Showing posts with label Freedom of Information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom of Information. Show all posts

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Bill de Blasio denies email FOIL request pertaining to City Hall's effort to spring Bishop Findlayter from jail

Is Mayor Bill de Blasio obstructing press FOIL requests into City Hall Biship Findlayter correspondence ?

When The Wall Street Journal first published an exclusive report about the de Blasio administration's efforts to spring one of the mayor's political supporters out of jail, the newspaper reported that the "mayor's office sent emails to the NYPD officials" involved in the arrest of Bishop Orlando Findlayter. Now, City Hall claims that no email communication exists pertaining to efforts to bust the mayor's supporter out of jail.

Mayor de Blasio had previously told the City Hall press corps that it was his aide, Emma Wolfe, who first alerted him to Bishop Findlayter’s arrest, The New York Daily News reported.

"Neither the mayor nor his office have ever questioned the veracity of the paper’s original report," The New York Observer reported. But after The New York Observer filed an "extensive" request under Freedom of Information Law, Ian Bassin, who is City Hall’s Records Access Officer, replied to the FOIL request by saying that there were no "responsive records."

The FOIL requests may be being denied to avoid further criticism of City Hall over the Findlayter scandal. The original article published by The Wall Street Journal "sparked days of tabloid headlines and charges of two standards of justice in the new administration," The New York Observer reported. Ever since charter schools executive Eva Moskowitz mounted a multi-million TV attack ad campaign against Mayor de Blasio, City Hall has been going to great lengths to avoid any bad publicity.

Friday, February 14, 2014

NYPD Rejects Freedom of Information Request for Freedom of Information Handbook

From Obama to de Blasio, Democratic administrations block freedom of information

No surprise. Citizens can be duped more easily if they are kept ignorant of the true workings of their own government. It's sad to see this, but that's where things are headed. The lazy mainstream media, the one with the resources, need to challenge this, but that would mean that they would have to actually call out what is happening : a deliberate subversion of the truth. You won't see The New York Times do shit, though. Like Goldilocks trying out chairs, it took three articles spread out over three days (first)(second)(third) for them to finally do a decent reporting on the bishop being busted out of jail for free story, and that was only after every major daily (and the AP wire) had out-reported The NYTimes. There was once a time when I used to think of The NYTimes as the "Bible" of journalism. There are some times when they are spot on, but more and more each edition seems like the apocryphal texts of journalism.

As much as I have pushed "progressive" LGBT activists to speak out on other betrayals by the new administration, I'm now resigned to see how many LGBT activists sweep this one under the rug, too. There was once a time in New York when LGBT activists were on the forefront of pushing forth new progressive achievements. That was back then.

In an era when the media refuses to "vet" politicians for the truth, we only have activists to rely upon, and perhaps good government groups. But the way that the New York Civil Liberties Union has retreated from holding the NYPD accountable, who is left to apply pressure politics to government officials, forcing them to adopt a truly progressive reform agenda ?

LGBT activists fought so hard to come out of the closet, but now they feel so right at home locked up in the veal pen.

Although a lawsuit connected to the 2003 anti-war protest was settled, police abuses later continued against Occupy Wall Street demonstrators. What do "settlements" mean, if there is on-going compliance or oversight of the NYPD when it comes to broader constitutional rights and civil liberties reforms ?


  • RELATED : MuckRock Podcast : FOIA By Numbers

Monday, February 10, 2014

Rep. Joseph Crowley asks DOJ to release information regarding vindictive prosecution of Lt. Daniel Choi

New York Congressman presses Department of Justice to answer Freedom of Information Act request

U.S. Representative Joseph Crowley (D-NY) wrote a letter to the staff of the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting that the agency answer a Freedom of Information Act request submitted last year.

The FOIA request was submitted on 30 April 2013 to obtain information about the Department of Justice's policy of aggressively prosecuting activists. One activist in particular, Lt. Daniel Choi, who led the charge to over turn the military's discriminatory policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," was the target of a "vindictive prosecution," according to a court finding. A pattern of others being targeted for their activism shows that some federal prosecutors may be overreaching in a deliberate campaign to punish activists.

Lt. Choi's circumstances very visibly highlight questions about why the government chose to press federal charges against one of the nation's most visible LGBT civil rights activists. Lt. Choi's activism, sometimes involving direct action, was undertaken to end the military's discrimination against gays and lesbians in the U.S. Armed Forces. After the U.S. Congress acknowledged the harmful discrimination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and repealed the policy, and after President Barack Obama signed the repeal into law, the government still prosecuted Lt. Choi as if he were a criminal, even though his activism was undertaken solely to advance social justice. Rep. Crowley's crucial letter to the Department of Justice comes as the FOIA request remains pending over nine months after its initial, formal filing. In December, the law firm of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP filed an appeal in support of the FOIA request after it had become apparent that the Department of Justice had constructively denied the FOIA request by refusing to provide any response.

2014-02-10 Rep Joseph Crowley Letter to DOJ - Lt Dan Choi FOIA Request by Connaissable

Here is the appeal filed in December by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP :

2013-12-06 Lt Daniel Choi FOIA Appeal - Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP - Flores Louis by Connaissable

And here is the original FOIA request, formally filed last April :

2013-04-30 Lt Daniel Choi DOJ FOIA Request Louis Flores by Connaissable

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Letters to U.S. Senators, requesting assistance in Lt. Daniel Choi's FOIA Request

Today, I sent a letter to Senators John Cornyn and Al Franken regarding their investigation into the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the government's aggressive prosecution of the late Internet activist, Aaron Swartz. I mentioned the pending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that is pending in the government's vindictive prosecution case against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal hero, Lt. Daniel Choi. I asked the Hon. Senators if there was a way that we could work together on these matters.

2014-01-15 Lt Daniel Choi FOIA Request - Senator John Cornyn - Al Franken (Fax and Confirmation)

Separately, I sent another letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asking him for his support on these matters.

2014-01-15 Lt Daniel Choi FOIA Request - Senator Harry Reid (Fax and Confirmation)

If I receive any responses, I'll provide another update.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

NYPD Sends Subpoena To Reporter, Reporter Fired, NYPD Ticket Fixing, Other Free Press Updates

The First Amendment On The Ropes

''In what The New York Times described as a 'broadly worded, five-page subpoena,' New York City lawyers are demanding that former Village Voice reporter Graham Rayman turn over tape recordings police officer Adrian Schoolcraft made of his superiors at the NYPD’s 81st precinct in Brooklyn," Time magazine is reporting, adding, "The tapes were the basis for Rayman’s book, The NYPD Tapes, which alleges officers manipulated crime data in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in Brooklyn."

It's questionable why city lawyers are infringing on Mr. Rayman's free press protections under the First Amendment, and many are concerned that the NYPD is trying to harass Mr. Rayman in retribution for Mr. Rayman's exposé of police corruption. Because of the legal wrangling with the city, one activist, Suzannah B. Troy, wondered whether the litigation was an excuse used by the new owners of the Village Voice to lay-off Mr. Rayman.

Investigating the NYPD of corruption is something that rarely happens. Many have called for a federal commission to come in and investigate the New York City police force. After many unfounded shootings of innocent people, no police ever gets convicted. One recent scandal, a massive, illegal operation involving ticket-fixing, has only resulted in one officer losing his job.

Aside from the subpoena served on Mr. Rayman, the NYPD has also tried to harass Mr. Schoolcraft. A judge ruled that Mr. Schoolcraft can't be hit by a countersuit from his former supervisor. At every step of the way, the NYPD are trying to suppress any corruption investigation of its police officers.

The duplicity of NYPD, tasked with enforcing the law, but which now is acting to suppress a free press, somewhat parallels the duplicity of the Obama administration. At the same time when President Obama is secretly obtaining the phone records of Associated Press reporters, in an effort to suppress a rigorous free press from investigating his administration, Vice President Joe Biden registered complaints with Chinese government officials over hacking and other threats against foreign journalists. Give me a break.

All of this is taking place against a backdrop where New York City officials and the Obama administration refuse to comply with freedom of information requests.

The very idea of a republic implies rights conveyed to citizens to meet and consult one another, and to petition their government, if they so choose. How can citizens exercise their rights to free speech, to assemble, and to petition, when the government restricts, delays, or prevents the sharing of information necessary for our citizen activities ? Our guarantees to free speech are being diminished, shortened, and restricted by conditions created by harassing reporters, retaliating against whistleblowers, and denying freedom of information requests.


A Fox News reporter will not have to divulge the confidential sources who provided information for her story on the 2012 mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater, New York's highest court ruled on Tuesday. (Reporter Allowed to Keep Sources Secret in Colorado Theater Shooting * The New York Times)

(Updated : Friday 13 Dec 2013 19:48)

Saturday, December 7, 2013

FOIA Appeal Update Regarding the DOJ's ''vindictive prosecution'' of Lt. Daniel Choi

FOIA Appeal asks if the "DOJ is taking an uncooperative stance"

Yesterday, the law firm of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP filed an appeal with the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting that the DOJ respond to this appeal within 20 business days. This appeal was filed following the constructive denial by the DOJ to the Freedom of Information Act request, dated April 30, 2013, seeking various categories of "records pertaining to the prosecution of Lt. Daniel Choi."

Scribd Link to FOIA Appeal : 2013-12-06 Lt Daniel Choi FOIA Appeal - Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP - Flores Louis

According to the appeal, the DOJ presents the notion that it refuses to comply with the FOIA request. "[T]he DOJ has done nothing at all to respond to the Request other than to tell Mr. Flores that, due to the agency's own internal limitations on resources and staff, it is having difficulty processing the numerous FOIA requests that the DOJ receives. Such an excuse is not an acceptable one under the FOIA, and the DOJ is not permitted to avoid its FOIA obligations due to an internal burden of its own making," noting that, "Given the DOJ's conduct in connection with the Request, we are left with the impression that the DOJ is taking an uncooperative stance, is not exercising due diligence in responding to the Request, or both."

Scribd Link to Original FOIA Request : 2013-04-30 Lt Daniel Choi DOJ FOIA Request Louis Flores

Prior YouTube Video Links :

Lt. Choi was the visible hero in the activism campaign to build public pressure on the federal government to repeal the U.S. military's former discriminatory policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Federal prosecutors have been engaged in a "vindictive prosecution" of Lt. Choi, even though Lt. Choi was merely employing activism for social justice to end discrimination, which the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama later rightly acknowledged by repealing DADT.

The FOIA appeal is being handled by a team of lawyers, including Thomas Golden, a partner at Willkie Farr, who has a remarkable record on FOIA matters. As outside counsel to Bloomberg LP, Mr. Golden successfully litigated a FOIA case against the Federal Reserve a few years back, demanding an "unprecedented level of detail about its discount window lending during the financial crisis."

See : Fed's Court-Ordered Transparency Shows Americans ''Have a Right to Know''

See Also : Fed's Once-Secret Data Compiled by Bloomberg Released to Public

The DOJ's response is due before mid-January. As soon as I have an update, I will share that information with you. All information and records obtained from this FOIA request and appeal will be publicly posted on Scribd for everybody to access. If you support free information, the importance of upholding FOIA, the activism of Lt. Choi, and the work of bloggers, please share the link to the FOIA appeal on social media.

2013-12-06 Lt Daniel Choi FOIA Appeal - Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP - Flores Louis by Connaissable

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Obama Administration Denying FOIA Request Violates Free Speech

See New Advisory : FOIA Appeal Update Regarding the DOJ's ''vindictive prosecution'' of Lt. Daniel Choi (7 Dec 2013)

Free Speech Implications of DOJ Denying FOIA Request on Lt. Daniel Choi

As of today, I've not yet received any written response from the Department of Justice to the request filed under the Freedom of Information Act. The request, dated April 30, 2013, requested information pertaining to the government's vindictive prosecution of "Don't Act, Don't Tell" repeal hero, Lt. Daniel Choi.

Speech critical of the government, for example, political speech, is a freedom provided as a protection in the First Amendment. The First Amendment also includes a right to peacefully assemble and a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These rights are protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights. These are guarantees made to us by the U.S. government.

The very idea of a republic implies rights conveyed to citizens to meet and consult one another, and to petition their government, if they so choose. How can citizens exercise their rights to free speech, to assemble, and to petition, when the government restricts, delays, or prevents the sharing of information necessary for our citizen activities ? Our guarantees to free speech are being diminished, shortened, and constricted by conditions created by denying Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Separate from any rights under freedom of the press, afforded to me as a blogger, there originates my right to free speech as a citizen. How can one review, consult, and comment on the functions and actions of one's own government, if one is denied information ?

Refusing to honor FOIA requests prevents us from forming complete thoughts and speech, in this case, speech that may be critical of the government. Denying FOIA requests denies citizens their rights to freely and completely speak, to fully consult with other citizens, to peacefully and meaningfully assemble, and to petition the government, if necessary, for a redress of grievances. Thwarting information violates our rights, protections, and guarantees, in accordance with the design of our republic. This is what is at stake when the government refuses to honor requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The implications of restricting information to the detriment of our right to free speech, are not limited to me or to the readers of this blog, but to every citizen.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Anonymous - Message to America

Hello all of America. Hello Mister president. We are Anonymous. Dear Mister president, We would like to ask you, are you happy with what you have allowed the United States to become? The entire country a war machine, people rising in protest against you, and the city governments allowing the brutal beatings and arresting of citizens across America. By allowing this to happen you are a disgrace to the office of presidency. You mister president, you need ought rightfully to set your political career aside and focus on the city streets of your own country. So far you have done nothing about the thousands of people arrested in the streets for exorcising their first amendment rights. Stop and listen to the people you took an oath to uphold, stop treating the people of America like terrorists with the building of FEMA camps to imprison all who stand up against political control. You Mister President are a failure to America.

Citizens of the United States. The corporations that profit from permanent war need us to be afraid. Fear stops us from objecting to government spending on a bloated military. Fear means we will not ask unpleasant questions of those in power. Fear permits the government to operate in secret. Fear means we are willing to give up our rights and liberties for promises of security. The imposition of fear ensures that the corporations that wrecked the country cannot be challenged. Fear keeps us penned in like livestock.

And yet, Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. We alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. We alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government.

It is for this reason that our constitution was written. America, and the world at large is becoming informed and in turn preparing. Soon, We the people will no longer stand by in silent consent. This is a call to every citizen, this is a message to all of government.

Knowledge is free. We are anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

FBI OWS Documents

On Page 61, redacted notes show that a sniper was being planned to take out leadership of OWS protesters in Houston, Texas. It is unclear who was planning the sniper attacks.

FBI Occupy Wall Street "OWS" Documents

On 22 November 2011, the FBI lied when it said that it had no documents on the Occupy Wall Street protests : FBI Claims It Does Not Have Any Documents on Occupy Wall Street (Truthout)

Sunday, December 16, 2012

U.S. Demands to Assassinate Assange

High-level U.S. government officials, including Clinton and Biden, demand for the assassination of Assange and to list WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization. In this country, do we prosecute whistleblowers ?

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Cuomo's Obsession With Secrecy

Governor Andrew "Control Queen" Cuomo

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is removing government records from the State Archives, and he is even going to so far as to destroying electronic records and denying public access to government information.

"The governor’s aides have also tried to withhold, possibly for decades, public documents created during his previous job as attorney general. Earlier this year, according to recent reports, his staff scrambled to deny public access to some documents in the State Archives after reporters from The Times Union of Albany received a box of papers relating to the so-called Troopergate investigation by Mr. Cuomo in 2007. Josh Vlasto, the governor’s spokesman, said the files were private and were released in error by the state archivist," wrote The New York Times in an editorial.

Read more : Governor Cuomo at the Controls

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Andrew Cuomo Stealth Texting Scandal

* Gov. Cuomo says it's no big secret - reason for unrecorded texting system is fear of hacking. The Daily News reported Monday that Cuomo refuses to communicate by email. If aides can’t talk in person or by phone, they are told to use the BlackBerry PIN-to-PIN messaging system — a function that leaves no lasting trail because it bypasses data-saving email servers. Baruch College’s Doug Muzzio said, “There’s an element of the stealth governorship here. It’s all part of their strategy to tightly control information and message.”

* Gov. Cuomo uses BlackBerry pin-to-pin messaging system to contact key staffers when they can't talk on the phone. A message sent over a data server can always be recovered, even when deleted. Not so for PIN messages, which are gone forever once killed, a spokesman for BlackBerry operator Research In Motion said. And while much of the back-and-forth communication between the governor and his aides is private, it could be subject to subpoena by ethics investigators, prosecutors and possibly members of the Legislature in the event of a probe. All this secrecy, even though Cuomo "promised to have the most open and transparent administration in state history."

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Julian Assange Appeared by Video on Q&A News Program with Prime Minister Julia Gillard


Julian Assange grills Julia Gillard on live television

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard appears on live Australian television program ''Q & A'' and is surprised with a video question from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Epic win. Clip aired on 14 Mar 2011.

Check out an article from The Age, which reports that ASIO was spying on Mr. Assange -- and then sharing that intelligence with the United States.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Egypt And The U.S. : Interference With The Internet #LeakSpin

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak :
The Countdown To Regime Change

The right to Internet access is so critical to citizens' participation in their own governments that the revolution taking place in Egypt has implications for the United States. Tonight, U.S. President Barack Obama addressed the bloody crackdown on the protests in Egypt.

From The New York Times :

Mr. Obama also said that Egyptian officials should "reverse the actions that they have taken to interfere with the Internet, cellphone service, social networks that do so much to connect people in the 21st century." He added, "going forward, this moment of volatility has to be turned into a moment of promise."

In a 2007 editorial ABC News online, Internet access was described as an important underpinning to democracies. When the governments of Burma and China restricted Internet access, the consequences to freedoms were indisputable. ''Democratic governments understand the connection between human rights and Internet freedom. They have been quick to condemn the Internet crackdown in Burma and China and the lack of Internet freedom in much of the world,'' wrote Leslie Harris.

Remember that before the Egyptian government suspended Internet access inside its country, ''President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States ... .''

Remember that before the Egyptian government shut down cellphone service, President Obama ordered the Justice Department to obtain a secret court order to demand that Twitter turn over, among other things, the ''subscriber names'' of the five individuals associated with WikiLeaks, an act that would blatantly deny subscribers their rights to due process.

Earlier today, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also made a statement to express her request that the Egyptian government restore Internet access.

''Mrs. Clinton also urged the government 'to reverse the unprecedented steps it has taken to cut off communications,' referring to its decision — apparently unprecedented — to cut off all Internet services in the country, as well as mobile phone networks in some areas,'' reported The Times.

For the U.S. government to actualise the exceptionalism that we know it to have, and for the U.S. government to truly support democracy in Egypt, it must be more honest about the dishonesty of the Egyptian government (''GOE''). Today, WikiLeaks published new U.S. Embassy cables, including one that gave some perspective into the inside information available to the U.S. government.

''The GOE has not begun serious work on trying to transform the police and security services from instruments of power that serve and protect the regime into institutions operating in the public interest, despite official slogans to the contrary.''

#CableGate, #LeakSpin, #09CAIRO79

Egypt Takes Actions To Shut Down The Internet

Egypt Uprising : Government Shuts Down The Entire Internet

''Confirming what a few have reported this evening: in an action unprecedented in Internet history, the Egyptian government appears to have ordered service providers to shut down all international connections to the Internet,'' reported the blog, AnonOps Communications. In a separate media report, it was confirmed that internet services and cell phone text messaging have been cut across the African country to prevent the organizers of the protests from further connection, AFP reported on Friday.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Secret FBI Subpoenas

The NYTimes doesn't believe that the U.S. Justice Department is conducting an illegal investigation of WikiLeaks. Oh, really ?

Running contrary to the characterisation of Birgitta Jonsdottir, a former WikiLeaks activist who is also a member of Iceland’s Parliament, that U.S. prosecutors were using a court order to collect ''personal information from an elected official without having any case,'' The New York Times has reported that the scope of the court order was not unlawful.

''The news that federal prosecutors have demanded that the microblogging site Twitter provide the account details of people connected to the WikiLeaks case, including its founder, Julian Assange, isn’t noteworthy because the government’s request was unusual or intrusive. It is noteworthy because it became public.''

Let's examine just a couple of aspects of the court order :

(i) ''The order asks for subscriber names, user names, screen names, mailing addresses, residential addresses and connection records along with other information related to the accounts.''

(ii) ''Stating that information held by Twitter was "relevant and material" to the WikiLeaks investigation, the district court ordered the startup to hand over:

  • session times and connection records
  • telephone numbers
  • credit card information
  • e-mail and IP addresses
  • correspondence and notes of record''

What would the U.S. government be gaining from conducting a court-sanctioned surveillance for this kind of social media account information? Not for nothing, by focusing on subscribers and connection records, among other things, the U.S. government is casting a wide, indiscriminate net into cyberspace, and it is hoping to pull in something -- legal or otherwise, relevant or otherwise, applicable or otherwise. There is no focus to the court order ; its only objectives are to spy and to collect surveillance over both foreigners, over which the U.S. may have no jurisdiction, and citizens, who are being denied due process.

On a blog of a WikiLeaks supporter, someone asked, ''Is this not the same type of action that you, DOJ, find reprehensible in other countries?''

(As an aside, I wonder if The Times even appreciates the fact that, after the U.S. government's secret investigation of WikiLeaks has become ''public,'' those being targeted by the court order can now reasonably fight the unreasonableness of the indiscriminate scope of the court order. The owners of the social media accounts, on Twitter, Facebook, and Google, have legal rights, according to the law. How would the owners of the social media accounts know to fight the government's court order, if the government doesn't even serve the court order on the account owners? Look at how wikipedia gives context to due process violation : ''When a government harms a person, without following the exact course of the law, then that is a due process violation which offends the rule of law.'')

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Of Benazir Bhutto #LeakSpin

After The WikiLeaks Publications, What Needs To Be Explained About The Assassination Of Benazir Bhutto

Benazir Bhutto returned to Karachi on 18 October 2007 to prepare for the 2008 Pakistan national elections ; the BBC reported that Ms. Bhutto's return was the result of a ''power-sharing agreement with President Musharraf.'' She was assassinated on 27 December 2007. One day after the assassination of Ms. Bhutto, Hana Levi Julian published a report in IsraelNationalNews.com that the governments of each of Israel, the U.S., and Great Britain had ignored Ms. Bhutto's appeals for protection. Yet, after the publication by WikiLeaks of U.S. State department diplomatic cables, the exact role of the U.S. in Ms. Bhutto's October 2007 return to Pakistan, and her obvious need for protection, needs to be explained. For, in one of the cables, Asif Zardari, Ms. Bhutto's widower, recounted how Ms. Bhutto ''had returned despite the threats against her because of support and 'clearance' from the U.S.''

Moreover, several months following Ms. Bhutto's assassination, Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, had kicked the proverbial hornet's nest after it came to light that Mr. Khalilzad was providing advice and counsel (in some form or another) to Mr. Zardari. In the diplomatic confusion that played out in the news article published in The New York Times, it was reported that :

''Officially, the United States has remained neutral in the contest to succeed Mr. Musharraf, and there is concern within the State Department that the discussions between Mr. Khalilzad and Mr. Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, could leave the impression that the United States is taking sides in Pakistan’s already chaotic internal politics.''

If the U.S. was, indeed, remaining ''neutral,'' as The Times had reported, then what did Mr. Zardari mean when he said that his late wife ''had returned despite the threats against her because of support and 'clearance' from the U.S.?''

The foreign policy in play by the U.S. during the time leading up to, and following, Ms. Bhutto's return to Pakistan, and her subsequent assassination, reveal the doomed U.S. strategy in Pakistan, and, to some extent, in Afghanistan. After having invested billions of dollars in planning a strategy of the war in Afghanistan on an expectation of a partnership with Pakistan, and in particular with then-President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, the Bush administration was surely already ''taking sides in Pakistan’s already chaotic internal politics.''

Militants Set The Agenda

Following the coördinated terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush became obsessed with causing regime change in Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. After it became apparent that the president did not believe that diplomacy alone was going to lead to regime change in Iraq, the president mobilised a unilateral first-strike in March 2003 against Iraq, in spite of opposition from the United Nations. This, and other belligerent examples of U.S. foreign policy under the Bush administration, would leave no cause to doubt that the Bush administration wanted to single-handedly ''control'' the circumstances of individual countries, during the prosecution of the war on terror. So, naturally, in August 2008, when John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, and Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, became ''angry'' over news that the U.S. United Nations Ambassador Khalilzad was offering counsel to Mr. Zardari in the time leading up to the Pakistan national elections, it was precisely because the aim of U.S. involvement in Pakistan was never to promote democratic elections, but to reserve the channels of communication and assistance between Pakistan and the U.S. solely at the hands of Mr. Negroponte, Mr. Boucher, Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador to Pakistan, and Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. Secretary of State.

Notwithstanding Ambassador Patterson's remarks to Mr. Zardari, wherein she said that, ''we continue to support the [Pakistan People's Party] and our shared struggle against extremism and in favor of the democratic process in Pakistan,'' the U.S. couldn't even tolerate any kind of assistance or counsel that was being provided to Mr. Zardari or to the Pakistan People's Party, as evidenced by the backlash faced by Ambassador Khalilzad.

On the one hand, the U.S. wanted regime change in Iraq, but it could not, on the other hand, support democracy-building in Pakistan.

A Limited Strategy Of Containment

Many members of the U.S. Congress maintained close relations with Ms. Bhutto, according to one of the cables. Not only that, but three unnamed U.S. Senators also interceded on behalf of Ms. Bhutto's safety, when she requested President Musharraf for '' 'basic security,' including vehicles with tinted windows and private guards in addition to police guards. '' What is more, even as Ms. Bhutto's life was in danger, the CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer was in possession of information about the danger Ms. Bhutto was in, but he chose not to report about it until after she was killed.

If it was true that the Bush administration did not want any non-State Department channels of communication or support to be involved in the Pakistan national elections, then how did the Bush administration react, officially or unofficially, with the 3 U.S. Senators and the reporter, Mr. Blitzer ?

Beyond that, now that we are in the midst of the Cablegate news cycle, will the Obama administration deal with Julian Assange's role in the publication of the State Department cables the same way that the Bush administration dealt with the trading of sensitive information regarding Ms. Bhutto's safety, which would no doubt have risen to be considered, at the very least, sensitive State Department information, by the 3 U.S. Senators and the reporter, Mr. Blitzer ? Whatever the approach that the Obama administration takes in respect of Mr. Assange, it will look like a selective and arbitrary application of restrictions that would apply to Mr. Assange, but not to Mr. Blitzer.

The Predictable Election Cycle Offensive

Even though the Bush administration was conveying, through The New York Times article about Ambassador Khalilzad, that the Bush administration did want to be seen being involved in the Pakistan national elections, in one of the State Department cables, we find that Mr. Zardari was thanking the visiting Congressional Delegation of U.S. Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) for U.S. government ''support of credible national elections'' in Pakistan. Further, the U.S. government should have reasonably expected, even without Mr. Zardari's mentioning, that ''what happens in Pakistan has a spillover effect in Afghanistan, Iran, and India.''

Indeed, not only was Mr. Zardari requesting ''U.S. blessing for his leadership,'' but, at the time of his meeting with the U.S. Congressional delegation, Mr. Zardari was also ''struggling'' with how to explain to ''rank and file'' of the Pakistan People's Party the ''idea of continuing to work with a superpower which supported Musharraf.''

Whereas the ''official'' narrative of the U.S. State Department was that the U.S. had ''remained neutral in the contest to succeed Mr. Musharraf,'' in reality, the fingerprints of the U.S. government were all over Ms. Bhutto's return to Pakistan -- and on the meetings Mr. Zardari had, in an effort to build support for his campaign.

The ''official'' U.S. State Department narrative was a sham.

Scenesetter For The Rest Of The World

One day after Ms. Bhutto was killed, Ambassador Patterson filed a cable in which the U.S. was assessing the qualifications of Chaudhry Pervais Elahi, the Pakistan Muslim League's presumed candidate for Prime Minister. About one month later, on January 25, 2008, Mr. Zardari, Ms. Bhutto's widower, met with Ambassador Patterson. During the meeting, Mr. Zardari described the US as Pakistan's ''our safety blanket.''

But this meeting of 25 January 2008, and the intelligence and requests that were being gleamed from it, were coming too late, if one were to believe that the U.S. would be taking action to support democracy and a stable government in Pakistan. Otherwise, this meeting was coming right on time, if one were to believe that the U.S. would remain ''neutral,'' meaning that the U.S. would be taking no action to support democracy and a stable government in Pakistan.

Little more than one week later, Ambassador Patterson dispatched a cable to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen. In the cable, Ambassador Patterson expressed a need for Adm. Mullen's help with setting the scene for ''necessary reforms'' in Pakistan's military. She added :

''A year ago, Musharraf's popularity was high; we were working together to support a smooth transition to a civilian government. Beginning with his decision to fire the Chief Justice in March 2007, Musharraf has made repeated political blunders culminating in a state of emergency (SOE) and temporary suspension of the constitution. He is increasingly isolated after firing long-time advisors who disagreed with some of these decisions.''

After all of the hemming and hawing, we find out from Ambassador Patterson that, ''We can work with any of the likely candidates for Prime Minister. But it may take weeks or even months after the election before a new Prime Minister is chosen and Pakistan again has a functional government that can focus on tackling extremism and necessary economic reform.'' Too bad that Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Zardari believed, during the time that it mattered to Ms. Bhutto's safety and to the integrity of the Pakistan national elections, that Ms. Bhutto had returned to Pakistan with any real '' 'clearance' from the U.S.''

In his meeting with the Congressional Delegation, Mr. Zardari expressed the motivating fear of the Pakistani people : '' Zardari described the general distrust of the U.S. by the public and in political circles, 'fearing you will leave us again.' '' To the detriment of the democratic elections of our partners in the war on terror, the U.S. was playing both sides of the involvement coin. And this would not have been known, either officially or unofficially, by U.S. taxpayers, some of whom are paying the ultimate price for the war on terror, until Mr. Assange published the State Department cables.

#CableGate, #LeakSpin, #10ISLAMABAD416, #07ISLAMABAD5388, #08ISLAMABAD405, #08ISLAMABAD525, #08ISLAMABAD1998, #09ISLAMABAD236, #09ISLAMABAD1438

Author's Notes

This analysis is the first edition of research, based on a review of cables released as of 17 December 2010, which originated from Islamabad. A future edition may be published, provided that further releases of related cables are made. Please check here for a link to the publication of any subsequent editions : (placeholder intentionally left blank ; no updated edition is yet available). If no updates are yet available, you will not yet see a hyperlink in the immediately-preceeding placeholder. Not all of the listed cables are referred to in this analysis, but they were considered in the composition of this analysis.

This analysis and research is published under the constitutional right of freedom of the press, which allows for communication and expression of ideas and thoughts. As a blog that operates as a form of social media journalism, this blog posting is made under the rights and freedoms afforded under the First Amendment.