Omer Bhatti Is Michael Jackson's Son, Says Joe Jackson

The kid says he's Michael's son -- and now, so does the Jackson family patriarch, Joe Jackson.

In an interview, Joe Jackson, right, father of Michael Jackson, left, says Omer Bhatti, center, "looks like a Jackson, dances like a Jackson" and is, indeed, Michael Jackson's son.

(Getty Images/Sipa Press)
More Photos

In an interview with TV One, Joe Jackson asserts Omer Bhatti, a 25-year-old dancer and aspiring rapper from Oslo, Norway who once traveled the world with Michael Jackson, lived at the singer's Neverland ranch and was referred to by the Jackson family as "Michael J," is the pop icon's estranged fourth child.

Asked if he knew Bhatti was Jackson's son, Joe Jackson said, "Yes, I knew he had another son, yes I did."

He added: "He looks like a Jackson, he can dance like a Jackson. This boy is fantastic dancer -- matter of fact, he teaches dance."

Bhatti came under renewed scrutiny earlier this month, when the British newspaper The Sun reported Bhatti is seeking a DNA test to find out if he's really Jackson's child.

Bhatti has features similar to Jackson and shares an uncanny resemblance to his youngest son Prince II, known as Blanket.

Not everyone connected to the family is as certain as Joe Jackson that Bhatti is the pop icon's flesh and blood. But one thing is for sure: Bhatti, who was seated on the front row at Jackson's memorial service next to Jackson's children and siblings, occupies a special place in the Jackson family.

In Vienna earlier this month, Jackson's brother Jermaine Jackson said Bhatti would be welcomed into the family, if he's proven a Jackson.

Pakistan Military was Using Google Earth to Locate Targets

So Apparently, Pakistan’s military was using Google Earth to locate its targets, says the NYTimes.

"The Pakistani military has moved away from the scorched-earth artillery and air tactics used last year against insurgents in the Bajaur tribal agency. In recent months, the air force has shifted from using Google Earth to sophisticated images from spy planes and other surveillance aircraft, and has increased its use of laser-guided bombs."

Maybe they are also using Google Maps to locate Beitullah Mehsud.

Anyway, joking aside, I am not entirely sure how much “better” the new and improved ubersecret spy technology and imagery that the U.S. has given to Pakistan will be. According to a Brookings report, U.S. drones are killing ten civilians per militant.

Atrocious.

UK: Pentagon hacker should serve any jail time in Britain

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government will push for a computer hacker who broke into Pentagon and NASA computers to serve his jail time in the United Kingdom if a United States court sentences him to jail, a top politician said Sunday.

Briton Gary McKinnon is accused of carrying out the biggest ever U.S. military hacking operation.

"We'll seek for him to serve any prison sentence, if he is sentenced to prison, back in this country," said Harriet Harman, the deputy leader of Britain's governing Labour Party.

Hacker Gary McKinnon, a British citizen, has admitted breaking the law and intentionally gaining unauthorized access to U.S. government computers.

The U.S. wants him extradited to face trial there, while he has been fighting to be tried in Britain.

He bases his case partly on the fact that he has Asperger syndrome, a type of autism.

He lost an appeal at the High Court on Friday, bringing him a step closer to extradition.

The case has sparked widespread anger in Britain from people who think he should not be sent abroad for trial.

But Harman said Sunday the legal system was working as it should.

"The director of public prosecutions says because the witness are in America, because the damage that was alleged to have been done was in America, because the evidence is in America, that is the appropriate place to put him on trial," she said on the BBC's "Andrew Marr Show."

She said Washington had promised the British government McKinnon would be properly cared for.

"There certainly have been assurances sought and given that ... if and when he is taken over to America, his health needs will be attended to," Harman said.

She said it was right that the government not intervene.

"It shouldn't be politicians who make judgments about the criminal justice system," said Harman, a former human-rights lawyer. "We don't find people guilty or not guilty. That's not the job of ministers."

McKinnon's mother, Janis Sharp, promised to appeal Friday's decision to Britain's new Supreme Court, which will come into existence in the fall.

The U.S. government says McKinnon carried out the biggest military computer hacking of all time, accessing 97 computers from his home in London for a year starting in March 2001, and costing the government about $1 million.

McKinnon, currently free on bail in England, has said he was simply doing research to find out whether the U.S. government was covering up the existence of UFOs.

McKinnon's lawyer, Karen Todner, complained that her client would be extradited according to a treaty intended for terrorists.

"Why aren't they stopping the extradition of a man who is clearly vulnerable and who on the accepted evidence suffers from Asperger's?" she said in a statement. "Gary is clearly someone who is not equipped to deal with the American penal system and there is clear evidence that he will suffer a severe mental breakdown if extradited."

U.S. federal prosecutors accuse McKinnon of breaking into military, NASA and civilian networks, and accessing computers at the Pentagon; Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Meade, Maryland; the Earle Naval Weapons Station in Colts Neck, New Jersey; and the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, among others.

In one instance, McKinnon allegedly crashed computers belonging to the Military District of Washington.

McKinnon is thought to have acted alone, with no known connection to any terrorist organization, said Paul McNulty, the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

A U.S. federal grand jury indicted McKinnon on seven counts of computer fraud and related activity. If convicted, he would face a maximum of 10 years in prison on each count and a $250,000 fine.

Swat deal broker cleric 'charged'

Pakistan is to prosecute a radical Islamic cleric who helped negotiate a failed truce between the government and the Taliban in the Swat valley.

Sufi Muhammad brokered a peace deal in February that saw Sharia law imposed in the valley in return for an end to Taliban attacks in the area.

But it collapsed in April, leading to the army's offensive on the Taliban which displaced two million people.

Sufi Muhammad is charged with sedition, aiding terrorism and conspiracy.

The charges carry a minimum penalty of life imprisonment and could result in the death penalty.

They relate to a speech given by Sufi Muhammad - who is the father-in-law of the Swat Taliban's leader Maulana Fazullah - in April.

In it he allegedly condemned both democracy and elections, claiming Pakistan's constitution was un-Islamic.

'Instigated the masses'

The Associated Press quoted Swat police chief Sajid Mohmand saying: "It is tantamount to threatening the sovereignty of Pakistan.

"We have recordings of all of his speeches where he had instigated masses against the government of Pakistan and its institutions."

Although skirmishes are still continuing in the Swat valley, Pakistan claims to have defeated the Taliban with its offensive.

But while Pakistan claims to have wounded Maulana Fazullah, none of the Taliban's regional commanders has been proved to have been captured or killed.

India hands over additional dossier to Pakistan on Mumbai terror attacks

NEW DELHI, Aug. 2(Xinhua)-- India has handed over to Pakistan an additional dossier which contains more evidence and the responses to the seven queries raised by Islamabad on the earlier dossier based on probe into the Mumbai terror attacks last November, said Indian Home Ministry officials Sunday.

Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram had announced the Indian Home Ministry finalized the response to the latest set of questions sent by the government of Pakistan in connection with the investigations in Pakistan on the terror attack. A seven-page response with annexes has been handed over to the Ministry of External Affairs for transmission to the government of Pakistan, said the officials.

The dossier compiled by the Home Ministry provides answers to some "routine questions" raised by Pakistani agencies, besides "filling in the blanks", the officials quoted Chidambaram as saying.

The new dossier has information most of which is already there in the earlier dossiers (submitted so far by India) and contains answers to questions which can already be found in the Criminal Procedure Code.

The uncertainties of the PM’s Pakistan gambit

Few in Parliament, including from within the Congress party, appreciated the positive effort and more disapproved of its details.

There is something about the month of July and Manmohan Singh. He presented his first budget as finance minister in the same month in 1991; oversaw a budget for the first time as a prime minister in July 2004; faced and won a crucial trust vote on 22 July 2008, after his government had been reduced to a minority following the withdrawal of support by Left parties; and, then finally on 16 July, his out-of-the-box offer to Pakistan in the Egyptian city of Sharm el-Sheikh triggered a mini political crisis for the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA).

Few in Parliament, including from within the Congress party, appreciated the positive effort and more disapproved of its details. The Opposition can’t be blamed, because it is its dharma to question, and rightly so, government action/inaction.

The positive is that the Opposition managed to shake off the inertia that gripped it after defeat in the April-May general election. The bigger concern is the covert challenge thrown to the Prime Minister from within the Congress party that could potentially weaken him. Publicly everybody ranged behind the Prime Minister, but behind the scenes it has been a prolonged stretch of palace intrigue.

As a result, the danger now is that Singh may go on the defensive and eschew all such initiatives, and India and Pakistan would have lost an opportunity to break the status quo in the relationship—defined by mutual hatred and distrust. Unlike before, status quo has larger underlying risks: Pakistan as a nation is in the throes of an internal crisis and faces the risk, though intellectuals in Pakistan disagree, of imploding and being overrun either by extremist elements or forces supported by them. This would be disastrous for India; even if they do not assume power, but are able to influence Islamabad, the situation would get worse.

Also Read Anil Padmanabhan’s earlier columns

On the face of it, nobody is opposed to moving the ball forward with Pakistan. My instinct is that most of India fully backs such an initiative; the aspirations of its citizens have been stoked and they see the six-decade hostility with Pakistan as an impediment in realizing their dreams.

The political critique of Singh was premised on two issues: Inclusion of Balochistan—an area that has seen internal unrest since the 1970s—in the joint statement issued by the two countries, thereby implicitly suggesting that India had something to do with the situation there; and, delinking of actions against terror to revive the composite dialogue between the two countries. Both were perceived as reversing India’s foreign policy thrust and also risked India being included in the list of nations, such as Pakistan, that have been accused of exporting terror. But what was overlooked were the probable reasons for the effort.

Through his initiative Singh was seeking to give the Pakistani establishment room to politically manoeuvre against its home-grown terrorist cells, which have now turned into a Frankenstein. No political establishment worth its salt, in either nation, can be seen as taking radical initiatives at the behest of the other. By delinking the issue of terror, Singh had freed the arms, as it were, of the Pakistan establishment; similarly, by including Balochistan, Pakistan has been provided a rhetorical victory.

The error is that the deal has been inked with the political leadership, which everyone knows does not have a lien beyond Islamabad—something akin to Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last of the Mughal feudal dynasty, claiming to be the emperor of India after British forces suffered an initial defeat during the 1857 mutiny. A genuine out-of-the-box initiative would mean talking to the army and Inter-Services Intelligence, the intelligence arm that is controlled by the army and the chief architect of Pakistan’s terror export strategy.

And, as Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president, Centre for Policy Research, argued in his column in The Indian Express on 31 July, beyond a point, this line of reasoning could be self-defeating. According to Mehta, including Balochistan in the joint statement feeds Pakistan’s sense of victimhood and would, in fact, become an obstacle to its ability to address its problems. “Only Pakistan can save itself. The test of its resolve will not be that it claims diplomatic victories. The test will be the day it does not need rhetorical crutches to provide cover to it to move decisively against terrorism directed against India,” Mehta wrote.

Which then brings us back to the risks.

The first obvious one is that of another terror attack, similar to the audacious one in Mumbai on 26 November; it would be an unmitigated disaster. Second, Singh’s defensive posture, especially after the Congress party leadership expressed only calibrated support to him during the debate in Parliament, may restrict him and imperil any further steps—such as freer people movement, resuming sporting ties and so on. So far, publicly, Singh has not exhibited any signs of a rethink. We will have to simply wait and see how and whether he moves the ball forward again.

Finally, I would like to leave you with a poignant thought shared by an erudite friend who, unfortunately, does not want to be identified. Responding to last week’s Capital Calculus the person remarked: “Isn’t it strange that talking to our neighbours is defined as an out-of-the-box thinking?” What an idea, Sirjee!

From courts to parliament

Pakistan at the moment is passing through contestations of a kind and intensity not witnessed since 1971. Provinces are contesting the authority of the centre and local councils that of the provincial government.

The judiciary is pitched against the executive and political parties against each other. On a more deadly footing, the army is confronting the militancy it once spawned.
Whether it is conciliatory bargaining, the use of physical force or intervention by the courts, all this is not dampening but exacerbating mutual antagonism. A continuous and free debate in parliament could possibly bridge differences and put the country back on the rails. But that is precisely what is not being tried.

The will of the people in a parliamentary democracy, howsoever imperfect it might be (as indeed ours is), must find expression in parliament and not in the judgments of courts, the commands of generals or the rhetoric of leaders. Why did the country have to go through the agony and expense of elections in very trying circumstances if national issues were still to be decided over powwows at Raiwind, in pleas at the Supreme Court or at the battles in Waziristan, or if Baloch sardars and rebel youth were to be left to contemplate the destiny of their province in sullen isolation? These questions must haunt the elected representatives of the people, irrespective of their political affiliation.

Seeking a consensus, or scheming, outside parliament resulted in martial law in the past. Let there be no complacency. It will happen again if our political leaders do not resolve all contested issues by majority vote in parliament. Going back to the polls whenever a government has lost, or fears losing the majority or is unable to conduct the business of state is the only way to keep the military out — political bravado or judicial pronouncements cannot.

The obvious task before parliament is to deal with the 17th Amendment. But it is more crucial to review the legislative lists to transfer more subjects to the provinces. Instead of following the procedure laid down in the constitution — two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly and Senate voting for amendments — the subject is languishing in a committee while uncertainty and unrest increase. And still the scope of the committee does not cover provincial autonomy or discrimination on grounds of race and religion which are the basic causes of the unrest.

Uncertainty is also caused by a number of questions being raised before the Supreme Court. Being political in nature, these should appropriately be decided by the legislators. Nothing is more inadvisable than to drag the judges of a judiciary fast becoming politicised deeper into politics. The Supreme Court should be spared the unenviable task of reversing its own judgments or determine the status of its own judges or the legality of the actions of the former chief justice. Issues more troublesome are sure to surface than those the petitions seek to settle. Legal wrangling is likely to go on till the cows come home.

The parliament can and must legislate to clear the mess by amending the constitution if necessary and let the courts work for the people rather than for politicians and judges. It is exasperating to see judges of the Supreme Court hearing for hours on end the legality of a judge’s oath while people rot in jails for years before their pleas for bail or appeals against convictions are heard. Civil disputes linger for generations.

The judges need to demonstrate their awareness about the widespread discontent caused by delay and bribery in the judicial system rather than engage for days on end with claims of contending politicians seeking their fortunes in an uncertain transition from one regime to another. Independence has come to the judiciary because of the people’s support. It should be used to the people’s benefit and not to settle scores. Parliament, and not the judiciary, should take care of closed extra-constitutional transactions.

Parliament should also fix by law the number of judges for the Supreme Court and high courts, as well as the criteria and procedure for their appointment. The Supreme Court should be much, much smaller (one has not heard of an apex court anywhere as large as ours) and its jurisdiction restricted to the interpretation of laws and the enforcement of fundamental rights.

The highest court of the land needs to be lifted out of the political morass into which it has fallen. Particularly disturbing has been the desire expressed by the Lahore High Court chief justice, Khawaja Sharif, before an applauding gathering of lawyers, to make an example of the culprits of the past and not to permit a “night raid” ever again. He should have been the last to breach the principle that judges speak only through their judgments. One may respectfully ask how a judge would stop a general in the dead of night.

The devastation of the civil services is complete and obvious. But the present government, like those preceding it, shows no inclination to make merit and need the essential criteria for the recruitment of civil servants — teachers, doctors, engineers. Doubts are also cast on the impartiality and integrity of commissions and committees even when recruitment is made through them.

The administration has indeed become dysfunctional as Prime Minister Gilani observed the other day. He blamed the law and rules for it. In fact it is made dysfunctional by political interests overriding the laws. The door to coups, or violent change, thus remains open notwithstanding what Justice Khawaja Sharif has to say. And when the prime minister speaks of the need for reforms, the lurking fear is that the administration is about to get yet another mauling. That is what all previous reforms had done.

kunwaridris@hotmail.com

The judiciary is pitched against the executive and political parties against each other. On a more deadly footing, the army is confronting the militancy it once spawned.
Whether it is conciliatory bargaining, the use of physical force or intervention by the courts, all this is not dampening but exacerbating mutual antagonism. A continuous and free debate in parliament could possibly bridge differences and put the country back on the rails. But that is precisely what is not being tried.

The will of the people in a parliamentary democracy, howsoever imperfect it might be (as indeed ours is), must find expression in parliament and not in the judgments of courts, the commands of generals or the rhetoric of leaders. Why did the country have to go through the agony and expense of elections in very trying circumstances if national issues were still to be decided over powwows at Raiwind, in pleas at the Supreme Court or at the battles in Waziristan, or if Baloch sardars and rebel youth were to be left to contemplate the destiny of their province in sullen isolation? These questions must haunt the elected representatives of the people, irrespective of their political affiliation.

Seeking a consensus, or scheming, outside parliament resulted in martial law in the past. Let there be no complacency. It will happen again if our political leaders do not resolve all contested issues by majority vote in parliament. Going back to the polls whenever a government has lost, or fears losing the majority or is unable to conduct the business of state is the only way to keep the military out — political bravado or judicial pronouncements cannot.

The obvious task before parliament is to deal with the 17th Amendment. But it is more crucial to review the legislative lists to transfer more subjects to the provinces. Instead of following the procedure laid down in the constitution — two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly and Senate voting for amendments — the subject is languishing in a committee while uncertainty and unrest increase. And still the scope of the committee does not cover provincial autonomy or discrimination on grounds of race and religion which are the basic causes of the unrest.

Uncertainty is also caused by a number of questions being raised before the Supreme Court. Being political in nature, these should appropriately be decided by the legislators. Nothing is more inadvisable than to drag the judges of a judiciary fast becoming politicised deeper into politics. The Supreme Court should be spared the unenviable task of reversing its own judgments or determine the status of its own judges or the legality of the actions of the former chief justice. Issues more troublesome are sure to surface than those the petitions seek to settle. Legal wrangling is likely to go on till the cows come home.

The parliament can and must legislate to clear the mess by amending the constitution if necessary and let the courts work for the people rather than for politicians and judges. It is exasperating to see judges of the Supreme Court hearing for hours on end the legality of a judge’s oath while people rot in jails for years before their pleas for bail or appeals against convictions are heard. Civil disputes linger for generations.

The judges need to demonstrate their awareness about the widespread discontent caused by delay and bribery in the judicial system rather than engage for days on end with claims of contending politicians seeking their fortunes in an uncertain transition from one regime to another. Independence has come to the judiciary because of the people’s support. It should be used to the people’s benefit and not to settle scores. Parliament, and not the judiciary, should take care of closed extra-constitutional transactions.

Parliament should also fix by law the number of judges for the Supreme Court and high courts, as well as the criteria and procedure for their appointment. The Supreme Court should be much, much smaller (one has not heard of an apex court anywhere as large as ours) and its jurisdiction restricted to the interpretation of laws and the enforcement of fundamental rights.

The highest court of the land needs to be lifted out of the political morass into which it has fallen. Particularly disturbing has been the desire expressed by the Lahore High Court chief justice, Khawaja Sharif, before an applauding gathering of lawyers, to make an example of the culprits of the past and not to permit a “night raid” ever again. He should have been the last to breach the principle that judges speak only through their judgments. One may respectfully ask how a judge would stop a general in the dead of night.

The devastation of the civil services is complete and obvious. But the present government, like those preceding it, shows no inclination to make merit and need the essential criteria for the recruitment of civil servants — teachers, doctors, engineers. Doubts are also cast on the impartiality and integrity of commissions and committees even when recruitment is made through them.

The administration has indeed become dysfunctional as Prime Minister Gilani observed the other day. He blamed the law and rules for it. In fact it is made dysfunctional by political interests overriding the laws. The door to coups, or violent change, thus remains open notwithstanding what Justice Khawaja Sharif has to say. And when the prime minister speaks of the need for reforms, the lurking fear is that the administration is about to get yet another mauling. That is what all previous reforms had done.

Troops patrol Pakistani city after riots kill 8

LAHORE, Pakistan — Paramilitary troops patrolled the streets of an eastern Pakistani city on Sunday after eight Christians died in riots led by Muslims, according to police.

Hundreds of Muslims burned and looted Christian homes in the city of Gorja in a rampage sparked by allegations that a Quran had been defaced. Shooting broke out, and six people were killed, including a child and four women. Two men wounded by gunfire died in the hospital overnight.

Officials said the riots, which began Thursday but had calmed before flaring again Saturday, had been instigated by members of a banned extremist Muslim organization.

Paramilitary troops were sent to Gorja to help police control the situation, Interior Minister Rehman Malik said Saturday, amid allegations the police had failed to respond quickly enough to prevent the violence from escalating.

"Usually, Muslims and Christians live together peacefully. There have been some miscreants involved in this incident. We are investigating that," Malik said.

Christians make up a tiny minority of Pakistan's predominantly Sunni Muslim population of 160 million people. Although the two communities generally live peacefully, Muslim radicals have periodically targeted churches and Christians.

Minorities also face intimidation at the hands of discriminatory laws, including one that carries the death penalty for using derogatory language against Islam, the Quran and the Prophet Mohammad. The law is often misused to settle personal scores and rivalries.

Punjab province Police Chief Tariq Salim Dogar said 64 people had been arrested under Pakistan's anti-terrorism laws — 40 who were detained for the initial unrest and another 24 for Saturday's riots.

Dogar said security had been increased in the area Sunday, when funerals were expected to be held.

Locals and officials said the situation Sunday morning was tense, but there was no renewed unrest.

"There is too much fear among the Christians," said Provincial Minister for Minority Affairs Kamran Michael. "The situation is tense in the city, but security has been enhanced to keep the situation under control."

Sohail Iqbal, a cell phone shop owner in the city's main market, told The Associated Press by phone that there was a heavy police presence in the area.

"We have opened our shop and others too, but the atmosphere is grim and tense," he said.

Federal Minister for Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti said 40 Christian homes were torched Saturday in rioting led by the banned Sipah-e-Sahaba group, which is accused of attacking security forces and of staging bombings at public places in recent years. He said there was no truth to allegations that a Quran had been defiled and accused the police of ignoring his appeal to provide protection to Christians under threat.

Television footage showed baton-wielding crowds running through the streets Saturday, blocking traffic and a railway line. Blackened furniture lay outside burning homes, while a group of people rushed a man with burn injuries on a wooden hand-pulled cart through the streets. Gunfire rang out.

On Sunday, local television showed women gathered in Gojra's Christian neighborhood, crying and wailing in mourning for the dead.

Elsewhere, two policemen were shot and killed by men who fled from a checkpoint in the northwestern city of Peshawar on Sunday.

Police officer Abid Hussain said the men opened fire and fled when authorities tried to check their bags. Two police chased them and were shot in a nearby street, he said.

Hussain said it was unclear who the assailants were, but such attacks have been blamed on suspected militants in recent weeks.

Pakistani security forces have been winding down a three-month offensive against Taliban militants in the northwest, particularly in the troubled Swat Valley, and sporadic violence has persisted.

The military said Sunday that four militants were killed and another 27, including a suspected local commander, were arrested in several search-and-clearance operations in Swat and nearby areas. It said weapons, explosives and bombs were recovered during one search in a cave.

Associated Press writer Zarar Khan in Islamabad and Riaz Khan in Peshawar contributed to this report.