Aljazeera.Net - Is Pakistan really an ally of the West?
My imagination has been in overdrive ever since the disclosure of the missile strike conducted by the CIA on that remote village in Pakistan near the Pakistani/Afghani border in January on Friday, the 13th.
The aftermath of 9/11 in the fall of 2001 is recalled, and it is noted that war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan and the Taliban regime was imminent at the time.
Many nations offered their support to the US, but the world was shocked, or at least I was, that Pakistan became an ally of ours in that war with General Pervez Musharraf’s decision in September 2001 to abandon the Taliban, whom Pakistan had previously supported, and joined the Western alliance. At first glance, that was a plus, but many are uneasy about that alliance for three reasons:1. Pakistan is 77% Sunni Muslim, the same version of Islam that al-Qaida and the Taliban adopt. Empathy on the part of the Pakistani Sunni for members of al-Qaida may be presumed.
2. Pakistan would not allow Western troops within its borders, making it a dubious ally. Generally speaking, allies coordinate and cooperate with their military resources. In Pakistan’s defense, she did allocate three airbases to the Western forces for the invasion of Afghanistan.
3. The vast and rugged Hindukush Mountain Range is on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. One can easily surmise that when the Taliban fell, elements of that group along with elements of al-Qaida, presumably with Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri in tow, would flee to those mountains, making their capture very difficult while, at the same time, allowing them bases from which to operate in Afghanistan. Reasonable conjecture suggests bin Laden’s hideout is in mountainous region of northwest Pakistan, and, legally, Western forces cannot go there.
The missile strike on the 13th brought all of this back into focus. I am reluctant to believe that my country, via CIA ops, would attack a village with ten very expensive missiles from a Predator drone without being very sure; that the attack was based on a whim … or we just do not like Muslims.
We may never completely know what happened at Damadola.Unfortunately, the aftermath of that strike has been an information nightmare with conflicting claims and, at this writing, much is still unknown.
So, what was this all about, and how does this reflect on the evaluation of Pakistan as an ally in the hunt for remaining elements of the Taliban and al-Qaida?
On the 14th, citing unidentified American intelligence officials, US news networks reported that a CIA-operated Predator drone aircraft carried out the missile strike because al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, was thought to be at a compound in the village or about to arrive.
Pakistan condemned the CIA air strike on the border village of Damadola that officials said unsuccessfully targeted al-Qaida's second-in-command, and said it was protesting to the US Embassy over the attack that killed at least 17 people.
An AP reporter who visited Damadola about 12 hours after the attack saw three destroyed houses, hundreds of yards apart. Villagers had quickly buried at least 15 people in the true tradition of Islamic custom, including women and children according to the villagers.
A Pakistani intelligence official told AP that the remains of some bodies had "quickly been removed" from Damadola after the strike. The official said that hours before the strike some unidentified guests had arrived at the home of a tribesman named Shah Zaman, who later claimed that he was a "law abiding labourer," not a terrorist.As the week wore on so did the conflicting reports. A CNN report stated that, according Pakistani sources, "between 10 and 12 foreign extremists had been invited to the dinner" in Damadola.
On Thursday and Friday the reports were stunning. Aljazeera reported, "Pakistani authorities said on Thursday at least four foreign fighters were killed in last Friday's attack in Damadola village near the Afghan border that officials say targeted but missed its apparent target, al-Zawahri."
They were identified as the Egyptian, Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, an explosives expert; Abd al-Rahman al-Misri al Maghribi, a son-in-law of al-Zawahri; and Abu Obaida al-Misri, al-Qaida's chief of operations in Afghanistan's eastern Kunar province.
Pakistan has been an ally of the US for much its existence since the inception of its independence (1947). The fourth man, not identified in this particular article by Aljazeera, is probably Khalid Habib, al-Qaida’s chief of operations along the Afghan-Pakistan border who is accused of twice planning assassination attempts on the Pakistani president, Musharraff.
Also, on Thursday, for the first time in thirteen months, we heard from bin Laden, threatening the West with one breath while offering a truce with the other. One may offer conjecture that the terrorist leader, after a long silence, was trying to restore his chain of command after it had been severely damaged on the 13th. On Friday, we learned of an audiotape featuring al-Zawahri reading a poem. It could have been made any time in the past four years, and it did not mention the events on January 13th.Going back to the four, or five, al-Qaida members killed by the strike, it was reported that their bodies were removed by "sympathizers." If true, that would suggest that not all the villagers were quite so innocent. In that same vein, why would certain members of that "innocent" village invite some of the most wanted men on the planet to dinner?What about the fate of al-Zawahri? Several days passed, and, in the truest sense of the word, he was conspicuous by his absence. An unofficial report from Americans stated that the Predator did not miss. Most reports, Pakistani in origin, said that it did. In a less than remarkable development, because the world could not be that lucky, Aljazeera revealed a videotape of al-Zawahri on in the 30th. It mentioned the 13th CIA strike and was filled with the usual hate-filled invectives, mostly against the Americans in general, and Bush in specific. It should be noted that Pakistani officials were vindicated by the tape. In the meantime, Washington has remained mute on the CIA paroxysm, an old, but proven, tactic.However interesting, al-Zawahri’s existence is immaterial to the evaluation of Pakistan as an ally of the U.S. This relationship is nothing new. Pakistan has been an ally of the US for much its existence since the inception of its independence (1947). At one point, its relationship with the US was so close and friendly that it was called the US's most-allied ally in Asia. Coming to the present, Musharraff may not be the most popular leader in Pakistan’s short history, but he may be accused of being shrewd.
Why would certain members of that "innocent" village invite some of the most wanted men on the planet to dinner?In the fall of 2001, with the Western powers about to unload on Afghanistan, Musharraff may have concluded that continued support of the Taliban and, as a by-product of that support, al-Qaida, could cause the war in Afghanistan to spill over into Pakistan. That, in turn, could cause Pakistan to be on the wrong end of Western missiles. This could be headed off by becoming an ally of Western intentions with the aforementioned conditions, preventing any missiles landing on Pakistani soil, theoretically. Such an agreement would also preclude an invasion of Western troops on Pakistan’s western frontier, theoretically.Dr Nazir Khaja, a Pakistani American, writes, "Why do they hate us? This question is being asked more and more in this country. The answer lies in looking at our relationship with Pakistan and other countries and recognizing what went wrong. Instead of supporting the military infrastructure of the countries, the US can strengthen the infrastructure of peace and prosperity by supporting the countries to develop in peaceful ways. If we are to make any headway in this war on terror we ought to rethink our foreign policy and find better ways of engaging with the people across the world rather than being supportive of dictators, monarchs and despots."Pakistan has a literacy rate of 48.7%, and a per capita income of $736. Many have a major challenge finding potable water. It is a divided nation with severe sectarian issues that rival the most serious in the middle east and a nuclear rival on its doorstep.
"Why do they hate us? This question is being asked more and more in this country. The answer lies in looking at our relationship with Pakistan".Dr Nazir KhajaWe may never completely know what happened at Damadola, and if it is true that the US killed innocents there – and I fear there is substance to those reports – that causes me great sorrow.
I feel a similar anguish when learning daily of the Muslim killing Muslim in Iraq at the hands of the Sunni resistance and al-Qaida of Iraq. Moreover, Americans have empathy for the people of Pakistan. We both understand the seriousness of a monstrous attack on our homeland by a foreign entity.I conclude that no American, including this one, has a right to judge Pakistan, a vastly troubled nation, on the merits of its alliance with the West.
3.2.06
OneWorld.net / News - Al-Jazeera Succeeding Under Pressure
OneWorld.net / News - Al-Jazeera Succeeding Under Pressure
This is BU*SH*IT
DOHA, Qatar, Feb 3 (IPS) - Its foreign bureaus were bombed by U.S. warplanes, it is banned from reporting from four Middle East countries -- and Al-Jazeera is only growing in popularity.
An interesting, and sometimes tragic path has led to the success of Al-Jazeera since its launch in November 1996. Its difficulties have also been its success; the ban from reporting in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Algeria has done nothing to reduce a fierce loyalty from more than 40 million viewers.
The Al-Jazeera bureau in Afghanistan was bombed by U.S. warplanes in 2001. During the invasion of Iraq, U.S. tanks shelled Al-Jazeera journalists in a Basra hotel. Shortly after, its office in Baghdad was hit by a missile from a U.S. warplane; correspondent Tareq Ayoub was killed. Al-Jazeera reporters have been detained by U.S. forces and placed in prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
It has weathered verbal attacks from U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and from government officials in many countries in the Middle East.. "I can definitively say that what Al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable," Rumsfeld told reporters Apr. 15, 2004 after Al-Jazeera showed the bodies of women and children killed by U.S. bombs in Fallujah. (BU*SH*T YOU A**HOLE! That truth must be known so I can definitavely say that what US troops and Britian are doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable-Those acts are US war crimes, and you can blow up whatever you want, but you won't shut me up~kmw)
U.S. President George W. Bush attempted to convince British Prime Minister Tony Blair to agree to bomb the headquarters of Al-Jazeera in Doha in Qatar in November that year, according to a report in Britain's Daily Mirror citing "top secret" minutes of the meeting where this was discussed. At an Al-Jazeera forum on the media in Doha this week, IPS asked Samir Khader, programme editor for Al-Jazeera, if the report of a plan to attack their headquarters had affected their work.
"Do you think that because of such a memo we have to stop working," he said. "Of course we can't. We have to do our job. If the memo was true and George Bush wanted to bomb Jazeera, what can we do? They can do that, and the whole world will know." Khader, who produced a well-known documentary on the network called 'Control Room' added,
"It's not that because a journalist is threatened he will not do his job." Asked if Al-Jazeera received an explanation on the report, Khader said, "No. The official spokesman of the British government said there was nothing in that memo that referred to Al-Jazeera, and Tony Blair also said that in the House of Commons. But in answering other enquiries from British nationals, the same spokesman recognised that this memo exists, and there is a reference to Al-Jazeera.
So there is a contradiction in their own statements.." Khader said Al-Jazeera is still waiting for a response from both governments. Managing director Wadah Khanfar told IPS there is a driving force within the media outlet that propels it through challenging times. "Sometimes the only thing that keeps us forward is the support of our audience," he said. "But also because we have really great people working here as well as professionally trained fixers, stringers and drivers."
Khanfar said the channel is building on its reputation of succeeding in the face of hostility. "There is a culture now we've created with our style of reporting that oppressive regimes have more trouble now stopping Al-Jazeera," Khanfar said. "If you, as a journalist, would like to be loyal to your profession, you know it is going to be difficult to get the story sometimes, but you have to do it anyway if it's at all possible." This attitude prompted its reporters in Fallujah to obtain footage of civilians killed by U.S. soldiers.
This reporter also witnessed the attacks on civilians and ambulances in Fallujah at the time.. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the senior U.S. military spokesperson in Iraq during the April 2004 siege of Fallujah, had said then, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources."
A young female journalist who writes for Al-Jazeera's English website was reluctant to give her name, but when asked if she faced pressure from the U.S. military or repressive governments in the region, said, "Not directly, but since we know we're being so highly scrutinised, I feel a greater responsibility to do my job well." Did other Al-Jazeera journalists feel the same way? "Doesn't every journalist feel that these days," she said.
I only pray that when the USA gets what it deserves for heinous war crimes, I am safely home to where I feel peace, and THAT COUNTRY IS NOT AMERICA!
This is BU*SH*IT
DOHA, Qatar, Feb 3 (IPS) - Its foreign bureaus were bombed by U.S. warplanes, it is banned from reporting from four Middle East countries -- and Al-Jazeera is only growing in popularity.
An interesting, and sometimes tragic path has led to the success of Al-Jazeera since its launch in November 1996. Its difficulties have also been its success; the ban from reporting in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Algeria has done nothing to reduce a fierce loyalty from more than 40 million viewers.
The Al-Jazeera bureau in Afghanistan was bombed by U.S. warplanes in 2001. During the invasion of Iraq, U.S. tanks shelled Al-Jazeera journalists in a Basra hotel. Shortly after, its office in Baghdad was hit by a missile from a U.S. warplane; correspondent Tareq Ayoub was killed. Al-Jazeera reporters have been detained by U.S. forces and placed in prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
It has weathered verbal attacks from U.S. defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and from government officials in many countries in the Middle East.. "I can definitively say that what Al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable," Rumsfeld told reporters Apr. 15, 2004 after Al-Jazeera showed the bodies of women and children killed by U.S. bombs in Fallujah. (BU*SH*T YOU A**HOLE! That truth must be known so I can definitavely say that what US troops and Britian are doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable-Those acts are US war crimes, and you can blow up whatever you want, but you won't shut me up~kmw)
U.S. President George W. Bush attempted to convince British Prime Minister Tony Blair to agree to bomb the headquarters of Al-Jazeera in Doha in Qatar in November that year, according to a report in Britain's Daily Mirror citing "top secret" minutes of the meeting where this was discussed. At an Al-Jazeera forum on the media in Doha this week, IPS asked Samir Khader, programme editor for Al-Jazeera, if the report of a plan to attack their headquarters had affected their work.
"Do you think that because of such a memo we have to stop working," he said. "Of course we can't. We have to do our job. If the memo was true and George Bush wanted to bomb Jazeera, what can we do? They can do that, and the whole world will know." Khader, who produced a well-known documentary on the network called 'Control Room' added,
"It's not that because a journalist is threatened he will not do his job." Asked if Al-Jazeera received an explanation on the report, Khader said, "No. The official spokesman of the British government said there was nothing in that memo that referred to Al-Jazeera, and Tony Blair also said that in the House of Commons. But in answering other enquiries from British nationals, the same spokesman recognised that this memo exists, and there is a reference to Al-Jazeera.
So there is a contradiction in their own statements.." Khader said Al-Jazeera is still waiting for a response from both governments. Managing director Wadah Khanfar told IPS there is a driving force within the media outlet that propels it through challenging times. "Sometimes the only thing that keeps us forward is the support of our audience," he said. "But also because we have really great people working here as well as professionally trained fixers, stringers and drivers."
Khanfar said the channel is building on its reputation of succeeding in the face of hostility. "There is a culture now we've created with our style of reporting that oppressive regimes have more trouble now stopping Al-Jazeera," Khanfar said. "If you, as a journalist, would like to be loyal to your profession, you know it is going to be difficult to get the story sometimes, but you have to do it anyway if it's at all possible." This attitude prompted its reporters in Fallujah to obtain footage of civilians killed by U.S. soldiers.
This reporter also witnessed the attacks on civilians and ambulances in Fallujah at the time.. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the senior U.S. military spokesperson in Iraq during the April 2004 siege of Fallujah, had said then, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources."
A young female journalist who writes for Al-Jazeera's English website was reluctant to give her name, but when asked if she faced pressure from the U.S. military or repressive governments in the region, said, "Not directly, but since we know we're being so highly scrutinised, I feel a greater responsibility to do my job well." Did other Al-Jazeera journalists feel the same way? "Doesn't every journalist feel that these days," she said.
I only pray that when the USA gets what it deserves for heinous war crimes, I am safely home to where I feel peace, and THAT COUNTRY IS NOT AMERICA!
President Has Lost Americans' Confidence
President Has Lost Americans' Confidence
President Bush has forfeited the faith of the American people, and judging from his language Tuesday night, he knows it.
In his 2006 State of the Union speech, the president felt it necessary to warn us against "economic retreat," against retreating "from our duties in the hope of easier life."
"There is no peace in retreat," the president said, "and there is no honor in retreat." He warned against "abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders," promising that "the United States will not retreat from the world."
"Never give in to the belief that America is in decline," he begged his fellow citizens, "or that our culture is doomed to unravel."
Retreat. Decline. Retreat. . . . The White House had advertised the speech as optimistic, but its unconscious recurring theme, its underlying tone, proved to be anything but.
The president's language did, however, reflect the nation's mood. For months, almost two-thirds of Americans have been telling pollsters that the country was headed in the wrong direction. Almost two-thirds say the economy is fair or poor, despite the fact that by many standard measures it's doing pretty well. And while President Bush says we're winning in Iraq, 60 percent disapprove of how he has handled that critically important challenge.
Some might interpret those numbers to mean that the American people are losing faith in this country — that's clearly the president's fear, for example. But I think that's wrong. We have lost faith in our leadership, which is a very different thing.
That loss of faith applies not just to the president but to government in general:
Approval ratings for Congress are even lower than those for Bush. And it stretches beyond government. Too many of our corporate executives seem trapped in the gone old days, unable to adapt to new challenges, with thousands of jobs disappearing as a consequence.
Too many of the rest are enriching themselves by squeezing hundreds of millions of dollars out of their workers' hides, while government cuts taxes on their proceeds.
Across all realms, there's a sense that our leaders lack the courage, the moral strength and the intellectual independence to address fundamental problems. Again, Bush's speech offers the perfect example.
In another echo of President Carter's infamous "malaise speech" of 1979, Bush pledged Tuesday night to break our oil addiction, to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."
That's a worthy goal, but the president made no mention of taking such difficult steps as raising auto fuel-efficiency standards. He promised only the painless option of boosting spending on clean-energy research by 22 percent in the 2007 budget.
That "bold" new investment amounts to just 6.8 percent of ExxonMobil's profit for the fourth quarter, or what we spend in four days in Iraq.
No pain, no sacrifice, no hard work. Pick your topic; it's a story repeated over and over again.
In Iraq, the Bush administration didn't do the hard work of planning and preparing for an occupation and never committed the resources or manpower to make it work. The results are all too glaring.
After the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001, we were promised a government ready to respond to the next disaster, but Hurricane Katrina proved that to be all talk as well. The administration just never took the job seriously, and it showed.
The same is true of the Medicare prescription drug plan. It's gonna cost us $500 billion we don't have, and even at that price it has been an administrative nightmare.
Go through the list — what project has this administration succeeded in pulling off, other than its own re-election and the creation of a right-wing Supreme Court? The answer is nothing.
In fact, they refuse even to acknowledge some of our most pressing problems. Man-made climate change is threatening to disrupt the environment on a planetary scale, and we do nothing. Last year our national savings dropped to the lowest level since the depths of the Great Depression, and we do nothing.
We finance our greed and selfishness not by our own productive sweat and toil, but by borrowing another $2 billion every day from the rest of the world, money that our children and grandchildren will have to repay.
The president's right about this much: The American people do not like to retreat, and are by nature optimistic.
But optimism is a right purchased through hard work and sacrifice. We used to know that, but the memory's been lost.
President Bush has forfeited the faith of the American people, and judging from his language Tuesday night, he knows it.
In his 2006 State of the Union speech, the president felt it necessary to warn us against "economic retreat," against retreating "from our duties in the hope of easier life."
"There is no peace in retreat," the president said, "and there is no honor in retreat." He warned against "abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders," promising that "the United States will not retreat from the world."
"Never give in to the belief that America is in decline," he begged his fellow citizens, "or that our culture is doomed to unravel."
Retreat. Decline. Retreat. . . . The White House had advertised the speech as optimistic, but its unconscious recurring theme, its underlying tone, proved to be anything but.
The president's language did, however, reflect the nation's mood. For months, almost two-thirds of Americans have been telling pollsters that the country was headed in the wrong direction. Almost two-thirds say the economy is fair or poor, despite the fact that by many standard measures it's doing pretty well. And while President Bush says we're winning in Iraq, 60 percent disapprove of how he has handled that critically important challenge.
Some might interpret those numbers to mean that the American people are losing faith in this country — that's clearly the president's fear, for example. But I think that's wrong. We have lost faith in our leadership, which is a very different thing.
That loss of faith applies not just to the president but to government in general:
Approval ratings for Congress are even lower than those for Bush. And it stretches beyond government. Too many of our corporate executives seem trapped in the gone old days, unable to adapt to new challenges, with thousands of jobs disappearing as a consequence.
Too many of the rest are enriching themselves by squeezing hundreds of millions of dollars out of their workers' hides, while government cuts taxes on their proceeds.
Across all realms, there's a sense that our leaders lack the courage, the moral strength and the intellectual independence to address fundamental problems. Again, Bush's speech offers the perfect example.
In another echo of President Carter's infamous "malaise speech" of 1979, Bush pledged Tuesday night to break our oil addiction, to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."
That's a worthy goal, but the president made no mention of taking such difficult steps as raising auto fuel-efficiency standards. He promised only the painless option of boosting spending on clean-energy research by 22 percent in the 2007 budget.
That "bold" new investment amounts to just 6.8 percent of ExxonMobil's profit for the fourth quarter, or what we spend in four days in Iraq.
No pain, no sacrifice, no hard work. Pick your topic; it's a story repeated over and over again.
In Iraq, the Bush administration didn't do the hard work of planning and preparing for an occupation and never committed the resources or manpower to make it work. The results are all too glaring.
After the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001, we were promised a government ready to respond to the next disaster, but Hurricane Katrina proved that to be all talk as well. The administration just never took the job seriously, and it showed.
The same is true of the Medicare prescription drug plan. It's gonna cost us $500 billion we don't have, and even at that price it has been an administrative nightmare.
Go through the list — what project has this administration succeeded in pulling off, other than its own re-election and the creation of a right-wing Supreme Court? The answer is nothing.
In fact, they refuse even to acknowledge some of our most pressing problems. Man-made climate change is threatening to disrupt the environment on a planetary scale, and we do nothing. Last year our national savings dropped to the lowest level since the depths of the Great Depression, and we do nothing.
We finance our greed and selfishness not by our own productive sweat and toil, but by borrowing another $2 billion every day from the rest of the world, money that our children and grandchildren will have to repay.
The president's right about this much: The American people do not like to retreat, and are by nature optimistic.
But optimism is a right purchased through hard work and sacrifice. We used to know that, but the memory's been lost.
A 9/11 Conspirator in King Bush's Court? Sheehan Wasn't Welcome But a Saudi Accused of Support for al Qaeda Was
A 9/11 Conspirator in King Bush's Court? Sheehan Wasn't Welcome But a Saudi Accused of Support for al Qaeda Was
So I noticed...
While Cindy Sheehan was being dragged from the House gallery moments before President Bush delivered his State of the Union address for wearing a t-shirt honoring her son and the other 2,244 US soldiers killed in Iraq, Turki al-Faisal was settling into his seat inside the gallery. Faisal, a Saudi, is a man who has met Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants on at least five occasions, describing the al Qaeda leader as "quite a pleasant man."
He met multiple times with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. Yet, unlike Sheehan, al-Faisal was a welcomed guest of President Bush on Tuesday night. He is also a man that the families of more than 600 victims of the 9/11 attacks believe was connected to their loved ones' deaths.
Al-Faisal is actually Prince Turki al-Faisal, a leading member of the Saudi royal family and the kingdom's current ambassador to the US. But the bulk of his career was spent at the helm of the feared Saudi intelligence services from 1977 to 2001.
Last year, The New York Times pointed out that "he personally managed Riyadh's relations with Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar of the Taliban. Anyone else who had dealings with even a fraction of the notorious characters the prince has worked with over the years would never make it past a U.S. immigration counter, let alone to the most exclusive offices in Washington."
Al-Faisal was also named in the $1 trillion lawsuit filed by hundreds of 9/11 victims' families, who accused him of funding bin Laden's network. Curiously, his tenure as head of Saudi intelligence came to an abrupt and unexpected end 10 days before the 9/11 attacks.
"Nobody explained the circumstances under which he left," says As'ad AbuKhalil, author of The Battle for Saudi Arabia: Royalty, Fundamentalism, and Global Power. "We know for sure that he was tasked by the United States government back in the late 1970s and on to assemble the kind of Arab Muslim fanatical volunteers to help the United States and the C.I.A. in the fight against the Soviet communist regime [in Afghanistan].
In the course of doing that, this man is single-handedly most responsible for the kind of menace that these fanatical groups now pose to world peace and security." Yet, there al-Faisal sat on Tuesday as President Bush spoke of his war on terror and Cindy Sheehan was being booked.
At one point, the cameras even panned directly on al-Faisal listening intently to Bush.
(I took note of that.)
The 9/11 families' lawsuit charged that al-Faisal secretly traveled to the southern Afghan city of Kandahar twice in 1998 where he met with bin Laden's representatives and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. Based on sworn testimony from Taliban intelligence chief, Mullah Kakshar, the lawsuit claimed that al-Faisal allegedly received assurances that al Qaeda would not use "the infrastructure in Afghanistan to subvert the royal families' control of Saudi government."
In return, according to the lawsuit, the Saudis promised not to seek bin Laden's extradition or the closing of his training bases. Al-Faisal also allegedly promised Mullah Omar financial assistance. Shortly after the meetings, the Saudis reportedly shipped the Taliban 400 new pickup trucks. According to the London Observer, Kakshar also said that al-Faisal "arranged for donations to be made directly to al-Qaeda and bin Laden by a group of wealthy Saudi businessmen.
'Mullah Kakshar's sworn statement implicates Prince Turki as the facilitator of these money transfers in support of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and international terrorism,'" according to the lawsuit.
Al-Faisal does not deny he traveled to Afghanistan in 1998 for meetings with Mullah Omar, but he insists it was to "convey an official Saudi request to extradite Osama bin Laden." al-Faisal has a long history in Afghanistan. He worked closely in the 1980s with the both the CIA and the mujahadeen that would later form both al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Ultimately, a judge dismissed the 9/11 families' lawsuit against al-Faisal and his cohorts, saying US courts lacked jurisdiction over the matter. But many of those families believe firmly that al-Faisal was connected to the attacks that killed their loved ones. (as was the US Govenment)
The obvious question is: How does the president justify the ejection of a Gold Star Mother from the State of the Union, while openly welcoming a man believed by hundreds of victims' families to be connected to the attack Bush uses to justify every shred of his violent policies?
During his speech, Bush said, "It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy." Perhaps he should have just looked over his wife's shoulder up there in the gallery during the State of the Union. (Perhaps he should have looked behind him at Cheney, down at Rumsfeld, over to Condi, around the CIA and in the mirror..)
So I noticed...
While Cindy Sheehan was being dragged from the House gallery moments before President Bush delivered his State of the Union address for wearing a t-shirt honoring her son and the other 2,244 US soldiers killed in Iraq, Turki al-Faisal was settling into his seat inside the gallery. Faisal, a Saudi, is a man who has met Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants on at least five occasions, describing the al Qaeda leader as "quite a pleasant man."
He met multiple times with Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. Yet, unlike Sheehan, al-Faisal was a welcomed guest of President Bush on Tuesday night. He is also a man that the families of more than 600 victims of the 9/11 attacks believe was connected to their loved ones' deaths.
Al-Faisal is actually Prince Turki al-Faisal, a leading member of the Saudi royal family and the kingdom's current ambassador to the US. But the bulk of his career was spent at the helm of the feared Saudi intelligence services from 1977 to 2001.
Last year, The New York Times pointed out that "he personally managed Riyadh's relations with Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar of the Taliban. Anyone else who had dealings with even a fraction of the notorious characters the prince has worked with over the years would never make it past a U.S. immigration counter, let alone to the most exclusive offices in Washington."
Al-Faisal was also named in the $1 trillion lawsuit filed by hundreds of 9/11 victims' families, who accused him of funding bin Laden's network. Curiously, his tenure as head of Saudi intelligence came to an abrupt and unexpected end 10 days before the 9/11 attacks.
"Nobody explained the circumstances under which he left," says As'ad AbuKhalil, author of The Battle for Saudi Arabia: Royalty, Fundamentalism, and Global Power. "We know for sure that he was tasked by the United States government back in the late 1970s and on to assemble the kind of Arab Muslim fanatical volunteers to help the United States and the C.I.A. in the fight against the Soviet communist regime [in Afghanistan].
In the course of doing that, this man is single-handedly most responsible for the kind of menace that these fanatical groups now pose to world peace and security." Yet, there al-Faisal sat on Tuesday as President Bush spoke of his war on terror and Cindy Sheehan was being booked.
At one point, the cameras even panned directly on al-Faisal listening intently to Bush.
(I took note of that.)
The 9/11 families' lawsuit charged that al-Faisal secretly traveled to the southern Afghan city of Kandahar twice in 1998 where he met with bin Laden's representatives and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. Based on sworn testimony from Taliban intelligence chief, Mullah Kakshar, the lawsuit claimed that al-Faisal allegedly received assurances that al Qaeda would not use "the infrastructure in Afghanistan to subvert the royal families' control of Saudi government."
In return, according to the lawsuit, the Saudis promised not to seek bin Laden's extradition or the closing of his training bases. Al-Faisal also allegedly promised Mullah Omar financial assistance. Shortly after the meetings, the Saudis reportedly shipped the Taliban 400 new pickup trucks. According to the London Observer, Kakshar also said that al-Faisal "arranged for donations to be made directly to al-Qaeda and bin Laden by a group of wealthy Saudi businessmen.
'Mullah Kakshar's sworn statement implicates Prince Turki as the facilitator of these money transfers in support of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and international terrorism,'" according to the lawsuit.
Al-Faisal does not deny he traveled to Afghanistan in 1998 for meetings with Mullah Omar, but he insists it was to "convey an official Saudi request to extradite Osama bin Laden." al-Faisal has a long history in Afghanistan. He worked closely in the 1980s with the both the CIA and the mujahadeen that would later form both al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Ultimately, a judge dismissed the 9/11 families' lawsuit against al-Faisal and his cohorts, saying US courts lacked jurisdiction over the matter. But many of those families believe firmly that al-Faisal was connected to the attacks that killed their loved ones. (as was the US Govenment)
The obvious question is: How does the president justify the ejection of a Gold Star Mother from the State of the Union, while openly welcoming a man believed by hundreds of victims' families to be connected to the attack Bush uses to justify every shred of his violent policies?
During his speech, Bush said, "It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy." Perhaps he should have just looked over his wife's shoulder up there in the gallery during the State of the Union. (Perhaps he should have looked behind him at Cheney, down at Rumsfeld, over to Condi, around the CIA and in the mirror..)
Blair-Bush Deal Before Iraq War Revealed in Secret Memo
Blair-Bush Deal Before Iraq War Revealed in Secret Memo
George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memo of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair.
Tony Blair and George Bush at a press conference in the White House on January 31 2003. Photograph: Shawn Thew/AFPThe two leaders were worried by the lack of hard evidence that Saddam Hussein had broken UN resolutions, though privately they were convinced that he had.
According to the memorandum, Mr Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
He added: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated."
The memo damningly suggests the decision to invade Iraq had already been made when Mr Blair and the US President met in Washington on 31 January 2003 when the British Government was still working on obtaining a second UN resolution to legitimise the conflict.
Sounds very unethical and illegal to me....but we knew that already.
George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memo of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair.
Tony Blair and George Bush at a press conference in the White House on January 31 2003. Photograph: Shawn Thew/AFPThe two leaders were worried by the lack of hard evidence that Saddam Hussein had broken UN resolutions, though privately they were convinced that he had.
According to the memorandum, Mr Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
He added: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated."
The memo damningly suggests the decision to invade Iraq had already been made when Mr Blair and the US President met in Washington on 31 January 2003 when the British Government was still working on obtaining a second UN resolution to legitimise the conflict.
Sounds very unethical and illegal to me....but we knew that already.
U.S. Fired on Canadian Diplomats Without Warning, Envoy Says
U.S. Fired on Canadian Diplomats Without Warning, Envoy Says
Canadian officials dispute the U.S. version of an event in Iraq and insist that American soldiers fired without warning on a consular vehicle carrying four Canadian diplomats, CBC News has learned.
The U.S. military issued a statement saying that American troops in a convoy shot a vehicle carrying the Canadian chargé d'affaires to Iraq and three other diplomats in Baghdad on Tuesday.
The U.S. military said that, as the Canadian vehicle approached the convoy on the road, American troops used hand and arm signals ordering it to stop. The statement said the vehicle did not slow down so U.S. troops fired what they called warning shots, fearing a suicide bombing attack.
"The rear guard on a U.S. convoy signalled the vehicle to stay back," the statement said. "After it failed to do so and continued moving toward the convoy from behind, warning shots were aimed at the front of the vehicle, away from the passenger area."
But a Canadian diplomat who was in the vehicle told a very different version of the incident to CBC News reporter Eric Sorensen.
'Kaboom! They don't know what's happened'
The diplomat, who was not named, said no one in the Canadian vehicles remembered seeing anyone signalling to them. The first sign they had of a problem was when they heard a booming sound.
"They just remember kaboom! It happened," said Sorenson, who spoke to the diplomat by telephone from Ottawa.
The incident took place after the Canadians pulled out of the British compound in the Green Zone, a heavily fortified area in the centre of Baghdad where the Iraqi government office and the U.S. military headquarters are located.
The diplomat said the Canadian vehicle – which had a Canadian flag symbol on its dash – waited for a U.S. convoy of five Humvees to pass. Then it followed at a safe distance at about 20 to 25 km/h for about five minutes. She said Canadian officials often share the road with U.S. military vehicles and saw nothing unusual about the situation.
Unlike the version offered by the U.S. military, the Canadian diplomat told CBC News that the American convoy had pulled entirely off the road and into a staging area behind a barrier.
US military f-ups and indescretions at its finest once again...blame the commander in chief. He's gifted at ruining relations with friends and neighbors.
Canadian officials dispute the U.S. version of an event in Iraq and insist that American soldiers fired without warning on a consular vehicle carrying four Canadian diplomats, CBC News has learned.
The U.S. military issued a statement saying that American troops in a convoy shot a vehicle carrying the Canadian chargé d'affaires to Iraq and three other diplomats in Baghdad on Tuesday.
The U.S. military said that, as the Canadian vehicle approached the convoy on the road, American troops used hand and arm signals ordering it to stop. The statement said the vehicle did not slow down so U.S. troops fired what they called warning shots, fearing a suicide bombing attack.
"The rear guard on a U.S. convoy signalled the vehicle to stay back," the statement said. "After it failed to do so and continued moving toward the convoy from behind, warning shots were aimed at the front of the vehicle, away from the passenger area."
But a Canadian diplomat who was in the vehicle told a very different version of the incident to CBC News reporter Eric Sorensen.
'Kaboom! They don't know what's happened'
The diplomat, who was not named, said no one in the Canadian vehicles remembered seeing anyone signalling to them. The first sign they had of a problem was when they heard a booming sound.
"They just remember kaboom! It happened," said Sorenson, who spoke to the diplomat by telephone from Ottawa.
The incident took place after the Canadians pulled out of the British compound in the Green Zone, a heavily fortified area in the centre of Baghdad where the Iraqi government office and the U.S. military headquarters are located.
The diplomat said the Canadian vehicle – which had a Canadian flag symbol on its dash – waited for a U.S. convoy of five Humvees to pass. Then it followed at a safe distance at about 20 to 25 km/h for about five minutes. She said Canadian officials often share the road with U.S. military vehicles and saw nothing unusual about the situation.
Unlike the version offered by the U.S. military, the Canadian diplomat told CBC News that the American convoy had pulled entirely off the road and into a staging area behind a barrier.
US military f-ups and indescretions at its finest once again...blame the commander in chief. He's gifted at ruining relations with friends and neighbors.
Fitzgerald Hints White House Records Lost
Fitzgerald Hints White House Records Lost
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is raising the possibility that records sought in the CIA leak investigation could be missing because of an e-mail archiving problem at the White House.
The prosecutor in the criminal case against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff said in a Jan. 23 letter that not all e-mail was archived in 2003, the year the Bush administration exposed the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.
Lawyers for defendant I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby this week accused prosecutors of withholding evidence the Libby camp says it needs to mount a defense.
"We are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libby which has been destroyed," Fitzgerald wrote in a letter to the defense team.
But the prosecutor added: "In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system." His letter was an exhibit attached to Libby's demand for more information from the prosecution.
Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, said the vice president's office is cooperating fully with the investigation, and referred questions to Fitzgerald's office.
Libby is charged with five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI regarding how he learned of Plame's identity and what he did with the information.
The Presidential Records Act, passed by Congress in 1978, made it clear that records generated in the conduct of official duties did not belong to the president or vice president, but were the property of the government.
The National Archives takes custody of the records when the president leaves office.
"Bottom line: Accidents happen and there could be a benign explanation, but this is highly irregular and invites suspicion," said Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists government secrecy project.
"A particular subset of records sought in a controversial prosecution have gone missing," Aftergood said. "I think what is needed is for the national archivist to ascertain what went wrong and how to ensure it won't happen again."
I never thought the leak was Libby, but his boss, so I am not surprised the reconds disappeared.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is raising the possibility that records sought in the CIA leak investigation could be missing because of an e-mail archiving problem at the White House.
The prosecutor in the criminal case against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff said in a Jan. 23 letter that not all e-mail was archived in 2003, the year the Bush administration exposed the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.
Lawyers for defendant I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby this week accused prosecutors of withholding evidence the Libby camp says it needs to mount a defense.
"We are aware of no evidence pertinent to the charges against defendant Libby which has been destroyed," Fitzgerald wrote in a letter to the defense team.
But the prosecutor added: "In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all e-mail of the Office of Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system." His letter was an exhibit attached to Libby's demand for more information from the prosecution.
Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, said the vice president's office is cooperating fully with the investigation, and referred questions to Fitzgerald's office.
Libby is charged with five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI regarding how he learned of Plame's identity and what he did with the information.
The Presidential Records Act, passed by Congress in 1978, made it clear that records generated in the conduct of official duties did not belong to the president or vice president, but were the property of the government.
The National Archives takes custody of the records when the president leaves office.
"Bottom line: Accidents happen and there could be a benign explanation, but this is highly irregular and invites suspicion," said Steve Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists government secrecy project.
"A particular subset of records sought in a controversial prosecution have gone missing," Aftergood said. "I think what is needed is for the national archivist to ascertain what went wrong and how to ensure it won't happen again."
I never thought the leak was Libby, but his boss, so I am not surprised the reconds disappeared.
Hundreds of Mentally Ill to Be Executed in America: Amnesty
Hundreds of Mentally Ill to Be Executed in America: Amnesty
What happened to my country?
WASHINGTON - Amnesty International is asking that hundreds of mentally ill people facing the death penalty in American prisons have their sentences commuted.
Ten percent of the first 1,000 people executed in the United States since 1977 suffered from illnesses ranging from schizophrenia to post-traumatic stress disorder and brain damage, the leading rights watchdog and opponent of capital punishment said in a report released Tuesday.
Instead of receiving the care they desperately need, hundreds of severely mentally ill offenders in the United States are mired within a health care system that is too slow to help and a justice system that is too quick to push them into the death chamber.
Another 3,400 people remain on death row and 5-10 percent of them have mental illnesses, Amnesty said, citing estimates by the National Institute of Mental Health.
The revelations coincided with hearings Wednesday in which U.S. senators heard about the death penalty from relatives of crime victims.
Ann Scott, whose daughter was sexually assaulted and murdered in 1991, likened the killer to an animal and said he should be ''put away.''
''I, me, want this bully gone. I want him to disappear off the face of this earth. I want him to rot in hell for eternity,'' she was quoted in a news report as saying of her daughter's murderer, Alfred Mitchell. ''He is a bad seed that never should have been born. He is an animal and when you have an animal that attacks people, you take it to the pound and have it put away.''
Vicki Schieber, whose daughter Shannon was raped and murdered in 1998, disagreed and told the Senate panel she did not want her daughter's killer to be executed.
''Responding to one killing with another killing does not honor my daughter, nor does it help create the kind of society I want to live in, where human life and human rights are valued,'' she said. ''I know that an execution creates another grieving family, and causing pain to another family does not lessen my own pain.''
Her daughter's killer, Troy Graves, was sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of parole.
The Amnesty report and Senate hearings reflect increasing scrutiny of the death penalty in the United States.
Last October, a Gallup poll said that 64 percent of Americans favored the death penalty--still nearly two-thirds of the population but the lowest level in 27 years. Approval of the death penalty peaked at 80 percent in 1994, Gallup said.
Amnesty, in its report, urged an immediate moratorium on all executions involving the mentally ill.
The inmates in question suffered ''serious mental impairment'' either before or while they committed their crimes, Amnesty said, adding that their execution stood at odds with a 2002 Supreme Court ruling that it is unconstitutional to execute criminals who are mentally retarded.
Only one state--Connecticut--bars execution for convicts found to have been mentally ill when they committed their crime. Texas is the top executioner of mentally impaired people, killing at least 24 retarded or mentally ill people since 1977. Oklahoma killed the next largest number of mentally ill people, nine, among the cases studied by Amnesty.
''The safety net currently in place to prevent individuals with long, documented histories of severe mental illness from committing violent crimes or to protect them from being executed when they do is egregiously inadequate,'' the group said.
''Instead of receiving the care they desperately need, hundreds of severely mentally ill offenders in the United States are mired within a health care system that is too slow to help and a justice system that is too quick to push them into the death chamber,'' it added.
Amnesty said a review of psychiatric examinations, medical records, and documented cases of extreme behavior found that at least 100 of the condemned prisoners had severe mental illness. In other cases, it was impossible to determine if the inmates suffered from mental illness because a thorough psychiatric examination had never been done.
Mentally ill defendants were allowed to conduct their own defenses, waive their rights to appeal, and ''volunteer'' to be executed, the rights organization added.
More than one-fourth of the 100 mentally ill prisoners executed since 1977, when the Supreme Court lifted a 10-year moratorium on capital punishment, had thus agreed to be killed--sometimes because they simply would not accept that they were mentally impaired but also because they had given up hope of receiving treatment, said the report, The Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders.
''In some cases, families begged the state for help with their mentally ill loved ones only to be told that nothing could be done until the relative became 'dangerous','' Amnesty said. ''Unfortunately, the next time the families heard from the state authorities was when the person for whom they had sought help was being arrested and charged with murder.''
Many trials never heard any evidence of mental illness, the report said, and U.S. prosecutors exploited public ignorance or fear about mental illness by arguing that mentally ill defendants' ''flat'' behavior in court indicated they were ''unremorseful.''
The report cited the case of Scott Panetti, sentenced to death in 1995 for killing his parents-in-law. Panetti, who had been hospitalized repeatedly with hallucinations, represented himself in court, where he dressed as a cowboy and asked irrational questions. His case is under appeal.
Other defendants had been medicated so that they would be lucid enough to be aware of what was happening to them at the time of their execution.
Copyright © 2006 OneWorld.net.
What happened to my country?
WASHINGTON - Amnesty International is asking that hundreds of mentally ill people facing the death penalty in American prisons have their sentences commuted.
Ten percent of the first 1,000 people executed in the United States since 1977 suffered from illnesses ranging from schizophrenia to post-traumatic stress disorder and brain damage, the leading rights watchdog and opponent of capital punishment said in a report released Tuesday.
Instead of receiving the care they desperately need, hundreds of severely mentally ill offenders in the United States are mired within a health care system that is too slow to help and a justice system that is too quick to push them into the death chamber.
Another 3,400 people remain on death row and 5-10 percent of them have mental illnesses, Amnesty said, citing estimates by the National Institute of Mental Health.
The revelations coincided with hearings Wednesday in which U.S. senators heard about the death penalty from relatives of crime victims.
Ann Scott, whose daughter was sexually assaulted and murdered in 1991, likened the killer to an animal and said he should be ''put away.''
''I, me, want this bully gone. I want him to disappear off the face of this earth. I want him to rot in hell for eternity,'' she was quoted in a news report as saying of her daughter's murderer, Alfred Mitchell. ''He is a bad seed that never should have been born. He is an animal and when you have an animal that attacks people, you take it to the pound and have it put away.''
Vicki Schieber, whose daughter Shannon was raped and murdered in 1998, disagreed and told the Senate panel she did not want her daughter's killer to be executed.
''Responding to one killing with another killing does not honor my daughter, nor does it help create the kind of society I want to live in, where human life and human rights are valued,'' she said. ''I know that an execution creates another grieving family, and causing pain to another family does not lessen my own pain.''
Her daughter's killer, Troy Graves, was sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of parole.
The Amnesty report and Senate hearings reflect increasing scrutiny of the death penalty in the United States.
Last October, a Gallup poll said that 64 percent of Americans favored the death penalty--still nearly two-thirds of the population but the lowest level in 27 years. Approval of the death penalty peaked at 80 percent in 1994, Gallup said.
Amnesty, in its report, urged an immediate moratorium on all executions involving the mentally ill.
The inmates in question suffered ''serious mental impairment'' either before or while they committed their crimes, Amnesty said, adding that their execution stood at odds with a 2002 Supreme Court ruling that it is unconstitutional to execute criminals who are mentally retarded.
Only one state--Connecticut--bars execution for convicts found to have been mentally ill when they committed their crime. Texas is the top executioner of mentally impaired people, killing at least 24 retarded or mentally ill people since 1977. Oklahoma killed the next largest number of mentally ill people, nine, among the cases studied by Amnesty.
''The safety net currently in place to prevent individuals with long, documented histories of severe mental illness from committing violent crimes or to protect them from being executed when they do is egregiously inadequate,'' the group said.
''Instead of receiving the care they desperately need, hundreds of severely mentally ill offenders in the United States are mired within a health care system that is too slow to help and a justice system that is too quick to push them into the death chamber,'' it added.
Amnesty said a review of psychiatric examinations, medical records, and documented cases of extreme behavior found that at least 100 of the condemned prisoners had severe mental illness. In other cases, it was impossible to determine if the inmates suffered from mental illness because a thorough psychiatric examination had never been done.
Mentally ill defendants were allowed to conduct their own defenses, waive their rights to appeal, and ''volunteer'' to be executed, the rights organization added.
More than one-fourth of the 100 mentally ill prisoners executed since 1977, when the Supreme Court lifted a 10-year moratorium on capital punishment, had thus agreed to be killed--sometimes because they simply would not accept that they were mentally impaired but also because they had given up hope of receiving treatment, said the report, The Execution of Mentally Ill Offenders.
''In some cases, families begged the state for help with their mentally ill loved ones only to be told that nothing could be done until the relative became 'dangerous','' Amnesty said. ''Unfortunately, the next time the families heard from the state authorities was when the person for whom they had sought help was being arrested and charged with murder.''
Many trials never heard any evidence of mental illness, the report said, and U.S. prosecutors exploited public ignorance or fear about mental illness by arguing that mentally ill defendants' ''flat'' behavior in court indicated they were ''unremorseful.''
The report cited the case of Scott Panetti, sentenced to death in 1995 for killing his parents-in-law. Panetti, who had been hospitalized repeatedly with hallucinations, represented himself in court, where he dressed as a cowboy and asked irrational questions. His case is under appeal.
Other defendants had been medicated so that they would be lucid enough to be aware of what was happening to them at the time of their execution.
Copyright © 2006 OneWorld.net.
2.2.06
Campaign for the Supreme Court - The Politics of the Nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Campaign for the Supreme Court - The Politics of the Nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Alito's First Day
Gina Holland of AP reports:
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court’s conservatives in a death penalty case on his first day on the court.
Handling his first case, Alito sided with five other justices Wednesday evening in refusing to allow Missouri to execute inmate Michael Taylor.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the an execution stay issued by an appeals court, but Alito sided with the majority in turning down Missouri’s last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.
Earlier in the day, Alito was sworn in for a second time in a White House ceremony, where he was lauded by President Bush as a man of “steady demeanor, careful judgment and complete integrity.”
He was also was given his assignment for handling emergency appeals: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. As a result, Missouri filed with Alito its request for the high court to void a stay and allow Taylor’s execution.
The court’s split vote Wednesday night ended a frenzied day of filings. Missouri twice asked the justices to intervene and permit the execution, while Taylor’s lawyers filed two more appeals seeking delays.
Reporters and witnesses had gathered at the state prison awaiting word from the high court on whether to go ahead with the execution.
An appeals court will now review Taylor’s claim that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment, a claim also used by two Florida death-row inmates that won stays from the Supreme Court over the past week. The court has agreed to use one of the cases to clarify how inmates may bring last-minute challenges to the way they will be put to death.
Alito replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, who had often been the swing vote in capital punishment cases. He was expected to side with prosecutors more often than O’Connor, although as an appeals court judge, his record in death penalty cases was mixed.
Scalia and Thomas have consistently sided with states in death penalty cases and have been especially critical of long delays in carrying out executions.
Taylor was convicted of killing 15-year-old Ann Harrison, who was waiting for a school bus when he and an accomplice kidnapped her in 1989. Taylor pleaded guilty and said he was high on crack cocaine at the time.
Taylor’s legal team had pursued two challenges — claiming that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment and that his constitutional rights were violated by a system tilted against black defendants.
The court, acting without Alito, rejected Taylor’s appeal that argued that Missouri’s death penalty system is racist. Taylor is black and his victim was white. He filed the appeal on Tuesday, the day that Alito was confirmed by the Senate.
I just am curious about his flighty gaze, and walk....His public demeanor the night of the Pep rally (SUA) was like a school boy dancing on air. Kind of fruity if you ask me :p
Alito's First Day
Gina Holland of AP reports:
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court’s conservatives in a death penalty case on his first day on the court.
Handling his first case, Alito sided with five other justices Wednesday evening in refusing to allow Missouri to execute inmate Michael Taylor.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported lifting the an execution stay issued by an appeals court, but Alito sided with the majority in turning down Missouri’s last-minute request to allow a midnight execution.
Earlier in the day, Alito was sworn in for a second time in a White House ceremony, where he was lauded by President Bush as a man of “steady demeanor, careful judgment and complete integrity.”
He was also was given his assignment for handling emergency appeals: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. As a result, Missouri filed with Alito its request for the high court to void a stay and allow Taylor’s execution.
The court’s split vote Wednesday night ended a frenzied day of filings. Missouri twice asked the justices to intervene and permit the execution, while Taylor’s lawyers filed two more appeals seeking delays.
Reporters and witnesses had gathered at the state prison awaiting word from the high court on whether to go ahead with the execution.
An appeals court will now review Taylor’s claim that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment, a claim also used by two Florida death-row inmates that won stays from the Supreme Court over the past week. The court has agreed to use one of the cases to clarify how inmates may bring last-minute challenges to the way they will be put to death.
Alito replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, who had often been the swing vote in capital punishment cases. He was expected to side with prosecutors more often than O’Connor, although as an appeals court judge, his record in death penalty cases was mixed.
Scalia and Thomas have consistently sided with states in death penalty cases and have been especially critical of long delays in carrying out executions.
Taylor was convicted of killing 15-year-old Ann Harrison, who was waiting for a school bus when he and an accomplice kidnapped her in 1989. Taylor pleaded guilty and said he was high on crack cocaine at the time.
Taylor’s legal team had pursued two challenges — claiming that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment and that his constitutional rights were violated by a system tilted against black defendants.
The court, acting without Alito, rejected Taylor’s appeal that argued that Missouri’s death penalty system is racist. Taylor is black and his victim was white. He filed the appeal on Tuesday, the day that Alito was confirmed by the Senate.
I just am curious about his flighty gaze, and walk....His public demeanor the night of the Pep rally (SUA) was like a school boy dancing on air. Kind of fruity if you ask me :p
Bush's Goals on Energy Quickly Find Obstacles - New York Times
Bush's Goals on Energy Quickly Find Obstacles - New York Times
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 — The energy proposals set out on Tuesday by President Bush quickly ran into obstacles on Wednesday, showing how difficult it will be to take even the limited steps he supports to reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil.
On the day after he declared in his State of the Union address that the United States was "addicted to oil" and had to wean itself from a century-old habit, Mr. Bush drew some support for putting the issue more prominently on the agenda but also skepticism about how achievable his goals really were.
"Every administration since the early 1970's has struggled with the issue of rising oil imports and the right mix of policies to deal with them," said Daniel Yergin, the author of "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power" and the founder of a consulting firm, Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "Some people would just say, 'It's world trade, we sell Boeings and we buy oil.' But since oil is intertwined with geopolitics, people worry about vulnerability and whether oil is a drag on our foreign policy."
Diplomatically, Mr. Bush's ambitious call for the replacement of 75 percent of the United States' Mideast oil imports with ethanol and other energy sources by 2025 upset Saudi Arabia, the main American oil supplier in the Persian Gulf. In an interview on Wednesday, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said he would have to ask Mr. Bush's office "what he exactly meant by that." (He was talking sh** to boost his ratings here in the states)
Politically, both parties on Capitol Hill displayed a lack of enthusiasm. Democrats said Mr. Bush had opposed foreign oil reduction targets in last year's energy bill, and Republicans questioned the practicality of relying on ethanol and other alternatives.
Scientifically, researchers said ethanol and other alternative fuels were still years away from widespread commercial use.
Economically, energy analysts said Mr. Bush's goal of reducing Mideast oil imports would have little practical benefit because oil was traded in world markets and its price was determined by global supply and demand, rather than bought from one country by another.
"If the United States was zero-dependent on Middle Eastern oil, but the rest of our allies among consuming nations were just as dependent, then a disruption anywhere is a price increase everywhere," said Lawrence Goldstein, the president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, a policy analysis group in New York.
Mr. Bush, like other modern presidents, has talked since the earliest days of his administration about weaning the United States off oil, but mostly by supporting an increase in domestic production. On Wednesday afternoon, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Rush Limbaugh's radio program that the administration would continue to push to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
The difference on Tuesday was Mr. Bush's emphasis on alternative energy sources that he had not made a top focus in the past: better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, hydrogen cars, ethanol from wood and agricultural waste, solar and wind technologies and what he called "clean, safe nuclear energy."
The president's tone was so changed, in fact, that some analysts said he sounded like a Democrat. Dan W. Reicher, who served in the Energy Department during the Clinton administration, said Mr. Bush's ideas showed "an uncanny resemblance" to some Clinton efforts.
Mr. Bush's main departure from many Democrats and another source of resistance to his energy plan is his opposition to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars. Mr. Bush has also opposed any effort to impose a higher gasoline tax.
Many economists contend that a significant increase in the gasoline tax could lead to sharp changes in American behavior, because it would give consumers strong reasons to drive more efficient vehicles and give manufacturers incentives for innovative cars, including hybrids that run on gasoline and electricity.
In 2004, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that a gasoline tax of 46 cents a gallon, up from today's federal tax of 18 cents, would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 percent over the next 14 years.
But when asked why Mr. Bush had not called on the public to sacrifice to reduce oil consumption, Samuel W. Bodman, the energy secretary, said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday that "many Americans believe they're already sacrificing by paying the prices they're paying for gasoline and heating oil and natural gas."
1 2 Next Page >
Education: More Training Is Seen as Key to Improving Math Levels (February 2, 2006)
Budget Measure Increases College Loans and Rates (February 2, 2006)
Transcript: 'We Strive to Be a Compassionate, Decent, Hopeful Society' (January 31, 2006) (Then tell the truth)
Energy Policy: Call to Cut Foreign Oil Is a Refrain 35 Years Old (February 1, 2006)
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 — The energy proposals set out on Tuesday by President Bush quickly ran into obstacles on Wednesday, showing how difficult it will be to take even the limited steps he supports to reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil.
On the day after he declared in his State of the Union address that the United States was "addicted to oil" and had to wean itself from a century-old habit, Mr. Bush drew some support for putting the issue more prominently on the agenda but also skepticism about how achievable his goals really were.
"Every administration since the early 1970's has struggled with the issue of rising oil imports and the right mix of policies to deal with them," said Daniel Yergin, the author of "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power" and the founder of a consulting firm, Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "Some people would just say, 'It's world trade, we sell Boeings and we buy oil.' But since oil is intertwined with geopolitics, people worry about vulnerability and whether oil is a drag on our foreign policy."
Diplomatically, Mr. Bush's ambitious call for the replacement of 75 percent of the United States' Mideast oil imports with ethanol and other energy sources by 2025 upset Saudi Arabia, the main American oil supplier in the Persian Gulf. In an interview on Wednesday, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said he would have to ask Mr. Bush's office "what he exactly meant by that." (He was talking sh** to boost his ratings here in the states)
Politically, both parties on Capitol Hill displayed a lack of enthusiasm. Democrats said Mr. Bush had opposed foreign oil reduction targets in last year's energy bill, and Republicans questioned the practicality of relying on ethanol and other alternatives.
Scientifically, researchers said ethanol and other alternative fuels were still years away from widespread commercial use.
Economically, energy analysts said Mr. Bush's goal of reducing Mideast oil imports would have little practical benefit because oil was traded in world markets and its price was determined by global supply and demand, rather than bought from one country by another.
"If the United States was zero-dependent on Middle Eastern oil, but the rest of our allies among consuming nations were just as dependent, then a disruption anywhere is a price increase everywhere," said Lawrence Goldstein, the president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, a policy analysis group in New York.
Mr. Bush, like other modern presidents, has talked since the earliest days of his administration about weaning the United States off oil, but mostly by supporting an increase in domestic production. On Wednesday afternoon, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Rush Limbaugh's radio program that the administration would continue to push to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
The difference on Tuesday was Mr. Bush's emphasis on alternative energy sources that he had not made a top focus in the past: better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, hydrogen cars, ethanol from wood and agricultural waste, solar and wind technologies and what he called "clean, safe nuclear energy."
The president's tone was so changed, in fact, that some analysts said he sounded like a Democrat. Dan W. Reicher, who served in the Energy Department during the Clinton administration, said Mr. Bush's ideas showed "an uncanny resemblance" to some Clinton efforts.
Mr. Bush's main departure from many Democrats and another source of resistance to his energy plan is his opposition to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars. Mr. Bush has also opposed any effort to impose a higher gasoline tax.
Many economists contend that a significant increase in the gasoline tax could lead to sharp changes in American behavior, because it would give consumers strong reasons to drive more efficient vehicles and give manufacturers incentives for innovative cars, including hybrids that run on gasoline and electricity.
In 2004, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that a gasoline tax of 46 cents a gallon, up from today's federal tax of 18 cents, would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 percent over the next 14 years.
But when asked why Mr. Bush had not called on the public to sacrifice to reduce oil consumption, Samuel W. Bodman, the energy secretary, said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday that "many Americans believe they're already sacrificing by paying the prices they're paying for gasoline and heating oil and natural gas."
1 2 Next Page >
Education: More Training Is Seen as Key to Improving Math Levels (February 2, 2006)
Budget Measure Increases College Loans and Rates (February 2, 2006)
Transcript: 'We Strive to Be a Compassionate, Decent, Hopeful Society' (January 31, 2006) (Then tell the truth)
Energy Policy: Call to Cut Foreign Oil Is a Refrain 35 Years Old (February 1, 2006)
Iran: Confrontation in the Cards
Iran: Confrontation in the Cards
NEW DELHI - Now that the Western powers have reached a deal with Russia and China to refer Iran's nuclear activities to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a serious escalation of tensions with Tehran is in the cards.
While Russia and China are sending diplomats to Tehran, according to the Russian Information Agency, there is little hope of a breakthrough before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets on Thursday and Iran has already signaled defiance.
If Iran does not respond to the Russo-Chinese diplomatic initiative there is every chance of a confrontation developing that could further destabilise an already volatile situation in the Middle East, say security analysts here.
A turning point could come at the IAEA meeting in Vienna , called to discuss the issue of Iran's nuclear program, which United States and European Union leaders suspect, is meant to produce nuclear weapons.
The agreement among the U.S. the EU-3 (Germany, France and Britain), and Russia and China came after hours of talks in London which began Monday evening.
This is the first time that Russia and China have joined the West in demanding that Iran resume the suspension of all uranium enrichment activities, including "research" restarted earlier this month, when it broke the seals at a facility in Natanz in the presence of IAEA inspectors.
However, Russia and China have imposed the condition that the UNSC would not act on the Iran issue, for example, by ordering sanctions, for at least a month. Another IAEA meeting is scheduled for March, where the agency's director general is expected to submit a comprehensive report on Iran's activities.
''In reaching this agreement in London, Russia has obviously beaten a retreat from its earlier position resisting an early referral of Iran to the Security Council,'' says Kamal Mitra Chenoy, a professor at the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) here.
This deal also marks a shift from a Russian offer to enrich Iran's uranium on its soil, for use in the nuclear power reactors Tehran is building. It also differs from Moscow's more recent proposal to have the Iran issue sent to the Security Council as a matter of information, not for action.
The Russia-China-U.S.-EU-3 agreement has been interpreted as a signal that Moscow and Beijing would vote for a Western-sponsored motion in Vienna, rather than abstain, as they did in September, when the IAEA Board held Iran guilty of "non-compliance" with its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which it is a signatory.
Even if there is no vote at the IAEA this week, it is clear that the U.S. and the EU are moving towards a stand-off with Iran. Sooner or later, Iran is likely to be confronted with punitive measures. The West accuses it of 'defiance'. But Iran says it scrupulously abides by its commitments to the NPT and the IAEA.
''If Russia and China vote against Iran this week in Vienna, it is virtually certain that India too will follow,'' holds Mitra Chenoy. ''In September, India broke ranks with the Non-Aligned Movement and voted for the U.S.-sponsored motion. This time around, the Indian government has been under great domestic pressure to abstain. But it can now cite the London agreement and fall in line with the U.S. at Vienna.''
New Delhi is keen to vote with the U.S., despite domestic opposition, in order to finalize and implement a nuclear cooperation deal initialled with Washington last July. This would effectively legitimize India's nuclear weapons and help resume civilian nuclear commerce with it.
Iran cites the Indo-U.S. agreement as an instance of ''double standards'' and hypocrisy. ''India would like to avoid a vote on the Iranian nuclear issue'' at Vienna, but will cast its ballot against Iran ''if it is called upon to make a choice,'' the well-informed 'The Hindu' newspaper reported Tuesday.
If there is a vote this week, it is likely to isolate Iran. ''But Teheran is certain to retaliate if the Security Council reprimands it or imposes sanctions on it,'' argues Gulshan Dietl, a West Asia expert at JNU.
''Iran may not act immediately, but it will probably have a calibrated, step-by-step response. For instance, it could first stop executing the Additional Protocol it signed with the IAEA, which allows intrusive inspections. Later, it could throw out IAEA inspectors. Still later, it could consider even tougher measures. Tehran knows it holds a number of high-value cards in its hand,'' Prof. Dietl adds.
The greatest card is Iraq, where Iran wields enormous influence both through the Shia-majority government, and in society at large. The U.S. is already in deep trouble in Iraq and faces a military stalemate. Iran could create serious difficulties for the U.S., which has 140,000 troops in Iraq.
''No less important is Iran's influence in Afghanistan,'' says a former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan, who requests anonymity.
''Historically, Iran has had close links with and a role in Central and Western Afghanistan. It also enjoys a special relationship with the Tajik-led Northern Alliance. Iran can cause another quagmire for the U.S. in a neighbourhood still infested with al-Qaeda and Taliban elements.''
Not to be minimised is Iran's influence in Syria and Lebanon. The Hamas's victory in the recent parliamentary elections in Palestine further strengthens Iran's regional clout.
''In the short run too, sanctions on Iran could be counterproductive for the West,'' argues Dietl. ''An oil embargo will hurt Iran, but it will hurt the economies of several European countries and Japan too. In the long run, what is to prevent an isolated and embittered Iran from walking out of the NPT and pursuing its own nuclear weapons programme, like North Korea did?''
Israel has repeatedly declared that it would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. The U.S. has reportedly drawn up contingency plans for a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. But this option is fraught. It may only set back Iran's nuclear pursuits by a few years. Iran's key atomic facilities are well-protected and buried deep underground.
''The tragic thing about the crisis caused by the West's short-sighted approach and its double standards,'' says Dietl, ''is that it is completely unnecessary. Iran has been willing to subject all its nuclear activities to the most intrusive possible inspections. But the U.S. has refused to take up Iran's offer and missed a chance to keep its activities under check.''
The opening of the locks at Natanz for research activities does not alter the ground situation materially. But the U.S. has exploited this to precipitate a confrontation which is hard to win.
NEW DELHI - Now that the Western powers have reached a deal with Russia and China to refer Iran's nuclear activities to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a serious escalation of tensions with Tehran is in the cards.
While Russia and China are sending diplomats to Tehran, according to the Russian Information Agency, there is little hope of a breakthrough before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets on Thursday and Iran has already signaled defiance.
If Iran does not respond to the Russo-Chinese diplomatic initiative there is every chance of a confrontation developing that could further destabilise an already volatile situation in the Middle East, say security analysts here.
A turning point could come at the IAEA meeting in Vienna , called to discuss the issue of Iran's nuclear program, which United States and European Union leaders suspect, is meant to produce nuclear weapons.
The agreement among the U.S. the EU-3 (Germany, France and Britain), and Russia and China came after hours of talks in London which began Monday evening.
This is the first time that Russia and China have joined the West in demanding that Iran resume the suspension of all uranium enrichment activities, including "research" restarted earlier this month, when it broke the seals at a facility in Natanz in the presence of IAEA inspectors.
However, Russia and China have imposed the condition that the UNSC would not act on the Iran issue, for example, by ordering sanctions, for at least a month. Another IAEA meeting is scheduled for March, where the agency's director general is expected to submit a comprehensive report on Iran's activities.
''In reaching this agreement in London, Russia has obviously beaten a retreat from its earlier position resisting an early referral of Iran to the Security Council,'' says Kamal Mitra Chenoy, a professor at the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) here.
This deal also marks a shift from a Russian offer to enrich Iran's uranium on its soil, for use in the nuclear power reactors Tehran is building. It also differs from Moscow's more recent proposal to have the Iran issue sent to the Security Council as a matter of information, not for action.
The Russia-China-U.S.-EU-3 agreement has been interpreted as a signal that Moscow and Beijing would vote for a Western-sponsored motion in Vienna, rather than abstain, as they did in September, when the IAEA Board held Iran guilty of "non-compliance" with its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which it is a signatory.
Even if there is no vote at the IAEA this week, it is clear that the U.S. and the EU are moving towards a stand-off with Iran. Sooner or later, Iran is likely to be confronted with punitive measures. The West accuses it of 'defiance'. But Iran says it scrupulously abides by its commitments to the NPT and the IAEA.
''If Russia and China vote against Iran this week in Vienna, it is virtually certain that India too will follow,'' holds Mitra Chenoy. ''In September, India broke ranks with the Non-Aligned Movement and voted for the U.S.-sponsored motion. This time around, the Indian government has been under great domestic pressure to abstain. But it can now cite the London agreement and fall in line with the U.S. at Vienna.''
New Delhi is keen to vote with the U.S., despite domestic opposition, in order to finalize and implement a nuclear cooperation deal initialled with Washington last July. This would effectively legitimize India's nuclear weapons and help resume civilian nuclear commerce with it.
Iran cites the Indo-U.S. agreement as an instance of ''double standards'' and hypocrisy. ''India would like to avoid a vote on the Iranian nuclear issue'' at Vienna, but will cast its ballot against Iran ''if it is called upon to make a choice,'' the well-informed 'The Hindu' newspaper reported Tuesday.
If there is a vote this week, it is likely to isolate Iran. ''But Teheran is certain to retaliate if the Security Council reprimands it or imposes sanctions on it,'' argues Gulshan Dietl, a West Asia expert at JNU.
''Iran may not act immediately, but it will probably have a calibrated, step-by-step response. For instance, it could first stop executing the Additional Protocol it signed with the IAEA, which allows intrusive inspections. Later, it could throw out IAEA inspectors. Still later, it could consider even tougher measures. Tehran knows it holds a number of high-value cards in its hand,'' Prof. Dietl adds.
The greatest card is Iraq, where Iran wields enormous influence both through the Shia-majority government, and in society at large. The U.S. is already in deep trouble in Iraq and faces a military stalemate. Iran could create serious difficulties for the U.S., which has 140,000 troops in Iraq.
''No less important is Iran's influence in Afghanistan,'' says a former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan, who requests anonymity.
''Historically, Iran has had close links with and a role in Central and Western Afghanistan. It also enjoys a special relationship with the Tajik-led Northern Alliance. Iran can cause another quagmire for the U.S. in a neighbourhood still infested with al-Qaeda and Taliban elements.''
Not to be minimised is Iran's influence in Syria and Lebanon. The Hamas's victory in the recent parliamentary elections in Palestine further strengthens Iran's regional clout.
''In the short run too, sanctions on Iran could be counterproductive for the West,'' argues Dietl. ''An oil embargo will hurt Iran, but it will hurt the economies of several European countries and Japan too. In the long run, what is to prevent an isolated and embittered Iran from walking out of the NPT and pursuing its own nuclear weapons programme, like North Korea did?''
Israel has repeatedly declared that it would not tolerate a nuclear Iran. The U.S. has reportedly drawn up contingency plans for a military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. But this option is fraught. It may only set back Iran's nuclear pursuits by a few years. Iran's key atomic facilities are well-protected and buried deep underground.
''The tragic thing about the crisis caused by the West's short-sighted approach and its double standards,'' says Dietl, ''is that it is completely unnecessary. Iran has been willing to subject all its nuclear activities to the most intrusive possible inspections. But the U.S. has refused to take up Iran's offer and missed a chance to keep its activities under check.''
The opening of the locks at Natanz for research activities does not alter the ground situation materially. But the U.S. has exploited this to precipitate a confrontation which is hard to win.
Bungled Peace-Building Opens Door to Terrorism
Bungled Peace-Building Opens Door to Terrorism (full Story)
BROOKLIN, Canada - Washington's attempts to bring security to Iraq and Afghanistan are not only making life harder for local people, they are breeding more terrorists, warn international security experts.
Under its anti-terrorism agenda, the U.S. has centralised power and security in post-conflict Iraq and Afghanistan, which ironically creates perfect conditions for terrorists and criminals.
"There is a great fear that unstable states and post-war societies provide an ideal breeding ground for terrorist training and activity," said Albrecht Schnabel, a senior fellow with the Research Programme on Human Security in Bern, Switzerland.
"Yet almost three years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is characterised by chaos, violence and disintegration.
The methods used to rebuild Iraq's security sector are simply making matters worse," he told IPS. Schnabel is co-editor of a new book, "Security Sector Reform and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding", published by United Nations University press and written by an international group of academics and military commanders who examine the record and challenges of security sector reform in post-conflict societies.
"Instead of stabilising places like Iraq, international efforts to centralise power are creating a more fragile security environment than ever before," Schnabel said. The United States is avoiding widely recognised peace-building processes that involve external military powers quickly creating a basic security environment and then allowing domestic peace- and nation-building efforts to succeed.
It takes several years to develop reliable internal security institutions that have the support of the population, as was achieved in Bosnia and East Timor, Schnabel acknowledged. "It's a difficult transition and countries and their people are vulnerable to terrorism and exploitation," he said, adding however, that by putting its own domestic security interests first, the U.S. has created a lose-lose situation.
"The overall objective of external military forces in post-conflict societies is to eliminate violence in the society," said David Carment, director of the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Canada's Carleton University.
"The U.S. focus in Afghanistan is to eliminate terrorists and their bases," Carment, who did not contribute to the book, said in an interview. That different focus can compromise efforts by international participants to bring peace, he said.
The recent U.S. tactic of rearming some warlords in parts of Afghanistan and using them to fight the Taliban has angered rival warlords who had turned in their weapons under a U.N.-sponsored disarmament programme in 2003 and 2004.
"You can't build a nation by supporting warlords," said Schnabel.
BROOKLIN, Canada - Washington's attempts to bring security to Iraq and Afghanistan are not only making life harder for local people, they are breeding more terrorists, warn international security experts.
Under its anti-terrorism agenda, the U.S. has centralised power and security in post-conflict Iraq and Afghanistan, which ironically creates perfect conditions for terrorists and criminals.
"There is a great fear that unstable states and post-war societies provide an ideal breeding ground for terrorist training and activity," said Albrecht Schnabel, a senior fellow with the Research Programme on Human Security in Bern, Switzerland.
"Yet almost three years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is characterised by chaos, violence and disintegration.
The methods used to rebuild Iraq's security sector are simply making matters worse," he told IPS. Schnabel is co-editor of a new book, "Security Sector Reform and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding", published by United Nations University press and written by an international group of academics and military commanders who examine the record and challenges of security sector reform in post-conflict societies.
"Instead of stabilising places like Iraq, international efforts to centralise power are creating a more fragile security environment than ever before," Schnabel said. The United States is avoiding widely recognised peace-building processes that involve external military powers quickly creating a basic security environment and then allowing domestic peace- and nation-building efforts to succeed.
It takes several years to develop reliable internal security institutions that have the support of the population, as was achieved in Bosnia and East Timor, Schnabel acknowledged. "It's a difficult transition and countries and their people are vulnerable to terrorism and exploitation," he said, adding however, that by putting its own domestic security interests first, the U.S. has created a lose-lose situation.
"The overall objective of external military forces in post-conflict societies is to eliminate violence in the society," said David Carment, director of the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Canada's Carleton University.
"The U.S. focus in Afghanistan is to eliminate terrorists and their bases," Carment, who did not contribute to the book, said in an interview. That different focus can compromise efforts by international participants to bring peace, he said.
The recent U.S. tactic of rearming some warlords in parts of Afghanistan and using them to fight the Taliban has angered rival warlords who had turned in their weapons under a U.N.-sponsored disarmament programme in 2003 and 2004.
"You can't build a nation by supporting warlords," said Schnabel.
Impeach
Impeach - The consensus is growing
- Impeachment Blogging (281)12 hours 29 min ago
- About ImpeachPAC (32)1 day 19 hours ago
- Bush Supporters (2)1 day 19 hours ago
- Impeachment in the News (36)1 day 19 hours ago
- Graphics (2)1 week 2 days ago
- Grounds for Impeachment (20)1 week 6 days ago
- Polls (12)2 weeks 3 days ago
- Articles of Impeachment (3)4 weeks 4 days ago
- Politics of Impeachment (7)4 weeks 5 days ago
- Photos (2)5 weeks 1 day ago
- Impeachment Process (5)5 weeks 5 days ago
- Evidence of Lies (5)6 weeks 1 day ago
- Challengers (6)6 weeks 2 days ago
- Bush Hatred (2)8 weeks 3 days ago
- Incumbents (2)9 weeks 2 days ago
Cindy Sheehan: What Really Happened
Cindy Sheehan: What Really Happened
Dear Friends,
As most of you have probably heard, I was arrested before the State of the Union Address tonight.
I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country.
Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan is escorted out of the House chamber by security personnel, January 31, 2006. (Jason Reed/Reuters) There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. (Shocker) So this is what really happened:
This afternoon at the People's State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh, Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2245 Dead. How many more?
After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.
I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the undergroud tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again.
My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat.
I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled; "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight.
The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan." At which point the officer who arrested me said: "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting."
I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct."
After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2245, huh? I just got back from there."
I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.
What did Casey die for? What did the 2244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shirt that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing.
I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't.
There have already been many wild stories out there.
I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.
I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.
I am so appreciative of the couple of hundred of protesters who came to the jail while I was locked up to show their support....we have so much potential for good...there is so much good in so many people.
Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight.
Keep up the struggle...I promise you I will too.
Love and peace soon,
Cindy
True; We have lost many freedoms and it is not okay in america to protest the deplorable conduct of our government.
Dear Friends,
As most of you have probably heard, I was arrested before the State of the Union Address tonight.
I am speechless with fury at what happened and with grief over what we have lost in our country.
Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan is escorted out of the House chamber by security personnel, January 31, 2006. (Jason Reed/Reuters) There have been lies from the police and distortions by the press. (Shocker) So this is what really happened:
This afternoon at the People's State of the Union Address in DC where I was joined by Congresspersons Lynn Woolsey and John Conyers, Ann Wright, Malik Rahim and John Cavanagh, Lynn brought me a ticket to the State of the Union Address. At that time, I was wearing the shirt that said: 2245 Dead. How many more?
After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn't feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.
I got the ticket back from John, and I met one of Congresswoman Barbara Lee's staffers in the Longworth Congressional Office building and we went to the Capitol via the undergroud tunnel. I went through security once, then had to use the rest room and went through security again.
My ticket was in the 5th gallery, front row, fourth seat in. The person who in a few minutes was to arrest me, helped me to my seat.
I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled; "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight.
The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan." At which point the officer who arrested me said: "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting."
I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct."
After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2245, huh? I just got back from there."
I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.
What did Casey die for? What did the 2244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shirt that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing.
I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't.
There have already been many wild stories out there.
I have some lawyers looking into filing a First Amendment lawsuit against the government for what happened tonight. I will file it. It is time to take our freedoms and our country back.
I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.
I am so appreciative of the couple of hundred of protesters who came to the jail while I was locked up to show their support....we have so much potential for good...there is so much good in so many people.
Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight.
Keep up the struggle...I promise you I will too.
Love and peace soon,
Cindy
True; We have lost many freedoms and it is not okay in america to protest the deplorable conduct of our government.
1.2.06
BRITAIN SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER OVER CLIMATE CHANGE
BRITAIN SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER OVER CLIMATE CHANGE:
"February 1, 2006 0900 PST (FTW) -- The following passage appeared on the New York Times’ “World Briefing” web page yesterday.
Had not the London subway bombings taken place last July 7th the top headline for the day might have been “Blair Breaks With Bush Over Global Warming at G8”. That’s what happened that day but we never got to hear that in the news. For almost a full year British papers and other media have been screaming about the imminent danger of global warming and climate collapse. It is just amazing to see something so important in Britain and so significant for all of us buried like this in the American press. It’s like the American media believes that we live on some other planet. Britain knows where it is situated and it is already in deep water.
Now this:
BRITAIN: BLAIR WARNING ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The threat posed by climate change may be 'greater than we thought,' and global warming from the emission of greenhouse gases, is advancing at a 'rate that is unsustainable,' Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a new report based on government-sponsored research. The report, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, warned that the huge West Antarctic ice sheet might be starting to disintegrate, an event that could raise sea levels by 16 feet. A previous report played down worries about the ice sheet's stability and characterized it as a 'slumbering giant.' The new report says, 'It is now an awakened giant,' adding, 'There is real concern.' (AP)"
"February 1, 2006 0900 PST (FTW) -- The following passage appeared on the New York Times’ “World Briefing” web page yesterday.
Had not the London subway bombings taken place last July 7th the top headline for the day might have been “Blair Breaks With Bush Over Global Warming at G8”. That’s what happened that day but we never got to hear that in the news. For almost a full year British papers and other media have been screaming about the imminent danger of global warming and climate collapse. It is just amazing to see something so important in Britain and so significant for all of us buried like this in the American press. It’s like the American media believes that we live on some other planet. Britain knows where it is situated and it is already in deep water.
Now this:
BRITAIN: BLAIR WARNING ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The threat posed by climate change may be 'greater than we thought,' and global warming from the emission of greenhouse gases, is advancing at a 'rate that is unsustainable,' Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a new report based on government-sponsored research. The report, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, warned that the huge West Antarctic ice sheet might be starting to disintegrate, an event that could raise sea levels by 16 feet. A previous report played down worries about the ice sheet's stability and characterized it as a 'slumbering giant.' The new report says, 'It is now an awakened giant,' adding, 'There is real concern.' (AP)"
Opinion: Merkel's Strategic US Criticism | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 10.01.2006
Opinion: Merkel's Strategic US Criticism Germany Deutsche Welle 10.01.2006
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's recent criticism of Guantanamo prison camp won't hurt US-German relations. She's simply setting boundaries as a friend, says DW-WORLD's Uta Thofern.
US President George W. Bush was wrong if he thought that Angela Merkel would be easier to deal with than Gerhard Schröder. That's become obvious since Merkel demanded that the US-run Guantanamo prison camp on the island of Cuba be shut down. But it's also clear now that she will be a reliable partner. Merkel thinks strategically, not tactically, and uses her statements to that effect.
This chancellor doesn't change foreign policy guidelines during town square rallies; she doesn't criticize allies during election campaign events. Instead, she first voices her concerns where it's appropriate: in face-to-face meetings.
Merkel also had clear words about alleged CIA abductions during her meeting with Rice in December
During the Berlin visit of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in December, Merkel didn't leave any doubt about the fact that she considers the rule of law a priority even in the fight against terror. That's why the surprised reaction of the German public to her Guantanamo remarks is the only astonishing thing about her statement. Bush certainly had been prepared for her words for at least four weeks.
No surprises
Merkel's public words are also nothing more than the reflection of a given consensus in Europe. But it's also true that she is the first European head of government to issue clear demands on specific issues, be it the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, the abduction of suspects or the establishing of secret CIA prisons.
Specific criticism rather than blanket condemnation is something even George Bush can deal with -- especially since Merkel always combines her remarks with a commitment to German-American friendship.
Merkel visited the US just prior to the war in Iraq in 2003
The previous government used criticism of US actions ahead of the war in Iraq to justify a general withdrawal of affection. Merkel takes a pragmatic approach instead. Specific criticism on the one hand and profound political support on the other are not mutually exclusive in her opinion. Quite to the contrary: Only cooperating partners are able to resolve conflicts. Merkel is not suspected of anti-Americanism and she uses the freedom to maneuver that comes with that.
A critical partner
Her critical remarks ahead of her US visit have enabled her to widen the field even further. She comes to Washington with strong backing from the public and without any risk of capsizing. Nobody -- especially Merkel -- expects the US government to fulfil even a single one of her demands. She's already getting applause just for raising the issues.
Merkel is gliding on a wave of public support at home
Bush on the other hand is facing a chancellor who will offer herself as a partner despite all the criticism. She's doing this from a strengthened position -- strongly rooted in Europe, with broad backing by her government and public support behind her.
This Angela Merkel has much a better chance of being taken seriously in Washington than her predecessor. That's crucial as Germany has long disappeared from the top of the list of US priorities and was in danger of falling further under Schröder.
Whether it is the united fight against terror, the cooperation with the (at best) semi-democratic Russia or the nuclear row with Iran -- Germany and Europe can deal with these issues much more successfully at the US's side rather than without or even in opposition to America.
But Washington expects at least political or economical -- if not military -- support in Iraq from its partners.
Knowing this, Merkel has set the boundaries ahead of her visit in order to prevent the price of improved US-German relations from rising too high.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's recent criticism of Guantanamo prison camp won't hurt US-German relations. She's simply setting boundaries as a friend, says DW-WORLD's Uta Thofern.
US President George W. Bush was wrong if he thought that Angela Merkel would be easier to deal with than Gerhard Schröder. That's become obvious since Merkel demanded that the US-run Guantanamo prison camp on the island of Cuba be shut down. But it's also clear now that she will be a reliable partner. Merkel thinks strategically, not tactically, and uses her statements to that effect.
This chancellor doesn't change foreign policy guidelines during town square rallies; she doesn't criticize allies during election campaign events. Instead, she first voices her concerns where it's appropriate: in face-to-face meetings.
Merkel also had clear words about alleged CIA abductions during her meeting with Rice in December
During the Berlin visit of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in December, Merkel didn't leave any doubt about the fact that she considers the rule of law a priority even in the fight against terror. That's why the surprised reaction of the German public to her Guantanamo remarks is the only astonishing thing about her statement. Bush certainly had been prepared for her words for at least four weeks.
No surprises
Merkel's public words are also nothing more than the reflection of a given consensus in Europe. But it's also true that she is the first European head of government to issue clear demands on specific issues, be it the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, the abduction of suspects or the establishing of secret CIA prisons.
Specific criticism rather than blanket condemnation is something even George Bush can deal with -- especially since Merkel always combines her remarks with a commitment to German-American friendship.
Merkel visited the US just prior to the war in Iraq in 2003
The previous government used criticism of US actions ahead of the war in Iraq to justify a general withdrawal of affection. Merkel takes a pragmatic approach instead. Specific criticism on the one hand and profound political support on the other are not mutually exclusive in her opinion. Quite to the contrary: Only cooperating partners are able to resolve conflicts. Merkel is not suspected of anti-Americanism and she uses the freedom to maneuver that comes with that.
A critical partner
Her critical remarks ahead of her US visit have enabled her to widen the field even further. She comes to Washington with strong backing from the public and without any risk of capsizing. Nobody -- especially Merkel -- expects the US government to fulfil even a single one of her demands. She's already getting applause just for raising the issues.
Merkel is gliding on a wave of public support at home
Bush on the other hand is facing a chancellor who will offer herself as a partner despite all the criticism. She's doing this from a strengthened position -- strongly rooted in Europe, with broad backing by her government and public support behind her.
This Angela Merkel has much a better chance of being taken seriously in Washington than her predecessor. That's crucial as Germany has long disappeared from the top of the list of US priorities and was in danger of falling further under Schröder.
Whether it is the united fight against terror, the cooperation with the (at best) semi-democratic Russia or the nuclear row with Iran -- Germany and Europe can deal with these issues much more successfully at the US's side rather than without or even in opposition to America.
But Washington expects at least political or economical -- if not military -- support in Iraq from its partners.
Knowing this, Merkel has set the boundaries ahead of her visit in order to prevent the price of improved US-German relations from rising too high.
Steinmeier: German Hostage Situation "Developing Seriously" | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 01.02.2006
Steinmeier: German Hostage Situation "Developing Seriously" Germany Deutsche Welle 01.02.2006
The kidnappers of two German engineers in Iraq have given the German government a 72-hour deadline to meet their demand that it sever ties with Baghdad. The ultimatum could already run out Wednesday.
The hostage-takers said in a video aired on Al Jazeera television network Tuesday night that they would kill Rene Bräunlich and Thomas Nitzschke if their demands were not met by the German government within 72-hours.
It's not clear when the deadline is meant to be: the video was dated Jan. 29, which suggests the ultimatum could run out Wednesday.
"According to our assessment, too, the situation has become serious," said Steinmeier in Berlin on Wednesday, after meeting with the ministry's emergency task force and the cabinet. He said he could not comment on the ultimatum and repeated Chancellor Angela Merkel's call to the kidnappers to release the men.
In the video, the kidnappers demanded the German embassy in Baghdad be closed and all German companies leave Iraq, according to Al Jazeera. They also called for the German government to put an end to all cooperation with the interim Iraqi government.
Bräunlich and Nitzschke were shown crouched on the ground on the tape, flanked by the masked kidnappers.
Over a week in captivity
The men, engineers from Leipzig who worked for German gas equipment installation company Cryotec, were abducted on Jan. 24 near the Baiji oil refinery compound by armed men in military uniform.
Three days later, a first video was aired on Al Jazeera in which the kidnappers asked Germany to pull its embassy out of Iraq immediately, halt all cooperation with the Iraqi government and help free women detained in Iraqi prisons. Bräunlich and Nitzschke, were filmed with armed masked men standing behind them. The two men called on their government to do everything it could for their release.
The kidnappers claim to belong to a group calling itself Ansar al-Tawheed wal Sunnah (Followers of Unity and Prophetic Tradition).
The kidnappers of two German engineers in Iraq have given the German government a 72-hour deadline to meet their demand that it sever ties with Baghdad. The ultimatum could already run out Wednesday.
The hostage-takers said in a video aired on Al Jazeera television network Tuesday night that they would kill Rene Bräunlich and Thomas Nitzschke if their demands were not met by the German government within 72-hours.
It's not clear when the deadline is meant to be: the video was dated Jan. 29, which suggests the ultimatum could run out Wednesday.
"According to our assessment, too, the situation has become serious," said Steinmeier in Berlin on Wednesday, after meeting with the ministry's emergency task force and the cabinet. He said he could not comment on the ultimatum and repeated Chancellor Angela Merkel's call to the kidnappers to release the men.
In the video, the kidnappers demanded the German embassy in Baghdad be closed and all German companies leave Iraq, according to Al Jazeera. They also called for the German government to put an end to all cooperation with the interim Iraqi government.
Bräunlich and Nitzschke were shown crouched on the ground on the tape, flanked by the masked kidnappers.
Over a week in captivity
The men, engineers from Leipzig who worked for German gas equipment installation company Cryotec, were abducted on Jan. 24 near the Baiji oil refinery compound by armed men in military uniform.
Three days later, a first video was aired on Al Jazeera in which the kidnappers asked Germany to pull its embassy out of Iraq immediately, halt all cooperation with the Iraqi government and help free women detained in Iraqi prisons. Bräunlich and Nitzschke, were filmed with armed masked men standing behind them. The two men called on their government to do everything it could for their release.
The kidnappers claim to belong to a group calling itself Ansar al-Tawheed wal Sunnah (Followers of Unity and Prophetic Tradition).
Ahmadinejad scorns nuclear pressure
Top News Article Reuters.com
TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday mocked international calls for Iran to rein in its nuclear program after U.S. President George W. Bush said the world must prevent it from making an atom bomb.
Iran denies seeking the bomb, but faces the prospect of being taken to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
The council's five permanent members, including a reluctant Russia and China, this week agreed to ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog to report Iran to New York immediately.
Ahmadinejad responded with defiance as he addressed a crowd of thousands in the Gulf port city of Bushehr, where Russia is helping Iran build its first nuclear reactor.
"I am telling those fake superpowers that the Iranian nation became independent 27 years ago and ... on the nuclear case, it will resist until fully achieving its rights," he said.
The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will decide at an emergency meeting in Vienna on Thursday whether to report Iran to the Security Council.
Iran says its nuclear plants will be used only to generate electricity for civilian use, not to make bombs.
In London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw met his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki and told him to uphold voluntary nuclear safeguards and desist from issuing threats.
"Mottaki was warned not to walk away from the IAEA additional protocol or to make threats," a British Foreign Office spokesman said. "This was not in Iran's interest."
Straw had "made clear that Iran had an opportunity which it should take."
However, Iran's parliament reminded the government that under a law approved last year it must resume uranium enrichment and halt voluntary compliance with the Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if sent to the council. Continued ...
1 2 3
TEHRAN (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday mocked international calls for Iran to rein in its nuclear program after U.S. President George W. Bush said the world must prevent it from making an atom bomb.
Iran denies seeking the bomb, but faces the prospect of being taken to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
The council's five permanent members, including a reluctant Russia and China, this week agreed to ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog to report Iran to New York immediately.
Ahmadinejad responded with defiance as he addressed a crowd of thousands in the Gulf port city of Bushehr, where Russia is helping Iran build its first nuclear reactor.
"I am telling those fake superpowers that the Iranian nation became independent 27 years ago and ... on the nuclear case, it will resist until fully achieving its rights," he said.
The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will decide at an emergency meeting in Vienna on Thursday whether to report Iran to the Security Council.
Iran says its nuclear plants will be used only to generate electricity for civilian use, not to make bombs.
In London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw met his Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki and told him to uphold voluntary nuclear safeguards and desist from issuing threats.
"Mottaki was warned not to walk away from the IAEA additional protocol or to make threats," a British Foreign Office spokesman said. "This was not in Iran's interest."
Straw had "made clear that Iran had an opportunity which it should take."
However, Iran's parliament reminded the government that under a law approved last year it must resume uranium enrichment and halt voluntary compliance with the Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if sent to the council. Continued ...
1 2 3
Daily Local News - News - 02/01/2006 - Bush protesters: Administration failing the country
Daily Local News - News - 02/01/2006 - Bush protesters: Administration failing the country
Here at home;
WEST CHESTER -- Millions of Americans preparing to watch the State of the Union address Tuesday evening should expect to hear nothing but lies, said protesters outside the Chester County Courthouse just hours before the president’s speech.
"The truth of the union is not what you’ll hear on TV tonight," protester Richard MacIntyre shouted into a megaphone as he stood on the courthouse steps. "The truth is our country is falling apart because of our administration."
About 10 people gathered around MacIntyre carrying American flags and signs slamming the Bush administration. Lani Frank, executive director of the Chester County Democratic Coalition, said it’s time Americans started thinking for themselves and stopped believing everything President Bush says.
Frank said she didn’t expect to find any answers to the problems facing the country in Tuesday’s address."We need the truth," Frank said, "not this fairy tale (Bush) is selling us."Loss of her constitutional rights was foremost in the mind of West Chester resident Phyllis Wax, who said she hoped the public would educate themselves about the wrongs being perpetrated against American citizens.
Bush’s acknowledgment in December of spying on suspected terrorists without court orders has Wax worried about what the administration will do next."What is going on is very dangerous," Wax said.Many motorists driving through the intersection of High and Market streets honked their horns and waved in support of the protesters.
Several people, however, obviously disagreed with the group’s anti-Bush stance."I hope the terrorists kill your kids," (sick bastard) one man shouted from his vehicle as he drove past. Several other motorists made obscene gestures at the protesters.
East Bradford resident Rick Davis seemed willing to put up with a little abuse if he could help educate the public about what he sees as the problems the Bush administration is causing. He said government officials often say the right things, but they fail when it comes to following through. Davis said he’s been upset for a long time at wrongs committed by this administration.
"It’s like ‘Wake up America. Take your country back,’" Davis said. At 6:20 p.m., the small group walked along Gay Street to the Borough Hall, where they met up with other protesters in the council meeting room. Chester County Commissioner Andrew Dinniman told the crowd of about 25 that people need to be aware of what is happening in their country and be prepared to act when they see injustice. "Progress comes when people come together, envision change and work for change," Dinniman said.
Before speaking, former councilwoman Barbara McIlvaine Smith asked for a moment of silence for state Sen. Robert J. Thompson, who died Saturday of complications from pulmonary fibrosis. Smith then said that Thompson, unlike many current government officials, did a lot of good for a lot of people. She said she will fight against wrongdoing by government officials."I believe we need reform in government," Smith said. "We need an open, accountable government.
"MacIntyre, the protester who used the megaphone to start the march, said the Bush administration is ruining the country and destroying international relations. Instead of mending relationships with other nations, Bush is only antagonizing them even more, he said."Bush is pulling us apart from the rest of the world," MacIntyre said.
Maybe thats what the helicopters flying low over head were about...my little two year old grand niece, scared, jumped into my lap and said "I don't want them to get me at night."
Here at home;
WEST CHESTER -- Millions of Americans preparing to watch the State of the Union address Tuesday evening should expect to hear nothing but lies, said protesters outside the Chester County Courthouse just hours before the president’s speech.
"The truth of the union is not what you’ll hear on TV tonight," protester Richard MacIntyre shouted into a megaphone as he stood on the courthouse steps. "The truth is our country is falling apart because of our administration."
About 10 people gathered around MacIntyre carrying American flags and signs slamming the Bush administration. Lani Frank, executive director of the Chester County Democratic Coalition, said it’s time Americans started thinking for themselves and stopped believing everything President Bush says.
Frank said she didn’t expect to find any answers to the problems facing the country in Tuesday’s address."We need the truth," Frank said, "not this fairy tale (Bush) is selling us."Loss of her constitutional rights was foremost in the mind of West Chester resident Phyllis Wax, who said she hoped the public would educate themselves about the wrongs being perpetrated against American citizens.
Bush’s acknowledgment in December of spying on suspected terrorists without court orders has Wax worried about what the administration will do next."What is going on is very dangerous," Wax said.Many motorists driving through the intersection of High and Market streets honked their horns and waved in support of the protesters.
Several people, however, obviously disagreed with the group’s anti-Bush stance."I hope the terrorists kill your kids," (sick bastard) one man shouted from his vehicle as he drove past. Several other motorists made obscene gestures at the protesters.
East Bradford resident Rick Davis seemed willing to put up with a little abuse if he could help educate the public about what he sees as the problems the Bush administration is causing. He said government officials often say the right things, but they fail when it comes to following through. Davis said he’s been upset for a long time at wrongs committed by this administration.
"It’s like ‘Wake up America. Take your country back,’" Davis said. At 6:20 p.m., the small group walked along Gay Street to the Borough Hall, where they met up with other protesters in the council meeting room. Chester County Commissioner Andrew Dinniman told the crowd of about 25 that people need to be aware of what is happening in their country and be prepared to act when they see injustice. "Progress comes when people come together, envision change and work for change," Dinniman said.
Before speaking, former councilwoman Barbara McIlvaine Smith asked for a moment of silence for state Sen. Robert J. Thompson, who died Saturday of complications from pulmonary fibrosis. Smith then said that Thompson, unlike many current government officials, did a lot of good for a lot of people. She said she will fight against wrongdoing by government officials."I believe we need reform in government," Smith said. "We need an open, accountable government.
"MacIntyre, the protester who used the megaphone to start the march, said the Bush administration is ruining the country and destroying international relations. Instead of mending relationships with other nations, Bush is only antagonizing them even more, he said."Bush is pulling us apart from the rest of the world," MacIntyre said.
Maybe thats what the helicopters flying low over head were about...my little two year old grand niece, scared, jumped into my lap and said "I don't want them to get me at night."
Primary Care About to Collapse, Physicians Warn
Primary Care About to Collapse, Physicians Warn:
So after our american pep rally tonight (comments a few articles down on the State of the Union Address) I have included a few reality checks.
"Primary care -- the basic medical care that people get when they visit their doctors for routine physicals and minor problems -- could fall apart in the United States without immediate reforms, the American College of Physicians said on Monday.
Primary care -- the basic medical care that people get when they visit their doctors for routine physicals and minor problems -- could fall apart in the United States without immediate reforms, the American College of Physicians said on Monday. (Lee Celano/Reuters)
'Primary care is on the verge of collapse,' said the organization, a professional group which certifies internists, in a statement. 'Very few young physicians are going into primary care and those already in practice are under such stress that they are looking for an exit strategy.'
Dropping incomes coupled with difficulties in juggling patients, soaring bills and policies from insurers that encourage rushed office visits all mean that more primary care doctors are retiring than are graduating from medical school, the ACP said in its report.
The group has proposed a solution -- calling on federal policymakers to approve new ways of paying doctors that would put primary care doctors in charge of organizing a patient's care and giving patients more responsibility for monitoring their own health and scheduling regular visits.
U.S. doctors have long complained that reimbursement policies of both Medicare and private insurers reward a 'just-in-time' approach, instead of preventive care that would save money and keep patients healthier.
'Medicare will pay tens of thousands of dollars ... for a limb amputation on a diabetic patient, but virtually nothing to the primary care physician for keeping the patient's diabetes under control,' said Bob Doherty, senior vice president for the ACP.
The ACP plan called for innovations such as using e-mail to consult on minor and routine matters, freeing up expensive office visit time for when it is needed. Doctors would be compensated for an e-mail consultation.
The proposals include incentives for doctors to work more efficiently and to provide better care, ACP President Dr. C. Anderson Hedberg told a news conference. "ACP proposals would provide patients with access to care that is coordinated by their own personal physician," Hedberg said.
Young Doctors Avoiding Primary Care
The ACP cited an American Medical Association survey that found 35 percent of all physicians nationwide are over the age of 55 and will soon retire.
In 2003, only 27 percent of third year internal medicine residents actually planned to practice internal medicine, the group said, with others planning to go into more lucrative specialty jobs.
"Primary care physicians -- the bedrock of medical care for today and the future -- are at the bottom of the list of all medical specialties in median income compensation," the ACP said.
The group, which represents 119,000 doctors and medical students in general internal medicine and subspecialties, joins others that warn the U.S. health care system is untenable.
"If these reforms do not take place, within a few years there will not be enough primary care physicians to take care of an aging population with increasing incidences of chronic diseases," said Dr. Vineet Arora, chair of the College's Council of Associates.
Dr. Sara Walker, a Missouri physician, said she believed doctors were leaving general practice because of drops in Medicare reimbursement to doctors.
"A drop in Medicare payments will not only force me to stop taking Medicare patients but could force me out of business," agreed Dr. Kevin Lutz, a solo practitioner in Denver.
So after our american pep rally tonight (comments a few articles down on the State of the Union Address) I have included a few reality checks.
"Primary care -- the basic medical care that people get when they visit their doctors for routine physicals and minor problems -- could fall apart in the United States without immediate reforms, the American College of Physicians said on Monday.
Primary care -- the basic medical care that people get when they visit their doctors for routine physicals and minor problems -- could fall apart in the United States without immediate reforms, the American College of Physicians said on Monday. (Lee Celano/Reuters)
'Primary care is on the verge of collapse,' said the organization, a professional group which certifies internists, in a statement. 'Very few young physicians are going into primary care and those already in practice are under such stress that they are looking for an exit strategy.'
Dropping incomes coupled with difficulties in juggling patients, soaring bills and policies from insurers that encourage rushed office visits all mean that more primary care doctors are retiring than are graduating from medical school, the ACP said in its report.
The group has proposed a solution -- calling on federal policymakers to approve new ways of paying doctors that would put primary care doctors in charge of organizing a patient's care and giving patients more responsibility for monitoring their own health and scheduling regular visits.
U.S. doctors have long complained that reimbursement policies of both Medicare and private insurers reward a 'just-in-time' approach, instead of preventive care that would save money and keep patients healthier.
'Medicare will pay tens of thousands of dollars ... for a limb amputation on a diabetic patient, but virtually nothing to the primary care physician for keeping the patient's diabetes under control,' said Bob Doherty, senior vice president for the ACP.
The ACP plan called for innovations such as using e-mail to consult on minor and routine matters, freeing up expensive office visit time for when it is needed. Doctors would be compensated for an e-mail consultation.
The proposals include incentives for doctors to work more efficiently and to provide better care, ACP President Dr. C. Anderson Hedberg told a news conference. "ACP proposals would provide patients with access to care that is coordinated by their own personal physician," Hedberg said.
Young Doctors Avoiding Primary Care
The ACP cited an American Medical Association survey that found 35 percent of all physicians nationwide are over the age of 55 and will soon retire.
In 2003, only 27 percent of third year internal medicine residents actually planned to practice internal medicine, the group said, with others planning to go into more lucrative specialty jobs.
"Primary care physicians -- the bedrock of medical care for today and the future -- are at the bottom of the list of all medical specialties in median income compensation," the ACP said.
The group, which represents 119,000 doctors and medical students in general internal medicine and subspecialties, joins others that warn the U.S. health care system is untenable.
"If these reforms do not take place, within a few years there will not be enough primary care physicians to take care of an aging population with increasing incidences of chronic diseases," said Dr. Vineet Arora, chair of the College's Council of Associates.
Dr. Sara Walker, a Missouri physician, said she believed doctors were leaving general practice because of drops in Medicare reimbursement to doctors.
"A drop in Medicare payments will not only force me to stop taking Medicare patients but could force me out of business," agreed Dr. Kevin Lutz, a solo practitioner in Denver.
Most Iraqis Doubt US Will Ever Leave
Most Iraqis Doubt US Will Ever Leave:
"WASHINGTON - Large majorities of Iraqis believe that the United States has no intention of ever withdrawing all its military forces from their country and that Washington's reconstruction efforts have been incompetent at best, according to a new survey released here Tuesday.
At the same time, however, only 35 percent of Iraqis -- most of them Sunni Arabs -- believe coalition forces should withdraw within six months, although if they did so, majorities said it would have a beneficial impact, as many prominent Democrats and other war critics here have argued.
Scepticism about U.S. plans in Iraq is particularly pronounced among the country's Sunni population, who were far more negative about virtually every aspect of post-invasion Iraq than their counterparts in the Shi'a and Kurdish communities, which together are believed to account for 75-80 percent of the country's population.
Indeed, despite the strong Sunni Arab participation in December's parliamentary elections, a whopping 88 percent of the community approves of 'attacks on U.S.-led forces' in Iraq, with 77 percent voicing 'strong approval' -- a level of hostility that presents a serious challenge for U.S. officials now negotiating with Sunni insurgent leaders, as reported in the Feb. 6 issue of Newsweek magazine.
By comparison, 41 percent of Shiites said they approved such attacks, while 16 percent of Kurds, by far the most pro-U.S. of the three groups, agreed.
The survey, the latest in a series that has probed Iraqi opinion since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, was designed by the Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland for WorldPublicOpinion.org and conducted through face-to-face interviews of 1,150 randomly selected Iraqi adults in all 18 Iraqi Iraqi provinces in early January, three weeks after the December elections.
While Sunni Arabs were over-represented in the sample, the data was weighted according to each group's actual estimated share of the total Iraqi population: Shia Arab, 55 percent; Sunni Arab, 22 percent; Kurd, 18 percent; and other groups, five percent. The survey results, which come amid intensified jockeying in Baghdad over the constitution of a new government, are a mixed bag for the administration of Pres. George W. Bush.
His approval ratings in the U.S. have fallen dangerously over the past year, in substantial part due to the perception that he lacks a viable plan for "success" in Iraq, even as he rejects pressure by Democrats and prominent members of the foreign policy establishment to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of the 140,000 U.S. troops there.
The survey found considerable scepticism about Bush's frequent promises not to maintain U.S. military forces in Iraq "a day longer" than is necessary for ensuring its stability.
"WASHINGTON - Large majorities of Iraqis believe that the United States has no intention of ever withdrawing all its military forces from their country and that Washington's reconstruction efforts have been incompetent at best, according to a new survey released here Tuesday.
At the same time, however, only 35 percent of Iraqis -- most of them Sunni Arabs -- believe coalition forces should withdraw within six months, although if they did so, majorities said it would have a beneficial impact, as many prominent Democrats and other war critics here have argued.
Scepticism about U.S. plans in Iraq is particularly pronounced among the country's Sunni population, who were far more negative about virtually every aspect of post-invasion Iraq than their counterparts in the Shi'a and Kurdish communities, which together are believed to account for 75-80 percent of the country's population.
Indeed, despite the strong Sunni Arab participation in December's parliamentary elections, a whopping 88 percent of the community approves of 'attacks on U.S.-led forces' in Iraq, with 77 percent voicing 'strong approval' -- a level of hostility that presents a serious challenge for U.S. officials now negotiating with Sunni insurgent leaders, as reported in the Feb. 6 issue of Newsweek magazine.
By comparison, 41 percent of Shiites said they approved such attacks, while 16 percent of Kurds, by far the most pro-U.S. of the three groups, agreed.
The survey, the latest in a series that has probed Iraqi opinion since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, was designed by the Programme on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland for WorldPublicOpinion.org and conducted through face-to-face interviews of 1,150 randomly selected Iraqi adults in all 18 Iraqi Iraqi provinces in early January, three weeks after the December elections.
While Sunni Arabs were over-represented in the sample, the data was weighted according to each group's actual estimated share of the total Iraqi population: Shia Arab, 55 percent; Sunni Arab, 22 percent; Kurd, 18 percent; and other groups, five percent. The survey results, which come amid intensified jockeying in Baghdad over the constitution of a new government, are a mixed bag for the administration of Pres. George W. Bush.
His approval ratings in the U.S. have fallen dangerously over the past year, in substantial part due to the perception that he lacks a viable plan for "success" in Iraq, even as he rejects pressure by Democrats and prominent members of the foreign policy establishment to announce a timetable for the withdrawal of the 140,000 U.S. troops there.
The survey found considerable scepticism about Bush's frequent promises not to maintain U.S. military forces in Iraq "a day longer" than is necessary for ensuring its stability.
31.1.06
US Savings Rate Sinks to Lowest Since Great Depression
US Savings Rate Sinks to Lowest Since Great Depression:
"Americans spent $42bn more than they earned last year, turning the annual US savings ratio negative for the first time since the Great Depression.
The offical figures published yesterday, a day ahead of the retirement of the chairman of Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, will be seen as a telling verdict on his 18 year reign at the US central bank.
The savings ratio fell to minus 0.5 per cent last year...the first time the ratio has gone negative for an entire year since 1932 and 1933, when the US was struggling to cope with the Great Depression.
Mr Greenspan is tonight expected to sanction the Fed's 14th consecutive interest rate rise - to 4.5 per cent - in part to temper the consumer boom and encourage saving again.
The savings ratio fell to minus 0.5 per cent last year, meaning Americans not only spent all of their after-tax income but also had to increase their borrowings or plunder their savings. This is the first time the ratio has gone negative for an entire year since 1932 and 1933, when the US was struggling to cope with the Great Depression.
The savings ratio is seen as a key economic indicator as it shows how vulnerable households are to a sudden shock such as a surge in interest rates or unexpected redundancy. Mark Zandi, an economist at the analysts' website Economy.com, said the low level of savings would became a problem only if interest rates continued to climb.
However, the markets are increasingly betting that the Fed will use its statement tonight to send a signal it is close to the end of its tightening cycle that began in 2004. Weak GDP figures for the final quarter of last year - showing that growth slowed from 4.1 to 1.1 per cent between the third and fourth quarters of the year - boosted that speculation. But there is growing "
"Americans spent $42bn more than they earned last year, turning the annual US savings ratio negative for the first time since the Great Depression.
The offical figures published yesterday, a day ahead of the retirement of the chairman of Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, will be seen as a telling verdict on his 18 year reign at the US central bank.
The savings ratio fell to minus 0.5 per cent last year...the first time the ratio has gone negative for an entire year since 1932 and 1933, when the US was struggling to cope with the Great Depression.
Mr Greenspan is tonight expected to sanction the Fed's 14th consecutive interest rate rise - to 4.5 per cent - in part to temper the consumer boom and encourage saving again.
The savings ratio fell to minus 0.5 per cent last year, meaning Americans not only spent all of their after-tax income but also had to increase their borrowings or plunder their savings. This is the first time the ratio has gone negative for an entire year since 1932 and 1933, when the US was struggling to cope with the Great Depression.
The savings ratio is seen as a key economic indicator as it shows how vulnerable households are to a sudden shock such as a surge in interest rates or unexpected redundancy. Mark Zandi, an economist at the analysts' website Economy.com, said the low level of savings would became a problem only if interest rates continued to climb.
However, the markets are increasingly betting that the Fed will use its statement tonight to send a signal it is close to the end of its tightening cycle that began in 2004. Weak GDP figures for the final quarter of last year - showing that growth slowed from 4.1 to 1.1 per cent between the third and fourth quarters of the year - boosted that speculation. But there is growing "
CBS News | Activist Cindy Sheehan Arrested at Capitol
CBS News Activist Cindy Sheehan Arrested at Capitol
(AP) Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was arrested and removed from the House gallery Tuesday night just before President Bush's State of the Union address, a police spokeswoman said.
Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider.
Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke. Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat.
Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.Police handcuffed Sheehan and removed her from the gallery before Bush arrived.
Sheehan was to be released on her own recognizance, Schneider said."I'm proud that Cindy's my guest tonight," Woolsey said in an interview before the speech. "She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq."Woolsey offered Sheehan a ticket to the speech _ Gallery 5, seat 7, row A _ earlier Tuesday while Sheehan was attending an "alternative state of the union" press conference by CODEPINK, a group pushing for an end to the Iraq war.
Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other anti-war activists in front of the White House after a weekend of protests against the war in Iraq. In August, she spent 26 days camped near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he was spending a working vacation.
So thall shall not oppose thine war effort? Vaffanculo.
(AP) Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement, was arrested and removed from the House gallery Tuesday night just before President Bush's State of the Union address, a police spokeswoman said.
Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider.
Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke. Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat.
Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.Police handcuffed Sheehan and removed her from the gallery before Bush arrived.
Sheehan was to be released on her own recognizance, Schneider said."I'm proud that Cindy's my guest tonight," Woolsey said in an interview before the speech. "She has made a difference in the debate to bring our troops home from Iraq."Woolsey offered Sheehan a ticket to the speech _ Gallery 5, seat 7, row A _ earlier Tuesday while Sheehan was attending an "alternative state of the union" press conference by CODEPINK, a group pushing for an end to the Iraq war.
Sheehan was arrested in September with about 300 other anti-war activists in front of the White House after a weekend of protests against the war in Iraq. In August, she spent 26 days camped near Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he was spending a working vacation.
So thall shall not oppose thine war effort? Vaffanculo.
The American Pep Rally- State of the Union Address 1-31-06
I wanted to first lend my thoughts and impressions of tonight’s speech before I heard from all the other critics and analysts who will no doubt be picking this apart for days.
First and for most; Hey, It all sound great…but is it for real?
As all of the world is aware; George Bush’s ratings have dropped significantly and talk of impeachment has surfaced in the media, the senate and in congress.
He had to boost his ratings so what is real and what is fiction? That remains to be seen; but what I want to know, since I follow the media and watch the news; Where does he get his statistics?
As I watched him make each point; One side of the room would stand and cheer; then all would stand and cheer; then only the middle of the room would stand and cheer.
It was a pep rally, not a reflection of actual current events as I have observed over the last couple years.
Bush made reference to Islamic radicals quite often. Democracy quite often throughout the world and I wonder if that is how each country feels. Is Iraq free now?
He also made reference to the Elite extremists/radicals in Iran...and that they must not be allowed to continue. That was very clear.
He spoke of Bin laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, as the enemy yet Bin laden- Bush ties go way back. US officials have always let him get away, particularly while he was in a hosptal in Dubia on dialysis. They know where he is; and I await his retort.
I have taken note Cindy Sheehan was arrested this evening…I’ll no doubt get into more of that later. What is REALLY happening here?
I have openly opposed this war and the complicities of US Government….what does that make me? An informed citizen or a threat to national security?
I heard Bush speak of 9/11 and how we must never allow these attacks to happen again, but flash to Hillary Clinton at that statement and she is smirking and shaking her head…
What was she thinking? Who benefited from insider trading that day of American Airlines; Morgan Stanley and other put options on stocks directly affected that one day.
Why was intelligence negated and after the fact information confiscated? Why was a forensic investigation of the largest crime scene in history NOT PERMITTED?
What I heard tonight was an American Dream, but as a citizen..how much is reality.....?
[Because] I haven’t seen it. I worked for a few years in Corporate Bankruptcy, when attempting to find work after illness and considerable injuries…there were very few jobs. I would meet many people, some once high paid executives who could not find work. So where are these jobs 4.8 million new jobs? My condition was regarded as severe...but not severe enough. So now I have to go through the court system to simply survive.
If 85 billion was appropriated for New Orleans, why am I reading about misappropriation of funds? When we are currently at $ 237,742, 855,000+ growing every second in Iraq.
It is true that America is addicted to oil, as he stated and as like any good junkie would do, he would go to any length to feed the addiction.
That’s what has happened….
So Bush proposes new energy reforms, and research so that we can be free from the Middle East in 25 years. No, I don’t see that as fact.
According to the people of Iraq, many of whom are doing with out basic necessities, our reconstruction efforts are making our military position in the Middle East stronger.
I have heard that more emphasis is to be for education...math and science? Yet hear from teachers how funding has been cut from these programs
So while the upbeat mantra of this particular speach was "what we might like to hear"
it is a far cry from the america I see each day. American workers? I have observed European workers run circles around the average american worker.
Having been in management and abroad; there is a significant difference in work ethics.
Even here in the states, the difference between the European worker and the american worker can only in very rare instances be parallelled.
I have written this with out the bias of the media; critics; neocons and analysts.
I live here, I watch and I observe. I am eager to hear the rest of the worlds perspective...
Bush committed to a very large array of fanciful ideals tonight, it will be interesting the hear what the rest of the world has to say. I think he desperately needed to boost his ratings and had to tell the people what they wanted to hear.
Now I want to see it come to fruition.
First and for most; Hey, It all sound great…but is it for real?
As all of the world is aware; George Bush’s ratings have dropped significantly and talk of impeachment has surfaced in the media, the senate and in congress.
He had to boost his ratings so what is real and what is fiction? That remains to be seen; but what I want to know, since I follow the media and watch the news; Where does he get his statistics?
As I watched him make each point; One side of the room would stand and cheer; then all would stand and cheer; then only the middle of the room would stand and cheer.
It was a pep rally, not a reflection of actual current events as I have observed over the last couple years.
Bush made reference to Islamic radicals quite often. Democracy quite often throughout the world and I wonder if that is how each country feels. Is Iraq free now?
He also made reference to the Elite extremists/radicals in Iran...and that they must not be allowed to continue. That was very clear.
He spoke of Bin laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, as the enemy yet Bin laden- Bush ties go way back. US officials have always let him get away, particularly while he was in a hosptal in Dubia on dialysis. They know where he is; and I await his retort.
I have taken note Cindy Sheehan was arrested this evening…I’ll no doubt get into more of that later. What is REALLY happening here?
I have openly opposed this war and the complicities of US Government….what does that make me? An informed citizen or a threat to national security?
I heard Bush speak of 9/11 and how we must never allow these attacks to happen again, but flash to Hillary Clinton at that statement and she is smirking and shaking her head…
What was she thinking? Who benefited from insider trading that day of American Airlines; Morgan Stanley and other put options on stocks directly affected that one day.
Why was intelligence negated and after the fact information confiscated? Why was a forensic investigation of the largest crime scene in history NOT PERMITTED?
What I heard tonight was an American Dream, but as a citizen..how much is reality.....?
[Because] I haven’t seen it. I worked for a few years in Corporate Bankruptcy, when attempting to find work after illness and considerable injuries…there were very few jobs. I would meet many people, some once high paid executives who could not find work. So where are these jobs 4.8 million new jobs? My condition was regarded as severe...but not severe enough. So now I have to go through the court system to simply survive.
If 85 billion was appropriated for New Orleans, why am I reading about misappropriation of funds? When we are currently at $ 237,742, 855,000+ growing every second in Iraq.
It is true that America is addicted to oil, as he stated and as like any good junkie would do, he would go to any length to feed the addiction.
That’s what has happened….
So Bush proposes new energy reforms, and research so that we can be free from the Middle East in 25 years. No, I don’t see that as fact.
According to the people of Iraq, many of whom are doing with out basic necessities, our reconstruction efforts are making our military position in the Middle East stronger.
I have heard that more emphasis is to be for education...math and science? Yet hear from teachers how funding has been cut from these programs
So while the upbeat mantra of this particular speach was "what we might like to hear"
it is a far cry from the america I see each day. American workers? I have observed European workers run circles around the average american worker.
Having been in management and abroad; there is a significant difference in work ethics.
Even here in the states, the difference between the European worker and the american worker can only in very rare instances be parallelled.
I have written this with out the bias of the media; critics; neocons and analysts.
I live here, I watch and I observe. I am eager to hear the rest of the worlds perspective...
Bush committed to a very large array of fanciful ideals tonight, it will be interesting the hear what the rest of the world has to say. I think he desperately needed to boost his ratings and had to tell the people what they wanted to hear.
Now I want to see it come to fruition.
The Middle East - Global Issues
The Middle East - Global Issues
by Anup Shah
Oil. That is what the modern Middle Eastern geopolitics have usually been about. Given the vast energy resources that form the backbone of western economies, influence and involvement in the Middle East has been of paramount importance for the former and current imperial and super powers, including France, Britain, USA and the former Soviet Union.
Prior to the discovery of oil, the region has been a hotbed for religious conflict, and wars over other rich resources and arable land....
A 1300 Year Struggle for Control of Resources
With kind permission from J.W. Smith and the Institute for Economic Democracy, part of chapter 14 from the book, The World's Wasted Wealth II, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994) has been reproduced here. It looks back at the last 1300 years of struggle over control of resources in the Middle East to give some context to various events in recent history. Read the excerpt.
Control of Resources; Supporting Dictators, Rise of Terrorism
After the Second World War, with former Imperial Europe weakened, countries around the world had a chance to break for their freedom away from colonial rule. This struggle for freedom and the Cold War had a geopolitical impact on the Middle East. Control of resources and access to oil became paramount, to the extent that dictators and human rights abusers were supported. Within this backdrop, we see another complex reason for the rise of terrorism and extremism. Find out more.
The Iraq Crisis
Madeline Albright, then US Secretary of State, was asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children from sanctions in Iraq was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."
Sadam Hussein, a brutal dictator whom the West supported until he overstepped his bounds (and Kuwait's), had been largely unaffected by the (US/UK-enforced) UN sanctions that were responsible for over one million deaths since the Gulf War ended.
Hardly reported by the mainstream, Iraq was bombed almost daily at some points during the sanctions. Medical supplies were denied for fears that they could be used for chemical or biological weapons.
Yet the sanctions themselves have been described as weapons of mass destruction.
Even though members of the US administrations had admitted that Saddam Hussein had been contained and was no longer a threat, in 2002 and 2003, US president George Bush and UK Prime Minister attempted to convince the world that Iraq was a threat to the world, and a mostly unpopular and illegal war (for not having United Nations authorization) was waged.
Around the world protests were immense. Saddam Hussein was eventually toppled though, but the aftermath has led to insecurity in Iraq while fears of geopolitical interests by the US and UK for the war are coming to the surface. Furthermore, the justifications used by the U.S. and U.K. for war are proving false, leading to implications of war crimes. Find out more.
Palestine and Israel
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is perhaps one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East. From the religious backdrops (the region being centers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) to the regional ally for the US that Israel is, the Palestinian people have been denied a right to their land. Recent events have destroyed the "peace" processes and extremist sentiments on both sides are on the rise again. The US mainstream media provides a very biased view of Palestinians. Yasser Arafat and other Arab leaders too are criticized for not truly representing their people. The West have heavily armed and backed the mighty Israel. To the West, Israel is an ally only because of the oil interests in the Middle East region. Find out more.
The "Threat" of Islam
Often when Islam is mentioned negative impressions of fundamentalists, intolerance and terrorism is conjured up; Islamist movements and organizations are automatically linked with terrorism and is blamed for the lack of progress in the Middle East peace process. Islam is stereotyped as a threat to democracy without distinguishing it from terrorism or corrupt leaders who use the ideals of Islam to their own ends. Find out more.
The Strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan
When US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed, the US retaliated by bombing two sites suspected of being involved in the appalling bombing which cost the lives of many innocent people. Eight months after the bombing, the US quietly admitted it made a mistake. Find out more.
Next/Previous Page Navigation
Next Page
by Anup Shah
Oil. That is what the modern Middle Eastern geopolitics have usually been about. Given the vast energy resources that form the backbone of western economies, influence and involvement in the Middle East has been of paramount importance for the former and current imperial and super powers, including France, Britain, USA and the former Soviet Union.
Prior to the discovery of oil, the region has been a hotbed for religious conflict, and wars over other rich resources and arable land....
A 1300 Year Struggle for Control of Resources
With kind permission from J.W. Smith and the Institute for Economic Democracy, part of chapter 14 from the book, The World's Wasted Wealth II, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994) has been reproduced here. It looks back at the last 1300 years of struggle over control of resources in the Middle East to give some context to various events in recent history. Read the excerpt.
Control of Resources; Supporting Dictators, Rise of Terrorism
After the Second World War, with former Imperial Europe weakened, countries around the world had a chance to break for their freedom away from colonial rule. This struggle for freedom and the Cold War had a geopolitical impact on the Middle East. Control of resources and access to oil became paramount, to the extent that dictators and human rights abusers were supported. Within this backdrop, we see another complex reason for the rise of terrorism and extremism. Find out more.
The Iraq Crisis
Madeline Albright, then US Secretary of State, was asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children from sanctions in Iraq was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."
Sadam Hussein, a brutal dictator whom the West supported until he overstepped his bounds (and Kuwait's), had been largely unaffected by the (US/UK-enforced) UN sanctions that were responsible for over one million deaths since the Gulf War ended.
Hardly reported by the mainstream, Iraq was bombed almost daily at some points during the sanctions. Medical supplies were denied for fears that they could be used for chemical or biological weapons.
Yet the sanctions themselves have been described as weapons of mass destruction.
Even though members of the US administrations had admitted that Saddam Hussein had been contained and was no longer a threat, in 2002 and 2003, US president George Bush and UK Prime Minister attempted to convince the world that Iraq was a threat to the world, and a mostly unpopular and illegal war (for not having United Nations authorization) was waged.
Around the world protests were immense. Saddam Hussein was eventually toppled though, but the aftermath has led to insecurity in Iraq while fears of geopolitical interests by the US and UK for the war are coming to the surface. Furthermore, the justifications used by the U.S. and U.K. for war are proving false, leading to implications of war crimes. Find out more.
Palestine and Israel
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is perhaps one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East. From the religious backdrops (the region being centers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) to the regional ally for the US that Israel is, the Palestinian people have been denied a right to their land. Recent events have destroyed the "peace" processes and extremist sentiments on both sides are on the rise again. The US mainstream media provides a very biased view of Palestinians. Yasser Arafat and other Arab leaders too are criticized for not truly representing their people. The West have heavily armed and backed the mighty Israel. To the West, Israel is an ally only because of the oil interests in the Middle East region. Find out more.
The "Threat" of Islam
Often when Islam is mentioned negative impressions of fundamentalists, intolerance and terrorism is conjured up; Islamist movements and organizations are automatically linked with terrorism and is blamed for the lack of progress in the Middle East peace process. Islam is stereotyped as a threat to democracy without distinguishing it from terrorism or corrupt leaders who use the ideals of Islam to their own ends. Find out more.
The Strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan
When US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were bombed, the US retaliated by bombing two sites suspected of being involved in the appalling bombing which cost the lives of many innocent people. Eight months after the bombing, the US quietly admitted it made a mistake. Find out more.
Next/Previous Page Navigation
Next Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
