming he suffered a stroke after he saw the divorce document. “That is simply not true because I mailed the document two days after Aafia’s father died and that too because I was unaware of the unfortunate incident. Their family never kept me posted on anything in the six-week period between our verbal and written divorce. I was just as shocked at his death.”
Moreover, the family alleged that Aafia was in trouble and had been kidnapped because her former husband (Dr Amjad) handed over her personal diary to the FBI. “After this, false reports about Aafia’s arrest and Pakistani government’s involvement in handing her over to the US despite repeated denials by the Minister of Interior and other officials, started making headlines” claims the doctor, who has now re-married.
It is the whereabouts of his two children ñ Marium now aged 10, and six-year-old Suleiman ñ that worries him now, said Amjad. Like the coordinates of Dr Aafia Siddiqui remained a mystery after she was allegedly ‘picked up’ in March 2003, Dr Amjad believes Aafia’s family may be using the same tactics in the case of his two children, who are reportedly ‘missing’.
“I am sure they are around Karachi and in contact with their maternal family as both Aafia and the children were seen around their house here and in Islamabad on multiple occasions since their alleged disappearance in 2003. They may be living under an assumed identity just like Aafia and Ahmed had been living [as Saliha and Ali Ahsan] for five years before they got arrested,” believes the father. He said Dr Fowzia’s claim that the children are missing after being removed from the Bagram prison in Afghanistan ‘may be an attempt to attract sympathy of the government and the people and distract its attention from the real location.’
Article 248
As per Article 248(2), if the president and governors cannot be brought to justice for criminal conduct while in office, then are there any other legal mechanisms available to hold them accountable if they commit a serious crime while in office? If not, why not? How must one interpret this article if the president, for example, intentionally and unjustifiably kills a person? Should he still be afforded the immunity granted by Article 248? How can the legal system hold him or her accountable in the face of serious crimes? Where should the line be drawn? How should the rights of a victim of a crime be protected if the crime is perpetrated by the president? Are there any conflicts between the language of Article 248(2) and the basic constitutional rights of a victim who wants to hold the perpetrator accountable? It is also interesting to note the article, for some reasons, does not adorn the prime minister’s cap with a feather of such extraordinary protection.
In Pictures: CIA Hosts Drink and Dance Party For Pakistani Journalists at US Embassy Islamabad
Shaukat Paracha, Asma Shirazi, Meher Bukhari, Saima Mohsin are some of the names that were in attendance, in a Drink & Dance party hosted by the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W Patterson.
Politics and Counterterrorism? Gimme a Break!
The upcoming issue of The New York Times Magazine has a piece by Peter Baker on John Brennan and Obama’s counterterrorism strategy. The article draws comparisons between George W. Bush’s “war on terror” and Obama’s strategy for eliminating Al-Qaida. Baker points out that a significant portion of Obama’s counterterrorism team are Bush-era officials (Gates, Mullin, Brennan, and Leiter among others), and in many respects Obama has continued Bush’s policies, including increasing the number of Predator and Reaper drone attacks in Pakistan (more on this later).
For me some of the most interesting aspects of the article concerned the political implications that counterterrorism decision-making carries with it. Matt Yglesias already touched on this subject some in a valuable way. Baker reports that several senior Bush counterterrorism officials were happy with the continuity between the strategies of the two administrations. However they were reluctant to say so on record fearing that it would “make Dick Cheney mad and they’re timid, gutless careerists,” as Yglesias put it. Likewise, the Obama administration likes to claim it has made significant shifts from Bush’s counterterrorism strategy, while in reality it is more or less the same. So sadly, yes, politics extends to even the most important issues of security and terrorism and neither side is innocent.
One other thing the article pointed out relating to the politics of counterterrorism was the issue of holding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s trial in New York City. Rahm Emanuel was worried that holding the trail in New York as Attorney General Eric Holder suggested would cause a firestorm of criticism, and squander the president’s political capital. It was nice to read that despite Emanuel’s correct warnings, Obama declined to intervene in Holder’s decision. The administration is certainly suffering a political backlash, only time (and the verdict) will tell whether it was the right decision or not.
Another interesting thing that came to my attention was the problem posed by the sheer volume of information that the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) must process everyday. The recent development of homegrown terrorists becoming a threat to our national security makes the process of thwarting 100% of all terrorist attacks more complex for the administration. John Brennan and others in the intelligence community have been defending themselves from the onslaught of criticism directed at them since the failed Christmas-day attack by citing the ever-growing amount of information that must be processed. This sounds like a job for Google to me. Some type of filtration system that can separate serious strategic threats from irrelevant ones is needed. Hopefully investment in some such program or system is forthcoming.
Sadly I think it will be nearly impossible for the US (or any host of countries for that matter) to eliminate terrorists and extremists around the world. The sooner we update our counterterrorism strategy and infrastructure the closer we will come to achieving this goal. President Obama is getting briefed on how to do exactly that this afternoon. I am confident he, Brennan, and the rest of the counterterrorism team are working assiduously to correct the problem, and that they are some of the most well-qualified people to do this. Some of the criticism from outside the administration and infighting within it is misguided, unconstructive, and only plays into the terrorists’ strategy. Let’s use this failed bombing attempt to update our security systems and move forward united, and better prepared to defend ourselves from terrorists.
For me some of the most interesting aspects of the article concerned the political implications that counterterrorism decision-making carries with it. Matt Yglesias already touched on this subject some in a valuable way. Baker reports that several senior Bush counterterrorism officials were happy with the continuity between the strategies of the two administrations. However they were reluctant to say so on record fearing that it would “make Dick Cheney mad and they’re timid, gutless careerists,” as Yglesias put it. Likewise, the Obama administration likes to claim it has made significant shifts from Bush’s counterterrorism strategy, while in reality it is more or less the same. So sadly, yes, politics extends to even the most important issues of security and terrorism and neither side is innocent.
One other thing the article pointed out relating to the politics of counterterrorism was the issue of holding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s trial in New York City. Rahm Emanuel was worried that holding the trail in New York as Attorney General Eric Holder suggested would cause a firestorm of criticism, and squander the president’s political capital. It was nice to read that despite Emanuel’s correct warnings, Obama declined to intervene in Holder’s decision. The administration is certainly suffering a political backlash, only time (and the verdict) will tell whether it was the right decision or not.
Another interesting thing that came to my attention was the problem posed by the sheer volume of information that the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) must process everyday. The recent development of homegrown terrorists becoming a threat to our national security makes the process of thwarting 100% of all terrorist attacks more complex for the administration. John Brennan and others in the intelligence community have been defending themselves from the onslaught of criticism directed at them since the failed Christmas-day attack by citing the ever-growing amount of information that must be processed. This sounds like a job for Google to me. Some type of filtration system that can separate serious strategic threats from irrelevant ones is needed. Hopefully investment in some such program or system is forthcoming.
Sadly I think it will be nearly impossible for the US (or any host of countries for that matter) to eliminate terrorists and extremists around the world. The sooner we update our counterterrorism strategy and infrastructure the closer we will come to achieving this goal. President Obama is getting briefed on how to do exactly that this afternoon. I am confident he, Brennan, and the rest of the counterterrorism team are working assiduously to correct the problem, and that they are some of the most well-qualified people to do this. Some of the criticism from outside the administration and infighting within it is misguided, unconstructive, and only plays into the terrorists’ strategy. Let’s use this failed bombing attempt to update our security systems and move forward united, and better prepared to defend ourselves from terrorists.
Underestimating Our Afghan Summer?
Most of you are aware that in what will probably go down as the most important foreign policy decision of his first term, President Obama ordered the doubling of our troop presence in Afghanistan. As one who is generally skeptical of an interventionist foreign policy, I’ll admit that I find the rationale behind this “doubling down” far more compelling than many of our other military misadventures (Iraq?). A couple major arguments for increased involvement in Afghanistan:
1. The guys who attacked us on 9/11, while not born and raised in Afghanistan, relied heavily on the safe haven the Taliban provided for fundraising, training, planning, and organizing.
2. The Taliban is, by any humane standards, a brutally repressive regime; especially so with regards to women. The other day a video leaked out of a young Pakistani woman being publicly whipped for the crime of having a man to her home who was not part of her family. Those who prosecuted her under Sharia law said that she could have been executed and claimed that, if anything, they were being lenient. Here’s a link to the video: Taliban Video Shows Teen Girl Beaten for ‘Adultery’
3. The Taliban is back on the rise in Afghanistan and the Karzai government is widely seen as ineffectual outside of Kabul.
4. The number of troops we have there now is universally seen as insufficient. Our military’s movements in most key areas are limited to the extent that soldiers rarely go far from their bases.
5. The terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan has overflown into large swaths of Pakistan’s tribal region, destabilizing it greatly and ruining the tourism driven economy the SWAT valley used to enjoy. Worst of all, Pakistan’s own military has proven either unwilling or unable to staunch the bleeding. Everyday the Taliban’s influence creeps closer to Islamabad.
6. Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal.
Comparing such imperative threats to the thread of bad intelligence our government used to link 9/11 to Iraq and launch a massive invasion, makes it clear that, for once, we may have a war of necessity on our hands. Maybe war is never justified, but some wars are certainly more justified than others.
Such has been my thinking on the prospect of a renewed campaign in Afghanistan: It’s going to be tough, it’s going to be expensive, and there’s no guarantee of success. But at least we have some solid reasons to be there. At least an honest debate on the merits of more or less involvement seems warranted.
Well, a couple days ago I read an excellent article which contained firsthand account of a firefight in the region as well as some eye-opening specifics on what we can expect from Afghanistan as the fighting ramps up this summer. While it does an excellent job of highlighting the huge strides that could be made if the massive poppy industry (which bankrolls the Taliban) can be shutdown, it is also a sobering reminder of the worst-case scenario: a protracted and bloody, conflict with heavy U.S. and civilian casualties
1. The guys who attacked us on 9/11, while not born and raised in Afghanistan, relied heavily on the safe haven the Taliban provided for fundraising, training, planning, and organizing.
2. The Taliban is, by any humane standards, a brutally repressive regime; especially so with regards to women. The other day a video leaked out of a young Pakistani woman being publicly whipped for the crime of having a man to her home who was not part of her family. Those who prosecuted her under Sharia law said that she could have been executed and claimed that, if anything, they were being lenient. Here’s a link to the video: Taliban Video Shows Teen Girl Beaten for ‘Adultery’
3. The Taliban is back on the rise in Afghanistan and the Karzai government is widely seen as ineffectual outside of Kabul.
4. The number of troops we have there now is universally seen as insufficient. Our military’s movements in most key areas are limited to the extent that soldiers rarely go far from their bases.
5. The terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan has overflown into large swaths of Pakistan’s tribal region, destabilizing it greatly and ruining the tourism driven economy the SWAT valley used to enjoy. Worst of all, Pakistan’s own military has proven either unwilling or unable to staunch the bleeding. Everyday the Taliban’s influence creeps closer to Islamabad.
6. Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal.
Comparing such imperative threats to the thread of bad intelligence our government used to link 9/11 to Iraq and launch a massive invasion, makes it clear that, for once, we may have a war of necessity on our hands. Maybe war is never justified, but some wars are certainly more justified than others.
Such has been my thinking on the prospect of a renewed campaign in Afghanistan: It’s going to be tough, it’s going to be expensive, and there’s no guarantee of success. But at least we have some solid reasons to be there. At least an honest debate on the merits of more or less involvement seems warranted.
Well, a couple days ago I read an excellent article which contained firsthand account of a firefight in the region as well as some eye-opening specifics on what we can expect from Afghanistan as the fighting ramps up this summer. While it does an excellent job of highlighting the huge strides that could be made if the massive poppy industry (which bankrolls the Taliban) can be shutdown, it is also a sobering reminder of the worst-case scenario: a protracted and bloody, conflict with heavy U.S. and civilian casualties
Burj Khalifa in Dubai
World’s highest substation from ABB powers world’s tallest building.
2010-01-07 - A host of ABB products and solutions are improving energy efficiency and offering electrical stability in the world-famous Burj Khalifa - an iconic building in the UAE that has the power needs of a small town.
At 828 meters high, the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa, was officially inaugurated on January 4th, 2010. In addition to being an architectural and structural engineering feat, Burj Khalifa also presented many electrical engineering challenges. Recognizing ABB’s ability to meet these unique challenges, the developer, Emaar Properties, selected ABB to provide custom solutions for delivering energy efficiency and reliable and safe power to apartments and offices on all occupied floors.
Upon receiving the challenge from Emaar Properties and Hyder Consulting, ABB designers and engineers began working on a one-of-a-kind distribution substation solution that would be able to control and distribute power throughout the 5-million square-foot building.
The distribution substation and control equipment that ABB custom-engineered for the building are sitting on the 155th floor. The world's highest substation ensures reliable, safe power to everything from lighting and elevators to the ventilation, heating and air conditioning system.
"ABB's local presence coupled with our high quality products and service that the brand stands for were the key factors in securing this landmark project,” says Elias Rizk, head of the construction unit for ABB in the UAE.
As part of the project, ABB delivered 50 lightweight gas-insulated medium voltage switchgears, which offer a space-saving design that is easy to service. ABB has also supplied 72 Resibloc dry-type transformers, specially designed for the tower with a flexible enclosure to fit in a tight space.
Additionally, ABB supplied 37 TTA low-voltage main distribution boards, other low-voltage panels and a host of low-voltage variable speed drives, which increase energy efficiency by regulating air-handling units, booster pumps, water pumps and air fans in the tower. ABB’s variable speed drives enable motors to run efficiently at optimal speed as and when required, instead of running constantly at fixed speed or stopping and starting as the demand for power varies.
ABB's low voltage main distribution board and transformers power the world’s tallest building Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab EmiratesEmaar Properties needed a solution that was space-saving and compact with state-of the-art products and control, along with strong local service support - and that was exactly what ABB was able to deliver.
Elias Rizk, head of the construction unit for ABB in the UAE commented, “The customer and the consultant were clear that this was a prestigious project for the UAE and therefore they wanted to work with a well-reputed company that was available locally to collaborate with them on a one-of-a-kind electrification solution. They were also keen on making the building as energy-efficient as possible. Our local presence coupled with ABB’s high quality products and service that the brand stands for were the key factors in securing this landmark project
2010-01-07 - A host of ABB products and solutions are improving energy efficiency and offering electrical stability in the world-famous Burj Khalifa - an iconic building in the UAE that has the power needs of a small town.
At 828 meters high, the world’s tallest building, Burj Khalifa, was officially inaugurated on January 4th, 2010. In addition to being an architectural and structural engineering feat, Burj Khalifa also presented many electrical engineering challenges. Recognizing ABB’s ability to meet these unique challenges, the developer, Emaar Properties, selected ABB to provide custom solutions for delivering energy efficiency and reliable and safe power to apartments and offices on all occupied floors.
Upon receiving the challenge from Emaar Properties and Hyder Consulting, ABB designers and engineers began working on a one-of-a-kind distribution substation solution that would be able to control and distribute power throughout the 5-million square-foot building.
The distribution substation and control equipment that ABB custom-engineered for the building are sitting on the 155th floor. The world's highest substation ensures reliable, safe power to everything from lighting and elevators to the ventilation, heating and air conditioning system.
"ABB's local presence coupled with our high quality products and service that the brand stands for were the key factors in securing this landmark project,” says Elias Rizk, head of the construction unit for ABB in the UAE.
As part of the project, ABB delivered 50 lightweight gas-insulated medium voltage switchgears, which offer a space-saving design that is easy to service. ABB has also supplied 72 Resibloc dry-type transformers, specially designed for the tower with a flexible enclosure to fit in a tight space.
Additionally, ABB supplied 37 TTA low-voltage main distribution boards, other low-voltage panels and a host of low-voltage variable speed drives, which increase energy efficiency by regulating air-handling units, booster pumps, water pumps and air fans in the tower. ABB’s variable speed drives enable motors to run efficiently at optimal speed as and when required, instead of running constantly at fixed speed or stopping and starting as the demand for power varies.
ABB's low voltage main distribution board and transformers power the world’s tallest building Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab EmiratesEmaar Properties needed a solution that was space-saving and compact with state-of the-art products and control, along with strong local service support - and that was exactly what ABB was able to deliver.
Elias Rizk, head of the construction unit for ABB in the UAE commented, “The customer and the consultant were clear that this was a prestigious project for the UAE and therefore they wanted to work with a well-reputed company that was available locally to collaborate with them on a one-of-a-kind electrification solution. They were also keen on making the building as energy-efficient as possible. Our local presence coupled with ABB’s high quality products and service that the brand stands for were the key factors in securing this landmark project
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)











