Sections on today's Signs Page:
Signs Editorials
Editorial: Truth Is Public Property
Laura Knight-Jadczyk
14 Dec 2006
People sometimes ask how such conspiracies as the JFK assassination and 9/11 could be "covered up without someone from the inside talking." As Harrison Livingstone points out, this is a naive question. If someone is a witness to a murder done by professionals, do you really think they are going to go around blabbing about it? And if the victim is a president, or the people in the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and 4 airliners, it is clear to even the most pedestrian thinker that the crime has been committed by those with great power. Anybody with two firing neurons can figure out that such perpetrators are in such a strong position that protesting or seriously trying to blow the whistle on such an event puts the whistle-blower in the gravest of danger.
As the information about psychopathy in high places - Political Ponerology - spreads, I am frequently asked: what do we do now? This is something that has been exercising me to no end. This morning I received an email from 9/11 Researcher, Dick Eastman, who wrote:
We now must move to the next step - bringing to justice the mass-murdering criminals responsible for all of the false-flag killing that has been done and is still being done around the world since September 11, 2001 -- taking down from positions of power in our government and key institutions those who have had a knowing part in the murderous misdirection of American armed forces against innocent people in countries that have done us no harm and bore us no ill will. This includes Congressmen who held their hands to their ears. This Includes newspaper editors and publishers and radio producers and television networks -- all complicit -- all knowingly obstructing justice. (They knew too well what voices to silence not to know what it was that they were silencing.) We must confront, overpower and disarm the monsters who are in control of the coercive apparatus of the government, rendering them harmless, taking away their ill-gotten gains, restoring a people's government, and bringing them to justice (life in prison if not hanging).
Every nation must be decapitated of its stooges and replaced by people who have not been prostitutes of the globalist money power. This must be done or it is better to do nothing at all -- the criminal ruling elites -- the billionaires and trillionaires (more of these than you think) must be taken down, their god-like power of wealth taken from their hands.
Of course since these people are the merchant bankers who own the world's debt -- they must be made to give all that wealth back to the people of the world from whom they have been stealing for for three centuries. We cannot beat them until we disarm them financially. The world needs a grand settlement -- all who benefit from having the yoke of these monsters lifted must join in seeing that the job of getting justice is achieved all around the world at the same time. Otherwise the Merchant Bankers will use one debt-slave nation to subdue another , will hire mercenaries from one continent to crush the anti-corruption forces of another continent.
Now who is ready to advance to "square two" and who is not?
Notice that Dick has written above: "This Includes newspaper editors and publishers and radio producers and television networks -- all complicit -- all knowingly obstructing justice."
This is, in fact, the key to everything: the Media.
The first thing that has to be done before anything else can be done is to take back the media. The media is the wall between the elite pathocrats and the public. It is the tool used to control and manipulate.
In Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, and other totalitarian states down through history, the control of information was/is the means of control of the people. After all, the masses of people that are needed to support any kind of movement are in that part of the bell curve that indicates that they are just "average" and "followers" and "want to be left alone" and can only be moved by moving "en masse." They are the ones that must be reached. And that can only be done via mass media.
We do not own the mass media. I think that less than half of the people in the U.S., and a smaller percentage than that in other places, get their news via the internet. And we all know how much disinformation is on the net.
Now, let's back up and get some perspective here.
People need to really think about who's running the U.S. (and other countries on the planet), and get it firmly in mind that it is big business: oil companies and the arms industry.
Now, think of the term: "RUTHLESS MEN". Ponder it long and carefully. Even if you can't believe that clinically diagnosible psychopaths are in power, just consider that big businesses are invariably headed by RUTHLESS MEN. The term "Establishment" refers to all those wealthy people across the country who own most of the country. And, as the news has recently reported, it is a very small percentage of the total population.
Some people will do anything for money and to protect their interests and their wealth; that is usually how they get to be wealthy in the first place. In my opinion, many of the "industrial barons" of American history were criminals. They are extremists, radical, and most often use religion to justify this extremism and the oppression of others.
It is par for the course for such radicals to label anyone a little toward the center, or even in the center, as "Leftists". In a country where the largest majority are in the center, neither Left nor Right, they are the ones that are hurt the most.
There are Leftists in the 9/11 Research Community that would like to blame everything on capitalism in general. Well, it's true that Capitalism - as it is practiced in the U.S. - is selective for psychopaths to rise to the top. But Capitalism, the right to work hard and improve your lot thereby, is not the cause of radical ruthlessness.
At the same time, there are many radical Rightists who have invaded 9/11 Research. You could even say that the majority of them are of that ilk. Their presence is, basically, to support the Right by sowing confusion and dissension, to demolish the evidence of conspiracy, and certainly to herd people into various camps, usually religious or armed. Stirring up the Indians, then fighting them and taking their land and possessions, is an old game: Interventionism and Adventurism - the "American Way." Throughout history, Indians, Blacks, the poor, have always understood this at some level. But most Middle-class, average Americans do not. Due to their upbringing, education, socialization - basically brainwashing - we are taught to separate reality between what we believe versus what actually happens. For the most part, we don't want to know the truth because if we knew it, we would have to do something about it. We just want problems to go away, so we like very much to have a patsy - a scapegoat - to blame so we can get back to the business of trying to survive in a country where everyone is oppressed while they are told that they are better off than anybody else on earth.
The fact is that societies are split between the forces of Good and Evil. Decent people - people who have lines in their consciences that they will not cross - live side by side with people who would do anything to get what they want.
And so it is that Ruthless Men - however you wish to describe them - control America. They either control or install the U.S. government, and have done so for a very long time. It doesn't matter whether they are Jews or Gentiles or Hottentots. They are ruthless, and many of them are psychopaths or related deviants.
The oil companies and arms industries control governments and policy; they control the military and political parties across the board; republicans AND democrats. They own nearly everyone. They have the power to make and break people.
It is important to remember that behind the office of the President, there are ruthless men who will do anything at all to maintain and increase their power and to attain their ends. The history of the White House is the history of puppets who do what they are told to do.
It is oil companies and arms industries that want war. They need to control the masses of people so that they can get what they want.
Doing "anything at all" means killing people who get in the way and killing people to create conditions so that they can stampede populations in the way they want them to go, generally to war..
Nobody with that kind of power is going to give it up easily. And there is nothing they will not do if they see it as essential: they assassinated John F. Kennedy in broad daylight because he threatened that power.
People sometimes ask how such conspiracies as the JFK assassination and 9/11 could be "covered up without someone from the inside talking." As Harrison Livingstone points out, this is a naive question. If someone is a witness to a murder done by professionals, do you really think they are going to go around blabbing about it? And if the victim is a president, or the people in the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and 4 airliners, it is clear to even the most pedestrian thinker that the crime has been committed by those with great power. Anybody with two firing neurons can figure out that such perpetrators are in such a strong position that protesting or seriously trying to blow the whistle on such an event puts the whistle-blower in the gravest of danger - particularly if they have an audience. (That's why they work so hard to make sure that those who tell the truth do not have an audience.)
Further, if we consider the element of the "Establishment" mentioned above, it is unlikely that exposing the crime would even result in justice being done. Who would they turn to? Who would protect them?
Here is where we return to the subject of the Media.
If the witness goes to the media of today, they might as well jump off a cliff and be done with it. Because, most certainly, the impression that the media gives of "truth seeking" is only window dressing. Now and again they expose the truth on some matter that doesn't really matter, but that is only to shore up the illusion of a democracy and a free press; to keep the herd satisfied.
The media is, in fact, under the same control as politicians and politics. In short, the media is under the control of the perpetrators of the crime.
So, with no media to form an opposing power base, who ya gonna tell? And without the Media to back you up, who's going to believe you?
Further, in the case of crimes of state, which the JFK assassination and 9/11 certainly were, enough other people are killed to insure the silence of everyone in the conspiracy. The additional deaths (or character assassinations) send a loud and clear message to everyone who might know something: keep your mouth shut!
And so it is, we come to the crux of the matter: we must take back the media.
That's the first order of business.
When you think about it, where does any private group or individual get off thinking that they "own" information, facts, data about events that happen in our world that affect everyone? The Truth is public property: it belongs to all.
After thinking about this for some time, I have come to the realization that all public media should be publicly owned and overseen by public commissions that are not in any way related to politics - neither elected nor appointed, but selected by random lottery from pools of qualified citizens. Only in this way can we guarantee to ourselves the support that is needed to accomplish everything else that must be done to clean up the mess that Ruthless, Greedy Men have made of our planet.
But in order to even approach that goal peacefully, we need to find ways to bypass the currently existing media - to become our own media.
That is the task before us.
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: The Protocols of Zion Protocol
Harrison Koehli
Signs of the Times
14/12/2006
I've just about had it with the Protocols of Zion. To be more specific, I've had it with ADL spooks and useful idiots propagandizing said document for the purpose of character assassination, guilt by association, and the general spreading of moralistic claptrap. When a document is used by clownish racists (both Jew and Gentile) to incite both 'anti-Semitism' and 'philo-Isrealism' (and its accompanying 'anti-Arabism'), without any interest in facts or reality, something is up. What other document has served so well as propaganda for both sides of an ideological conflict?
It's easy to see how the Protocols have inspired anti-semitism. They are a set of protocols diabolical enough to whet the appetite of any aspiring megalomaniac. Regardless of their authorship (they are widely regarded as a 'fraud' or 'hoax'), they show a remarkable knowledge of human weaknesses and methods for exploiting these vulnerabilities. In short, they demonstrate an obviously psychopathic worldview. They could have been written by Soviets, Jews, Nazis, Christians, or any combination of a much more comprehensive list. By assigning these Machiavellian machinations to Jews, unthinking people are easily duped. They say, "Well, it's obvious that what is said in the Protocols is actually coming true (e.g. control of the press, the rise of the ubiquitous presidential 'advisor', and so on), so it must be the Jews!"
So, already we know a couple facts: the Protocols describe a conspiracy, one that undoubtedly exists wherever a group of power-hungry men decide to put one over their bleeding-heart brothers and sisters. Also, we know that many an anti-Semite fervently backs this document as proof that Jews, collectively, are evil. But let's add another fact to this mix: the fact that Israel is an Apartheid state. Israel (and its supporters), since before its 'creation' in 1948, has a history of terror: massacring entire villages, destroying homes, ethnic cleansing, assassination, psychological warfare, false-flag terror, daily humiliation, targeting civilians, stealing land. No serious academic denies these facts.
Recently, Jimmy Carter broke the politician's 'code of silence', and spoken the unspeakable. He spoke the truth. He said what the whole world knows but is afraid to say. But here we come to the crux of the matter, and the subject of this article. Why are they so afraid to say it? For an answer, Jimmy Carter is a perfect case study, and I thank him for offering himself up for public character assassination and demonisation to demonstrate this oddity of what passes for political discourse on all subjects Israeli.
It is here, at this critical juncture, that the opposing camp dons their mask of feigned contempt and waxes histrionic: "How dare he! Like the pharaoh before him, Carter is stirring the multitude against Jews!" Novelist Jack Engelhard even went so far as to compare Carter's book to Mein Kampf. Listening to Abe Foxman speak to Marc Levin in the latter's documentary The Protocols of Zion, one would think that any criticism of Jews "goes right back to the Protocols", thus discrediting the criticism. You see, in the twisted minds of these defamers of character, any criticism of Jews or Israeli policies is "anti-semitic" and hearkens back to the infamous "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." I guess you could call it 'innocence by association with previous but unrelated absence of guilt'.
Can you imagine the fun George Bush could be having if he had his very own Protocols ascribed to his ancestors? With the Protocols under his belt, Bush too could stroll up to some stranger's house, blow a hole in its wall and tell its inhabitants it has 15 minutes to leave before the house is destroyed; he can saunter up to young child he does not like and shoot her in the head repeatedly for looking like a terrorist; he can set up an Apartheid state and a pro-Bush lobby that bribes and threatens foreign politicians not to speak out against his crimes, 'or else.' And then, when the criticism inevitably comes that "Bush has an overwhelming amount of power for just a single man", or that "Bush has created an Apartheid state", or that "Bush kills innocent civilians as a form of collective punishment", he can rest easy and give thanks for the well-worn copy of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Bush. He can put on a face of shocked disbelief and say, "I cannot believe you could say that? What you are saying hearkens right back to the Protocols! I mean, they're a proven hoax, and they're just downright ridiculous. When the Protocols - saying that the Bushes rule the world - were proven a hoax, it really meant that any indication that I, personally, was committing similar crimes is a blatant lie! Don't you see? It's impossible that I'm a criminal, because the book saying I'm a criminal was discredited long ago! Isn't it obvious?!"
Well, by the looks of some of the recent attacks on Jimmy Carter for his recent book, it would appear that yes, to some, it is obvious. Unfortunately, these people have no sense of 'facts' or 'reality'. To them, these are malleable and relativistic concepts. "When a fact suits an agenda, use it; when it doesn't, don't." These people get a rise out of using a kernel of truth (i.e. that the Protocols weren't necessarily written by Jews) to cover up a whole field of lies (i.e. that Israel is a racist monster of a state, hiding behind a façade of weakness, vulnerability and Democracy). Thank God there are some Jimmy Carters out there who, when confronted with a blatant lie, give it what it asks for: the truth.
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Omissions In the Iraq Study Group Report
by Stephen Lendman
14 December 2006
Noted historian Eric Foner in a December 7 article on OpEd News.com calls George Bush "the worst president in US history....(who) in his first six years in office....managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors." Equally noted historian Gabriel Kolko agrees, and along with his other comments, calls the Bush administration "the worst set of incompetents ever to hold power in Washington." And referring specifically to the war in Iraq, Kolko colorfully describes what former Reagan administration National Security Agency (NSA) chief General William Odom calls "....the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States" by saying the Bush administration "shocked and awed....itself." Hard to say it better than that.
Enter James Baker and the Iraq Study Group (ISG) that reported its findings publicly on December 6 after most of it was leaked well in advance making its release and full-court corporate media press hyping and griping anti-climactic as well as disappointing and disturbing. The ISG was formed in March with at least four crucial aims:
--to avoid a perceived inevitable political and fiscal train wreck caused by the disastrous Bush administration policy over the past six years.
-- to buy time for the failed and discredited Bush administration attempting to save it along with the family's name and reputation.
-- to devise a scheme to assure US dominance in the Middle East, fast slipping away, is restored and maintained going forward so this country doesn't lose control over what a State Department spokesperson in 1945 called a "stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history -(the region's oil)."
-- to be a (thinly-veiled) attempt to assuage public anger over a war gone sour, that's illegal, can't be won, is taking a terrible toll, and never should have been waged.
The ISG did it by proposing 79 recommendations supposedly comprising a change of course strategy that, in fact, amounts to little more than moving the existing chess pieces around the Iraq board, ending up almost where we are now - in a hopeless unresolvable quagmire approaching an apocalypse with no possibility of winning an unwinnable war and no high-level policy-makers thinking we can save for a president mired in a state of denial.
He's out of touch with reality, and according to Capitol Hill Blue editor Doug Thompson from insider reports he's getting calling the president "a dangerous cornered animal" he writes: Bush is a man "living on the edge" growing "more sullen and moody with each passing day....his paranoia....increasing to manic levels as he launches into tirades about traitors in his own party, in the press and among his allies (and) feels betrayed by....James Baker (whose ISG report he feels humiliated his administration)." The president, hasn't a clue that Jim Baker didn't do this. George Bush did a very thorough job of it himself.
What the ISG Should Have Addressed but Didn't
That said and well reported, what's most striking about the ISG report isn't what it says but what it leaves out. Beginning in 1991, the US conducted an unending war of aggression in two phases, with a dozen years of punishing and unjustifiable sanctions sandwiched between them, against a country posing no threat to us or its neighbors following its long and costly war in the 1980s with Iran (that the US urged Saddam to wage and supported him throughout) from which it needed financial help to recover but hadn't gotten enough to make a significant difference. It began after Saddam misread US intentions regarding his troubled relations with Kuwait, allowing himself to be deceived by the first Bush administration into believing we had no interest in how he chose to settle his justifiable dispute which Washington had a hand in creating.
With US urging, Kuwait demanded repayment of $14 billion in outstanding loans incurred to help finance Saddam's war with Iran, it also helped keep oil prices low when Iraq needed them higher to oblige, and it was slant drilling into Iraqi territory and provokingly refusing to negotiate a reasonable settlement to all disputes. Finally, Iraq took matters into its own hands to do by invasion what it couldn't achieve through months of failed diplomacy but only with de facto US approval it thought it got that proved not to be.
Saddam fell into the trap, and the rest is history. He's now still in the dock after one conviction, was sentenced to be hanged by the US-administered kangaroo court after the first of his trials, his country is occupied and in ruins, and his people are living in a state of out-of-control violence and desparation because of an illegal and brutal occupation that must end unconditionally for them to have any hope for a normal life again.
The ISG report ignores this history and the reasons we went to war with Iraq in the first place. It began with Saddam's misguided invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 with the US then claiming it would liberate the country forcibly even though he was willing to negotiate a settlement and pull out his forces. But once the trap was baited with Saddam in it, there was no turning back from a war the US wanted. Events were unstoppable which was clear from GHW Bush's belligerent language saying "(Saddam's) Naked aggression will not stand" and refusing all his overtures to negotiate and his willingness to remove his occupying forces wanting only reasonable redress.
GWH Bush got the war he wanted, but the US plan wasn't to liberate Kuwait. It was to remove or fatally weaken a leader we couldn't dominate and liberate his nation's oil and sovereignty from his control to ours. It was also a way to accomplish what GHW Bush said at war's end six weeks after it began on January 17, 1991: "It's a proud day for America - and, by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all," but he failed to explain what he meant was this now gave the US license to attack and invade another country any time henceforth it could convince the public a threat existed to justify it. Given the power and complicity of the corporate-controlled media, that hasn't been a problem since.
So faced with the syndrome's resurgence from the disaster today in Iraq, the ISG is waging a frontal attack to contain it deceiving the public to believe a new course is at hand hoping to assuage its anger so essentially the same failed policy can continue unabated. It's also to buy enough time for George Bush to get through the next two years, hold together his failed administration slowly coming apart for lack of public support, and keep the ship of state from being wrecked on the shoals of the administration's ineptness and arrogance extreme enough for a growing number of former adherents to walk away not wanting the taint of it to tarnish them any more than it already has.
It doesn't matter what was proposed on December 6 or that there's no chance it can work any better than current policy. That's for the next administration in 2009 to worry about. What does matter is to convince the public it's a new course, even though it's only smoke and mirrors, and one sensible enough to work that will end the US occupation and involvement in the country but at an unspecified time left unstated because there is none or any intention to leave the country or give up control of its oil treasure. Just like in the run-up to the March, 2003 attack and invasion, the public again has been had, and it remains to be seen how long it will take for it to catch on and continue opposing an illegal war of aggression that never should have been waged in the first place.
Other Omissions in the ISG Report
Start with its members and the interests they represent. Overall it's an assemblage of high-level elitists from past government service working with their counterparts in the military and ideologically-driven right wing think tank experts brought together to find a way to assure the US imperial agenda stays on track meaning despite what its report said, the US is in Iraq to stay as long as there's enough oil in the region to make it worthwhile as that's why we came in the first place along with neutering Saddam to remove Israel's main obstacle to its regional hegemony.
Jim Baker led the group along with his co-chair and leading figure of the 9/11 commission whitewash, former Democrat congressman Lee Hamilton, who's another long-standing loyal servant of empire and serial abuser of the public trust. They and the others on the Commission share another dubious attribute. Like George Bush and his administration co-conspirators, these figures, too, are war criminals along with their other abuses of the public trust that should have put them in the dock of justice and made them be held to account along with George Bush, Dick Cheney and their band of neocon rogues. They never will be in a nation ruled by victor's justice meaning none at all for the law-breakers and a whole lot of injustice for its victims.
Jim Baker's association with crime and scandal is long-standing, but he's always emerged unscatched, his reputation, in fact, enhanced, with each new episode of lawlessness he's played a central role in while navigating safely through each of them. He's done it almost without breaking a sweat in his role as a man at the center of power since the inception of the Reagan administration in 1980. Outside the Bush family, no one is closer or more important to the president's father and former president than Baker. And no one has more influence with him or with other major players in the nation's power establishment, at least on the dominant Republican side. It's why, along with others of his status, he's able to get away with murder and most anything else.
From 1985 - 1988, he was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Treasury after serving as the president's influential White House Chief of Staff from inception (as part of the Baker, Ed Meese, Michael Deaver power troika) till he took over the treasury post. While there, he, more than anyone else (but with a lot of co-conspiratorial help), bore responsibility for the grand theft of over $100 billion in the notorious Savings and Loan scandal that allowed the looting of deregulated banks to take place throughout the country, especially in his home state of Texas where anything goes as long as there's a buck in it for the power elite. He then served as GHW Bush's Secretary of State from 1989 - 1992 playing a major role in crafting administration policy leading to the Gulf war and the unjustifiable sanctions of aggression at its conclusion.
Baker formed his own think tank in 1993 after leaving the Bush administration, the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy in Houston, where the former president happens to live when he's not at his summer home in Maine. It supports "oil and petrodollar conquest" policies, played a major role in post 9/11 policy and the fraudulent "war on terror" making it possible, and is also a prominent attorney connected with the notorious Carlyle Group that's profited enormously from all things connected to the defense establishment and uses the services of GHW Bush in the role of "senior consultant" and master rainmaker/fixer-arranger at a very high price for his services.
Baker also engineered the theft of the 2000 presidential election for the younger Bush by assuring he got the necessary 25 Florida electoral votes and not Al Gore who won them and the presidency he never got because George Bush was chosen for the role regardless of the will of the electorate. Five complicit US Supreme Court justices went along with the scheme to seal the deal and in so doing abrogated their constitutional duty to uphold the law of the land. One of them was commission member Sandra Day O'Connor, now rewarded for her participation in the infamous judicial coup d'etat giving her an encore performance as legal advisor and expert law twister/subverter for the interests of wealth and power she swears allegiance to like all the other members of the "Gang of Ten" co-conspirators.
Baker is their leader and is presented as an respected diplomat and elder statesman sent to rescue the ship of state and Bush administration to keep it afloat and him in the White House at least for another two years. What he is, in fact, is a master criminal/manipulator/schemer, a dangerous and ruthless power broker deserving no public trust who should be made to answer for his malfeasance according to the law he doesn't respect or acknowledge unless he can twist it to serve his interests or those of his clients.
More Omissions - Trashing International Law Including the UN Charter and US Constitution to Wage An Illegal War of Aggression
How could a nation born as a great democratic experiment rebelling against the divine right of monarchs become instead now one worshipping the divine right of capital and capable of being even more repressive. Ben Franklin warned about this early on saying "(The US Constitution) is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism....when the people shall become so corrupted as to need (or not be vigilant enough to prevent) despotic government, being incapable of any other."
Much earlier, Roman historian Tacitus explained what then happens: "They (pillage) the world. When the land has nothing left for men who ravage everything, they scour the sea. They....are greedy....they crave glory....They covet wealth....They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it....'empire.' They make a desert and call it peace." Today they pillage, destroy and enslave in serfdom and call it democracy. They believe it's their right, divine or otherwise, and their cause is just. They lead this nation, and the rest of the world trembles and suffers dearly as long as they rule. The Iraq conflict is just their latest excursion to satisfy their insatiable lust for more wealth, power and glory.
The initial Bush-led "shock and awe" attack against that afflicted country didn't start on March 18, 2003. It began in small, incremental steps continuing the intermittent harassing mostly below-the-radar strikes that went on throughout the 1990s and picked up again after 9/11 as violence in the so-called No-Fly Zone increased and the Washington anti-Saddam demonization rhetoric was rolled out prepping the public for the Iraq war the Bush administration wanted as soon as it came to town.
It only reached full fury in the opening days of the war that began in mid-March, 2003. It's now gone on longer than WW II with no resolution in sight, despite all the lofty disingenuous talk and one over-hyped commission practicing the Sun Tzu Art of War deception on the US public in its cooked up reworked version of the same failed policy of aggressive war and permanent occupation. It has no chance to end the resistance to it unless or until all our forces are unconditionally withdrawn, something this country won't ever agree to but, in the end, will be forced to do just like it had to acknowledge defeat and leave Southeast Asia in 1975. History has a way of repeating for those failing to learn its lessons. This time the price being paid looks a lot stiffer and more painful than the last misadventure, but the full amount won't be known until the current exercise in futility finally ends.
Unstated in any part of the ISG report or in any Washington or mainstream commentary on Iraq policy since the confrontation with Saddam began in January, 1991, is that the US planned and carried out a war of illegal aggression now near completing its 16th year. Early on, this country got some UN-cover by dint of its high-pressure to shape Security Council policy to fit its own. That process, however, broke down in the run-up to the current conflict beginning in March, 2003 when the US pretext for war was so outrageous, enough countries with clout and Security Council veto power opposed us forcing Washington to go it alone with an embarrassing "coalition of the willing." Those countries in it became shameless co-conspirators by agreeing to join in partnership with the US defiantly flaunting international laws and norms as participants in this exercise of lawlessness.
You won't find any of that hinted at in the ISG report. It's not mentioned that this country began by violating Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution that gives the power to declare war solely to the Congress, although it hasn't exercised it since it declared war against the Axis powers in WW II. It also ignores our violating what the Nuremberg Tribunal trying Nazi war criminals called the "supreme international crime" stating: "To initiate a war of aggression....is not only an international crime, it is the supreme crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." And it doesn't mention this country violated the UN Charter that's international law this country is bound by. It allows a nation the right to use force in its self-defense only under two conditions: when authorized to do it by the Security Council or under Article 51 that permits the "right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member....until the Security council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security."
By attacking Iraq without provocation and with no Security Council authorization for it prior to March, 2003, the US violated this sacred covenant it's a signatory to. It also violated the US Constitution that says...."all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The Bush administration flaunts that law, but the ISG is unperturbed, allows this elephant in our face to go unmentioned, by its silence supports its continuance, and is unwilling to act responsibly to assure going forward this country abides by all laws and standards as a first prerequisite to resolving the conflict in Iraq and most important to preventing future ones.
It can't do it, because if it does it would then have to acknowledge this country attacked, invaded and now occupies Iraq in violation of international laws and norms, must now end its illegal occupation, and those responsible must be held to account for what they've done in the world and national bodies established to deal with these type crimes of war and against humanity. It would also have to acknowledge that all the commission members have their own closets filled with disturbing skeletons including, of course, the former High Court justice exposed above whose judicial act of infamy allowed this holocaust to happen and never spoke out publicly against it indicating she finds mass slaughter and destruction quite acceptable by her legal and moral standards - the same rogue standards all commission members and those in the Bush administration endorse so they act co-conspiratorially to cover for each other.
The ISG also ignored other international laws this country is legally bound to obey but didn't and won't ever under a Bush administration that mocks them. Nonetheless, the US can't hide its use of banned chemical and poisonous depleted uranium weapons outlawed by the 1925 Geneva Convention Gas Protocol and various succeeding Geneva Conventions banning the use of chemical and biological weapons in any form for any reason in war. In addition, under various UN Conventions and Covenants that are binding international law for its signatories, the use of any weapons that cause harm after the battle including away from the battlefield, harm the environment, or kill, wound or cause harm inhumanely are illegal and banned.
In the Gulf war and thereafter, the US military routinely used illegal weapons including depleted uranium munitions for 16 years in Iraq that spread deadly toxic irremediable radiation over a vast area of the country. These weapons are poisonous under international law and violate all the above conditions. The Pentagon also willfully violated international statutes by using an array of banned and questionable weapons with no restraint including against non-military civilian targets as a tactical strategy, a practice prohibited by these codes of law.
By its silence, the ISG tacitly endorses these practices as well as the administration's use of torture outlawed by various binding international statutes including the significant 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) that includes rape and the kinds of sexual abuse routinely used in US-administered prisons in Iraq as part of the interrogation, dehumanizing and terror-inducing social control process authorized by the December 18 departing Secretary of Defense and unindicted war criminal Donald Rumsfeld.
Jim Baker and the other commission members also are comfortable with the way the US military treats the thousands of prisoners it holds even though they're denied all rights guaranteed them under the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 (GCIII) that provides for humane treatment including an array of services like enough proper food and medical care and prohibits the kinds of abusive practices the US routinely engages in. The ISG report also ignores any change of policy regarding the rights of civilians guaranteed under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (GCIV) that covers a range of protections routinely denied them as another part of the Bush administration's flaunting of all international laws that prohibit whatever practices it wishes to engage in, law or no law. No problem for Jim Baker and his "Gang of Ten" including the former High Court justice member who understands the law and was sworn to uphold it while on the bench, domestic and international that's binding US law under the Constitution.
Omissions About the Human Cost in Iraq
The few ISG findings deserving mention and discussion have largely been ignored in the corporate-controlled media because doing so would be embarrassing to the Bush administration trying to cover them up as further evidence of its failure in Iraq that can only be characterized as criminal, disastrous and hopeless short of a full and unconditional US withdrawal not in the cards.
One of them at the end of the long report mentions a "significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq." It's part of the cover-up from the White House and Department of Defense the commission says acts "as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases (to distort) events on the ground." It cites an example that last July the Pentagon report of 93 attacks one day was distorted to hide the reality that "a careful review of the reports....brought to light 1,100 acts of violence (on that day, or a slight 11-fold greater amount of it)."
Noting that is fine as far as it goes, but it's not near enough as the ISG's mini-revelation hides the greater truth about the US-inflicted holocaust against the Iraqi people that began in January, 1991, continues unabated and won't end until the occupation does. That's the key "reality" the ISG report suppresses as does the corporate-controlled media including parts buried deep in it they're silent on.
For 16 years, the US created a living hell in Iraq. It willfully and illegally destroyed essential infrastructure like power generating stations and clean water and sanitation facilities vital to health, welfare and public safety. It wantonly targeted and slaughtered many thousands of civilians. It unjustifiably imposed a dozen years of punishing economic sanctions causing the deaths of as many as 1.5 million innocent Iraqis two UN heads of humanitarian relief resigned in protest over, being unwilling to participate in a US-imposed policy one of them characterized as "genocide."
Even today, little, if anything meaningful, has been done to ameliorate a hopeless situation on the ground in most of the country. The ISG report ignores US war crimes in destroying a once prosperous nation, leaving in its wake a surreal lawless armed camp wasteland with few or no essential services by design including electricity, clean water, medical care, fuel and most everything else needed for sustenance and survival.
The commission report is also silent on the shocking 2006 Lancet study that accurately assessed the human toll of the war since 2003 using statistically reliable random household "cluster sampled" personal interviews with death certificate verifications in most cases. It estimated 655,000 violent deaths since March, 2003 attributable to the war stating the true number might be as high as 900,000 as interviewers were unable to survey the most violent parts of the country like Fallujah and Ramadi in al Anbar province (comprising one-third of the country) where mass killing still goes on daily as well as to include in the study the thousands of families in which all its members were killed. By its silence, the ISG is willfully participating in the cover-up of this massive crime against humanity and by its failure to offer redress is co-conspiratorially part of it.
The ISG also ignores the true cost to US forces in Iraq that began in the Gulf war and continues today. One-third or more of the 696,841 military personnel who served in the Gulf from August 2, 1990 to July 31, 1991 have filed claims for or have been reported by the Veteran's Administration (VA) to be on some form of disability in 2004, most likely from the deadly effects of depleted uranium (DU) or other toxic poisoning the Pentagon tries to suppress and deny.
Today the situation is far worse, but it'll be years before the final human toll is known. The effects of DU poisoning alone may be much more devastating now than in the Gulf war. In this conflict, the DU used in munitions is much more toxic than the kind used earlier. In addition to U-238 used earlier, today's DU weapons contain plutonium (the most toxic of all known substances), neptunium, and the highly radioactive uranium isotope U-236. According to a 1991 study by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, these elements are 100,000 times more dangerous than the U-238 in DU. It takes only the most minute, nearly unmeasurable, amount of this substance in one's body (that can easily be inhaled or otherwise ingested) to be fatal.
Further, the situation today is exacerbated by the current war having been ongoing for over three and one-half years (longer now than WW II) compared to the earlier six week one in 1991. Also, twice as many US forces have been engaged in this toxic environment for extended multiple tours of duty setting up the possibility for an enormous human calamity in years ahead as more of them return home, their bodies poisoned, and their lives and future health put seriously at risk.
In addition, daily life on the ground has been difficult to unbearable for US forces. Many have been ill-equipped with weapons, vehicles, ordinance, body armor and most everything else being consumed and not replaced. It's even worse for Forward Operating Bases often unable to get enough drinking water and other necessities such as proper food, clean clothes, a daily shower and a comfortable bed to sleep in. The effects of conflict and conditions on the ground have taken a devastating toll already with many there increasingly stressed and terrified out of their minds from physical and/or psychological trauma often ignored by commanders.
Most disturbing is the cover-up of the true death and injury toll already that's far higher than the published figures that are phony to avoid likely public anger if they were known. One incident suppressed happened on October 10, 2006 when Forward Base Falcon was attacked by mortars and rockets causing huge stocks of fuel and ammunition to explode most of the night killing or wounding hundreds of the 3,000 troops based there. Pictures gotten out show how extensive the damage was that leveled buildings to the ground explaining why the Pentagon wanted none of this to get out. It did but not in the major media and not in the ISG report.
Despite public disclosures, more accurate data overall is quietly coming out of the Pentagon, unreported in the corporate media, and unmentioned in the ISG report that shows the number of US forces killed is about four times the "official" total, and the number wounded may be about twice the official figure. Almost never mentioned is that many injuries include loss of limbs, brain and severe psychological damage and pain and other debilitations that will scar those affected and their families for the rest of their lives if after treatment and recovery they even survive.
None of this bothers the "Gang of Ten" commission members whose families are safe from this carnage and whose verdict rendered in their report effectively is to let the war go on without end, the enormous and rising human toll on Iraqis and Americans notwithstanding. For them, it's a price worth paying as it serves the interests of empire in which human beings are just another commodity to extract value from and then discard when no longer of further use. That's how the Bush administration and ISG members think and act.
Omissions on the Domestic Front Related to the Iraq War and the "War on Terror" Allowing It to Happen
Domestic and foreign affairs are inextricably linked, and when the nation goes to war, or is planning to, everything is fair game on the home front, but don't expect it will serve the public interest. Ordinary people always pay dearly and gain nothing beyond the right to make the weapons and pay the bills that in the current conflict are huge enough at the least to put an enormous strain on the economy and over time as the out-control costs mount may endanger the nation's economic health. The ISG report doesn't address this reckless endangerment that Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz believes may have an eventual price tag of well over $2 trillion exacerbating already massive budget deficits far higher ($760 billion in 2005, not the "official" $318.5 billion) than the phony numbers reported to hide how bad things really are and on top of an alarming current account deficit now in the range of $800 billion a year and climbing.
It also is unperturbed by the grim picture economist Laurence Kotlikoff presented in a recent detailed report for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in which he stated, by some measures, the US is already bankrupt and unable to pay its creditors. Professor Kotlikoff believes US fiscal policy is so out-of-control, including for the reckless spending for wars, that the country's debt is rising exponentially and will reach an incomprehensible and unmanageable $65.9 trillion creating a fiscal calamity forcing the nation to default on its debt obligations. He later updated his figures and now believes the country's future overall liability may reach the $80 trillion level that will trigger an inevitable economic meltdown if it happens.
Spending hundreds of billions annually and rising for "defense" including all the off-the-books (but out of taxpayers' pockets) allocations for Iraq will only speed up the pace to the future apocalypse Kotlikoff potentially foresees ahead. No problem for the Baker collective who operate with tunnel vision, and like those three monkeys, hear no, see no, and neither speak nor write anything beyond their re-flavored stay the course agenda for Iraq disguised to look like a new drawdown policy it isn't.
Other Domestic Front Omissions - The Destruction of Democracy and Loss of Personal Freedoms
The ISG was formed to serve US imperial interests including its wars of aggression for wealth and power. It doesn't matter how destructive they are to the public welfare or how they're allowing the nation to pass from a republic to tyranny. For every blow the US military strikes against the people of Iraq (and Afghanistan), the political establishment here and its "homeland security" enforcers inflict a similar amount of damage in kind against the body politic at home, not through the barrel of a gun (yet) but by the destruction of our civil liberties and human rights that stand in the way of the grandiose schemes people like Jim Baker and his "Gang of Ten" allies hope to pull off - to gain total imperial control over planet earth and the heavens above it with ordinary working people everywhere just more commodity inputs for their production meat grinder to be chewed up for profit and then discarded.
So for Baker and the ISG team, keeping mum about the war at home is part of the scheme to let it go on largely under the radar until the time comes to strip off the mask and send the jackboots and tanks to the streets making them look like the ones in Baghdad and with some of the same horrific fallout as things get ugly. For their plan to work, they must crush the last remnants of a free society and create the Orwellian vision he described saying: "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." The ISG is trying to do with guile and deceit what George Bush already did in the new legislation he signed into law on October 17 giving himself what noted British journalist John Pilger calls "the power of unrestricted lawlessness" with scant public awareness it even happened.
On that day, with ISG tacit blessing and approval by its silence, Bush signed into law the infamous Military Commissions Act effectively giving himself the power to subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The bill authorizes the use of torture and allows the president the right to call anyone an enemy of the state on his say alone with no corroborating evidence and strips the accused of all constitutional rights. It means anyone can be arrested, interrogated, tortured and incarcerated in a secret prison anywhere in the world, subject to the justice of a military tribunal like in Iraq or Guantanamo, with no competent defense or habeas right of appeal. It makes everyone an "enemy combatant" subject to the will of a man willing to use his power recklessly with no concern for its consequences.
George Bush went further that day privately and quietly signing into law a provision revising the Insurrection Act of 1807 that along with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the use of federal and National Guard troops for law enforcement inside the country except as allowed by the Constitution or expressly authorized by Congress in times of a national emergency like an insurrection.
No longer. The new Public Law 109-364 (HR 5122) allows the president the right to claim a public emergency, effectively declare martial law on his say alone, and send the jackboots to the streets to suppress whatever he calls public disorder that may include peaceful protests to redeem our constitutional rights now lost.
These new repressive laws add to the ones already on the books including infamous repressive Patriot Acts I and II and the National ID Act that will enable the government to track and control everyone in the country in the "Big Brother" fashion George Orwell foresaw in his dystopian book Nineteen Eighty-Four depicting a totalitarian national security police state society the US has now become. This act alone legalizes tyranny, but it's only one among others including the president having given himself unlimited power by designating himself a "unitary executive" with the right to circumvent the law in the name of national security on his say alone that a threat exists, with no evidence needed to warrant it or congressional approval.
The Congress approves, and again silence from the ISG members plotting their own schemes while watching the country's founding principles being destroyed making it all the easier for them to pull off their heist of the republic to go along with controlling Iraq and the rest of the Middle East and its oil treasure they'll go to any lengths to hold onto - and that's only for starters.
What Chance for ISG Success
The Commission members believe their plan can succeed, but don't be deceived by their (thin) veneer of confidence. Other insiders aren't so sure, and according to the New York Times on December 9 the report "exposed deep fissures among Republicans over how to manage a war that many fear will haunt their party - and the nation - for years to come." From the hard right, critics call the ISG report a shameful retreat while moderate party voices expressed hope George Bush would adopt the Commission's principle recommendations and "begin a process of disengagement from the long and costly war." In the middle, White House officials concluded their own initial assessment of Baker's work saying many of its proposals are "impractical or unrealistic."
The Wall Street Journal's editorial page had its own ideologically-driven say. As expected, it wants no part of engaging Iran and Syria and supports the Israel Lobby position instead. It called the report "a bipartisan strategic muddle ginned up for domestic political purposes." The Journal editorial writers do have a way with words leaving nothing to their readers' imagination.
Unmentioned in the Times story is the unreported view from the Pentagon high command that apparently is much different from its public stance agreeing with the blunt mid-October assessment of Britain's Army Chief of Staff General Richard Dannatt who stated (in contradiction to the Blair government) the presence of UK forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems (and they should) get out some time soon" - meaning as soon as possible.
In simple terms, General Dannett and the Pentagon brass believe what most every honest observer understands - that the presence of an occupying force in Iraq is the cause of the problem, not its solution. The longer it remains, the more unstable and intolerable conditions will become. Increasing the force size and/or reshuffling the deck with fewer combat troops and more trainer/advisors will only increase the level of Iraqi resistance against them and ultimately elevate public opposition at home once people catch on and realize they've again been had and the Baker plan is just another scheme to keep our forces in Iraq in perpetuity to maintain the country as a colony and the region's oil under US control.
Middle East expert and scholar Gilbert Achcar states in his new book Perilous Power, co-authored with Noam Chomsky, that the longer US forces remain in the region, the worse things will get, no matter what role they adopt that's just cover for the US to maintain tight control. Achcar says the Bush administration since March, 2003 has been "stupid" and "will go down in history....as the undertaker of US interests in the region." It doesn't get any clearer, stronger, or more on the mark than that, and it goes to the heart of the problem the ISG was formed to deal with - maintaining US control over Middle East oil now in jeopardy and getting the US public to go along.
If the US occupation of Iraq ever ends without a reliable client state government in place, it will create the possibility of Washington's worst nightmare - a majority Shiite ruled Iraq allied with Shiite Iran that might link with the Saudi Shias located in the bordering oil-rich part of the kingdom. If that Tripartite Shia Middle East alliance forms, it will control most of the world's oil supply. It might then choose to align with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) formed to compete with the US for control of Central Asia's huge energy reserves and whose core members are China and Russia giving those countries a chance for a leg up on the US at least for access to Middle East oil. The ISG and Bush administration will do all in its power to prevent this from happening, but the US has lost so much credibility in the region, they face a daunting task and long odds for success.
The ISG report mentions none of this, but does stress the importance of Iraq's oil by mentioning it 63 times and calling for the US to help Iraq privatize its state-owned oil industry, opening it up to Big Oil foreign exploitive investment and the profits from it. If or when the US ends its occupation without leaving a reliable client state in place, it would be hard to imagine Iraq will quickly forgive and forget and be willing to conduct business as usual with oil or other corporations from the country that laid waste to it and only left in humiliation and defeat.
It shows how hard it will be for the US to get out of this mess, and it's likely to prove more than Jim Baker, his high-powered team, and "all the king's horses and men" are up to. They stand virtually no chance to implement a coherent, workable plan for success short of the only operable one they'll never agree to until they no longer have a choice - a full and unconditional withdrawal. It only remains to be seen how long it will take for them and whatever administration is in power in Washington to draw that conclusion and how much time the public's willing to give them, the Bush administration and the majority Democrats in the Congress elected to chart a new course they've so far indicated no intention of doing.
It all adds up to an exercise in deception and futility, but in the end things will end up where they all began in 1990 before the long US assault against Iraq started. When it does, that country will again be free from a foreign occupier but will face a long, expensive and painful struggle to mend and rebuild. As happened when the US left Vietnam, this country will leave it to the Iraqis to recover and regenerate from the carnage and misery on their own that may take a generation or more to achieve and that for most now alive may never be possible.
This will be the legacy of the US invasion and occupation and tainted presidency of George Bush and his corrupted notion of moral superiority, claiming to have brought democracy, liberation and the benefits of western civilization to this blighted country but having to do it through the barrel of a gun. This time things unraveled faster than usual, but it only showed the people of Iraq reject what too many at home still believe - that the US is a benevolent democratic republic serving the will and needs of its people and supporting the rights and sovereignty of free people everywhere to live in peace and security. It's an illusion understood by most others around the world and gaining recognition at home as being just as hollow here as on the streets of Baghdad and Kabul.
It remains to be seen how long it will take for a mass awakening to occur to arouse the public at home, as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, making them no longer willing to put up with the kind of abuse and neglect they've so far failed to resist. If history is a guide, it will happen, and when it does it may signal the denouement of another repressive imperial state succumbing to the arrogance of its own overreach, excess, hubris and disregard for the needs of its own people demanding redress. It can't come soon enough for the many around the world oppressed by it crying out "freedom now" and beginning to do something about getting it.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also, visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Wretched Excess
December 11, 2006
Jim Kunstler
CNBC reports that fifty executives at Goldman Sachs will each receive bonuses of $25 million or more. Yes, you read correctly. $25 million each. And the reason, according to CNBC is that these sharpies would otherwise jump ship for hedge fund nirvana if not lavishly tipped. Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch also will each smack twelve employees over the head with golden stockings full of $25 million. Note, Goldman Sachs was rumored to have driven the price of oil down for the election season by applying huge sums of money to twiddle the futures market, and note, too, that the Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, was CEO of Goldman Sachs until the middle of last summer. But, of course, I am fond of saying that I am allergic to conspiracy theories.
I do have another theory, though. I admit, it's just a hunch, a wild-ass guess, a twinge in the gut. It's that come 2007 New York's new governor, Elliot Spitzer, and the new state attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, will go after these grifters like a couple of mastiffs in a basement full of rats -- just like Spitzer went after Dick Grasso, the CEO of the New York Stock Exchange, who, in 2003, received a "deferred compensation" package of $140-million, awarded by a hand-picked NYSE compensation committee composed of executives from the very listed companies Grasso was supposed to regulate. His venality unbound, Grasso then arranged to receive an additional $48-million when the embarrassed NYSE board made him step down from his job.
Of course, this whole sordid tale raises some ineffable questions, such as, how exactly does one's standard of living improve after, say, the first $140 million? How many private jet planes does it take to summon up that certain glow of contentment achieved among the testosterone-for-lunch-bunch? Anyway, the Grasso case is currently awaiting trial. So far, the New York State Supreme Court issued a summary decision ordering him to repay "a significant amount" of the gazillions he walked away with. The cheeky Grasso countersued the NYSE for "besmirching his name." Well he can sue me, too, because I am here to tell you that Dick Grasso's behavior as fiduciary for a non-profit corporation should be heralded from sea to shining sea as the most disgraceful species of money-grubbing turpitude conceivable in a sentient creature above the level of a howler monkey. I hope he spends the rest of his life doing Chinese fire drills in the civil courts and finally dies by getting sucked into the air intake of the starboard engine of his private jet five minutes after the re-po man shows up with a warrant for chattal surrender.
Excuse me. I am momentarily afflicted with the vapors. Let's just say that the inauguration of Messers Spitzer and Cuomo is but weeks away now, and leave it at that. Stay tuned.
I have another, slightly different idea, though, in a another vein. Casual observers like myself have described the US economy as being in a hideous state of unbalance. On the one hand, we have the aforementioned Wall Street smoothies raking in unbelievable bonus fortunes, while the rest of the nation sinks into home equity quicksand wearing lead-lined suits manufactured in ARM mortgage reset hell. The afflicted house owners can't even sell their houses because the market is glutted with houses just like theirs, now worth less than the mortgages owed on them and, guess what, the supply of Greater Fools has finally dried up.
Why doesn't the Wall Street bonus crowd, as a public service, step in and invest all their supernaturally-acquired dough in the suburban house market? To sort of even things out and prop things up. Since so much of their bonus dough was probably generated through the magic of mortgage-backed securities translated into hedges, carry plays, leveraged derivatives gambits, commodity shorts, credit default swaps, and other acts of financial legerdemain, then perhaps they owe it to salt-of-the-earth America -- the distressed home-owner middle class (not to mention the home-builders choking on oversupply of their "product") -- to step into the breach and pony up for some of those houses -- to prove that you really can base a post-industrial economy on real estate sales.
Original
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Hollowcaust Hullabaloo
by Gabriel Ash
www.dissidentvoice.org
Dec 14, 06
Five centuries ago, a German monk rose against the Catholic pope, accusing him of mixing matters of conscience with lucre by selling divine pardons to wealthy sinners. Martin Luther was adamant that sin and redemption were matters of the direct relation between the individual and God. Anyone who pretended to mediate this relation, to obtain redemption on someone else's behalf (and to be paid for it) was a charlatan (Luther actually said "antichrist," but that is the name of the supreme charlatan). The least one can say about post WWII Germany is that it betrayed Luther. Repentant of their recent Nazi past, Germans agreed to pay billions of dollars to Israel. Israel is a state that didn't exist during the Nazi holocaust. The Nazis murdered Jews, homosexuals, Roma, socialists. That had nothing to do with the state of Israel, some of whose founders expressed admiration for Nazi ideology and even wanted to fight on Hitler's side in the War (Lenni Brenner, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis). Israel was not a victim of Nazism. It was, if anything, an indirect beneficiary. Yet Israel offered Germans redemption: pay us, and we will lift the burden of sin from your shoulders. Pay us, and you will be rehabilitated. And Germans were happy to pay. Having a conscience of one's own, living with one's true past and seeking redemption in the desolation of the wrecked self was just too much for many Germans (to be fair, that is easy to understand. The burden of Nazism wasn't light.) They were happy to pay and they watched silently, uncritically, as Israel took their blood money and used it to build exactly the kind of militarized garrison state that had led them to perdition. It is ironic that the Germans, having accused themselves of being too obedient, too eager to let the Nazi state define morality, would try to cure themselves by giving yet another state, Israel, the right to define morality on their behalf. Yet they did. Thus German politicians and intellectuals outsourced their conscience to Israel and the U.S. Fifty years later they are still unable to criticize the actions of either. Instead of a real conscience, they adopted a sanctimonious servility to all things Israeli. Into this context stepped Ehud Olmert, the new Holocaust Pope, demanding from Germans obedience in exchange for a renewal of the epochal pardon, reminding them, like the sleek indulgence hawker that he is, of their "obligation to themselves."
Olmert, however, the man received "warmly" by Chancellor Merkel, is a war criminal. Only recently he ordered the slaughter of hundreds of people. According to his own words the slaughter was not a by-product of military action (which would be bad enough) but a deliberate attempt to exert pressure on Lebanese politicians (Gabriel Ash, Dissident Voice, July 2006). Olmert is thus a criminal even by the lax standards of ius in bellum. To be clear, there is absolutely no comparison between what Olmert did in Lebanon and Gaza and what the Nazis did in Auschwitz. There is, however, a pertinent similarity between what Olmert did in Lebanon and Gaza and what the Nazis did in places such as Lidice. If contemporary Germans had any obligation to themselves and to their history, that obligation would be to arrest him and put him on trial the moment he landed in Germany. They certainly did not have an obligation to listen to a blood stained butcher pontificate about morality. Nobody does.
Let us turn now to the Affaire Sego. According to masterful digging of the French Lebanese blogger of Loubnan Ya Loubnan, Segolene Royal was trapped by a little comedy put together either by the members of the Lebanese "Cedar revolution" parties or by insiders of Jacque Chirac's government or by both. The two groups have a stake in preserving the current French Lebanon policy and its alignment with Washington and Tel-Aviv. The interesting thing to ponder, however, is the lasting usefulness of the Holocaust as a leash against stray European politicians. Royal, smarting up from the bruises, canceled her meeting with Hamas representatives, essentially giving up on her erstwhile commitment to listen to all parties in the Middle East. She issued the expected declaration that any comparison between the Nazis and Israel would have prompted her to leave the room. That effectively means she cannot be in the same room with 90% of people who actually live in the Middle East. The Holocaust, one concludes, is the most effective weapon in the hands of those bent on manufacturing a "clash of civilizations." If the memorization of Nazism in the West can prevent a French politician from meeting with the democratically elected representative of Palestinians, the Holocaust has become a tool in the arsenal of segregation in the service of global apartheid.
I am not sure which is more offensive, a Saudi doctor insisting that he wouldn't be in the same room with women (Arab News, November 22, 2006), or a French politician insisting she won't stay in a room with a Lebanese who sees himself fighting in the tradition of the French resistance against the Nazis. The comparison is salient because the Holocaust has taken in Europe (and differently, in Israel) the semblance of religious dogma. "Denying the Holocaust" is the only speech-act that is legally proscribed as blasphemy and can land one in jail. And European politicians apparently cannot be in the same room with "infidels," i.e. people who challenge the belief that there is only one great Holocaust, with Israel its prophet.
And just like the breathtaking hypocrisy of Saudi fundamentalists, who raise hell over a stupid Danish cartoon but co-operate with the U.S. and Israel behind the scenes against Palestinian resistance, the "Holocaust fundamentalists" of Europe talk through both sides of their mouth. No sooner had Segolene Royal asserted she would not listen to the slightest implication of a similarity between Israel and Nazism, Israel's PM used the podium of the Holocaust Museum to compare Iran to Nazi Germany. Will Royal say she would have left the room if she had heard Olmert make that historical comparison? Israelis and Americans run a cottage industry of comparisons between Nazism and the evil man de jour. Begin compared Yasser Arafat to Hitler. Clinton compared Milosevic to Hitler. Sundry columnists compared Islamic fundamentalism to Nazism. Bush compared Saddam to Hitler. And now Iran is Israel's latest Nazi incarnation. When was the last time a European Holocaust fundamentalist left the room in reaction to these truly asinine comparisons?
Let me spell out the hypocrisy of the Holocaust hawkers. The West has elevated the crimes of the Nazis into a benchmark of evil. Paradoxically, every subsequent crime, especially when the perpetrator is Israel, can now be excused on the ground that it falls short of the death camps. Conversely, the genocidal tendencies inherent in the systematic obliteration of the basis of civilian life can be ignored by invoking the ritual condemnation of the "false analogy" with Nazism, even as such systematic destruction has been incorporated in the military practice of the West and is operative wherever modern armies must contend with popular resistance. Therefore one could never compare the death of over a million Iraqis as the result of deliberate American policy since 1992 to the holocaust, nor can one compare the decade long collective punishment of the people of Gaza or the destruction of South Lebanon to the pacification methods of the Nazis. Nobody would call Bush a "holocaust denier" for flatly denying the value of a scientific study that estimates the number of his victims to be in the hundreds of thousands. However, the opposite happens when the interests of the West are so disposed. The "lesson" of the holocaust is good enough to justify the NATO bombing of civilian targets in Yugoslavia, the genocidal U.S. occupation of Iraq, Israel's massive bombing of Beirut, a future nuclear war against Iran, etc. The pettiest tyrant who "kills his own people" (and who doesn't?) is suddenly as terrible as Hitler.
The slaughter of European Jews has thus been transformed into a Hollowcaust, a benchmark of evil that is utterly indeterminate, empty at its core, at once trivially applicable to everything and sublimely applicable to nothing. The Hollowcaust acts like a quirky and capricious divinity, rejecting a comparison here, accepting an equally valid or invalid one there. It is a partisan divinity, a god that always blesses 'us' and curses 'them,' even as it simultaneously demands to be worshipped by all humanity and in the name of all humanity. The Hollowcaust thus entices victims to a futile competition in which they must worship it with a steady sacrificial offering of facts, reports, statistics, that would justify their demand to be heard by measuring what happened to them in relation to the fate of the Jews of Europe. But the success of this appeal, like the success of Cain's original 'holocaust,' depends on nothing except the freedom of the divine will -- in this case the mood in Western capitals. History and facts are more or less irrelevant. Like Skinner's pigeons, the supplicants are driven to insanity by the complete disconnect between causes and consequences. Like Cain, they are sometimes driven to fratricide. It is quite understandable that under such circumstances the temptation to deny or belittle the crimes of the Nazis is almost irresistible. The denial of the holocaust is rooted in the desire to pin down the Hollowcaust.
This brings us back to the pathetic holocaust conference that took place in Iran. The most charitable thing that can be said about the organizers of this conference is that they are fools. Allegedly in solidarity with the victims of state terrorism, they come out in defense of state terrorism. Challenging the veracity of the holocaust, Iran's President's pet cause, is not a repudiation of Zionism, but as Joseph Massad convincingly argued (Al-Ahram, 2004), a useful justification for Zionism. Moreover, to whitewash Nazism is to defend state terrorism, and that includes Israel. There are anti-imperialists who reject state terror categorically. It is perhaps not surprising however that the government of Iran, itself not averse to torture and murder, would find such high principles too burdensome.
The pettiness of Iran's President are, as expected, manna from heaven to Zion's willing apologists. The Western media took the occasion to fill many pages with condemnations, exhortations, and scare mongering of epic proportions. To take one illuminating example, Anne Appelbaum warns her readers that all the work done to institutionalize the memory of the holocaust is not enough. "The near-destruction of the European Jews in a very brief span of time by a sophisticated European nation using the best technology available was, it seems, an event that requires constant re-explanation . . ."
The message of Hollowcaust hawkers such as Appelbaum is only amplified by such idiocies as the Iranian conference. O Jews! They are singing in unison, give some more money to the likes of the Simon Wiesenthal center, so they can blabber a little more about the Hollowcaust while they present Rupert Murdoch with a human rights award! (The Forward, February 3, 2003)
But pay close attention to what exactly Appelbaum seeks to "explain." For in her words one can see clearly the trace of the Hollowcaust's Faustian bargain, the bargain that gave Jews official recognition for their suffering in return for accepting to become the standard bearers of Western Whiteness. It isn't the horror suffered by the victims as such, it isn't murder, it isn't terror, it isn't even genocide that Applebaum singles out as the uniqueness of the holocaust. What needs to be explained, according to her, what needs to be constantly re-imagined, is the horror of "a sophisticated European nation using the best technology available" to commit genocide. But it should takes no effort it figure out that this is the last thing that requires an explanation. A sophisticated European nation using advanced technology to kill those it considers not fully human!? Where is the question? Isn't that a valid synopsis of a full dozen chapters of modern history? Did anyone expect white supremacy to be enforced with sticks and stones? Of course states use the best technology they have when they perpetrated murder against whole populations. Does Appelbaum not know how many billions of dollars are spent every year perfecting the tools of mass murder and inventing new ones? What makes gas chambers so sophisticatedly shocking or shockingly sophisticated among nuclear bombs, mustard gas, napalm, cluster bombs, Agent Orange, machine guns, Caterpillar D-9s, long range bombers and any of the thousand small and large inventions designed by perfectly legitimate enterprises to hasten the passage of the offending population to its unmarked grave?
Sophistication and technology are not what sets the Nazi genocide apart. It is the one thing it has most in common with dozens of other campaigns by Western states against non-white population groups. It is remarkable that Appelbaum wants to erect as primal difference the very element that is least unique to the holocaust, the one element that is most likely to be seized upon by victims of Western imperialism and colonialism as the common ground of their victimization. The stakes cannot be clearer. "Remembering" the holocaust is primarily about excluding other victims. It is about rendering murder incomprehensible when committed on a massive scale by "a sophisticated nation with advanced technologies." The act of explaining is not concerned with adding insight. In the manner of negative theology, one "explains" the holocaust by preserving its incomprehensibility, so that it constantly remains in need of re-explanation.
Erecting the Hollowcaust as a unique case of "a sophisticated nation with advanced technology" committing genocide is not about affirming the past. It is about denying the present. It is about denying the millions of deaths that are perpetrated year in year out by "sophisticated nations with advanced technologies." It is also about erecting a totemic barrier between "sophisticated nations with advanced technologies" and the rest of humanity. On the one side are those nations whose acts of mass murder are made to be incomprehensible, and therefore effectively denied -- it does not happen anymore because it would be unthinkable to think that it happens. A genocide committed by a sophisticated nation happened only once. And to suggest that it happened more than once is to betray the memory of the victims. It is blasphemy. The very commemoration and deification of that unique, one-off, historical aberration confirms that it was an unexplainable departure from the "civilized" norms that are defined by it. In Freudian terms, the Hollowcaust is the foundation of modern Western supremacy in the same way that incest is the foundation of the family.
On the other side (of the wall, if you wish) are the "unsophisticated," technologically backwards nations. By implication, mass murder in those nations is low-tech, but also unremarkable, easily comprehensible, explained quite "naturally" by their very lack of sophistication. They are the barbarians and they just tend to kill each others. It follows that to kill them is to commit no great crime, since violent death is their very modus vivendi. 'They' do not respect life as 'we' do; they raise their kids to be suicide bombers, and so forth. In a perfectly circular manner, their irreverent rejection of the Hollowcaust faith (which is built to exclude them) confirms their exclusion from the community of the civilized and abandons them to be killed without repercussions.
The Hollowcaust is thus the ideology par excellence of Global Apartheid (of which the Israeli wall is but a small section). Abdullah Derkaoui's brilliant cartoon above captures the way the Hollowcaust functions according to the classic definition of ideology, mediating between the viewer and the reality of Apartheid and thus constructing the subject of segregation.
And now these pious Hollowcaust hawkers are surprised and shocked that so many barbarians piss on their memorials? Note: they are only getting back the message of their own racism with a "return to sender" scrawled over the envelope.
Gabriel Ash is an activist and writer who writes because the pen is sometimes mightier than the sword and sometimes not. He welcomes comments at: g.a.evildoer@gmail.com.
Original
Comment on this Editorial
Editorial: Mythic Figures Spooking Dubya
by William Hughes
"Myths which are believed in tend to become true." - George Orwell
Since the release of the Iraq Study Group report, have you noticed how President George W. Bush, is displaying more often those wild, piercing eyes? Can you see the fear? He's like a character in Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel "Crime and Punishment," who has claimed special privileges for himself--like a license to commit crimes--but has been found out! What might be spooking Bush? Could it be his coming impeachment trial by the U.S. Congress? Impeachment is a train without any brakes that has long since left the station. And, with the revelation of every massive lie of the Bush-Cheney Gang, the train picks up even more speed.
Keep in mind, that former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D-NY) of Watergate Congressional fame has cautioned that the momentum for impeachment takes time to build. (1) However, House Speaker- Designate, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), shouldn't use that as an excuse to block the clear will of the voters as expressed in the election results of Nov. 7, 2006. The people have demanded change, with accountability. Green Party activists in San Francisco are saying that if Pelosi fails to pursue impeachment, then she will have "betrayed her oath of office." If she wants to serve more than one term as House Speaker, she better start listening.
The second item that may be scaring the bejeezus out of Bush is that splendid activist: Cindy Sheehan. My theory is this: Sheehan is the mother of U.S. Army Specialist Casey Sheehan, who was killed in action in Iraq, at age 24, on April 4, 2004. She is also the co- founder of Gold Star Families for Peace. In the summer of 2005, Sheehan decided to "camp" outside the Crawford, Texas ranch of President George W. Bush. She was looking to confront him personally over the death of her dear son, her first born, whom she has described as "my sweet boy." (2) Bush, supposedly, one of the most powerful men on the planet, declined to meet with her saying that he had "to get on with his life." (3) Sheehan then moved her In-Bush's- Face campaign to Washington, D.C. She can be seen regularly protesting the blood stained Iraqi War outside the White House and/or in the halls of the U.S. Congress. She has been arrested a couple of times for her antiwar activism. Bush, on the other hand, thinks nothing of sending young Americans to die in Iraq for a rotten pack of lies. (4) Yet, he is afraid to take on a housewife, age 49, a mother of four, from Vacaville, California. What is it about Sheehan that spooks the President of the United States? (5)
Does Bush know, at some place in his badly-warped psyche, that he's a pathological liar? I suspect that he does. He also does feel guilt about leading the country into an immoral and illegal war. Sheehan reinforces Bush's guilty feelings by pointing the finger at him--by demanding a face to face meeting with the person she rightly holds responsible for her son's death. For Bush, however, a personal confrontation with her is out of the question, nor for that matter, will he consider meeting with any other outraged parent who has lost a son or daughter in Iraq. President Bush isn't afraid of Sheehan for who she is. He's in fear of her for what she represents to him, at a deep level, although I doubt he is conscious of that. Sheehan is a symbol to him of an ultra powerful image, wrapped in an ancient myth. From a mythological perspective, she is an "Earth Mother" figure. (6)
In many cultures, the Earth Mother was esteemed by the masses as an archetypical female icon. She was also seen as a fierce seeker of justice and as a protector of the weak. The Earth Mother was capable, too, of counteracting evil. No wonder poor Dubya is shaking in his cowboy boots! He's up against someone, who will not accept anything less than full justice for the wrongful death of her son. You go Cindy girl!
"Earth Mother" Sheehan is something for Bush to worry about. But, there is another more imposing figure from the ancient past shaping up in the hinterlands, and urban centers, of the nation, to take Dubya down for his wrongdoings. Let's call him/her the "Hero/ Patriot." Joseph Campbell wrote a lot about that persona. In the halcyon days of Rome, he was Cincinnatus, who left his farm, to take over the army to save the Republic from its enemies. This Hero/ Patriot represents a growing community-an awaken populous--who are sick and tired of the crimes of the Bush-Cheney Gang. He/she want their America back from the War Party, the Wirepullers, the Neocons and the Plutocrats.
The spiritual roots of the Hero/Patriot can be traced back to the gallant Continental Army at Valley Forge and the horrific winter of 1777-78. (7) He/she was on the blood stained battlefields of the Civil War, like Clara Barton, tending the wounded. He was at the memorable "Sit-Down Strike" at Flint, Michigan, in 1936-7, (8) and on the picket line during the "Great Waterfront Strike" of 1934. (9) She's Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman and Susan B. Anthony. He's Eugene Debs, Joe Hill, Harry Bridges, John L. Lewis, A. Philip Randolph, Walter Reuther, Phil Berrigan, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Cesar E. Chavez. They are the names of just a few of the Hero/Patriot types, who are part of our inspirational wellspring.
In the vanguard for democracy and justice in this country are the activists of the the Anti-Iraqi War and Pro-Impeachment Movements. (10) Daily, more people around the country are joining them in their noble enterprises. Workers displaced by out sourcing and angered by unfair tax policies which favor the grasping rich have had enough of Vulture Capitalism. (11) Ninety-five percent of the wealth of the country is held by only one percent of the population. (12) Environmentalists concerned about global warming want effective policies implemented now to save the planet. People on Social Security are wondering why their benefits are taxed, while many mega corporations pay little or no taxes. (13) Forty eight million people in this country don't have any health care. (14) The cost of the Iraqi War in innocent lives and wasted money persists, with no end now in sight. Over 650,000 Iraqis are dead, 2,937 American troops have been killed and 22,000 or more wounded. (15) Bush has created a hellish Civil War in Iraq. Now, he wants to "stabilize" it by sacrificing more of our sons and daughters, while the Neocon and Globalist schemers, including Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, cheer him on. (16) One U.S. Senator, a Republican, Gordon Smith (OR), now believes the present policy in Iraq may even be "criminal." (17)
Finally, millions of people in this country are determined to see to it that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeached and removed from public office. (18) Rep. Cynthia McKinney's (D-GA) introduction, on Dec. 8, 2006, of "Articles of Impeachment" is symbolic of that fact. (19) Some also intend to ship the dangerous duo of Bush and Cheney off to "The Hague" to stand trial on war crime charges. The people, propelled by the mythical figures of old, and the heroes of our past struggles for social and political justice, will not be stopped in their pursuit of justice.
Notes:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwiSyIbeYjI 2. http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/38/10216/ printer 3. http://www.answers.com/topic/cindy-sheehan-1 4. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/ and http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6azuS-8-hY 5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVyJKTuuqhg 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(mythology) 7. African-Americans made up about "ten percent" of General Washington's military manpower at Valley Forge. A "hefty" percentage of the troops belonged to the Irish, with the Germans "not far behind," according to Thomas Fleming's compelling "Washington Secret War: The Hidden History of Valley Forge." Almost all the soldiers there, he wrote, were "in their teens or early twenties, unmarried and poor." 8. http://community-2.webtv.net/uhhuhdotcom/uhhuh/ 9. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0348/is_1_40/ai_54308717 10. http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/37548 11. http://www.economyincrisis.org/ 12. http://www.lcurve.org/ 13. http://www.organicconsumers.org/2006/article_3415.cfm 14. http://www.workingamerica.org/issues/healthcare.cfm 15. http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php? option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182 and http://icasualties.org/oif/ 16. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp? articleID=17345 and http://www.pchrgaza.ps/ 17. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002104.php 18. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/ 2006/11/28/p12500#more12500 19. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/16232
© William Hughes 2006.
William Hughes is the author of "Saying 'No' to the War Party" (Amazon.com). He can be reached at liamhughes@comcast.net.
Comment on this Editorial
Empire Burlesque
U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The Right Wing's Right Hand in D.C.
By Matt Stoller
AlterNet
December 14, 2006
The Chamber of Commerce, run by corrupt lobbyist Tom Donahue, has turned into a pay-to-play vehicle for right-wing causes and corporate dishonesty.
It's hard to precisely define the political establishment, the fixed group of financiers, political operatives, journalists, and politicians who make up the swirl of right-wing power in Washington D.C. But if it's not always simple to define in its totality, one man stands out as an innovative and particularly venal power broker: Thomas Donahue, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
In a lot of ways, the new challenge after the 2006 elections for the progressive movement boils down to finding the unethical and unaccountable purveyors of systemic corruption and rooting them out. It is these forces that put Bush in the White House and reelected him. It is these forces that corrupt both parties. It is these forces that are going to fight tooth and nail to defeat the Democratic majority, while attempting to also corrupt it from within.
Fortunately, in this case, we can put a face to the force. Tom Donahue is possibly the most powerful business lobbyist in D.C. Most recently, he has been pushing aggressively to weaken the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was passed in the wake of the Enron scandal to ensure corporate accountability and protect investors. And right now, he's reeling, because he's been caught in an unethical stock scandal of his own. What happens to Donahue, whether he's able to maintain his stewardship of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, will go a long way towards answering the question of whether progressives can be confident in our ability to begin repairing some of the damage Bush and his ilk have done.
Here's the short story. Donahue is on the board of directors of Sunrise Senior Living, a company that offers assisted living facilities to the elderly, and according to Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times, he sold stock in advance of an accounting problem which later became public and shaved $342 million from the company's market value. Shareholders are demanding answers, including an independent probe. This isn't the first time Donahue has had problems with corporate scandals. As Public Citizen has documented, this seems to be a behavior trait. Donahue sat on the board of Qwest as it defrauded investors, and on Union Pacific as the company was caught for massive safety violations. All of the companies on whose board he sits are members of the Chamber of Commerce, and he has often dedicated the brand and prestige of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to serving the interests of specific corporate donors instead of the general interests of the business community.
Now, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce itself is a powerhouse. According to the New York Times, the Chamber has more than three million members, from businesses of every size, sector and region; its 2,800 affiliated state and local chambers give it a presence in nearly every state and Congressional district. It spent more than $53 million on lobbying in 2004, more than any organization has ever spent in a year. In 2004, it deployed 215 people in 31 states, sent 3.7 million pieces of mail, made 5.6 million phone calls and sent more than 30 million e-mail messages on behalf of its candidates.
This institution is one of the most powerful vehicles in D.C. One characteristic of Republican rule is how right-wingers have seized on groups like this and moved them away from helping their members and towards becoming part of the Republican establishment. The Chamber purports to work for a business-friendly environment that helps its members, but it lobbies for anti-science policies that have to do solely with ideology. Despite massive costs for the insurance industry, for instance, the Chamber is still in denial over global warming, urging "Congress to carefully review the climate change issue before taking further action." Despite the obvious interest small businesses have in a free and open internet, the Chamber of Commerce opposes net neutrality. The Chamber wants to weaken or eliminate the Family and Medical Leave Act, the minimum wage, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. They want to cut every possible tax despite massive deficits, privatize Social Security, and just generally pursue the right-wing agenda down the line. Far from a business-friendly umbrella group for its 3 million members, the Chamber under Donahue's management has turned into a pay-to-play vehicle for right-wing causes and corporate dishonesty. As Eliot Spitzer put it, ''Tom Donohue has never once found a crime that he couldn't justify, as long as it was committed by one of his dues-paying members."
The national Chamber of Commerce isn't pro-business, in other words, it's just a fully captured right-wing organization that has been taken over by the Republican Party. There are state and local Chambers all over the country that are not right-wing, but are genuinely apolitical organizations fostering networking and business growth in local areas. Many trial lawyers in the South belong to local Chambers, unwittingly contributing to a massive lobbying operation in D.C. undercutting their ability to represent the public against abuses.
The core of the right-wing takeover the country lies in corrupting institutions like the U.S. Chamber and concentrating power in the hands of a small group of elite actors. These people sit on corporate boards, they know each other, they pay each others' salaries, they go to conferences in Davos, and they fund campaigns for both parties. They are willing to invest in substantial sums and make alliances with right-wing Christian Nationalist groups to eviscerate the power of the Federal government and prevent progressive policies from being effective.
The 2001 tax cuts, for instance, aside from giving billions to the wealthy, destroyed the capacity of the government to do much affirmative good work. By crippling governance, these elites are pushing the public to accept private goods in lieu of what should be public services. Private schools, bottled water, health food, private and chartered travel, elite medical institutions -- these are all part and parcel of building what John Edwards calls the 'Two Americas'. It really is quite stark. If you are in the business or political elite, compared to normal Americans, you live in different areas, have different crime rates, eat different food and drink different water, send your kids to different schools, travel more efficiently, are subject to a different set of laws, and have access to superior medicine. The public at large responds to this in different ways -- liberals get despondent and cynical, and blue collar ethnic whites begin to rely on right-wing church networks for what had been public services.
The key to building and sustaining this reactionary America is allowing individuals like Tom Donahue to act above the law for personal profit, while lobbying to weaken agencies that might hold them accountable. It fits perfectly into this destruction of the public sphere, and allows bad actors to profit from doing bad. We will not and cannot build a progressive America as long as we have an economy that gives incentives to people like this to steal from investors and use that money to lobby against us.
Tom Donahue is now facing pressure because of the corporate malfeasance in which he himself seems to have engaged. It's not clear if it will matter that he is corrupting the major face of American business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. We'll see if corporate chieftains are willing to stand up for ethical practices, and if local Chambers speak out. It's not clear they will. And it's not clear that there is enough strength within the current Democratic caucus to go after such a powerful adversary, even knowing the obstacles that he's going to present down the road to a progressive agenda. Nevertheless, it's our job to understand the situation in our country, and to pressure our lawmakers, local Chambers, and business elites to correct the abuses they have allowed to happen.
After all, a president as stupid, venal, and petty as George W. Bush doesn't get elected and reelected without some serious institutional forces at work. Progressives would be seriously mistaken if we assume that when Bush leaves office those forces will go away.
Comment on this Article
E.P.A. Library Closures Could Threaten Public Health
By Leslie Burger
AlterNet
December 14, 2006
Congress needs to act now to reverse the E.P.A.'s closing of tax-payer funded libraries, which contain potentially life-saving information about our environment.
This piece originally ran in the New York Times.
If you needed to find out how much pollution an industrial plant in your neighborhood was spewing, or what toxic chemicals were in a local river, where would you go? Until recently, you could discover the answer at one of the Environmental Protection Agency's 29 libraries. But now the E.P.A. has obstructed the American public -- as well as its own scientists and staff -- by starting to dismantle its crown jewel, the national system of regional E.P.A. libraries.
Until now, any citizen could consult these resources, which include information on things like siting incinerators, storing toxic waste and uncovering links between asthma and car exhaust. E.P.A. staff members and other scientists have counted on the libraries to support their work. First responders and other state and local government officials have used E.P.A. information to protect communities. In the age of terrorism, when the safety of our food and water supply, the uninterrupted flow of energy and, indeed, so much about our environment has become a matter of national security, it seems particularly dangerous to take steps that would hinder our emergency preparedness.
Although lawmakers haven't yet agreed to President Bush's proposed 2007 budget, which includes $2 million in cuts to the agency's library system, the head of the E.P.A. has already instituted cuts. The agency's main library in Washington has been closed to the public, and regional E.P.A. libraries in Chicago, Dallas and Kansas City, Mo., have been closed altogether. At the Boston, New York, San Francisco and Seattle branches, hours and public access have been reduced.
Anyone who needs to understand the environmental impact of, say, living downwind or downstream from a new nuclear power plant, or the long-term public health impact of Hurricane Katrina, cannot afford to find the doors barred to potentially lifesaving information. But neither can the rest of us, whose daily lives and choices will be affected by global warming. We all have a right to be able to get access to information about our air, water and soil.
"Libraries and their professionals are integral to the work of E.P.A. toxicologists," says an agency toxicologist, Suzanne Wuerthele. "Without access to their expertise and extensive collections, it will be difficult to explain to the public, to state agencies, industry and to the courts how and why E.P.A. is protecting the environment over time."
Some members of Congress have begun to bring these cuts to light. The Senate minority whip, Richard Durbin, urged the president to reopen the libraries and rethink his budget request. Eighteen senators sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee asking it to make the E.P.A. keep the libraries open. Representatives John Dingell, Bart Gordon and Henry Waxman recently had the Government Accountability Office start an inquiry into the closings and requested that the E.P.A. administrator, Stephen Johnson, cease the destruction of library materials immediately.
The E.P.A. cannot hide behind the fig leaf of fiscal responsibility. While the agency says the closings are all part of a commitment to modernize and digitize, we are not assured that its public plan is adequate or its skills sufficient. Users within the E.P.A. and the American public need information specialists, like librarians, to manage paper collections and to help them get access to digital material and organize online information.
Fortunately, there's still time to reverse this dangerous threat to a healthy future. The administration could immediately reopen the closed libraries. Congress could conduct oversight hearings to reverse these decisions and prevent any more E.P.A. libraries -- all of them containing invaluable information about our environment, all of them paid for by our tax dollars -- from closing. The American public deserves no less.
Comment on this Article
Good News, Everybody: We've Got a New Iraq Slogan! Bush's language has changed, but his idiocy hasn't.
By Arianna Huffington
AlterNet
December 13, 2006
Not surprisingly, the Bush administration is already backing away from most of the proposals put forth by the Iraq Study Group. The New York Times, with unintended comic irony, noted it this way: "Administration officials say their preliminary review of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's recommendations has concluded that many of its key proposals are impractical or unrealistic." Thank God we have George Bush to protect us from doing anything impractical or unrealistic in the Middle East.
But there is one thing in the proposal we can be sure Bush will take from the report -- the slogan. Bush may not be into things like facts, truth, or reality, but he loves a good slogan.
So while Bush may not like any of the Group's 79 proposals (so impractical and unrealistic), he's ready to adopt its slogan, "New Way Forward." Newsweek says that next week "Bush is expected to announce what he calls 'The New Way Forward,' his latest plan to salvage the mission in Iraq."
Of course, that's been the problem during this entire fiasco -- the substitution of rhetoric for policy -- the belief, even at this late date, that reality can be changed simply by changing the language used to describe it. Bush makes a big show of his religious faith, but what's truly impressive is his incredible faith in the power of PR, and, accordingly, his lack of faith in the American people.
Nowhere was this rationale laid out more succinctly than in the internal memo Donald Rumsfeld wrote in his last month in office, which included this slippery strategy: "Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not 'lose.'"
It's not about losing and winning, but, rather, about "losing" and "winning," which are very, very different things.
So now we're going from "Stay the Course" to "New Way Forward." Will that change anything? Not likely. But, in Bush's mind, it'll buy him some time, at least until the next slogan.
And what will that be? Following is the HuffPo Iraq War Slogan Timeline -- past, present, and, yes, future:
2001:
GATHERING THREAT
2002:
AXIS OF EVIL
2003:
SLAM DUNK
SHOCK AND AWE
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
2004:
FIGHT 'EM THERE, NOT HERE
2005:
LAST THROES
ADAPT TO WIN
STAY THE COURSE
2006:
NEW WAY FORWARD
2007:
THE NEW NEW WAY FORWARD
STAY THE NEW NEW WAY FORWARD
2008:
A NEW WAY BACKWARD
A FASTER NEW WAY BACKWARD
HOLY SHIT, LET'S GET OUT OF HERE
2009:
A NEW WAY OF FORGETTING THAT EVER HAPPENED
2010:
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
2011:
THE NEW GATHERING THREAT
Comment on this Article
Is the USA the Center of the World?
By Norman Solomon
AlterNet
December 13, 2006
Rumor has it our world domination is in jeopardy. Can politicians take the ego-beating?
Some things don't seem to change. Five years after I wrote this column in the form of a news dispatch, it seems more relevant than ever:
WASHINGTON -- There were unconfirmed reports yesterday that the United States is not the center of the world.
The White House had no immediate comment on the reports, which set off a firestorm of controversy in the nation's capital.
Speaking on background, a high-ranking official at the State Department discounted the possibility that the reports would turn out to be true. "If that were the case," he said, "don't you think we would have known about it a long time ago?"
On Capitol Hill, leaders of both parties were quick to rebut the assertion. "That certain news organizations would run with such a poorly sourced and obviously slanted story tells us that the liberal media are still up to their old tricks, despite the current crisis," a GOP lawmaker fumed. A prominent Democrat, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said that classified briefings to congressional intelligence panels had disproved such claims long ago.
Scholars at leading think tanks were more restrained, and some said there was a certain amount of literal truth to the essence of the reports. But they pointed out that, while it included factual accuracy in a narrow sense, the assertion was out of context and had the potential to damage national unity at a time when the United States could ill afford such a disruption.
The claim evidently originated with a piece by a Lebanese journalist that appeared several days ago in a Beirut magazine. It was then picked up by a pair of left-leaning daily newspapers in London. From there, the story quickly made its way across the Atlantic via the Internet.
"It just goes to show how much we need seasoned, professional gatekeepers to separate the journalistic wheat from the chaff before it gains wide attention," remarked the managing editor of one news program at a major U.S. television network. "This is the kind of stuff you see on ideologically driven websites, but that hardly means it belongs on the evening news." A news magazine editor agreed, calling the reports "the worst kind of geographical correctness."
None of the major cable networks devoted much air time to reporting the story. At one outlet, a news executive's memo told staffers that any reference to the controversy should include mention of the fact that the United States continues to lead the globe in scientific discoveries. At a more conservative network, anchors and correspondents reminded viewers that English is widely acknowledged to be the international language -- and more people speak English in the U.S. than in any other nation.
While government officials voiced acute skepticism about the notion that the United States is not the center of the world, they declined to speak for attribution. "If lightning strikes and it turns out this report has real substance to it," explained one policymaker at the State Department, "we could look very bad, at least in the short run. Until it can be clearly refuted, no one wants to take the chance of leading with their chin and ending up with a hefty serving of Egg McMuffin on their face."
An informal survey of intellectuals with ties to influential magazines of political opinion, running the gamut from The Weekly Standard to The New Republic, indicated that the report was likely to gain little currency in Washington's elite media forums.
"The problem with this kind of shoddy impersonation of reporting is that it's hard to knock down because there are grains of truth," one editor commented. "Sure, who doesn't know that our country includes only small percentages of the planet's land mass and population? But to draw an inference from those isolated facts that somehow the United States of America is not central to the world and its future -- well, that carries postmodernism to a nonsensical extreme."
Another well-known American journalist speculated that the controversy will soon pass: "Moral relativism remains a pernicious force in our society, but overall it holds less appeal than ever, even on American campuses. It's not just that we're the only superpower -- we happen to also be the light onto the nations and the key to the world's fate. People who can't accept that reality are not going to have much credibility."
Norman Solomon is the author of the new book, "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."
Comment on this Article
America's messianic ambition
By Robert Kagan
Sacramento Bee
14 Dec 06
As Americans struggle to find an answer to the serious problems in Iraq, larger and broader questions beckon. How did we wind up in Iraq in the first place? Some argue that we were too aggressive and self-righteous in promoting our principles, too meddlesome, too arrogant in seeking to transform the world, too quick to intervene militarily in crises far from our shores and remote from our interests. If the United States would only change its approach to the world, if it understood the virtues of limits, modesty and humility, we could avoid foreign policy debacles and the world would be a safer place.
This is actually a very old debate, which Americans have thrashed out in every generation. The expansive, idealistic, interventionist approach to the world has deep roots in the American character, going back to the nation's founding and the universal principles of liberalism embedded in the Declaration of Independence. As George Will once put it, the "messianic impulse" has been "a constant of America's national character, and a component of American patriotism."
But no less constant has been opposition to this grand vision, which critics since the nation's founding era have regarded as a recipe for endless war abroad and the undoing of American democracy at home.
The fight began at the beginning, in the ratification debates over the Constitution. Supporters such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison insisted that a strong central government was vital if the United States was to become a world power capable of shouldering its international responsibilities.
The young United States was the "embryo of a great empire," Hamilton proclaimed. Patrick Henry, in turn, accused supporters of the Constitution of trying to "convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire," thereby betraying the nation's purpose. "When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object."
John Quincy Adams took both sides of the struggle, warning in 1821 against idealistic ventures abroad "in search of monsters to destroy" but a few years later insisting Americans had a duty "to take a conspicuous and leading" role in the world on behalf of their "principles and morals."
In the last decades of the 19th century, Lincoln's Republican Party widened this expansive and interventionist view, celebrating "the future greatness and destiny of the United States" and its pivotal role "in the improvement of the world." Democrat Grover Cleveland's secretary of state, Walter Gresham, in response, warned against the nation's natural "impulse to rush into difficulties that do not concern it, except in a highly imaginary way." To restrain this "indulgence" was "a duty we owe to the world as an example of the strength, the moderation, and the beneficence of popular government."
Robert Taft continued the battle against the ambitious, world-transforming policies of FDR, Harry Truman and Dean Acheson.
"We should not undertake to defend the ideals of democracy in foreign countries," the influential Republican senator cautioned, lest the United States become a "meddlesome Mattie" with "our fingers in every pie." He warned against the arrogance and temptations of dominant power, for such power "over other nations, however benevolent its purpose, leads inevitably to imperialism." Truman and Acheson rejected this advice and instead pursued a preponderance of global power, "situations of strength" around the globe, and an ideology-laden strategy of containment that theoretically could lead America to war anywhere on the planet, as it did in Vietnam.
Today Taft is in bad odor in polite society, but his arguments against American overseas adventurism have been picked up again by the latest critics of our expansive foreign policy tradition. The old argument continues.
The problem for those who have tried to steer the United States away from its long history of expansiveness, then and now, is that Americans' belief in the possibility of global transformation -- the "messianic" impulse -- is and always has been the more dominant strain in the nation's character. It is rooted in the nation's founding principles and is the hearty offspring of the marriage between Americans' driving ambitions and their overpowering sense of righteousness.
Critics have occasionally succeeded in checking these tendencies, temporarily. Failures of world-transforming efforts overseas have also had their effect, but only briefly. Five years after the end of the Vietnam War, which seemed to many to presage the rejection of Achesonian principles of power and ideological triumphalism, Americans elected Ronald Reagan, who took up those principles again with a vengeance.
Today many hope and believe that the difficulties in Iraq will turn Americans once and for all against ambition and messianism in the world. History is not on their side.
Comment on this Article
Will Democrats Cut and Run from Bush's Deeply Flawed Latin American Policy?
Wednesday, December 13th, 2006
This analysis was prepared by COHA Director Larry Birns
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs
Is there, or will there be, a revitalized Democratic Latin American policy as distinct from the farrago of ineptitude witnessed under the Bush administration? To begin, in Bush's eye, the Cold War remains. The head of his personal list of enemies is Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, and, of course, Fidel Castro. While this may be a faithful characterization of the Bush hemispheric strategy, it does not differ that much from the opportunism and occasional meretricious initiatives of the Clinton administration and its all-encompassing pursuit of free trade. Clinton's controversial trade agenda predictably developed a sharp cleavage over policy both within the Democratic and Republican parties as well as between them.
NAFTA was the Vanguard
Recalling the extremely close vote over one of Clinton's premier foreign policy initiatives - the passage of NAFTA in 1994 - his operatives had to depend upon a higher percentage of Republican than Democrat legislators to achieve a narrow victory. A heavy majority of Democratic legislators mobilized against NAFTA while the Republicans overwhelmingly supported it. The same political division is likely to once again occur if the hemisphere-inclusive FTAA trade bill ever manages to reach the floor of Congress and is voted upon.
Clinton's Latin American Docket
Upon taking office, President Clinton and his administration envisaged a strictly defined, trade-dominated agenda towards Latin America. Looking back on his largely failed regional policy, one can see that the delimited nature of its focus on trade and more trade was the key ingredient of its relative lack of success. If there was any exception to the Clinton administration's mainly languorous interest in the region, it was its Jacobin orientation toward Cuba-related issues. In the first Clinton campaign, the Democratic candidate cynically moved to the right to outflank the first President Bush by taking a more bellicose stand on Havana; he therein relentlessly socked away at Castro in order to push Bush aside so as to obtain a share of the campaign donations and tap into the political clout of Miami's Cuban-American community.
Clinton apparently felt no great loss in sacrificing a balanced Cuba policy in favor of shrill invective, as well as as artful tactic to win over Florida's vital Electoral College votes. The Clinton administration soon revealed that there were a great number of dark spots in its snapshot of the region. If one accepts that such benchmarks as social justice, pressing environment issues, the aspiration for a just society, as well as the conviction that the implementation of hemispheric inclusiveness is where U.S. regional policy should be, then both the Clinton and the successor Bush administrations got it wrong both in theory as well as in practice.
An Impoverishment of Vision
For the Bush administration, there was a lingering line of now irrelevant Cold War ideology that would have been best to foil and then sweep away, because the basis for such concerns were eliminated with the demise of the Soviet bloc in 1991. Nevertheless, without the distraction of the anti-Soviet crusade still at work, the battlefield was left clear for a right-wing Republican absorption of Clinton's thirst for trade deals, which, after all, was basically entirely congruent with traditional Republican values. In addition to this mix however, was a potent brew of neo-con negativity from a dramatically radicalizing Bush State Department, particularly emanating from its Bureau of Western Hemispheric Affairs. This office had been rendered even more extremist by the strident orientation of its first Assistant Secretary of State, Otto Reich and his equally rabid successor, Roger Noriega. For these envenomed regional players, trade matters could be left to the Treasury and the White House's Trade Office, while they continued with their main lethal obsession that sprang from their determination to bring down the Castro regime and any other rogue states that looked or sounded like Havana. This was the assessment that they would apply before implementing any other major regional policy-making initiatives, and was also the yardstick used to evaluate the worth of other Latin American leaderships. Where nations stood within the region in relation to Castro and what they were doing to isolate Hugo Chávez, in addition to whether they were prepared to join the coalition of the willing on Iraq, became the visa-to-friendship between these countries and the current administration.
In fact, any amateur historian could have told Clinton - as well as the Bush administrations - that Cold War ideology did not die in the early 1990s, as Clinton once claimed - it merely had gone underground where it would hibernate until a more propitious season for it to thrive came along. At the beginning of the Bush administration's term, an intense ideological posturing began in addition to the reassertion of the pro-free trade docket, while anti-Castro diatribes that were tempered to new extremes of hardness, were once again launched at the aging Cuban strongman.
At this point, a fast-breaking scenario began to unfold. The Soviet era's Cold War compass was still sympathetically spinning for the Bush administration and its impact was not only theoretical. Meanwhile, memories of that period were profoundly and irrationally honored in U.S.-backed Latin American national security doctrines, even though the themes of privatization programs, bilateral free trade pacts, and market integration had substituted a new vocabulary and a new emphasis for Washington's new regional jihad - the war against terrorism. Meanwhile, the ideologues - Reich and Noriega - free of any admonishment by their seniors due to the distractions posed by the Iraq War, could now, undisturbed, commit themselves to their life's work of mopping up Castro, and later Chávez.
While such a gameplan would be good enough for Know-Nothing Americans and affluent Latin Americans led by their local captains of industry, along with the new professional class who were admirably suited to feast off of expanding commerce, it turned out to be pretty thin gruel for the chronically poor, the indigenous, and the millions of a given population who found themselves part of the rural and urban unemployed and underemployed. For those seeking even slightly improved standards of living and a portal into a better life, the contrast was embittering.
Clearing the Decks for Trade
During the time that it has ruled, the Bush administration's paramount mistake with regional issues has been that, in its concentrated quest for orthodox trade models that adhere to traditional conservative ideals and the raw ideology that was targeted at a number of Latin American leftist bull's eyes, it acted as if it had found the globe's most potent concoction. This was reflected in militant proselytizing for the full implementation of the Washington Consensus trade model, first devised under Clinton. But the fact was that, at this end of the political spectrum, those of that persuasion were only nursing an illusion. Like Hitler's Third Reich, Washington's game plan for expunging a radical strain from anywhere in the hemisphere where it surfaced, would not last for a thousand years, but scarcely a decade.
Because of their preoccupation with the time-consuming Iraq debacle, senior U.S. policy makers had hardly any quality moments to soothe a maladroit strategy or to soberly assess the proper mixture of good ideas and high quality personnel. In this respect, they were unable to field what could pass as a successful regional policy, value-driven both in concept and practice. Such a plan would want to reflect both rectitude and a readiness to address their national interests as well as Washington's. Poverty abatement, social justice issues, and attending to the correct practices, whose lack would otherwise hobble society's reasonable expectations, and prevent a commitment to an authentic rather than a faux democracy, which would be part of the recipe.
But the neo-cons charged with working hemispheric issues under Bush - who were particularly fertile in the Defense and State Departments - neither represented an undeniable strong moral force nor were comparable to the Pope's army in the service of an indisputable cause. Rather, they were little better than a gaggle of bullies and ill-motivated Pharisees, who used perverse versions of such concepts as democracy, human rights, and market liberalization to express their selective indignation against those on the left, including such leftist luminaries as Ecuador's Rafael Correa or Bolivia's Evo Morales, let alone Chávez, and of course, Castro, all of whom were accused by U.S. officials at one time or another of being the dupe of some progressive cause.
Selective Indignation
Of course, a policy based upon the pursuit of social justice and a respect for a nation's authentic sovereignty would be the antithesis of what the Bush policy was plying in Latin America. The role played by its questionable certification process, for example, which almost entirely relied upon spurious evidence and cooked data to make its case regarding Venezuela's supposedly unacceptable performance in such areas as drugs, terrorism, and human trafficking, ended up by being little more than self-discrediting. An example of this was intelligence czar John Negroponte's recent establishment of a special Cuban-Venezuelan unit with great fanfare and whose implications were perfectly clear, since the only other special units were those set up for North Korea and Iran. Moreover, one of Negroponte's previous avatars - as ambassador to Honduras in the early 1980s - could be handily cited as how to be deeply involved in covering up something like Contra death squad activities against Hondurans opposed to U.S. policy in Nicaragua, and get away with it by repeatedly claiming, as Negroponte did, amnesia during his confirmation hearing to be ambassador to the UN, where he denied any such role before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, despite impressive in-depth evidence to the contrary.
Parallel to when Negroponte's especially set-up Cuban-Venezuelan unit became operational, the State Department, ever since Chávez's landslide win in the presidential race, has switched directions and is now ostensibly trying to engage Venezuela in joint projects. After repeated bashings of Venezuela and castigating that Caracas was unworthy of being certified for its cooperation in Washington's anti-drug war, it abruptly changed its line. State Department spokesman Scott McCormack redacted the Bush administration's usual tart language that it lavishes on Chavez, calling on Caracas to "work together." He noted that "we have been able to work pretty effectively together." Ironically, McCormack is extending his hand to Chavez over the very transgressions on Chávez's part, whose alleged failure the Bush administration recently used to discredit Caracas, as exemplified by the U.S. denying Caracas its anti-drug certification.
A Prescription for Success
If Washington now means to turn its attention to salvaging its currently deformed relations with it southern neighbors, it must come to the realization that to be a true friend of the hemisphere, it must approach the table with a policy in which each constituent nation must be allowed to go in its own direction and generate its own autonomous choice of global options, in order to service each one's unique perspectives, as has not been the case of Washington's style of dealing with Cuba and Venezuela. This means that it should not be automatic, or necessarily entirely kindred to the White House's hypertrophied passion for control and definition.
Washington's regional policy today is one frozen in time, concretized by a non-stop effort to defame and marginalize, as has been the case with its attempts to war in this matter against Cuba and Venezuela, as well as to try to tarnish individuals and movements throughout the continent whose mortal offense could begin with their rejecting the thesis that what is private is intrinsically superior to what is public, and that the private corporation should be equal to the state in its legal personality. This is not so much a policy as it is a self-indulgent wayward gambol that has little appeal to either Latin American leaders or their multiple publics.
To initiate a policy of relevance which at the same time is hallmarked by gravitas, while it reaches out for opportunities for constructive engagement with Latin American nations that previously have been demonized as rogue powers, Washington must first honestly address its differences with Cuba and Venezuela. This must be carried out not through imposing some Miami-pandering Republican-authored diktat, but by means of a convergence of a mature application of traditional diplomatic skills. The result of such efforts should, in turn, be fused to a balanced policy based on addressing some of the main economic, political and social issues plaguing the entire hemisphere. Some of the latter could involve the heavy hand of debt burdens, the shortage of investment capital, or the snares of profound differences over immigration policy.
This trajectory could at least provide U.S. negotiators and those speaking for an increasingly united Latin America, with some basis for hope for a successful resolution of some of the most long-lived differences existing today between Washington and its two Caribbean basin foes. Even if one is quick to dismiss such musings as a pipe dream, it still remains critically important that an awareness of the debilitating impact of a series of misguided State Department policies on the hemisphere must be nursed in order to reverse the detrimental effects. Perhaps Latin America could appeal to the U.S. Democrat leadership to take a bold move inspired by the Baker-Hamilton mission to tackle the regional problem as a cluster project, but this time applying the formula in the Western Hemisphere rather than the Middle East. Here the Democrats can say that we will solve the Cuba and Venezuela issues, but we will do it as a cohort involving all of the regional players, similar to the proposal, that Iran, Syria and Palestine are included in solving the question of Iraq.
The Democratic Alternative
U.S.-Latin American relations under President Clinton now seem barely discernable from the harshly politicized bad patches of the Bush era. It is this seamless fusion that is so disturbing, as well as the conviction that little is likely to change in the near future under those who will continue to control the White House until early 2009. This is reason enough to treasure the few instances where Democrats showed more than random spunk and some slightly less formulaic insights into the complexities of the triangular relations between the U.S., Cuba and Venezuela.
Generally, the Democratic leadership has either ignored or all too often trivialized the importance of regional relations, numbly accepting an obsolescent and grossly sterile manner of relating to Cuba. It might be useful to prescribe a more simple approach to the Democrats on how to make amends - simply do everything opposite of what was done yesterday when it comes to U.S.-Latin American strategies. Meanwhile, the combative rhetoric borrowed from a Republican lexicon will soon be handed over to Democratic counterparts. The question is whether the Democrats will make use of it or unlikely enough decide to go their own way. For example, presidential contender John Kerry, during his last presidential race, found that Hugo Chávez's "close relationship with Fidel Castro has raised serious questions about his commitment to leading a truly democratic government." Could they not say the same about Kazakhstan or thirty or forty other countries, some of them close allies of the U.S.? This relatively unlettered remark may have been one of the few occasions that Kerry has referred to the region at all.
In general, mainstream Democratic speechmakers consistently used dismissive language when it came to references to Chávez, let alone Castro. Anti-Chávez rants peaked with his recent "devil" speech delivered at the UN on the occasion of the duel between the U.S. and Venezuela, over who would fill the two-year Latin American seat on the UN's Security Council. For Nancy Pelosi, "Hugo Chávez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," while the venerable House Democrat and Black Caucus leader, New York's Charles Rangel, contributed the shameless piece of puffery that "You don't come into my country; you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president." U.S.-Venezuelan and Cuban relations deserve better than that, especially because there are a number of knowledgeable senators, which would include Kennedy, Leahy, Dodd and Harkin, who readily come to mind, as well as Congressman Delahunt of Massachusetts.
The Irreducible Agenda
The issues of immigration, terrorism, drugs, energy questions and incipient rivalries with China over resources and new investments in Cuba, should afford a lively time for U.S.-Latin America relations in the near future, even though it is likely to generate more heat than light. It is not too much to say that the incoming Democratic leadership remains sadly under-equipped to coherently debate a range of serious issues that deserve to be ventilated beyond sound bites and canned quips.
When it comes to regional ties, with only few exceptions, the entire U.S. Congress is all but functionally illiterate, so that an attempt to ferret out a "Democratic" as distinguished from a Republican Latin American policy will likely be a thankless task. When it comes to hemispheric relations, the Democratic leadership is hardly more conversant than its Republican colleagues. If there is any way to improve U.S. policy, it must be as a result of more than happenstance. It must come about due to specific people responding to specific needs that are being recognized at the highest places in governance. An array of important hemispheric issues must be made the subject of a free-wheeling, and constructive debate that would serve the common interests of the entire hemisphere. This process hopefully will end up conveying a spirit of flexibility, mutual respect, and a recognition that no one nation, including the U.S., has a monopoly on good thinking or upon gracious vision, or possesses the unique capacity to innovate and move the region along its own natural path in friendship and mutual respect. It is something that has to be worked towards.
This analysis was prepared by COHA Director Larry Birns, and is a slightly modified version of an article appearing in the winter issue of the Democratic Left, a publication of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
Comment on this Article
Why So Many Black Women Are Behind Bars
Earl Ofari Hutchinson, AlterNet. Posted December 5, 2006.
Black female inmates outnumber white female inmates three to one, and their punishments don't always fit their crimes.
Some years ago I briefly worked as a social worker. Occasionally I would visit clients in jail to determine their eligibility for continued benefits. They were all men -- with one exception. She was a young black woman serving time for theft. She had two small children.
She entered the visiting room handcuffed to another woman and dressed in drab prison garb. We talked through a reinforced glass window. The guards stared hard and barked out gruff commands to the women.
The idea of a woman in prison then was a novelty. It isn't anymore. According to a recent Justice Department report on America's jail population, women make up about 10 percent of the America's inmates. There are now more women than ever serving time, and black women make up a disproportionate number of those women. They are twice more likely than Hispanic, and over three times more likely than white women, to be jailed.
In fact, black women have almost single-handedly expanded the women's prison-industrial complex. From 1930 to 1950 five women's prisons were built nationally. During the 1980s and 1990s dozens more prisons were built, and a growing number of them are maximum-security women's prisons. But the prison-building splurge hasn't kept pace with the swelling number of women prisoners. Women's prisons are understaffed, overcrowded, lack recreation facilities, serve poor quality food, suffer chronic shortages of family planning counselors and services, and gynecological specialists, drug treatment and child care facilities, and transportation funds for family visits.
Female prisoners face the added peril of rape, and insensitive treatment during pregnancy. A United Nations report in 1997 found that more than two dozen states permitted pregnant women to be shackled while being transported to hospitals for treatment. A report by the National Corrections Information Center revealed that the U.S. is one of only a handful of countries that allow men to guard women, often unsupervised. Author Donna Ann-Smith Marshall, who served several years at Central California Women's Facility, California's top maximum security prison, in her new book, Time on the Inside, tells in shocking and graphic detail the callous, often brutal treatment many women are subjected to in women's maximum security jails.
Unfortunately, the tepid public debate over the consequence of locking up so many women is riddled with misconceptions. One is that women commit violent crimes for the same reasons that men do. They don't. Women are less likely than men to assault or murder strangers while committing crimes. Two-thirds of the women jailed assaulted or killed relatives or intimates. Their victims were often spouses, lovers, or boyfriends. In many cases they committed violence defending themselves against sexual or physical abuse. Women's groups and even the more enlightened governors have recognized that women that kill abusive husbands or lovers have acted out of fear and have loosened parole standards. The governors have granted some women earlier release from their sentences.
More women, and especially black women, are behind bars as much because of hard punishment than their actual crimes. One out of three crimes committed by women are drug related. Many state and federal sentencing laws mandate minimum sentences for all drug offenders. This virtually eliminates the option of referring non-violent first time offenders to increasingly scarce, financially strapped drug treatment, counseling and education programs. Stiffer punishment for crack cocaine use also has landed more black women in prison, and for longer sentences than white women (and men).
Then there's the feminization of poverty and racial stereotyping. More than one out of three black women jailed did not complete high school, were unemployed, or had incomes below the poverty level at the time of their arrest. More than half of them were single parents.
While black men are typed as violent, drug dealing "gangstas," black women are typed as sexually loose, conniving, untrustworthy, welfare queens. Many of the mostly middle-class judges and jurors believe that black women offenders are menaces to society too.
The quantum leap in black women behind bars has had devastating impact on families and the quality of life in many poor black communities. Thousands of children of incarcerated women are raised by grandparents, or warehoused in foster homes and institutions. The children are frequently denied visits because the mothers are deemed unfit. This prevents mothers from developing parenting and nurturing skills and deeply disrupts the parent-child bond. Many children of imprisoned women drift into delinquency, gangs and drug use. This perpetuates the vicious cycle of poverty, crime and violence. There are many cases where parents and even grandparents are jailed.
There is little sign that this will change. The public and policy makers are deeply rapped in the damaging cycle of myths, misconceptions and crime fear hysteria about crime-on-the-loose women. They are loath to ramp up funds and programs for job and skills training, drug treatment, education, childcare and health, and parenting skills. Yet, this is still the best way to keep more women from winding up behind bars.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a political analyst and social issues commentator, and the author of the forthcoming book The Emerging Black GOP Majority (Middle Passage Press, September 2006), a hard-hitting look at Bush and The GOP's court of black voters.
Comment on this Article
US National Debt Clock
brillig.com
Dec 14 06
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 14 Dec 2006 at 05:34:24 PM GMT is:
$8,664,887,562,587.77
The estimated population of the United States is 300,464,518
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,838.31.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.07 billion per day since September 29, 2006!
Concerned? Tell Congress and the White House!
Comment on this Article
Middle-east Muddle
Calls for Olmert to resign after nuclear gaffe - He Told the Truth, for Once - That's Not Acceptable
Luke Harding in Berlin and Duncan Campbell
Wednesday December 13, 2006
The Guardian
Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, was yesterday trying to fend off accusations of ineptitude and calls for his resignation after he accidentally acknowledged for the first time that Israel had nuclear weapons.
After decades in which Israel has stuck to a doctrine of nuclear ambiguity, Mr Olmert let slip during an interview in Germany that Israel did indeed have weapons of mass destruction.
He told Germany's Sat.1 channel on Monday evening: "Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?"
Mr Olmert's admission comes less than a week after the incoming US secretary of defence, Robert Gates, speculating at a Senate confirmation hearing on Iran's possible motives for trying to build nuclear arms, suggested that Israel had the bomb.
Speaking in Berlin after a meeting yesterday with Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, Mr Olmert attempted to backtrack. He insisted that Israel's doggedly held position of nuclear weapons ambiguity had not changed.
"Israel has said many times - and I also said this to German television in an interview - that we will not be the first country that introduces nuclear weapons to the Middle East," Mr Olmert insisted. He added: "That was our position, that is our position - nothing has changed."
But his remarks did nothing to assuage criticism in Israel. Opposition leaders accused him of "irresponsible" bungling and said he should resign.
"This causes great harm to Israel. We are in the midst of a huge [diplomatic] onslaught against Iran's attempts to make a nuclear bomb," former foreign minister Silvan Shalom, a member of the rightwing Likud party, said on Army Radio. He added: "We always face the same question which our enemies ask: 'Why is Israel allowed to [have a bomb] and not Iran?'"
Yossi Beilin, of the leftwing Meretz party, which is also in opposition, questioned Mr Olmert's fitness to lead. "The prime minister's amazing statement regarding nuclear capability indicates a lack of caution bordering on irresponsibility," the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper quoted him as saying.
Mr Olmert's domestic approval ratings have plummeted since this summer's war against Lebanon's Hizbullah guerrillas.
Aides to the prime minister tried frantically to limit the damage. His spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, who is accompanying Mr Olmert on his visit to Germany and Italy, said it did not mean Israel possessed or wanted to acquire nuclear weapons. "No, he wasn't saying anything like that."
Israel has long declined to confirm or deny having the bomb as part of a "strategic ambiguity" policy that it says fends off numerically superior Arab enemies. But Arabs and Iran see a double standard in US policy in the region.
By not declaring itself to be nuclear-armed, Israel gets round a US ban on funding countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction. It can thus enjoy more than $2bn (£1.02bn) a year in military and other aid from Washington.
Israel's main atomic reactor, officially for civilian use, became operational in the early 1960s. The CIA first concluded that Israel had begun to produce nuclear weapons in 1968, but few details emerged until 1986 when Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at the nuclear facility, gave the Sunday Times detailed descriptions that led defence analysts to rank the country as the sixth largest nuclear power.
Mr Vanunu, who was released in 2004 after spending 18 years in prison, welcomed the prime minister's admission. "Obviously, I don't welcome the atomic bomb but this openness could lead at last to some realpolitik - and maybe to some real peace." Mr Vanunu said he believed the admission was not accidental. "My idea is that it was said intentionally. For 20 years they tried to deny me and my story but the policy of cheating and lying didn't succeed. There is now a new defence secretary in the United States and there are also changes taking place in the Arab world, so I think that may have led to the change."
Comment on this Article
Candid TV footage shows Olmert coaching Prodi
AP
14 December 2006
Candid TV footage of the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Italian counterpart, Romano Prodi, showed Olmert coaching Prodi on what to say at their joint press conference in Rome.
In the footage, taken by a cameraman for Israel's Channel 10 TV, the two men are seen - apparently unaware they are being filmed - conversing yesterday about what to say at the press conference, held during Olmert's visit to Rome.
Olmert tells Prodi that he should mention the international community's demands that the Hamas-led Palestinian government recognise Israel, renounce terror and respect signed peace agreements.
"It's important for me that you emphasise the three principles of the Quartet, that they are not negotiable, that they are the basis for everything. Please say this," Olmert tells Prodi, leaning close to the Italian leader.
Olmert also asks Prodi to mention Israel's status as a Jewish state, implying that he rules out a key Palestinian demand that millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants be allowed into Israel, changing its demographic balance and possibly making Jews a minority.
"I have heard you say something about the Jewish state," Olmert prompts Prodi.
At the press conference, Prodi obliged. "Every peace process must go through a renouncing of violence, recognition of the state of Israel, recognition of past agreements and, I must add, also the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state," Prodi said.
Comment on this Article
Israeli TV catches Olmert "coaching" Italy's Prodi
By Dan Williams
Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:34pm ET
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli pundits make much of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's powers of persuasion, but this was one bit of proof that he might well have wanted to do without.
An Israeli television station broadcast candid footage on Thursday that appeared to show Olmert, during his first official visit to Rome, coaching Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi on what to say during their joint press conference.
"It is important that you emphasize the three principles of the Quartet -- that they are not negotiated (sic). They are the basis for everything," Olmert says, referring to Western demands that Hamas Islamists who run the Palestinian government soften their views before peace talks with Israel can begin.
"Please say this?" Olmert asks his nodding counterpart in English.
As it happened, Prodi did deliver words to that effect. He further endorsed Israel's vision of remaining a Jewish state -- code for ruling out an influx of Palestinian refugees. This, Channel 10 television suggested, was also at Olmert's prodding.
"You said something about a Jewish state (in the past). I know that," Olmert is shown telling Prodi as the two confer in what looks like a lounge in an Italian government complex.
While allies coordinating their rhetoric is nothing new in international diplomacy, the unvarnished glimpse into Olmert's back-room lobbying may prove a fresh embarrassment at home.
Before Rome, Olmert was in Berlin. That visit was marked by Israeli furor at a German television interview in which he seemed to confirm, in a reversal of a decades-old secrecy policy, that Israel has the Middle East's only nuclear weapons.
Comment on this Article
Tensions rise as Hamas judge is shot outside Gaza court
By Donald Macintyre in Jerusalem
14 December 2006
Ismail Haniyeh, the Palestinian Prime Minister, cut short a lengthy foreign trip yesterday to return to Gaza after Palestinian gunmen shot dead a senior Islamic court official prominent in Hamas's military wing.
The internal tension in Gaza continued as Israeli troops shot dead a Palestinian for the first time since a fragile ceasefire was agreed 17 days ago. The Israeli military said the man was armed and carrying grenades near the border fence north of Karni.
The killing of the Hamas man in the Gaza town of Khan Younis came two days after the murder of three young sons of an intelligence colonel in the Fatah-dominated security forces. In a faxed statement, Hamas accused a Fatah "death squad" of killing Bassam Al Farah, 32, described as the director of family counselling at the southern Gaza sharia courts. A Fatah official accused Hamas of pre-empting an investigation. Witnesses told Associated Press that four gunmen had waited for Mr Farah outside the courthouse, forced him to his knees and shot him.
Mr Haniyeh criticised President Mahmoud Abbas's deployment of security forces in Gaza, saying his Fatah faction should accept Hamas's election victory last January.
Despite veiled warnings of revenge from one Hamas spokesman, Mr Haniyeh, a Hamas political leader as well as Prime Minister, told reporters in Khartoum: "We want to assure you that words such as 'civil war' don't exist in our dictionary."
The fatal shooting by the Israeli troops was followed by what Palestinian sources described as an incident in which two Palestinians aboard a Gaza fishing boat were wounded by Israeli gunfire.
Earlier, the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, said that the ceasefire was becoming "harder and harder" to maintain in the face of 20 rockets which had fallen without injury since it began.
Comment on this Article
Gunmen kill Hamas judge at court door
by Rory McCarthy
The Guardian
Dec 14, 06
Ismail Haniyeh, the Palestinian prime minister, cut short his first official trip abroad yesterday to return to Gaza after gunmen shot dead a senior Hamas militant on the street in the latest round of an escalating factional crisis.
Mr Haniyeh, who leads the Hamas government in the Palestinian territories, dismissed concerns of an imminent civil war, but some of his officials on the ground openly blamed a "death squad" from their Fatah rivals for the killing.
Bassam El-Farra, 32, a commander in Hamas's militant wing and a judge in an Islamic family court, was killed on a street in Khan Yunis, in southern Gaza, yesterday morning. Some witnesses said the gunmen had been eating breakfast at a cafe opposite the court. When Mr Farra arrived at 7.40am they dragged him out of his car, forced him to his knees and shot him several times in the head and chest.
Meanwhile, a two-week truce with Israel came under pressure when Israeli forces killed a Fatah gunman near the Gaza-Israel boundary fence.
Several thousand armed men gathered in Khan Yunis for Mr Farra's funeral yesterday. His wife said he had received several death threats in the past, most recently on Tuesday. The killing came two days after gunmen killed the three young sons of a senior Fatah intelligence official, Baha Balousha, in Gaza City. That attack raised fears of a descent into a more serious internal conflict.
The dispute between the factions, who both control large armed militias, worsened after Hamas won elections at the start of the year. The two sides have tried to negotiate a coalition government to ease a costly international financial boycott, but the talks have repeatedly broken down. At least 40 Palestinians have been killed in factional gun battles since March.
After yesterday's killing hundreds of Hamas gunmen went on to the streets of Khan Yunis to hunt down the killers. Fatah, for its part, denied any involvement. Mr Haniyeh, who was in Sudan yesterday, tried to play down the killings. "Words such as 'civil war' don't exist in our dictionary. They don't exist in our makeup, in our culture," he told reporters in Khartoum. "We will protect the national unity of the Palestinian people and will thwart any attempt to instigate an inter-Palestinian struggle."
Comment: Does one get the impression that the creation of Hamas by Israeli intelligence will increase the tit-for-tat killings just as any possibilites for peace begin to settle? Yes one does. "Divide and rule" is the only strategy that is operating here - endlessly.
Comment on this Article
Christians and Zionists: apocalypse row in Jerusalem
Jan McGirk
13 - 10 - 2006
The "theo-con" ambitions of foreign evangelicals in Israel are challenging the delicate historical balance of Jerusalem's religious communities, reports Jan McGirk.
Like a fractured mosaic that can crumble under stress, the ancient walled city of Jerusalem often feels as if it might be on the verge of destruction. The place is held holy by Christians, Muslims and Jews and it attracts fervent believers of every possible stripe. For centuries, the sacred city on the hill has been bedeviled by its extremely potent sects' appeal. Mutual mistrust and old grudges routinely set off pious fury between religious rivals whose holy sites overlap.
Now, apocalyptical politicking has brought the squabbles of prominent Christian clergymen into the public arena, too. It's no wonder that some devout Christians suspect the "time of tribulations" is nigh and that doomsday soon will follow.
The three most prominent evangelical Christian groups in Jerusalem were left fuming after the archbishops of the Latin patriarch, Syrian Orthodox, Episcopal and Lutheran churches made a sudden and formal declaration against Christian Zionism. Their congregations are largely made up of Palestinian Christians.
The document first circulated in cyberspace on 22 August 2006, the anniversary of the date which had been flagged by Princeton's respected (if also controversial) Islamicist scholar, Bernard Lewis, as a critical anniversary of the Prophet Mohammed's night-flight on the winged horse Buraq.
Lewis hypothesised that the Iranian regime might be tempted to reenact the "divine white light" which is said to have touched the farthest mosque on that momentous August night, by unleashing a rogue nuclear strike to annihilate Jerusalem.
In the wake of a month of bloodshed in Lebanon, and ongoing military attacks inside Gaza, threat levels across the region were cranked up after this Ivy League academic concluded that mutually-assured destruction (MAD), the cold-war's existential deterrent, could no longer be a constraint. For jihadists bent on martyrdom, weapons of mass destruction that guarantee death would (according to Lewis) be viewed as an enticement to push the button. While bracing for a possible atomic Armageddon, Jerusalem's high priests lashed out at Christianity's Zionist wing for heightening the anxiety. When the next day dawned after all, it was like an answered prayer.
A rift among the faithful
The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism begins by citing one of the best known New Testament beatitudes, "blessed are the peacemakers" - and then goes ballistic. It denounces brash Christian evangelists, who give comfort to Israeli warriors, for spreading a "false doctrine that condemns the world to the doom of Armageddon and corrupts the Biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation." It was signed by Michel Sabbah, the Catholic archbishop appointed by Pope John Paul II, as well as the Lutheran bishop Munib A Younan, the Anglican bishop Riah Abu El-Assal, and the Syrian Orthodox patriarch, Swerios Malki Mourad.
Three faith-based Protestant charity groups that have been active in Israel since the Ronald Reagan era were livid after these high-placed ministers branded them heretics. Earnest theo-cons with global reach, mega-bucks, and soft southern twangs had effectively been sandbagged online. A week later, leaders from the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, Bridges for Peace, and Christian Friends of Israel posted a six-point group rebuttal.
The evangelicals scorned the Christian patriarchs for ignoring the Hamas government's stated aim to destroy Israel, and argued that denouncing Israeli "occupation and militarism" was only half the story. Showing solidarity with Israel should be seen as "a blessing and not a threat," they said. Furthermore, the rejection of literal interpretations of Biblical scripture enabled the persecution of Jews for 2,000 years, and "under-girded" the inquisition and the holocaust. So there.
Malcolm Hedding, an Assembly of God preacher from Durban who penned the Christian Zionist retort, also hinted that the priests in the old city may be pushing a hidden agenda: "These outrageous statements come at a time when we are gathering momentum. The high church is competitive and alarmed at our success. Maybe they are not so lofty," he told me. "We all deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and I wonder why we were not approached first for a civilised dialogue over a cup of tea. We are not monsters, but Christian people. The apocalypse is a very volatile issue and they know it. The book of Revelations is part of scripture, and is not to be disregarded as irrelevant or fanciful. But airing Christian dirty washing in public is abhorrent," he huffed.
The rift is not helped by the fact that the come-lately Protestants have no claim to coveted Christian property that dates from the crusaders and knights templar. Key sites where Jesus was born, preached his sermons, performed miracles, or was crucified and allegedly resurrected were divided up long ago, and gospel-spouting evangelicals must visit them, following the guidelines of the established churches. "I was shocked to see all the icons and incense inside the church of the holy sepulchre," confessed Earleen Butts, an Oklahoma Sunday-school teacher who has faith that her personal guardian angel will ward off harm throughout her holy-land pilgrimage. Stylised rhinestone wings and a halo were pinned to her purple T-shirt and she clutched a plastic pint of mineral water from "Jacob's Well".
An Armenian seminary student at a cafe near Jaffa gate pointed out that the harshly worded Jerusalem declaration was signed only by a quartet of Arab Christians, and did not reflect a consensus: at least a dozen senior Christian clerics in the holy city failed to weigh in on the matter. The offended evangelicals posted blogs and lay low for a few weeks. Meanwhile, within a fortnight, Pope Benedict XVI's address at Regensburg University on 12 September re-aired the medieval notion of Islamic evil and eventually resulted in firebomb attacks on seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza. All Christians in the region suddenly were put on the defensive, even if the majority has little to do with the Vatican.
Jerusalem's divided heart
Religious disagreements inside Jerusalem can get ugly, and invariably reverberate around the monotheistic world. Ultra-orthodox Jews have spat on Christian pilgrims visiting the stations of the cross on the Via Dolorosa, and Muslim clerics have screamed vitriolic threats at Uri Ariel, a Knesset member intent on testing Islamic tolerance by announcing plans to re-erect a synagogue beside the 7th-century silver-domed al-Aqsa mosque. Provocatively, he affirmed his commitment by pacing out the construction site with a posse of armed guards.
Jews wailing prayers at the sacrosanct Western Wall of their ruined temple, which was sacked by Roman soldiers in 70 CE (Common Era), sometimes are pelted with stones from this mosque, which once had its pulpit torched by a psychotic Australian tourist in a purported attempt to hasten the second coming by burning down the Islamic structure.
No one denies that a welter of prophecies in the Bible and the Qur'an pinpoints this white stone city in the volatile middle east to be ground zero for the apocalypse. It is not surprising that security helicopters hovered overhead on 9 October 2006 when 100,000 people took to Jerusalem's streets in full ceremonial dress to show gratitude to the Israeli Defence Forces with a grand march.
Muslims were fasting for the holy month of Ramadan, and generally kept their distance from the daylight processions of Jews that sent the city into gridlock. Among the marchers were nearly 5,000 evangelical Christian Zionists, from eighty different nations, waving a motley collection of flags and striding in the footsteps of Jesus.
Some teens sounded an Old Testament ram's horn before hitting the pavement, and Christian pilgrims queued to donate their blood for IDF and settlement clinics. "Our support of Israel is based on the promise that God made to Abraham 4,000 years ago. All Jews and Christians believe that one day the messiah will come - so let us forget any disparities", said Hedding, who heads the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem and welcomed throngs of Christian pilgrims for an annual Feast of the Tabernacles week. "Israelis need to know that they have friends," he emphasised.
Coachloads of Christian tourists stopped outside army bases near the Lebanese border, or toured the hills of Samaria and Judea. Others bobbed in the Dead Sea, crossed the barbed-wire checkpoints into Bethlehem, and Brazilians baptised one another in the Jordan river.
With friends like these
Most Christian Zionists pledge to back Israel against any detractors, to help repatriate Jews to settlements in the promised land, and eventually to stand by for Armageddon and ascend to heaven as the world ends. Prophetic Bible verses from both the Old and New Testaments add gravitas to their pamphlets and websites add gravitas to their pamphlets and websites.
Some secular Jews, like Tel Aviv banker Shelly Lash, view these enthusiastic new best friends as self-serving. "New Testament prophecies mandate that Jews convert or die before their rapture can get underway," she sniffed. "They obviously don't count on being our best buddies for eternity."
The Christian Zionist movement offers Israelis financial support from born-again Bible-belt Christians, principally in the United States, Germany, South Africa, and Scandinavia. Proselytising to convert Jews to Christianity is outlawed, although clandestine efforts to Israeli Muslims have been condoned by at least one cabinet minister. In recent years, since Binyamin Netanyahu's time in office (1996-99), Christian friendship and investment have been courted assiduously by the Israeli government, which launched a long-heralded Christian Allies Caucus of legislators in the Knesset in January 2004.
Josh Reinstein, a spokesman for the caucus, grumbled that Michel Sabbah, the outspoken Palestinian Latin patriarch, "is not particularly a friend of Israel," but invited him to educate some senators about the differences between Christian denominations. "We were ignorant about the particulars," he admitted, and confirmed that most face-to-face encounters are made with Christian Zionists who "give the Jewish nation political and moral support." Women's issues and visa problems are of particular concern to the caucus.
The burgeoning Christian Zionist movement has gained political clout in the US ever since Republican strategist Karl Rove galvanised the "moral majority" red states to vote as a bloc, spotlighting family values and contentious issues such as abortion rights and gay marriage. Christian broadcasting networks have been a godsend to the political public-relations industry, and standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel is a reliable touchstone for conservative grassroots campaigns. The flock of Christian Zionists is said to number at least 400,000 (see Paul Rogers, "Christian Zionists and neocons: a heavenly marriage," 3 February 2006).
An article in the Jerusalem Post recounted the Lazarus-like revival of the American televangelist, Pat Robertson. It gave goosebumps to Toby, a messianic Jew from Baltimore who was staking out a high kerb so she could videotape her Christian friends on the march. The firebrand Bible-thumping pastor and former presidential candidate, who founded the rightwing Christian Coalition of America and has promoted Dead Sea mudpacks on his populist TV shows, has been selected as the new face of Israeli tourism for post-Lebanon war adverts aimed at the Christian right.
During the July-August 2006 war between Hizbollah and Israel, tourist revenues slumped precipitously by 40% in Israel. Robertson has since drawled an abject apology for suggesting that God smote Ariel Sharon comatose in January 2006 after the old general agreed to surrender Biblical lands to the Palestinians. Robertson is said to be renegotiating a contract with a consortium of businessmen to build a $50m Jesus theme-park in Galilee, called "Christian Heritage Park", but nicknamed "Jesus-land" by cynical locals. The land will be leased free of charge in exchange for financing all construction and creating new jobs in a moribund economy. The landscape may have been peppered by Katyusha rocket-craters, yet this offbeat project is expected to lure at least a million more Christian visitors annually to the remote site where Jesus fed a multitude with a few loaves and fishes.
Well-heeled Jewish-American princesses cannot be counted on to revitalise the Israeli tourist economy unassisted. In the United States, Protestants outnumber American Jews by more than fifty-to-one, and the wooing has begun in earnest. Economic miracle-workers, at least in the short term, will take precedence in Israel over the second coming.
This article is published by Jan McGirk, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.
Comment on this Article
Court overturns Israel's intifada law
Report, IRIN, 13 December 2006
Israel's Supreme Court has overturned a controversial Israeli law banning Palestinians from claiming compensation for harm suffered at the hands of soldiers.
Citizens of "enemy states and members of terrorist organisations", however, would not be permitted to file for compensation, according to the court's ruling. Palestinians will also have to prove that the Israeli military operations in question did not take place as part of a clearly defined 'war'.
Hassan Jabareen, the general director of Adalah, a body championing Arab rights in Israel, said he expected more legal wrangling over what is and what is not a combat situation.
"We foresee in the future another legal battle on the question of what is the scope of combat operations," he said.
Known as the Intifada Law and roundly criticised by international human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International, the law was passed by the Israeli parliament - the Knesset - in July last year.
It gave the Israeli military complete immunity from claims by declaring the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip to have been a conflict zone from late 2000, when the second intifada (Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation) broke out.
However, the Supreme Court cancelled the law on Tuesday thanks to a petition from Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups, paving the way for a flood of new claims and for old claims to be considered afresh.
"The Supreme Court's decision has nullified one of the most racist laws legislated by the Knesset in the last five years," said Jabareen.
"After this decision, Palestinians who have been injured or killed, or who have sustained property damage, outside the context of a so-called combat situation, can again submit tort cases for compensation in Israeli courts against the security forces."
Law violated the rights to life
In his judgement, Chief Justice Aharon Barak stated that the law exempts the state of Israel from liability in circumstances that have nothing to do with security. He ruled that the law disproportionately violated the rights to life, dignity, and property of Palestinians in the occupied territories and was therefore unconstitutional.
It could mean good news for Palestinians who suffer harm outside a combat situation. For example, if soldiers negligently or wilfully open fire on them, torture or abuse them, or steal or destroy their property.
Matar Khamaiseh, a Palestinian vegetable dealer from Jenin, hopes he will be able to ask for compensation for the harm he has suffered. Khamaiseh was dragged to an olive grove by Israeli soldiers, beaten and shot at from close range in August this year, according to the testimony he gave human rights workers.
"This is a big step - the complete immunity that Israel had has gone," said Yoav Loeff, spokesman for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI).
"I don't know the numbers but there are a lot of cases pending that will now be reactivated."
Adalah and ACRI were among organisations claiming that the Intifada Law sent out a message that the lives and rights of those injured in a so-called conflict zone have no value, as the courts would not come to their aid and those who caused their injuries would face no punishment.
They emphasised that the law grossly violated the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, which apply in the occupied Palestinian territories.
And they said it was also contrary to Israel's own "Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty", which applies to Israeli settlers in the West Bank. A decision that it did not also apply to Palestinians would create a constitutional apartheid regime, Adalah argued.
But Palestinians still face an upward battle to get compensation for harm they suffer, according to Sharwan Jabarin, general director of Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organisation, in Ramallah.
"This is a first step. But anyone launching a case still has to prove everything and still has only a limited time frame after the incident to get everything together for the case," he said.
This item comes to you via IRIN, a UN humanitarian news and information service, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its agencies. All IRIN material may be reposted or reprinted free-of-charge; refer to the copyright page for conditions of use. IRIN is a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
Comment on this Article
Israel orders Gaza-Egypt border closed to stop Palestinian PM
Posted 12/14/2006 10:41 AM ET
Associated Press
CAIRO (AP) - Israel closed the Egypt-Gaza border on Thursday to prevent Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh from returning to the Gaza Strip with millions of dollars for his cash-strapped Hamas government.
The blocking sparked a gunbattle at the border terminal on the Gaza side when Hamas militants burst into the Rafah border crossing. Travelers at the terminal dove for cover, and two Hamas militants were wounded in the gunfight.
But later Haniyeh headed to the border in an attempt to cross a second time but without the money, said Palestinian official Hani Jabour, who was with Haniyeh.
It was not clear, however, if Israel would allow him in or if he even would be able to cross because of the fighting. As he headed there two loud explosions were heard on the Gaza side.
Jabour said that Israel has agreed to let Haniyeh in without the money. The secretary-general of the Palestinian Cabinet, Mohammed Awad, also told Al-Jazeera that Israel agreed to Haniyeh's entry without the money.
There was no immediate confirmation from Israel, but European monitors said the Rafah crossing would not be reopened Thursday.
Israeli authorities ordered the crossing closed earlier Thursday after Haniyeh notified Egyptian authorities he was carrying $35 million, Jabour said.
Israeli security officials confirmed that Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz ordered the closure to prevent Haniyeh from bringing in the money. It was not known where the money came from, but Haniyeh was on his first trip abroad and visited top supporters Syria, Iran and Sudan.
Haniyeh's government has been badly crippled by U.S. and Israeli-led international economic sanctions that have left it unable to pay full salaries to its 165,000 workers. Top Hamas officials have recently smuggled millions of dollars over the border to help keep the government operating.
Haniyeh decided to cut the trip abroad short after Wednesday's assassination of a Hamas-linked judge that came two days after gunmen shot dead the three young children of a Fatah-allied Palestinian intelligence officer.
The escalation in violence has reduced the chances of forging a coalition government of Hamas and the more moderate Fatah party, which is led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Egyptian officials said the prime minister declared he was carrying the money after arriving in Egypt from Sudan on his way back to Gaza. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.
Maria Telleria, spokeswoman for the EU monitoring mission, said after the gunbattle that all 16 monitors were safely evacuated and the border would remain closed Thursday.
"Now it is dark, the monitors will not be coming back," she said. "But I don't know what is going to happen tomorrow."
Haniyeh left Gaza on Nov. 28 and had planned to travel for a month. But his trip drew criticism because the violence raging in the Palestinian territories and the need to continue to negotiate on a new government between his Hamas party and the rival Fatah.
Comment: And people want us to believe that Israel wants peace?
Do you think for a moment that the two shootingt mentioned in this article, the two shootings that have pretty much dissed any chance for a united front government between Fateh and Hamas, were really the work of Palestinians? Don't they carry the marking of being yet another Israel black op designed to scuttle any potential deal?
Who benefits? It is always Israel.
Comment on this Article
Baker redux
By Daniel Ben Simon
Thu., December 14, 2006
Haaretz
One Friday afternoon 15 years ago, the U.S. secretary of state, James Baker, sat in prime minister Yitzhak Shamir's bureau in Jerusalem and discussed with him the need to implement the diplomatic initiative that bore his name. Great tension prevailed in the room. One of the Israeli participants has related that Shamir evinced impatience and restlessness and constantly looked at his watch. "He was shocked by the secretary of state's style of speaking and his bluntness," added the source. This was yet another in the series of the secretary's pressuring visits, aimed at persuading Israeli leaders to agree to conduct direct talks with Palestinian representatives. Israel demanded that talks be held only with Palestinians living in the territories; the Americans insisted on including representatives from the Palestinian diaspora, so as to give official recognition to the Palestine Liberation Organization, which had its headquarters in Tunis. Prior to that, the unity government in which the Labor party had participated had broken up because of disagreement on this issue.
The watch hands moved slowly. One of the participants in the meeting suggested that it be stopped because of the approach of the Sabbath. After ascertaining the precise time that the Sabbath would begin, Baker insisted on continuing. Suddenly an American official came into the bureau and whispered something into the ear of one of the secretary's aides, who transmitted the contents to the secretary. Baker blanched. He rose and in a trembling voice said to the prime minister that he had just been informed that his mother had passed away. He apologized that he would not be able to continue the meeting and left, followed by the other members of the American peace team.
A sigh of relief was heard in the prime minister's bureau. One of the senior people present thanked God aloud for His intervention, which had saved Israel from Baker's talons. However, after he recovered from his mother's death, Baker refused to leave Israel to its own devices. He succeeded in seating its representatives at the Madrid conference next to Palestinian and other Arab delegates. When Israel hardened its heart, he threatened to block the transfer of the special American aid for the absorption of immigrants from the Commonwealth of Independent States. At that time the "Baker initiative" looked to the Likud government like a dangerous attempt on the part of president George H.W. Bush's administration to force a peace agreement on Israel. Baker was so keen on advancing an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians that among Likud members the rumor spread that the man was motivated by anti-Semitism. Otherwise, why was he so indefatigably engaged with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What was wrong with that man, they wondered, that was making him act so obsessively about trying to make the Israelis live in peace? "There is no doubt that this individual is a bit anti-Semitic," asserted a senior person in the prime minister's bureau, whose feelings reflected Shamir's. "Let him leave us alone. Is there a dearth of conflicts in the world?" The conflict between the two administrations ended badly and threatened to muddy the relations between Israel and the United States. In June of 1992, Shamir lost the election to Yitzhak Rabin, and half a year later Baker followed him into retirement, together with his boss, the first president Bush. Now, 14 years later, the ghost of James Baker is again hovering above the skies of Jerusalem. Now sitting on Shamir's chair is Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was serving as a junior minister during the days Baker was first haunting Israel. Immediately upon taking up his exalted position, Olmert once again donned his old Likud garments, as though he had never taken them off.
It is no wonder that in Olmert's immediate environs, paranoid talk about Baker the Terrible is again being heard. Once again, preposterous diversionary maneuvers are being undertaken with the goal of depicting the document that bears his name as hallucinatory. "This is an internal American document that does not concern us," was the prime minister's description this week of the Baker-Hamilton document.
Why has the Israeli leadership gone on the defensive? Because of Baker's personality, which radiates aggressive imperiousness, and because for the first time a senior American figure has acknowledged that the absence of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians contributes to the unrest in the Middle East and even beyond it. All that was missing was that someone there would come to the conclusion that this unending conflict is endangering American interests in the region and even beyond it. This linkage resonates in Europe and is endlessly reiterated in the ears of Israeli representatives. Every Jewish child in France can explain the connection between the new Muslim anti-Semitism in his country and the second intifada. Everyone understands what a terrible price this conflict is exacting; it's only Israel that is insisting on reducing its dimensions as though it were a neighborhood spat.
The attitude toward Israel that is expressed in the Baker-Hamilton document is a direct result of the diplomatic paralysis and the prime minister's perpetuation of the status quo in all arenas. This is one of the reasons, along with the wretched war in Lebanon, for the mortal blow to his popularity.
Olmert will save himself - and us - only if he starts to implement the desire of the voters who put their trust in him. Only by taking diplomatic initiatives will Olmert be able to dispose of the need to take defensive measures against the Baker-Hamilton report and dispel at least some of the unease that has spread in this country since Ehud Olmert sat down in former prime minister Ariel Sharon's chair.
Comment from Jeff Blankfort: This article describes what former Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Arens detailed in his book, Broken Covenant. It is particularly important because it clearly refutes the wide spread and mistaken belief among "The Left" that the White House has consistently backed Israel's policies of occupation and settlement. Perhaps, that is why it remains "unknown" among Palestinian solidarity activists. Arens's book has been out 10 years and this is the first time that I have seen this critical meeting between James Baker and Shamir mentioned in print.
I am not in the habit of recommending books from the other side of the Israel-Palestine divide but given the discussion and questions raised by the linking of the I-P conflict to the resolution of the war in Iraq by the Baker-Hamilton panel, I am recommending that you get a copy of Broken Covenant: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis Between the U.S. and Israel (Hardcover-1995) by Moshe Arens, Israel's foreign minister under the Shamir administration, which provides the best documentation of the serious confrontations that took place between Baker and Israel and Baker and AIPAC, as well as Bush Sr and Israel, during the latter's administration.
As of Monday night, there were 45 copies available from Amazon beginning at $ . 30 (that's right, 30 cents, plus shipping). If by reading Chomsky, you mistakenly thought that the first Bush administration was pro-Israel, this book will open your eyes to a new way of looking at US-Israel relations and understand what Mearsheimer and Walt, Paul Findley (for years!) and more recently James Petras, Jim Abourezk and Jimmy Carter have been talking about, namely, the unbridled power and arrogance of the American Jewish Political Establishment, AKA The Lobby--JB.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0671869647/ref=dp_olp_2/103-7797300-7028623
Note: I have learned that Amazon had removed Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah from its listing on the basis that it was allegedly "out of stock," but after a number of email complaints to Amazon, it was back Amazon's web site tonight.
Comment on this Article
Our Weird, Weird World
A cool new idea from British scientists: the magnetic fridge
Michael Pollitt
Thursday December 14, 2006
The Guardian
The solid-state fridge could halve your energy bills and help to save the environment
Do you like fridge magnets? A new technology being developed by British scientists could put an even bigger one inside your refrigerator. Once Karl Sandeman, a physicist at Cambridge University, has helped resolve the practical issues, the cooling power of the 21st century fridge will come from a 19th century discovery - and it promises to cut energy consumption by 40% and save the ozone layer.
The key is a material that cools when it is put in a magnetic field. The idea - which is ambitious, but feasible - is to replace the present system used by refrigerators the world over. Your kitchen fridge has a compressor, which turns a gas into a liquid, releasing heat (which you'll feel at the back of the fridge). The liquid is then pumped round the inside walls of the fridge, where it draws heat from the contents; that turns it into a gas, which is pumped on to the compressor.
But what if you could replace the fluid with a magnet? "The amazing thing about magnetism is that it's actually a quantum mechanical phenomenon," says Sandeman. "It's all down to something mysterious called spin. The electrons act almost like a miniature bar magnet."
Temperature change
As a quantum mechanical property of the electron, spin is usually taken to mean its rotational momentum (like the Earth rotating around its axis). That momentum - described as "up" or "down" - creates a tiny magnetic field. When all the electrons in a material spin in the same way, their fields combine to create what we perceive as magnetism. However, an iron magnet heated to 700C will "disorder" and lose its powers, known as a magnetic phase transition.
In 1881, the German physicist Emil Warburg put a block of iron into a strong magnetic field and found it increased very slightly in temperature. Scientists now know the electrons pivot in the field to align at a lower energy state, releasing surplus energy. The metal warms up in what's known as the magnetocaloric effect, which is greatest near the magnetic phase transition temperature.
"If you can suddenly alter the degree of ordering of all these little spins, then you get a large response," says Sandeman. For iron at room temperature, the response is just 0.1C. Some materials cool in a magnetic field, a property that's used in low temperature research. Finding the right room temperature material is the key to a magnetic fridge, where the cooling power is derived from a positive magnetocaloric effect coupled to heat exchange.
One material works nicely: the element gadolinium (Gd). It's a silvery-white metal that's strongly attracted by a magnet, has a magnetic disordering temperature of 20C, and a giant magnetocaloric effect of several degrees. A waste product from permanent magnet manufacture, gadolinium costs around £100 per kg; a magnetic fridge would use 0.15kg. Sandeman's current research, however, is looking at other possibilities.
"The quest is to get away from these expensive rare earth materials and look for magnetic materials which have a phase transition at room temperature," says Sandeman, whose research job at Cambridge University is funded by the Royal Society. He also works with Professor Derek Fray, a leading expert in materials chemistry. "What I'm actually working with is an alloy of two magnetic materials, cobalt and manganese," says Sandeman.
When these elements are mixed with non-magnetic "spacers" like silicon, the cost falls to £5 per kg. Strangely, his latest experimental alloy has a negative magnetocaloric effect - it cools in a magnetic field. This could also be harnessed for fridges through a heat exchange process.
A Cambridge University spin-out company, Camfridge Ltd, has built two prototype magnetic fridges that use gadolinium. While the latest one is little more than fridge innards, the team - which includes Sandeman as chief scientific officer, Fray and experienced business people - is striving to develop the revolutionary effect for commercial exploitation in fridges and, perhaps, air conditioning.
"It's a sea change in thinking," says Sandeman. "It never ceases to amaze me how you can take a block of this stuff and stick it into a [magnetic] field. The prototype is operational and has achieved a large temperature span."
A magnetic fridge works like this. Powdered gadolinium (with coarse grains for good heat transfer qualities) is put into a magnetic field. It heats up as the randomly ordered magnetic moments - the electrons with spin - are aligned, or "ordered", by the field. The newly-acquired heat - a boost of between 2-5C, depending on the gadolinium's original temperature - is removed by a circulating fluid, like a conventional fridge.
The magnetic field is removed and the gadolinium cools below its starting temperature as the electrons resume their previously disordered state. Heat from the system to be cooled - your fridge interior - can then be transferred to the now cooler metal. Then all you do is endlessly repeat. But unlike conventional fridges, which need very toxic chemicals, the only liquid needed for heat transfer is water, alcohol or, more likely, antifreeze.
Cutting energy use
A more advanced prototype next year will optimally bring together three elements - temperature span, cooling power and efficiency - along with a faster motor. This will allow less gadolinium to be used with a smaller magnet, saving materials costs. Camfridge's managing director, Neil Wilson, says: "In terms of technical specification, that prototype will get us to a domestic fridge. Commercial manufacturers have hit the wall; there is not much more they can do. We're wanting to cut the energy use by half."
Professor Stephen Blundell, of Oxford University, also understands the issues well, as he's written a textbook on magnetism and researches magnetic properties in materials. Magnetocaloric effects are becoming more practical, he thinks, thanks to improved magnet technology and new materials. A magnetic fridge would be compact, less noisy and won't need harmful gases.
"I think this technology has real potential, but it is still at the early stages. The claims of 40% efficiency savings seem a little speculative, though not completely unreasonable," says Blundell.
Some 15% of UK energy is used in refrigeration and cooling for air conditioning, and much more in warmer countries. Garry Staunton, head of low carbon research at the Carbon Trust, which is financially supporting the magnetic fridge's development along with Cambridge University and other investors, says that 22m tonnes of UK carbon dioxide emissions annually are due to refrigeration and air conditioning. Efficiency improvements to domestic fridges since 1990 have seen a 27% reduction in their energy use.
Increasing energy efficiency with new technology is the key to stabilising and reducing carbon emissions. Consumers seem willing to support and demand new energy-efficient appliances in their homes, while everyone has felt the sharply rising cost of electricity. As the fridge magnet moves inside the fridge, it may become the exciting new green technology of the 21st century.
- If you'd like to comment on any aspect of Technology Guardian, send your emails to tech@guardian.co.uk
Comment on this Article
Had a car crash? It's all in the stars, study says
By Naomi Kim
Reuters UK
Dec 14
TORONTO - Never mind how careful you are behind the wheel or how long you've been driving, the signs of the zodiac may be bigger factors behind your ability to avoid car crashes -- or why you have too many.
According to a study by InsuranceHotline.com, a Web site that quotes drivers on insurance rates, astrological signs are a significant factor in predicting car accidents.
The study, which looked at 100,000 North American drivers' records from the past six years, puts Libras (born September 23-October 22) followed by Aquarians (January 20-February 18) as the worst offenders for tickets and accidents
Leos (July 23-August 22) and then Geminis (May 21-June 20) were found to be the best overall.
"I was absolutely shocked by the results," said Lee Romanov, president of Toronto-based InsuranceHotline.com, who also wrote the book "Car Carma" which touches on the correlation between astrological signs and driving ability while doing the study.
Romanov originally wanted to have some fun by examining astrological signs as a possible cause for the variance between insurance companies quoting high and low rates but didn't expect to find anything interesting.
"Now, changing postal codes is far less significant to me than drivers of certain astrological signs," she told Reuters on Wednesday.
Even age, another variable for determining insurance rates, is less of a consideration to Romanov. The cutoff line for being considered a higher risk driver is 24 years of age; 25-year-olds are considered not-high risk.
"I'd rather get into a car with a 24-year-old Leo than a 25-year-old Aries," Romanov said.
Leos, described along with the study results on InsuranceHotline.com/a10.html, are "generous, and comfortable in sharing the roadway."
Aries, on the other hand, "have a 'me first' childlike nature that drives Aries into trouble."
"I wasn't believing in it before," said Romanov, "but I would think twice before getting into a car with an Aries."
Comment on this Article
Psychic helping police solve murder of lawyer
By Jocelyn Uy
Inquirer, Phillippines
14 Dec 06
POLICE are seeking the help even of psychics as they continue to face a blank wall in the investigation of the murder of Assistant Solicitor General Nestor Ballocillo and his 23-year-old son Benedict.
"We are doing our best to solve the case. We have also sought the assistance of psychics in solving the mystery," Southern Police District director Chief Superintendent Roberto Rosales told reporters Thursday.
The Ballocillos were on their way to Nestor's office in Makati City last December 6 when two armed men shot them at close range.
The Parañaque police and the National Bureau of Investigation said earlier the killing could be work-related.
At a press conference Thursday, Rosales said a colleague from Camp Crame had introduced him to a psychic, whose name was withheld for security purposes.
The psychic volunteered to help solve the case, asking the police director for basic details.
"I was asked to give the name and birthdays of the victims," Rosales said.
He accepted the offer after having seen on television how the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States was assisted by psychics and clairvoyants in crime detection and investigation, he added.
Foreign intelligence and police agencies have started to tap people with psychic capabilities for help in resolving puzzling crimes.
Rosales said the psychic had already provided names that could help identify the gunman and his location.
He said the information would be compared to results of the investigation conducted so far through conventional means.
"The psychic's findings would just help provide the leads. We will still rely on the scientific findings. But it would be helpful if the psychic's information corroborate our investigation," he said.
Meanwhile, Parañaque City police chief Superintendent Ronald Estilles said they were working double time to capture the killers.
Estilles told the Inquirer Thursday that five witnesses were ready to identify the suspects.
Comment on this Article
The boy who could walk on hot coals
Mail & Guardian
14 Dec 06
The life and death of a young street performer from Pakistan who could walk on hot coals and drive knives through his arms without flinching has led scientists to a genetic discovery that could revolutionise the treatment of pain.
Scientists at Cambridge University began studying the child to understand why he was unable to feel pain, but was otherwise completely healthy. He died shortly before his 14th birthday, from injuries sustained after jumping off a roof while playing with friends.
The scientists broadened their investigation to three families related to the child and found that none had experienced pain at any time in their lives. All six family members had bruises and cuts and most had fractured bones. Two were missing the front third of their tongues after biting themselves in childhood.
The way in which the young street performer died also highlighted the importance of pain as a built-in defence mechanism to stop people damaging themselves.
Detailed neurological tests on the families, all of whom originated in northern Pakistan, revealed they responded normally to touch, temperature, tickling and pressure and had no signs of nerve disease. An explanation for the rare condition only became apparent when a team of scientists led by Geoff Woods, a medical geneticist at Cambridge, conducted extensive genetic tests that revealed they all carried an extremely unusual mutation in a single gene.
The defect, in a gene called SCN9A, disrupts the flow of sodium ions in specific nerve fibres that sense damage. The results of the research are published on Thursday in the journal Nature.
John Wood, a neurobiologist at University College London and co-author of the study, said: "The mutation means that the very first stage of that electrical signal is lost, so the pain signal doesn't reach the brain." Scientists have previously written about people who do not feel pain, but in all other cases they suffered other medical problems because of the damage to their nerves.
Woods, from the University of Cambridge institute for medical research, said: "This paper shows that rare diseases can still be of great importance because of the insights they give into biological and developmental processes."
The researchers included a number of investigators from Pakistan and other United Kingdom institutions. The work, which was carried out with the drug company Pfizer, paves the way for a new approach to managing pain, the scientists believe.
They hope drugs that block the same biological pathway affected by the mutation will yield new and potentially safer pain medications.
"This gives us an excellent target to develop painkillers, because we know that if we can block this sodium channel, you will lose the perception of pain, but it will not affect you in any other way," said Wood.
"Potentially this is as important as the identification of the morphine receptors. It is fascinating that this same gene, when mutated to encode a hyperactive channel, has also been found to contribute to ongoing pain in some heritable human disorders."
-- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
Comment on this Article
Kenya: The Mysterious Menengai Crater
Alex Kiprotich
The East African Standard (Nairobi)
December 13, 2006
Despite the serene and breathtaking marvel that is the Menengai Crater, locals believe that evil spirits haunt it.
Boys living around the Menengai Crater go on hunting expeditions despite the risks.
They claim that the evil spirits capture human beings and confuse them while touring the crater with beautiful walls.
People have lost their lives while others have disappeared never to be seen again. Some have died through accidents and others have committed suicide.
However, the crater continues to attract hundreds of people curious to explore the mystery cave. Guides who earn a living by escorting the visitors tell of strange happenings that leave visitors shocked.
The stories are perplexing as they are scary with strange things happening inside the cave.
People have strayed and lost direction in the cave only for them to be found hours later unable to explain how they lost their way.
"So many strange things happen here even though people do not seem to believe them," says Paul Ndung'u.
The locals have named the place "kirima kia ngoma" (Devil's place) as they claim it is under the control of evil spirits.
No one knows how the crater came to be called Menengai but the locals say the name is a Maasai word meaning a place of corpses.
"It is believed the name means the place of the dead in the Maasai because many of them died here in the 19th century when they fought among themselves," says Daniel Kanyingi.
Woman slipped and fell into the crater
He said that it is alleged that one of the battles took place at the crater and morans, from one of the warring clans were thrown in the calderas.
The second meaning, "devils residence" relates to a story that mysterious people once lived in the crater.
"The sound of the crater sometimes gives the impression of cow bells. And because of the hot spots in the crater, they said the inhabitants must be devils because animals cannot kindle fire," adds Ndung'u.
Recently, a woman slipped and fell into the crater as she tried to rescue her son.
Magdalene Waithera was in a group that had gone to rescue her son, 12, who had been trapped in the ravine.
Mr Johnstone Kamau, a witness, said the woman was trying to look into the crater after she called her son and he responded.
"When she heard him respond, she moved forward and attempted to look inside, but she slipped and fell," he said.
The child was, however, rescued later alive by the police.
Last year, a man who had gone to graze his animals in the crater failed to find his way out despite knowing the area for a long time.
Peace and tranquility inside the crater
John Kirutu, 12, is rescued days after he plunged into the crater while playing with friends.
A search was mounted and two days later, he was found wandering deep into the crater.
Kanyingi says a young boy also went missing in the crater and was found after seven days in the crater staring at birds but he was in good health.
"Some do not find their way for days but when they are found they do not show signs of fatigue or hunger," he says.
He says that the boy told the search party that he had been watching a beautiful vision without realising the passage of time.
Despite the dreadful tales, peace and tranquility inside the crater provides Christians visiting the area a conducive environment to pray and fast. But there are claims that some of them have committed suicide, like the two catholic priests who jump to their deaths into the dormant volcano.
Ndung'u says the incident happened in November last year, when a catholic priest plunged his vehicle into the 900-metre crater.
"He drove straight to the view point without breaking and in a matter of seconds what remained was a mangled wreck of the twisted metal and his lifeless body," he says.
Tales of ghosts
But pilgrims still flock the site to pray. Recently, The Standard met Mr Paul Walingo from Kakamega, who has spent almost two weeks in the cave praying and fasting.
He says the place is perfect to drown life's hostilities and get in touch with one's inner soul.
Relatives and friends could not hold their tears back after they received information of the death of Magdaline Waithera, who died while attempting to save her son. Pictures by Lucas Thuo
"I feel very close to God whenever I come to pray here. It is a perfect place to reflect on one's life," he says.
He dismisses the tales of ghosts as rich imaginations.
"I usually pray till late in the evening and have never seen what the locals are talking about," he says.
But Mr Simon Kamenju, 69, says the existence of demons is real. He says during the planting season, they plough the land towards the southern end of the crater and plant wheat and maize, which are soon harvested by the ghosts.
"Things happen so fast. You will see some crops, people harvesting and before long, the flurry of activities are over and the land would revert back to its former state of grassland and the people would also disappear," he says.
Kamenju recalls that in the 1960s, ghosts used to practice agriculture on the floor of the crater in large scale.
"What we are seeing is small scale farming by the ghosts who reside in the floor of the crater unlike 40 years ago," he alleges.
Flying umbrella
He says these ghosts are responsible for capturing human beings and hiding them in the underworld.
However, the spirits capture only those who attempt to destroy the fauna in the crater.
"Some of those who wander, do so after harvesting firewood inside the cave. But as soon as they drop the firewood, they find their way back," he says.
Although the volcano is dormant, residents say that the crater has some hot spots where steam jets fill it with vapour at times.
The latest mystery about the crater is a "flying umbrella" that appears whenever it rains. But no one knows where the umbrella goes after the rains.
"When it rains, there is a huge formation of what looks like an umbrella that seem to shield the crater from the rain but disappears as soon as the rain subsides," says Kamenju.
As the site puzzles the visitors, residents fear for their children. The cliff is not fenced off and hence poses danger to children playing around the area.
"We fear for our children's safety, especially when there is no one to watch over them," says Mrs Sarah Maina.
Comment on this Article
Christian video game stokes controversy
By Ed Stoddard
Reuters
Dec 12, 2006
DALLAS - A Christian video game has become the latest battleground in America's "culture" wars, with its maker claiming it promotes prayer while critics charge it carries a message of violent religious intolerance.
"Left Behind: Eternal Forces," is a teen-rated PC strategy game based on the wildly popular "Left Behind" Christian book series created by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.
The game is set in New York City after millions of Christians have been transported to heaven.
Players are charged with recruiting, and converting, an army that will engage in physical and spiritual warfare with the antichrist and his evil followers.
An advocacy group "Campaign to Defend the Constitution" -- which monitors right-wing religious activities -- says the game is violently pro-Christian and has petitioned retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to pull it from its shelves.
The critics describe it as "a violent video game in which born-again Christians aim to convert or kill those who don't adhere to their extreme ideology."
"After you kill somebody you need to recharge your soul points and to do that you need to bend down in prayer. ... I think the message is extremely clear," said Clark Stevens, co-director of Campaign to Defend the Constitution.
A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the company was selling it in stores where it expected demand.
The game's maker dismissed criticism.
"The reality is that our game perpetuates prayer and worship and that there is no killing in the name of God.
"There is killing of course, it is a video game. But the basis of the game is spiritual welfare," said Troy Lyndon, CEO of Left Behind Games Inc.
"The antichrist is the main bad guy and so you are dealing with his henchmen. Both sides are trying to win the hearts and the minds of people who are not on either side," Lyndon, who describes himself as a "follower of Christ," told Reuters.
He added that sales of the game have been brisk. It was launched in stores last month.
America has some 60 million evangelical Christians by some estimates and church attendance rates are much higher here than in other parts of the developed world -- so there is a huge market for consumer goods with Christian themes.
This also means America's "culture wars" often have religious undertones.
Many mainstream Christians and secular groups accuse some conservative evangelicals of displaying intolerance toward other faiths and beliefs -- in this case through video games.
"We are trying to tell families that this game is faith-based violence and is not suitable for families," said Rev. Timothy F. Simpson, a Presbyterian minister and the interim president of the Christian Alliance for Progress.
Comment: So what's changed? Religious intolerance has always been tied to the consumer culture and both are sending us down a planetary plug-hole. Why should the corporation of the Evangelical Church not use the same tools to ply its trade? I'm sure the Spanish Inquisition would have approved...
Comment on this Article
Fur Color Linked to Dog Personality
by Jennifer Viegas
Discovery News
Dec 13 06
The color of a dog's fur may seem to be just a whim of nature and genetics that reveals little about the dog. But a new study claims that coat color for at least one breed, the English cocker spaniel, reflects a pooch's personality.
Prior research has suggested that fur color is also linked to behavior in labrador retrievers, while the type of fur - in this case, wiry or long - may indicate temperament in miniature dachshunds. Wiry-haired mini dachshunds are often more feisty than their mellower, long-haired cousins.
The latest study, recently published in Applied Animal Behavior Science, determined that golden/red English cocker spaniels exhibit the most dominant and aggressive behavior. Black dogs in this breed were found to be the second most aggressive, while particolor (white with patches of color) were discovered to be more mild-mannered.
In labrador retrievers, the color rank from most to least aggressive was determined to be yellow, black and chocolate.
The behavior-fur color connection is likely due to related genetic coding that takes place during the pup's earliest life stages, according to lead author Joaquín Pérez-Guisado.
"Maybe the link (to coat color) is due to the fact that the ectoderm (one of the three primary germ cell layers) is where the skin and central nervous system originate in the embryo," he told Discovery News.
Pérez-Guisado, a researcher in the Department of Medicine and Animal Surgery at the University of Cordoba, Spain, and his colleagues measured levels of dominance and aggression in 51 seven-week-old English cocker spaniel puppies that were either full siblings or half siblings.
The tests looked at how quickly a person could capture a puppy's attention, how well puppies followed the individual, how the dogs behaved while restrained, how they exerted their social dominance and what they did when they were lifted off the floor.
In many cases, the golden-colored dogs resisted human contact and even tried to bite the tester, while the particolor pups often wagged their tails and seemed to enjoy the attention.
While genes control coat color and appear to predispose behavior in certain dogs, Pérez-Guisado said that how dogs are raised plays the biggest role in behavior. He determined that environmental factors account for 80 percent of dominant, aggressive personalities while genes only influence 20 percent of dogs' demeanors.
"It is very important to give the dog an optimum and suitable environment in order to have a dog with a low dominance aggressive behavior level," he said. "For that reason, owners are primarily responsible for this undesirable dog behavior."
Canine behaviorist and trainer Wendy Volhard and professional breeder Carolyn Sisson, who is president of the English Cocker Spaniel Club of San Diego, California, both told Discovery News they're not surprised by the findings. They said that coat color's link with behavior has been "a well-known, old wives' tale" for years.
Although they both think there is "some truth to the recent findings," Sisson believes a dog's genetic lineage, going back many generations, is a better indicator of temperament than color.
Comment on this Article
Ha ha ha: Did that make you smile?
By Andrea Thompson
MSNBC/Live Science
Dec 12 06
Laughter really is contagious, a new study of the brain finds.
If you see two people laughing at a joke you didn't hear, chances are you will smile anyway - even if you don't realize it.
According to a new study, laughter truly is contagious: the brain responds to the sound of laughter and preps the muscles in the face to join in the mirth.
"It seems that it's absolutely true that 'laugh and the whole world laughs with you,'" said Sophie Scott, a neuroscientist at the University College London. "We've known for some time that when we are talking to someone, we often mirror their behavior, copying the words they use and mimicking their gestures. Now we've shown that the same appears to apply to laughter, too - at least at the level of the brain."
The positive approach
Scott and her fellow researchers played a series of sounds to volunteers and measured the responses in their brain with an fMRI scanner. Some sounds, like laughter or a triumphant shout, were positive, while others, like screaming or retching, were negative.
All of the sounds triggered responses in the premotor cortical region of the brain, which prepares the muscles in the face to move in a way that corresponds to the sound.
The response was much higher for positive sounds, suggesting they are more contagious than negative sounds - which could explain our involuntary smiles when we see people laughing.
The team also tested the movement of facial muscles when the sounds were played and found that people tended to smile when they heard laughter, but didn't make a gagging face when they heard retching sounds, said Scott. She attributes this response to the desire to avoid negative emotions and sounds.
Older than language?
The contagiousness of positive emotions could be an important social factor, according to Scott. Some scientists think human ancestors may have laughed in groups before they could speak and that laughter may have been a precursor to language.
"We usually encounter positive emotions, such as laughter or cheering, in group situations, whether watching a comedy program with family or a football game with friends," Scott said. "This response in the brain, automatically priming us to smile or laugh, provides a way or mirroring the behavior of others, something which helps us interact socially. It could play an important role in building strong bonds between individuals in a group."
Scott and her team will be studying these emotional responses in the brain in people with autism, who have "general failures of social and emotional processing" to better understand the disease and why those with it don't mirror others emotions, she said.
Comment on this Article
Irate in Iraq
Iraq: Abduction of Women on the Rise
by Dahr Jamail and Ali al-Fadhily
Global Research
Dec 12, 06
BAGHDAD (IPS) - Women face increased risk of abduction by militias and criminal gangs as lawlessness takes over the country.
Nobody is safe. Taysseer Al-Mashadani, the Sunni woman minister from the al-Tawafuq political party was abducted by members of the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army militia July 1 this year. After being held for nearly three months, she was only released after much pressure was applied from both the U.S. and Iraqi governments.
Thousands of other women have not been so lucky. Many have been executed, assaulted, or released only after their families paid considerable ransom money.
Few women like to talk about what they have to go through. "I was taken by Americans for three days recently," Um Ahmed told IPS in Baghdad. "They told me they would rape me if I didn't tell them where my husband was, but I really didn't know."
She said that she was turned over to the Iraqi National Guard "who were even worse than the Americans."
Her husband eventually surrendered to the U.S. military, but she continued to be held "to apply pressure on him to confess things he never did," she said. "They told him they would rape me right in front of him if he did not confess he was a terrorist. They forced me to watch them beat him hard until he told them what they wanted to hear."
The Organisation for Women's Freedom in Iraq has estimated from anecdotal evidence that over 2,000 Iraqi women have gone missing in the period from the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 until spring 2006.
But numbers are not always reliable here. Thousands of cases of abduction of women are never reported for fear of public disgrace.
According to a study published by the Washington-based Brookings Institute Dec. 4, between 30 to 40 Iraqis were being kidnapped every day as of March this year. "The numbers on this table may be lower than the actual number of kidnappings as the Iraqi Police suggest wide underreporting," the study noted.
These estimated numbers have drastically increased from a reported rate of two kidnappings a day in Baghdad in January 2004, and are up from the 10 a day reported in the capital city in December 2004 according to this study.
Untold numbers of women, believed by many to be in the thousands, have been abducted for money, and others have been abducted for sectarian reasons. "My family had to pay 30,000 dollars to have me released," a 25year-old woman told IPS, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Several abducted women have later been found dead, sometimes beheaded. Others are never seen again.
Fifty-two-year-old Um Wasseem from Baghdad was abducted by U.S. forces and held at the Baghdad airport detention camp, her family said. She was eventually released after political pressure from family and friends who had some political muscle.
"I wish she had not been released," her 20-year-old son told IPS. "Militias then abducted her, and we found her body torn to pieces in March this year."
Many Iraqi academics and aid workers say most of those being kidnapped now are women.
"Women in Iraq used go to work, participate in social activities and even take part in politics," sociologist Shatha al-Dulaimy told IPS in Baghdad. "Iraqi women studied and worked side by side with men, and they formed at least 35 percent of the national working power in various fields of work until the U.S. occupation came. The occupation has brought nothing but suffering, death or kidnapping to women here now."
The U.S. administration promised Iraqi women a better life with new opportunities, but the reality after three-and-a-half years of occupation is far different. Iraqi women were promised 25 percent of the seats in parliament. As it turned, out, the Iraqi National Assembly has 85 women in a total of 275 members following elections held Dec. 15, 2005. But that has not translated into more rights for women across Iraq.
"We are just a part of the décor arranged by Americans who wanted to convince the world of the 'tremendous' change in Iraq," a female member of the Iraqi parliament told IPS on condition of anonymity. "Our (women's) voice is never heard inside or outside parliament."
Female members of the new Iraqi Parliament take little part in major political decisions or when it comes to forming committees. Many female members were elected for religious or tribal reasons, she said.
The MP expressed concern over a rise in "religious extremism" because people are being "led by clerics who spent their lives learning how to make women obey their orders and present them with the best services at home." Such extremism has been a large factor in the rising number of women being kidnapped, she said.
"What women's rights," said 38-year-old schoolteacher Assmaa Fadhil. "Those who talk about it are ignorant people who want women to be slaves and concubines rather than partners in life. They are using old traditions to crush women and keep them away from any real participation in society."
Fadhil says lack of respect for women's rights has increased the threat of women getting abducted simply as they step out of their homes.
"Most of us now stay at home unless we absolutely must go out for food," Fadhil said. "Because we know so many women who have been kidnapped, it is only a matter of time for us if we continue traveling around the city."
Denial of rights for women in the name of Islam is not what Islam is all about, Sheikh Ahmed of the Sunni religious group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, told IPS. "Muslim women are granted full rights of work and social participation. It is tradition that limits women's activity nowadays, rather than religion."
Most Iraqi women are fearful about their future as long as the country is led by Islamists.
Comment: The US values of porn, prostitution and human trafficking already massively undereported in the States is now being funnelled into the destruction that is Iraq. The abduction of young girls and women mirrors much of the trafficking in parts of America and Mexico. officials of the US State Department continue to underestimate the levels of slavery and abuse within America but quite happy to point the finger at the Insurgents and Islamists in Iraq.
Once again, it is a mix of religious extremism, indepedendent criminal gangs, vendettas and most importantly, the presence of private security firms (or mercenaries) employed by the US Dept. of Defense. These private armies are responsible for human rights abuses and links to criminal gangs the world over. Wackenhut, Dyncorp and many other similar corporations have US contracts to plunder what is left of Iraq. This includes establishing links to human trafficking, narcotics and arms dealing wherever possible. They have the perfect cover to to do. War is always the provider of "business." The US and Israel are merely doing what they do best: social, cultural and spiritual rape by proxy.
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Fears over huge growth in Iraq's unregulated private armies
Richard Norton-Taylor
Tuesday October 31, 2006
The Guardian
A huge increase in the number of unregulated private military and security companies operating in Iraq and Afghanistan is driving concern about the lack of regulation and constraints on their activities.
There are three British private security guards to every British soldier in Iraq, the charity War on Want said yesterday. At least 181 private military and security companies are operating in the country, employing almost 21,000 British private security guards, nearly half of the total number - an estimated 48,000.
Foreign contracts by British private security firms are now worth about £1bn a year, according to the companies.
The extent of their activities, and the way governments are either indulging or ignoring them, were highlighted at a conference in London in which the companies admitted that what has become known as the largest private army in the world had a serious image problem.
However, there is a lack of reliable information about the companies' activities. Speakers at the conference of the British Association of Private Security Companies claimed that what they described as the "Iraqi bubble" had burst and there may now be only 10,000 private guards in Iraq.
Andrew Bearpark, the association's director general, said the number of private security company employees killed in Iraq was a "quite staggering" 827, and added that the figure could be an underestimate.
Aegis and Control Risks are among British companies whose employees have been killed in Iraq. The British military reported yesterday that a roadside bomb killed three people travelling in a private security company convoy near Basra.
Mr Bearpark, a former chief of staff to Lady Thatcher, said the activities of private security companies had increased tenfold since the 1991 Gulf war. He insisted that the companies believed in regulation but the UK government had not come up with any proposal since a green paper on the issue four years ago. In the meantime, he said, the companies would appoint an independent ombudsman to investigate claims of abuse by employees.
The government admits that private security companies are here to stay, and that their operations are likely to increase further as pressures on the armed forces increase. Yet it is keeping the companies at arm's length, apparently concerned about dealing with "mercenaries". The companies, meanwhile, are desperate to shake off what they insist is an outdated and misleading moniker. Their tasks, they say, range from protecting individuals and convoys to "post-conflict reconstruction".
Critics say the main problem is that they are unaccountable. Non-Iraqi employees of private security companies in Iraq were protected from prosecution under Order 17 of the Coalition Provisional Authority, issued shortly before it handed over power in 2004.
War on Want said yesterday that civilian contractors - including men named in US military reports as having carried out abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison - have repeatedly escaped prosecution. The charity pointed to a report by US army general Antonio Taguba which stated that two workers employed by private defence companies CACI International Inc and Titan Corp were "either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib".
The charity also cited a video distributed on the internet which purported to show Aegis contractors firing at Iraqi civilian vehicles, to a soundtrack of Elvis Presley's song Mystery Train. A US military investigation cleared Aegis of any offence.
Geoffrey Dennis, chief executive of the humanitarian agency Care International UK, expressed concerns that in Afghanistan and Iraq the lines between security and aid were being blurred.
"When the military and private security companies get involved in so-called 'quick-impact projects', they are frequently ineffective, inappropriate, and short-termist," he said. "This is because they are based on a different agenda - either political or military - rather than on the need for sustainable reconstruction."
Hired guns
British private security companies have contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan worth £1bn. There are 48,000 employees of private security firms in Iraq - 21,000 of them British - according to War on Want. The total has now dropped to 10,000, British companies say. Aegis, which won a multimillion pound contract from the Pentagon to provide security in Iraq, saw its turnover increase from £500,000 in 2003 to £62m last year. ArmorGroup, a British company, trebled its turnover from £37m in 2001 to £122m. In Afghanistan, 150 employees of the US company DynCorp are protecting president Hamid Karzai. Blackwater has won contracts in Iraq and to combat opium cultivation in Afghanistan. Control Risks has contracts with UK and US agencies, including the Foreign Office, to provide security in Iraq.
Comment on this Article
Why Withdrawal Is Unmentionable
By Michael Schwartz
Tomdispatch.com
December 14, 2006
Pulling out of Iraq would be an imperially momentous decision. It would mean the abandonment of more than two decades of American foreign policy in the Middle East.
The report of James A. Baker's Iraq Study Group has already become a benchmark for Iraq policy, dominating the print and electronic media for several days after its release, and generating excited commentary by all manner of leadership types from Washington to London to Baghdad. Even if most of the commentary continues to be negative, we can nevertheless look forward to highly publicized policy changes in the near future that rely for their justification on this report, or on one of the several others recently released, or on those currently being prepared by the Pentagon, the White House, and the National Security Council.
This is not, however, good news for those of us who want the U.S. to end its war of conquest in Iraq. Quite the contrary: The ISG report is not an "exit strategy;" it is a new plan for achieving the Bush administration's imperial goals in the Middle East.
The ISG report stands out among the present flurry of re-evaluations as the sole evaluation of the war by a group not beholden to the President; as the only report containing an unadorned negative evaluation of the current situation (vividly captured in the oft-quoted phrase "dire and deteriorating"); and as the only public document with unremitting criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war.
It is this very negativity that brings into focus the severely constrained nature of the debate now underway in Washington -- most importantly, the fact that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq (immediate or otherwise) is simply not going to be part of the discussion. Besides explicitly stating that withdrawal is a terrible idea -- "our leaving would make [the situation] worse" -- the Baker report is built around the idea that the United States will remain in Iraq for a very long time.
To put it bluntly, the ISG is not calling on the Bush administration to abandon its goal of creating a client regime that was supposed to be the key to establishing the U.S. as the dominant power in the Middle East. Quite the contrary. As its report states: "We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq." If you ignore the text sprinkled with sugar-coated words like "representative government," the report essentially demands that the Iraqi government pursue policies shaped to serve "America's interest and values in the years ahead."
Don't be fooled by this often quoted passage from the report: "By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq." The ebullient interpretations of this statement by the media have been misleading in three different ways.
First, the combat brigades mentioned in this passage represent far less than half of all the troops in Iraq. The military police, the air force, the troops that move the equipment, those assigned to the Green Zone, the soldiers that order, store, and move supplies, medical personnel, intelligence personnel, and so on, are not combat personnel; and they add up to considerably more than 70,000 of the approximately 140,000 troops in Iraq at the moment. They will all have to stay -- as well as actual combat forces to protect them and to protect the new American advisors who are going to flood into the Iraqi army -- because the Iraqi army has none of these units and isn't going to develop them for several years, if ever.
Second, the ISG wants those "withdrawn" American troops "redeployed," either inside or outside Iraq. In all likelihood, this will mean that at least some of them will be stationed in the five permanent bases inside Iraq that the Bush administration has already spent billions constructing, and which are small American towns, replete with fast food restaurants, bus lines, and recreation facilities. There is no other place to put these redeployed troops in the region, except bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, none of which are really suited to, or perhaps eager to, host a large influx of American troops (guaranteed to be locally unpopular and a magnet for terrorist attacks).
Third, it's important not to ignore those two modest passages: "subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground" and "not necessary for force protection." In other words, if the Iraqi troops meant to replace the redeployed American ones are failures, then some or all of the troops might never be redeployed. In addition, even if Iraqi troops did perform well, Americans might still be deemed necessary to protect the remaining (non-combat) troops from attack by insurgents and other forces. Given that American troops have not been able to subdue the Sunni rebellion, which is still on a growth curve, it is highly unlikely that their Iraqi substitutes will do any better. In other words, even if the "withdrawal" parts of the Baker report were accepted by the President, which looks increasingly unlikely, its plan has more holes and qualifications than Swiss cheese.
Put another way, no proposal at present on the table in Washington is likely to result in significant reductions even in the portion of American troops defined as "combat brigades." That is why this statement says that the combat troops "could be out of Iraq," not "will be out of Iraq" in the first quarter of 2008.
So, the ISG report contemplates -- best case scenario -- "a considerable military presence in the region, with our still significant [at least 70,000 strong] force in Iraq, and with our powerful air, ground, and naval deployments in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar..." Given a less-than-optimum scenario, the American presence in Iraq would assumedly remain much higher, perhaps even approaching current levels. As if this isn't bad news enough, the report is laced with qualifiers indicating that the ISG members fear their new strategy might not work, that "there is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq" -- a theme that will certainly be picked up this week as the right-wing of the Republican Party and angry neocons continue to blast at the report.
Danger to Empire
Why was the Iraq Study Group so reluctant to advocate the withdrawal of American troops and the abandonment of the Bush administration's goal of pacifying Iraq? The likely explanation is: Its all-establishment membership (and the teams of experts that gave it advice) understood that withdrawing from Iraq would be an imperially momentous decision. It would, in fact, mean the abandonment of over two decades of American foreign policy in the Middle East. To grasp this, it's helpful to compare the way most Americans look at the war in Iraq to the way those in power view it.
Most Americans initially believed that the U.S. went into Iraq to shut down Saddam Hussein's WMD programs and/or simply to topple a dangerous dictator (or even a dictator somehow connected to the 9/11 attacks). Of course, had that really been the case, the Bush administration should have withdrawn almost immediately. Even today, it could, at least theoretically, withdraw and declare victory the day after Saddam Hussein is executed, since the WMDs and the 9/11 connection were evanescent. In this scenario, the dismal post-invasion military failure would represent nothing but the defeat of Bush's personal crusade -- articulated only after the Hussein regime was toppled -- to bring American-style democracy to a benighted land.
Because of this, most people, whether supporters or opponents of the war, expect each new round of policy debates to at least consider the option of withdrawal; and many hold out the hope that Bush will finally decide to give up his democratization pipe dream. Even if Bush is incapable of reading the handwriting on the Iraqi wall, this analysis encourages us to hope that outside advisers like the ISG will be "pragmatic" enough to bring the message home to him, before the war severely undermines our country economically and in terms of how people around the world think about us.
However, a more realistic look at the original goals of the invasion makes clear why withdrawal cannot be so easily embraced by anyone loyal to the grandiose foreign policy goals adopted by the U.S. right after the fall of the Soviet Union. The real goals of the war in Iraq add up to an extreme version of this larger vision of a "unipolar world" orbiting around the United States.
The invasion of 2003 reflected the Bush administration's ambition to establish Iraq as the hub of American imperial dominance in the oil heartlands of the planet. Unsurprisingly, then, the U.S. military entered Iraq with plans already in hand to construct and settle into at least four massive military bases that would become nerve centers for our military presence in the "arc of instability" extending from Central Asia all the way into Africa -- an "arc" that just happened to contain the bulk of the world's exportable oil.
The original plan included wresting control of Iraqi oil from Saddam's hostile Baathist government and delivering it into the hands of the large oil companies through the privatization of new oil fields and various other special agreements. It was hoped that privatized Iraqi oil might then break OPEC's hold on the global oil spigot. In the Iraq of the Bush administration's dreams, the U.S. would be the key player in determining both the amount of oil pumped and the favored destinations for it. (This ambition was implicitly seconded by the Baker Commission when it recommended that the U.S. "should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise")
All of this, of course, was contingent upon establishing an Iraqi government that would be a junior partner in American Middle Eastern policy; that, under the rule of an Ahmed Chalabi or Iyad Allawi, would, for instance, be guaranteed to support administration campaigns against Iran and Syria. Bush administration officials have repeatedly underscored this urge, even in the present circumstances, by attempting, however ineffectively, to limit the ties of the present Shia-dominated Iraqi government to Iran.
Withdrawal from Iraq would signal the ruin of all these hopes. Without a powerful American presence, permanent bases would not be welcomed by any regime that might emerge from the current cauldron in Baghdad; every faction except the Kurds is adamantly against them. U.S. oil ambitions would prove similarly unviable. Though J. Paul Bremer, John Negroponte and Zalmay Khalilzad, our three ambassador-viceroys in Baghdad, have all pushed through legislation mandating the privatization of oil (even embedding this policy in the new constitution), only a handful of top Iraqi politicians have actually embraced the idea. The religious leaders who control the Sunni militias oppose it, as do the Sadrists, who are now the dominant faction in the Shia areas. The current Iraqi government is already making economic treaties with Iran and even sought to sign a military alliance with that country that the Americans aborted.
Still Staying the Course
Added to all this, from Lebanon to Pakistan, the administration's political agenda for the "arc of instability" is now visibly in a state of collapse. This agenda, of course, predated Bush, going back to the moment in 1991 when the Soviet Union simply evaporated, leaving an impoverished Russia and a set of wobbly independent states in its place. While the elder George Bush and Bill Clinton did not embrace the use of the military as the primary instrument of foreign policy, they fully supported the goal of American preeminence in the Middle East and worked very hard to achieve it -- through the isolation of Iran, sanctions against Iraq, various unpublicized military actions against Saddam's forces, and a ratcheting upward of permanent basing policies throughout the Gulf region and Central Asia.
This is the context for the peculiar stance taken by the Iraq Study Group towards the administration's disaster in Iraq. Coverage has focused on the way the report labeled the situation as "grave and deteriorating" and on its call for negotiations with the previously pariah states of Iran and Syria. In itself, the negotiation proposal is perfectly reasonable and has the side effect of lessening the possibility that the Bush administration will launch an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in the near future.
But no one should imagine that the "new" military strategy proposed by Baker and his colleagues includes dismissing the original goals of the war. In their letter of transmittal, ISG co-chairs James Baker and Lee Hamilton declared: "All options have not been exhausted. We believe it is still possible to pursue different policies that can give Iraq an opportunity for a better future, combat terrorism, stabilize a critical region of the world and protect America's credibility, interests and values."
This statement, couched in typical Washington-speak, reiterates those original ambitious goals and commits the ISG to a continuing effort to achieve them. The corpus of the report does nothing to dispel that assertion. Its military strategy calls for a (certainly quixotic) effort to use Iraqi troops to bring about the military victory American troops have failed for three years to achieve. The diplomatic initiatives call for a (certainly quixotic) effort to enlist the aid of Syria and Iran, as well as Saudi Arabia and other neighbors, in defeating the insurgency. And the centerpiece of the economic initiatives seeks to accelerate the process of privatizing oil, the clearest sign of all that Baker and Hamilton -- like Bush and his circle -- remain committed to the grand scheme of maintaining the United States as the dominant force in the region.
Even as the group called on the President to declare that the U.S. "does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq" once the country is secure, it immediately hedged this intention by pointing out that we "could consider" temporary bases, "if the Iraqi government were to request it." Of course, if the Bush administration were somehow to succeed in stabilizing a compliant client regime, such a regime would surely request that American troops remain in their "temporary" bases on a more-or-less permanent basis, since its survival would depend on them.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the ISG report is its embrace of the Bush administration's imperial attitude toward the Iraqi government. Although the report repeatedly calls for American "respect" for Iraqi "sovereignty" (an implicit criticism of the last three years of Iraq policy), it also offers a series of what are essentially non-negotiable demands that would take an already weak and less-than-sovereign government and strip it of control over anything that makes governments into governments.
As a start, the "Iraqi" military would be flooded with 10,000-20,000 new American "advisors," ensuring that it would continue to be an American-controlled military, even if a desperately poor and recalcitrant one, into the distant future. In addition, the ISG offered a detailed program for how oil should be extracted (and the profits distributed) as well as specific prescriptions for handling a number of pressing problems, including fiscal policy, militias, the city of Kirkuk, sectarianism, de-Baathification, and a host of other issues that normally would be decisions for an Iraqi government, not an American advisory panel in Washington. It is hardly surprising, then, that Iraqi leaders almost immediately began complaining that the report, for all its bows to "respect," completely lacked it.
Most striking is the report's twenty-first (of 79) recommendations, aimed at describing what the United States should do if the Iraqis fail to satisfactorily fulfill the many tasks that the ISG has set for them: "If the Iraqi government does not make substantial progress toward the achievement of milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance, the United States should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government."
This could be interpreted as a threat that the United States will withdraw -- and the mainstream media has chosen to interpret it just that way. But why then did Baker and his colleagues not word this statement differently? ("... the United States should reduce, and ultimately withdraw, its forces from Iraq.") The phrase "reduce its political, military, or economic support for the Iraqi government" is probably better interpreted literally: that if that government fails to satisfy ISG demands, the U.S. should transfer its "political, military, or economic support" to a new leadership within Iraq that it feels would be more capable of making "substantial progress toward" the milestones it has set. In other words, this passage is more likely a threat of a coup d'état than a withdrawal strategy -- a threat that the façade of democracy would be stripped away and a "strong man" (or a government of "national salvation") installed, one that the Bush administration or the ISG believes could bring the Sunni rebellion to heel.
Here is the unfortunate thing. Evidently, the "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq has not yet deteriorated enough to convince even establishment American policymakers, who have been on the outside these last years, to follow the lead of the public (as reflected in the latest opinion polls) and abandon their soaring ambitions of Middle East domination. If they haven't done so, imagine where George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are in policy terms. So far, it seems everyone of power or influence in Washington remains committed to "staying the course."
Michael Schwartz is a professor of sociology and faculty director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University.
Comment on this Article
Dick Cheney's "final solution" for Iraq (also: Muqtada madness!) Why dim children shouldn't play with armies.
by Joshua Holland
December 13, 2006
So, Dick Cheney is reportedly pushing for the U.S. to side with Iraq's Shiites to a much greater degree than we already have and give up on any squishy attempts to reach out to the Sunni minority [ht: Steve Benen]. Some are calling it the "80 percent solution" -- Shiites and Kurds are believed to make up about 80 percent of the Iraqi population.
That probably has something to do with Cheney being summoned to meet with the Saudis earlier this month, and perhaps with the sudden departure of Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. this week.
For the likes of Cheney, the idea has some obvious appeal. Join the Shiites in wiping out a good chunk of the Sunni population, and you take the wind out of the Sunni insurgency and also lose the major Shiites parties' justification for their militias.
The problem is that it's a policy that would veer dangerously close to genocide, and it would likely spark the regional war that many of us have feared for some time. The Saudis announced that they would, if need be, intervene to defend Iraq's Shiite Sunni population. According to reports, Saudi actors -- if not the government -- are already supporting the Sunni insurgency with financial aid. If they intervened in a more direct way, the Iranians would have no choice but to respond.
At the same time, as my friend Peter at The Thinker points out, the DoD is mulling over a major offensive against the Mahdi army:
...strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.
Actually, he's impeding the development of a pro-U.S. or pro-Iranian government, not an Iraqi one. Al Sadr controls 30 seats in the Iraqi parliament officially, and another eight or so informally. Going after him aggressively would effectively end the occupation -- making Iraq ungovernable for the occupation forces and the government they established.
Meanwhile, while we won't talk to Iran, the administration appears to be favoring its proxies in Iraq.
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) recently returned from a fact-finding trip to Jordan, and here are some excerpts from comments he gave on the House floor last week:
While the President is unwilling to talk to Iran, his policies in Iraq - in reality - are allowing Iran to take over Iraq.
And, if we don't recognize and act on this soon, Iran will succeed.
This is real, not rhetorical. Actions by the President through his appointed surrogate to run Iraq--- Paul Bremmer--- that date back to the first days of the U.S. invasion --- have created a situation today that makes Iraq a prime candidate for what Iran could never accomplish on its own, militarily. That is--- taking over Iraq, its oil, its infrastructure, even its existence as a separate nation.
Iran couldn't successfully invade Iraq, but we did, and we are playing right into the hands of the Iranians by not acting on what Iraqis see happening.
The media portrays an overly simplistic picture of the sectarian struggle. We hear a lot about Shite and Sunni Iraqis, but we don't hear about Persian Arabs ---- that is Iran. And Persian versus Arab is where the real battle for Iraq will be won or lost.
Every time the President meets with Iranian Shia clerics, he confirms in the Iraqi Arab minds, both Sunni and Arab [he meant Shiite], that he is ceding control to Iranians.
It began with Bremmer's decision to give the Shia the majority on the Governing Council. Then, his decision to disband the Iraqi Army and the Baathist technocratic government further confirmed the Arab feeling that the US, despite its protests to the contrary, was opening up Iraq to an Iranian takeover.
This is not my speculation. This is what moderate Mideast leaders told me in face-to-face meetings I attended in Amman, Jordan, recently.
Moderate leaders desperately want the American people to understand what is really going on, because they see that as perhaps their last hope for getting this President to get it.
To the Iraqi Arabs, there are only two explanations to account for Paul Bremmer's actions: a blunder based on ignorance of the history of the region; or, a deliberate decision to neutralize Iraq as a strong Arab secular nation, thereby making it more susceptible to U.S. influence in the future.
As moderates in the region see it, the President- and, therefore, America, continue to openly act in ways that enable an Iranian takeover.
Just the other day, the President met with the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Abdul Aziz Hakim, in the White House. [snip]
Much more on that from Juan Cole, here.
Moderates in the region told me the resistance in Iraq is based on the U.S. occupation and a power grab by Persian controlled clerics. Blaming it all on Sunni-Shia tensions is not just incorrect, they say, it is exactly what Iran hopes, because it leaves them out.
[snip]
Failure by the President to understand it's Persian versus Arab --- Iran versus Iraq--- has produced one disastrous decision after another. The solution, they believe, is obvious: strategically re-deploy US troops out of harm's way to close the Iranian border and stop the infiltration of Iranian agents into Iraq.
Arab leaders told me they estimate that as many as 14,000 Persians have infiltrated to run death squads who kill Arab Sunnis and incite a civil war ---- as cover for the real war--- Iran versus Iraq.
Unless we change course, the day will come when the only banner proclaiming Mission Accomplished will be flown by Iran. We can't let that happen.
What's important here is that much of what we hear about "sectarian violence" is overly simplistic; there are overlapping conflicts in Iraq, and significant tension within both the Sunni and Shiite communities. Rifts between Shiite nationalists -- represented primarily by Muqtada al Sadr -- and the pro-Iranian Shiites represented in parliament by SCIRI and on the streets by its armed wing, the Badr Brigade, led to violence in the South not long ago.
What McDermott can't say is that Iran's 'mission accomplished' banner has been flying high for some time now, and it's unlikely they'll end up looking stupid photographed beneath it like some Commander-in-Chiefs I could name. It's hard to over-estimate the degree to which Bush's "War on terror" has put Iran in the cat-bird's seat -- after all, Iran's most significant adversaries on September 10, 2001 were A) Saddam Hussein's Iraq, B) the U.S. and C) the Taliban in Afghanistan -- two are now gone and the third is tied up, isolated politically from its allies and facing a potential disaster for its troops if it were to move against Tehran.
Anyway, there's a fine-line to be navigated here. It's important to highlight the dangers inherent in taking sides with Iraq's Shiites against the Sunnis. At the same time, one must be careful not to play into the hands of the 'bomb Iraq' crew by focusing too much on Tehran's cross-border shenanigans -- talk about it, but be cautious about portraying Iran as a direct security threat to the United States.
Comment on this Article
Iraq gunmen kidnap scores of Baghdad businessmen
AFP
14 Dec 06
Gunshots have rang out in the Iraqi capital as a heavily armed gang in police uniforms kidnapped four dozen businessmen in a brazen daylight raid on a busy commercial street.
Gunshots rang out as workers ran for cover and motorists made rapid U-turns to escape the unofficial dragnet -- the latest violent incident demonstrating the near complete breakdown of law and order in the war-torn Iraqi capital.
The attack on the Sinak area came as some of Washington's most influential senators called for the United States to send more than 15,000 extra troops to Iraq.
A congressional delegation including senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman was in Baghdad to meet US commanders and Iraqi officials on a new way forward for the troubled mission.
As the lawmakers met reporters in the fortified Green Zone, a convoy of sports utilty vehicles of the type issued to government security forces was sealing off Rashid Street near the east bank of the Tigris.
Around 100 gunmen, in police uniform and brandishing the Glock pistols issued by the US military to Iraqi security forces, went from shop to shop stealing cash and seizing between 40 and 50 hostages, witnesses said.
"This area is under the authority of the interior ministry," said Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh afterwards. "The ministry has moved its forces in and the incident is under investigation."
Mass kidnappings are common in Baghdad. Some are carried out by sectarian death squads, but often the motive is purely criminal with the aim of ransoming hostages.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's US-backed government seems to have only nominal control over the city, which has been blitzed in recent weeks by deadly car bombings and which is patrolled by illegal militias.
Against this backdrop and amid collapsing public support for the war, US President George W. Bush is holding a flurry of meetings with foreign policy and military experts to draw up a new strategy.
Bush said he will not be rushed into a decision on a "new way forward" -- which his spokesman says will be announced in January -- but the lawmakers in McCain's delegation to Baghdad had some advice for him.
"The situation is very, very serious. It requires an injection of additional troops to control the situation and to allow the political process to proceed," said McCain.
Arizona's influential senator is widely seen as the frontrunner to win the Republican nomination to succeed Bush as president in 2008, and his views carry weight in conservative Washington circles.
McCain said reinforcments could be five to 10 brigades -- around 15,000 to 30,000 troops -- to support the 140,000-strong force already deployed.
American generals in Iraq have not publicly asked for more troops, and this week US operational commander Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli said that rebuilding the economy was more important than reinforcements.
Iraqi leaders are also dubious about increasing the US presence, arguing instead that they should be given more direct control over their own government's forces which need more training and equipment.
There is one school of thought, however, that the US-led coalition should boost its Baghdad presence in the short term to restore order in a city wracked by sectarian violence that kills scores daily.
McCain and Lieberman also called on both Maliki and US forces to do more to break the influence of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his 60,000-strong Mahdi Army militia.
"We should have arrested Moqtada al-Sadr three years ago," said McCain. "He continues to be a major obstacle to peace -- his influence in domestic politics needs to be eliminated dramatically."
While Sadr's movement enjoys the support of many urban poor, it also stands accused of sectarian murders and kidnappings, and often clashes with US and Iraqi security forces.
In recent weeks Bush has met two senior Iraqi leaders in Washington -- Shiite strongman Abdel Aziz Hakim and the country's Sunni vice-president, Tareq al-Hashemi -- in a bid to build a new ruling coalition.
On Wednesday, Bush spoke by telephone with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Kurdish regional President Massud Barzani as part of efforts to cement a "moderate bloc" behind the government, the White House said.
"We've talked in recent days about a moderate bloc that has Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish leaders," White House spokesman Tony Snow confirmed.
A new coalition could allow the premier to assert his authority over the gunmen, although many in Baghdad in fact see the alliance as a threat to Maliki himself, whom many blame for failing to disarm the militias.
Meanwhile, a car bomb in Mahaweel, 60 kilometres (37 miles) south of Baghdad, killed at least two people and wounded six, police said.
Two more people were killed and nine wounded in a suicide car bombing at an Iraqi army checkpoint in west Baghdad, the military said.
Comment on this Article
Iraqis flee war, run into hostility
By Jeffrey Fleishman and Qaisar Ahmed
Los Angeles Times
Dec 14 06
As their numbers grow, refugees find that prejudice is growing and compassion is fading.
CAIRO - Strolling the alleys and boulevards of this city, Raaid Lafta sometimes thinks he glimpses his old country: in the barber's face, in the baker's oven, in the way the restaurant chef serves the spiced dishes he's known since boyhood.
Like him, the barber, baker and chef are Iraqis adrift in war. Escaping their battered homeland in crowded cars and lopsided buses, boarding planes and walking stretches of desert, Iraqi refugees are a growing diaspora in Cairo, Damascus, Amman and other Arab cities. With children in tow and life savings hidden in pots and suitcases, they are another precarious burden for the Middle East.
"I see everyone speaking in an Iraq accent," Lafta said. "Iraqi men singing Iraqi songs in the streets, Iraqi cafes, Iraqi shops.... I was opening a bank account here, so when the banker asked for my address, I replied that I live in Cairo's 6th of October neighborhood. He smiled and said, 'You Iraqis have invaded October.' "
An estimated 100,000 Iraqis leave their country each month, including many of Iraq's best educated professionals, part of the more than 1.6 million who have fled since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. The Syrian government said Wednesday that it had taken in more than 800,000 Iraqis so far. Jordan has about 700,000, with tens of thousands more scattered across the Arab world. They have carried Iraq's civil strife into the incendiary politics of a region that is also navigating Iran's nuclear aspirations and turmoil in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon.
Iraqi refugees are accumulating much like the millions of displaced Palestinians who have flowed across the region for decades. Iraqis began trickling out during Saddam Hussein's regime, but their numbers steadily increased as their nation tumbled into civil war. The newest refugees are finding that compassion is fraying, prejudice growing and host countries, such as Jordan, are less welcoming.
A recent report by Human Rights Watch criticized Jordan for being slow in renewing visas for Iraqis who live "in the shadows, fearful and subject to exploitation." The report credited Jordan's past tolerance but it also said the country was now ignoring "the existence of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees, does not address their needs for protection, and has not asked for international assistance on their behalf. It is a policy that can best be characterized as 'the silent treatment.' "
The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees put it more starkly in a recent assessment: "Iraq is hemorrhaging. The humanitarian crisis which the international community had feared is now unfolding." Including those who have fled their homes but remained in the country, more than 10% of Iraq's prewar population of 26 million has been displaced.
*
'I'm ... ashamed'
The violence has been escalating for so long that it's difficult for refugees, most of whom are Sunni Arab Muslims, to pinpoint the exact horror that sent them rushing across borders. For many, like Khadem Salih, a 70-year-old retired lawyer, it was a numbing diary of suicide bombings, sectarian militia attacks and dusk-to-dawn bloodshed. Salih appeared at a Jordanian checkpoint two months ago. Interviewed at length by officials, he was granted only a one-month visa.
"I'm very much ashamed I left," said Salih, who lives in Amman, Jordan's capital. "Now, I'm struggling to get residency here, which will cost me at least $150,000. I am miserable to be forced to finally leave my country at the end stage of my life."
That misery reverberates like a relentless echo out of Iraq. Consider the fate of Laith Youssef, a shopkeeper who also ended up in Amman. An Iraqi gang threatened to kidnap his three children if he did not pay $40,000. Weeks later, a grenade exploded outside his shop, speckling his leg with shrapnel. Then he was jailed for 15 days for offending the Al Mahdi army, a Shiite militia. While he was imprisoned, his wife was attacked for not wearing strict Islamic dress in public.
Youssef and his family fled to Jordan, but even there, without the bombs and the beheadings, life is tough. Nearly half of Jordan's population consists of displaced Palestinians. The added influx of Iraqis, many of whom are educated and affluent, is straining a weak job market and raising the possibility of terrorist strikes in the kingdom.
"We're not stable," Youssef said. "I have no job because the law doesn't allow me to work, and if the police catch me working, they'll send me back to the Iraqi border. My wife takes care of elderly people, and sometimes we get aid from churches."
He added: "I don't deal with people here because I know if any problem happens I will be blamed. This is not my country. Jordan was kind enough to allow us in, but the number of Iraqis has increased more than this country can endure. Some Jordanians deal with us normally, but some, when they hear our Iraqi accent, look at us in a weird way."
Alliah Talib also has been stung by the eyes of her hosts. The director of an Iraqi organization for a free press, Talib, a Shiite, arrived in Cairo four months ago after militants accused her of working with foreign intelligence services.
This city is crowded, and sometimes she feels guilty about taking a seat on a bus, knowing that an Egyptian will have to stand. Such are the subconscious calculations of a nomad: a woman who prays that her money won't run out before her nation's cycle of killing has finished.
"I only watch Iraqi satellite TV channels here, so I can cry some more," she said. "I know that my friends and relatives are suffering in Iraq. I watch the news here to suffer with them.... When I go out and see Iraqis in [Cairo's] streets, I feel more secure. There is a common reason that made us all escape Iraq. Seeing that many others are participating or sharing the same lifestyle as you reduces the feeling of loneliness."
*
'Just give me security'
May Abassi knew it was time to leave Iraq when she began to think wistfully of the days of Hussein's rule. She and her husband and two young children fled through the smoke and funerals to Cairo. She has found that Egyptians are not like Iraqis. She said she planned to send her son to an English-language school so he would not pick up an Egyptian accent or play with boys she deemed too rough.
"I don't have anything against Egyptians," Abassi said. "They are good and welcoming, but we just can't mix with them.... If I feel the security in Baghdad improves, I will go back immediately. I don't want anything except security - even electricity and water are not important - just give me security, and I will go back. I feel a pain inside my heart when I see Baghdad burning."
Some of the refugees have begun new enterprises in new lands. Amid the camaraderie of the dispossessed, Raaid Lafta opened Studio Happy Time. A photographer who graduated with a fine arts degree from Baghdad University, Lafta left Iraq 14 months ago and landed in a Cairo neighborhood teeming with fellow Iraqis. Business is not so good, he said, but we "are out of harm's way."
"We formed an Iraqi company as investors, and we own this shop," he said. "Only a few Egyptians come in here. But ... Iraqis visit us a lot."
He will not stay here forever; a man belongs in the country where he drew his first breath, he said. But for now, the accent he hears in these alleys is the lilt of home; the faces are the people he knows. An Iraqi barber cuts his hair, an Iraqi baker bakes his bread. There are Iraqi Internet cafes; there are stories only Iraqis would know, or believe.
"To be honest with you," he said, "as I walk down the street of this city, I see all the Iraqi families spending time with their children. It really disappoints and annoys me because I wonder what made us and all these respectful families flee our homeland to live here as strangers."
Others, including Youssef, the shopkeeper in Amman, are preparing to be strangers for the rest of their lives. Youssef doesn't expect he'll see his old shop back on Nidhal Street or drive past the date palms in the now murderous Dora neighborhood in Baghdad. He recently applied for a visa to Australia.
"I doubt Iraq will ever be safe again," he said.
Iraqis seeking refuge
A recent U.N. report estimates more than 1.6 million Iraqis have fled their homeland since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. The November report says 100,000 are leaving every month.
Estimated displaced Iraqis
Iraq* : 1.6 million
Syria: 800,000
Jordan: 700,000
Egypt: 100,000
Iran: 54,000
Lebanon: 20,000 to 40,000
*Internal refugees
--
Sources: Associated Press, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Times reporting
Comment on this Article
The conflagration in Iraq - The president is scary
Andy Santilena
Sacramento Bee Letters
14 Dec 06
Re "Civil war: The readers have their say," the Public Editor, Dec. 10: The most disheartening comment I've read since the Nov. 7 elections was that House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has "taken impeachment off the table." Huh? There was never a point to this war. George W. Bush got excited making statements such as "I'm a wartime president." Everything about this man reads: "How will this make me look?" Mark my words -- from this point on, everything Bush does will be in an effort to boost his legacy. He cannot end the war and bring the troops back home. That option is off the table with this guy. If he did end the war, then his legacy as president will forever more be about a failed administration. The body count means nothing to this man. His ego is everything. His only shot is keeping up the pressure in the Middle East. His only shot is perhaps going to war against Iran and "changing the subject" over his failed Iraq policy.
Quite frankly, our "president of the United States" scares the living bejesus out of me.
-- Andy Santilena, Sacramento
Comment on this Article
If US leaves Iraq we will arm Sunni militias, Saudis say
by Suzanne Goldenberg
The Guardian
Dec 14 06
- Fears of massacre prompt king's warning to Cheney
- Iranian influence across region adds to concern
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, that the kingdom would provide money and arms to Sunni militias in Iraq if America withdrew its troops from the country, it emerged yesterday.
The conversation, during a visit by Mr Cheney to Riyadh last month, was the most serious indication to date of Saudi concerns about a possible massacre of the minority Sunni community in Iraq in the event of a withdrawal of US forces, as well as rising Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.
Saudi Arabia has been concerned for months about rising domestic pressure on George Bush to bring US troops home from Iraq, despite the administration's avowals that it has no plans for a troop withdrawal. Those fears were exacerbated by the Iraq Study Group's report, which recommends the withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq in early 2008 as well as the opening of diplomatic negotiations between the US and Syria and Iran.
Since then Mr Bush has held consultations with the Pentagon and state department officials in what seems an attempt to show the White House's commitment to carrying out a broad-based review of its policy on Iraq. The White House said it would unveil its new strategy in January.
Yesterday's New York Times reported that during the Riyadh meeting the king also expressed strong opposition to the recommendation that Washington open diplomatic talks with Iran, and called for a resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. King Abdullah said that Saudi Arabia would move quickly, but acknowledged that the intervention on behalf of Sunni tribal chiefs might help insurgent forces who have been fighting the Americans.
Saudi officials and the White House both denied the report.
"That's not Saudi government policy," the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, told reporters. "The Saudis have made it clear that they're committed to the same goals we are, which is a self-sustaining Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself, that will recognise and protect the rights of all, regardless of sect or religion," he said. "And furthermore, they share our concerns about the role the Iranians are playing in the region."
In Baghdad the military spokesman, Major General William Caldwell, was also sceptical. "I don't think that came from the government of Saudi Arabia," he said.
But Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution told CNN that Saudi Arabia had strong motivation to take sides in a civil war. "They're terrified that civil war will spill over into Saudi Arabia. But they're also terrified that the Iranians, backing the various Shi'ite militias in Iraq, will come out the big winner in a civil war," he said.
In addition, reports emerged last week that Saudi private citizens were funnelling money to Sunni militias in Iraq through charities or pilgrims.
The warning to Mr Cheney was the most high-level indication of Saudi concerns. In October the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited".
The same message was delivered last month by Nawaf Obaid, a security adviser to the Saudi embassy, in the Washington Post. "One of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis," Mr Obaid wrote. "Options now include providing Sunni military leaders [primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency] with the same types of assistance - funding, arms and logistical support - that Iran has been giving to Shi'ite armed groups for years."
Prince Turki sacked Mr Obaid a week later, and the official Saudi press agency said there was no truth to his remarks. Days later Prince Turki told his staff that he had resigned. There has been no official confirmation from Saudi authorities.
Comment on this Article
Miracles and Medicine
Psy-ops: Circumcision can cut risk of HIV in men, study finds
By Geneviéve Roberts
14 December 2006
Circumcising men cuts their risk of being infected with the Aids virus in half, and could prevent hundreds of thousands or even millions of new infections, researchers said yesterday.
Circumcising men worked so well that the researchers stopped two large clinical trials in Kenya and Uganda to announce the results, although they cautioned that the procedure does not make men immune to the virus.
Experts say the reduced risk may be because cells on the inside of the foreskin are susceptible to HIV infection.
A US National Institutes of Health study in Kisumu, Kenya, involving 2,784 men aged 18 to 24 showed a 53 per cent reduction of HIV infections in circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men. A parallel study involving 4,996 men aged 15 to 49 in Rakai, Uganda, showed circumcised men were 48 per cent less likely than uncircumcised men to become infected.
Researchers previously had noticed that in places where circumcision is common, HIV was less common.
Results of the first major study on the issue were reported last year in South Africa, with researchers seeing a 60 per cent reduction in HIV risk for circumcised men. Researchers viewed the new trials as strong confirmation.
Public health leaders said the results indicated a potential way to reduce HIV in Africa. "It does have the potential to prevent many tens of thousands, many hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of infections over coming years," Dr Kevin De Cock, the director of the World Health Organisation's Department of HIV/Aids, told reporters.
Comment: Don't believe everything you read.
Comment on this Article
Women told to keep the Pill with the plasters
By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent
Telegraph
14/12/2006
The leading sexual health care charity steps into a major row today by urging women to keep the "morning-after" pill alongside plasters and paracetamol in the bathroom, in case they have unprotected sex. [...]
However, critics said the BPAS was encouraging reckless behaviour and lack of self-control.
As the Christmas party season gets going, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service says: "You don't wait until you have a headache before buying aspirin and it makes no sense to wait until you have unprotected sex before you get emergency contraception."
A spokesman told The Daily Telegraph: "We are trying to make the morning-after pill as normal as Nurofen. Having it at home should be as normal as that."
advertisement
The charity's argument is that the emergency contraceptive pill can prevent pregnancy if taken up to 72 hours after sex, but can be up to 50 per cent more effective if taken within 12 hours.
It is rarely available to women in advance, the BPAS said, and many women struggle to get it within 72 hours, especially at weekends or during public holidays.
However, critics said the BPAS was encouraging reckless behaviour and lack of self-control.
Valerie Riches, the founder-president of Family and Youth Concern, said she was astounded. "All this assumes people have no self-control. It simply encourages a more promiscuous attitude to relationships which cannot be good for people in the long-term."
Norman Wells, the director of the Family Education Trust, said: "This is a very irresponsible move. The original medical assessment report of this powerful hormonal drug cautioned against over-treatment because of its unknown long-term effects.
"Adolescents, whose bodies are still developing and undergoing rapid hormonal changes, will be particularly vulnerable as a result of making the morning-after pill available in advance without proper medical advice from a practitioner who knows her personal and family history.
"When the morning-after pill was first approved for use in the UK, assurances were given that it would be used only in exceptional circumstances and would remain a prescription-only drug under the control of doctors.
"If we now start marketing it as a 'just in case' drug and make it as readily available as aspirin, we are embarking on a very dangerous experiment with unknown consequences."
At present, emergency contraceptive pills are available free on prescription from doctors and family planning clinics, and are on sale from pharmacies. But the BPAS said it can be difficult for women to get a doctors' appointment in time and many family planning clinics have restricted opening hours.
Pharmacists are only permitted to sell the pill to women who have already risked pregnancy. The retail cost of emergency contraceptive pills is a deterrent to some, at around £26.
Because BPAS is a charity providing not-for-profit sexual health care, its doctors and nurses can prescribe the pill for only £10.
Ann Furedi, the chief executive of BPAS, said: "Sometimes contraception fails, and sometimes we fail to use it effectively. In the real world, accidents happen.
"Emergency contraceptive pills give us a second chance to avoid a problem pregnancy. It makes sense to keep it in the bathroom cabinet, along with your plasters and paracetamol."
Advance prescribing of the emergency contraceptive pill has the support of the Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the BPAS said.
Family Planning Association research indicates that the emergency pill would prevent up to 95 per cent of "no-precaution" pregnancies if taken within 24 hours, up to 85 per cent if taken between 25-48 hours, and up to 58 per cent if taken between 49-72 hours.
The World Health Organisation stresses that the pill is for emergency use and not an alternative to regular forms of contraception.
Comment on this Article
Tissue 'bridge' joins twins' brains - Conjoined infants may be able to transmit signals to each other
JANE ARMSTRONG
Globe and Mail
14 Dec 06
VANCOUVER - Twins Tatiana and Krista Hogan were a medical marvel when they were born sharing a skull. Now, seven weeks later, doctors say they have discovered a baffling "bridge" of tissue connecting the girls' brains, raising the spectre that they can transmit certain brain signals to one another.
Recent scans show that part of the infants' upper brain stems are connected by a corridor of tissue, doctors told reporters yesterday at the British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre.
However, pediatric neurosurgeon Doug Cochrane said it could take months for doctors to determine what kind of information is carried along this brain bridge and what it means for the girls' future.
"One of our tasks in the next few months will be to define what information is communicated from one twin to the other and vice versa," Dr. Cochrane said.
The conjoined twins are growing like weeds -- each weighing exactly 6.6 pounds -- and have already developed distinct personalities.
Krista cries more than Tatiana and demands more attention from her mother and nurses at the health centre, where the tiny pair have lived since they were delivered by cesarean section seven weeks ago.
The conjoined girls have distinct brains as well; each has her own frontal lobe, lower brain stem and cerebellum.
But with this new "bridge" discovery, they are more intertwined than originally thought.
For example, blood that originates in one girl's brain, travels through the other's, and vice versa.
The new findings cast doubt on whether the twins, who are anatomic mirrors of one another, can ever be successfully separated.
Dr. Cochrane used the analogy of a traffic maze to describe the web of connected brain tissue shared by the girls.
"It [the connecting tissue] is sort of the No. 1 highway that brings information to the surface of the brain, then delivers it down through the more basic functions and through the spinal cord," Dr. Cochrane said.
"So it's likely that there's important wiring, so to speak, in that bridge," he added.
The neurosurgeon said doctors still don't know what kind of brain signals travel along this corridor. Right now, the infants, who were born two months prematurely on Oct. 25, are at the same developmental stage as a newborn.
"One of our tasks in the next few months will be to define what information is communicated from one twin to the other and vice versa," Dr. Cochrane said. "I'm not sure I know how to interpret it, as yet," he said, adding there is no medical precedent for this kind of brain fusion.
The twins are scheduled to be flown home to Vernon, B.C., today with their mother, Felicia Simms, and a team of medical professionals.
The daily cost of caring for the twins over the seven weeks has been $1,000 a baby. The tab, billed to British Columbia's Medical Services Plan, is a basic one and doesn't include the cost of diagnostic tests.
The girls have thrived in their first weeks of life, and tests show their hearing and vision are normal. Both infants are being bottle-fed their mother's breast milk.
Despite their relatively good health, Ms. Simms, 21, faces a monumental task in caring for her girls, the doctors said. Feeding, bathing and even carrying the infants is a job for two, said Brian Lupton, clinical director of the health centre's neonatology unit.
A specially designed car seat was donated to the family.
During Ms. Simms' pregnancy, there was some public speculation about how the young woman would cope with the stress and work involved in raising conjoined twins.
Ms. Simms has two other young children, ages 2 and 3, with her partner, Brendan Hogan. Ms. Simms's mother and sister have pledged to help care for the twins.
"Felicia is doing very well," Dr. Lupton said. "She is an experienced mother and it shows," he said, noting that Ms. Simms spends nights in her daughters' hospital room.
Dr. Cochrane said he was surprised at the emotional impact the girls' birth has had on him.
"I've come to know a family who is absolutely committed and absolutely strong. They are dedicated to these children. . . . That, from my perspective, has been the principal learning experience.
"I find the definition of anatomy and function all very interesting . . ., but I think the more important thing is the rejoicing of this family."
As for the future, Dr. Cochrane said it's still too early to say if separation is medically possible, especially with the discovery of the brain bridge.
"It would raise the question of knowingly creating an injury to the twins as a result of separating. . . . We're trying to understand the traffic in that particular nerve bundle."
The girls are to return to Vancouver for more tests in the spring.
The twins defied the odds simply by being born. Even though they were delivered early to avoid late-term complications, the two still had only a one-in-four chance of surviving for 24 hours.
Comment on this Article
Young males more likely to act on suicidal thoughts: study
Canadian Press
14 Dec 06
TORONTO - While young Canadian women tend to experience depression and thoughts of suicide more than men, the men are more likely to act on their suicidal thoughts, says a new study on depression and suicide among teens.
The study, compiled by psychiatrists at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, found links between "suicidality" and age, income levels and where a teen lives in Canada.
Male teens in B.C. had the highest attempted suicide rate, while those in Quebec reported the highest rate of depression.
Nearly a quarter of the female teens from B.C. who took part in the study reported having had suicidal thoughts.
The study also found that suicidality rates in Canada differ little from those in the U.S., despite the fact that universal health coverage north of the border gives Canadians better access to health care.
Experts say the study indicates a need for school programs to better educate students about depression and suicide, which is the second leading cause of death among teens in Canada.
Comment on this Article
Man with no pulse considered a medical breakthrough
PETER RAKOBOWCHUK
Canadian Press
14 Dec 06
MONTREAL - A 65-year-old Quebec man who received a new long-term mechanical heart last month is being described as the only living Canadian without a pulse.
Dr. Renzo Cecere implanted the "Heartmate II" mechanical heart into Gerard Langevin in an three-hour operation Nov. 23.
Officials at the McGill University Health Centre say the device, which is about the size of a flashlight battery, could last up to 10 years.
That is longer than other models which are thought to be good for only two or three years.
The new mechanical heart, which is powered by batteries located in pouches on Mr. Langevin's body, provides a continuous flow of blood so the patient has no pulse.
"Mr. Langevin happens to be the only individual currently living in Canada without a pulse and without a measurable blood pressure," Dr. Cecere said Wednesday.
Mr. Langevin admitted to reporters that, before the operation, he felt his time was up after he suffered his second heart attack in July.
He had the other in 2002.
"I was finished. I had no time left. I probably had only a few months left to live," Mr. Langevin said.
He admitted he was afraid and hesitant about having the implant.
"My wife pushed me a lot to have the operation and I don't regret it."
Mr. Langevin, who comes from Coteau-du-Lac, southwest of Montreal, added it was "better than staying out for the count."
Dr. Nadia Giannetti, director of the MUHC's heart transplant program, said Mr. Langevin was deemed an unsuitable candidate for a heart transplant because of other medical conditions.
"Previously, we would have had little to offer and his heart would have continued to deteriorate," she said.
Dr. Giannetti said the entire procedure cost $100,000, with the tab being picked up by the hospital foundation.
The "Heartmate II" is currently part of a clinical trial at several hospitals in Canada and the United States.
Only one other Canadian hospital-the Toronto General Hospital- was invited to take part in the study.
The device has yet to be approved for use in either country.
Doctors says Dr. Langevin is well enough to be released from hospital in the coming days.
Comment on this Article
Woman gets double hand transplant
By Billy Head
Independent Online
Dec 13 06
A Spanish woman has been given the world's first double hand transplant, doctors have disclosed.
The patient, known only as Alba, was said to be recovering well after the 10-hour, pioneering operation in which surgeons used microscopic technology to attach an anonymous donor's hands to her arms. The 47-year-old, whose hands were amputated after a laboratory explosion 20 years ago, was pleased with the results. "They look beautiful," she said.
The go-ahead for the operation was given by Spain's National Organisation for Transplants. After finding a donor, understood to be a woman declared brain dead after an accident, the operation was scheduled for 30 November. The limbs had been removed from above the elbow, chilled and transported to Hospital La Fe in Valencia in less than five hours. Surgeons then joined the bones using metal plates and screws before connecting the nerves, arteries and veins.
The lead surgeon, Pedro Cavadas, said he hoped the surgery would enable Alma, from Castellon, to gain feeling and even limited movement within six weeks.
Comment on this Article
Pill promises an end to the pain of periods
By Jeremy Laurance
The Independent
Dec 14 06
A contraceptive pill that promises to end the misery of menstruation for millions of women has been proved safe and effective for the first time.
The medicine, called Lybrel, was taken every day for a year and halted periods in more than half of the 2,000 women who used it.
It is the first pill specifically designed to eliminate the fertility cycle which many regard as central to womanhood. Ordinary oral contraceptives are taken for 21 days a month, with a break of seven days during which the woman has her period, preserving the biological rhythm.
But some gynaecologists argue that there is no reason why women should continue to suffer the pain, discomfort and emotional disturbance associated with menstruation. They say it is easily eliminated and no different from treating the menopause with hormone replacement therapy or impotence with Viagra.
Lybrel is not yet licensed but its maker, the American company Wyeth, has applied to regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. It is expected to be launched in the US and UK next year.
David Archer, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Eastern Virginia Medical School, who led the study published in the journal Contraception, said: "There is a rising tide of awareness and discussion on this issue [of ending periods]. But it will always be predicated on what women want and what they are prepared to tolerate. What we have done is taken an oral contraceptive and tweaked it to give women another choice."
He said that when the contraceptive pill was introduced in the 1960s, it could have been designed to eliminate the fertility cycle. But no simple pregnancy test was available and scientists believed women would want the reassurance of a monthly period as proof they were not pregnant.
In 1977, the first trial of "extended use" oral contraceptives was conducted, in which women took the pill for months at a time. "The results showed the consumers liked it but the doctors didn't," Professor Archer said.
In 2000, two fertility experts from the Population Council of Mexico - Sarah Thomas and Charlotte Ellertson - delivered an impassioned plea in The Lancet for modern drugs to end menstruation.
They wrote: "At a minimum, it is a nuisance that requires planning, expensive sanitary supplies and paracetamol to avoid messy discomfort for about one week each month.
"In many cases, however, it has a far greater impact. Hormonal fluctuations accompanying the menstrual cycle have medical consequences that are largely ignored, women are expected to function as normal and minimal attention is paid to physical and mental discomfort."
The monthly period had been "mythologised and socialised" into being the unquestioned natural state for woman, they said.
Professor Archer said his study showed 58 per cent of women were free of periods after using the pill for a year. But the downside was some had irregular bleeding, which was unexplained. "This product is not for everyone. But for women wanting to suppress periods it is a good choice," he said.
A spokeswoman for the UK's Family Planning Association said it welcomed the extra choice for women. "Some do not like the inconvenience of periods but others use them as a way of checking they are not pregnant," she said.
An oral history
1930s Scientists found that steroid hormones, such as androgens, oestrogens and progesterone inhibited ovulation
1950s Experiments in the US using hormones to prevent pregnancy started in humans
1960 Enovid, the first contraceptive pill, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration
1967 Contraception including the pill was legalised in France
1999 The Pill is approved for use in Japan after safety concerns over its long-term use were finally dispelled
2003 Seasonale, the first three-month version of the pill, launched in the US, bringing less frequent periods
2007 Expected launch of Lybrel, first continuous dose oral contraceptive designed to end periods.
Comment on this Article
End Game
EU leaders gather to put the brakes on enlargement
AFP
14 Dec 06
European Union leaders have converged on Brussels for a summit that will see them slow down the process of EU enlargement at least until they have a clearer vision of the bloc's future.
The leaders, meeting here for two days from Thursday, will confirm the partial suspension of membership talks with Turkey, whose rocky path toward Europe's rich club has embodied the concerns and fears about the ability to take on new members.
Over their evening meal, the 25 heads of state and government will lay out their visions of enlargement after the bloc welcomes in Bulgaria and Romania as the 26 and 27th members on January 1.
"The aim is to confirm a common understanding on the future of the enlargement process," Finnish Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen, hosting the summit as EU president, said in an invitation to his fellow leaders.
Before dinner, Vanhanen will present an analysis on the constitution, which was meant to help the EU run more smoothly as it grows, until it was rejected by French and Dutch voters in referendums last year.
Those votes, due in part to fears of "enlargement fatigue" and the idea of a large, relatively poor and mainly Muslim country like Turkey joining, sent the Union spiralling into its worst ever crisis.
Indeed the word "constitution" has become damaged goods and the EU's political elite have only just begun to lift their heads from the bunkers to start talking about the constitution publicly again.
An EU official said that "the level of ambition is weak" at the moment on enlargement, as the member countries know that any concrete proposals could be put on the back burner until the EU's "institutional" house is put in order.
In any case, the leaders are expected to concede that the impasse over the constitution must end before new members are considered beyond Bulgaria and Romania.
According to draft conclusions prepared for the summit, the leaders will stress "the importance of ensuring that the EU can maintain and deepen its own development while pursuing the enlargement agenda."
"As the Union enlarges ... successful European integration requires that the EU institutions continue to function effectively and that EU policies meet their goals and are financed in a sustainable manner," the draft text says.
The German EU presidency, starting on January 1, is expected to quietly take forward the constitutional process, with no real decisions expected before France takes over at the helm in the second half of 2008.
Whatever the outcome here, the leaders' stance will have major repercussions for Turkey, which began often-torturous membership talks last year, but also for EU candidates like Croatia and Macedonia and other hopefuls in the Balkans.
Turkey may well figure on the dinner menu too, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a strong supporter of Ankara's candidacy, expected to travel to Ankara after the summit ends on Friday, in a gesture of solidarity.
Other points of order include the increasingly high-profile issue of sustainable energy supply, but the real initiatives on that subject are also expected to be taken by Germany.
With Turkey resolved for now and nobody keen to wade too far into the issue of institutional reform, one other issue is looming as a possible bone of contention, in what is likely to be a quiet and short summit, that of Serbia.
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi could raise the subject of Serbia over dinner.
The Union froze in May a Stabilisation and Association Agreement -- a first step toward joining the EU -- over Serbia's failure to hand over former Bosnian Serb military chief Ratko Mladic to the UN war crimes court.
Prodi could ask his counterparts to lift the EU's condition of full cooperation with the court for the talks to resume.
But most would prefer to send Serbia a signal that its future lies in the EU, amid rumblings from nationalists in campaigning for elections there on January 21 to be dominated by Kosovo's aspirations for independence.
Comment on this Article
Spain Debates Victims' Reparations Law - Erasing Franco
By CIARAN GILES
Associated Press
14 Dec 06
Parliament on Thursday began debating a law that seeks reparations for victims of Spain's 1936-39 Civil War and the dictatorship of Gen. Francisco Franco.
The bill, proposed by the Socialist government in July, would also ban symbols and references to the Franco regime in public buildings and asks local and regional governments to rename streets or plazas that are named after Franco or refer to his regime.
It also prohibits any political event at the Valley of the Fallen, a large monument near Madrid that includes Franco's tomb and is the most potent symbol of his regime.
"Along with increasing the rights of victims, the bill aims to pay off a debt, a debt of injustice," said Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega at the start of the debate.
The law says all victims of the Civil War and the Franco dictatorship will have a year to request reparations from an ad hoc commission that was created to draw up the bill. A total of $26.4 million will be made available for payments.
Several political parties have proposed major amendments to the bill, saying it does not go far enough to restore the rights of victims and in condemning Franco and his regime. One amendment proposed by three parties calls for the annulment of verdicts reached at trials carried out during Franco's 1939-75 dictatorship.
Meanwhile, the leading conservative opposition Popular Party has called for the bill to be thrown out altogether, arguing that it reopens old wounds.
The bill, known as the Historic Memory Law, is expected to get past an initial vote allowing it to be processed by Parliament but it is likely to take several months before it is finally approved.
The measure follows a growing movement in recent years by families seeking a proper burial for thousands of relatives executed by Franco's forces and supporters during and after the Civil War and who were buried in unmarked graves.
Both sides in the war committed atrocities, including the execution of civilians. The conflict pitted soldiers loyal to an elected Socialist- led government known as Republicans against rebel Nationalist troops who backed Franco in his military uprising that ultimately toppled the government. Franco died in 1975.
Comment on this Article
'LIQUID BOMBER' NOT A TERRORIST - Pakistan court clears Rauf
By Don Mackay
Mirror.co.uk
14 December 2006
THE British man whose arrest sparked the liquid bomb plot alert that caused mayhem at UK airports was yesterday cleared of terrorist charges.
A court in Pakistan ruled that there was no evidence that Rashid Rauf was involved in terrorism.
His lawyer Hashmat Habib said: "The court has dropped charges of terrorism against him. It's a big decision."
The arrest of Rauf in August led to raids on homes in Birmingham, High Wycombe and East London. More than 20 people were held over an alleged plot to smuggle liquid explosives on to a number of US-bound jets and blow them up in mid-air.
Rauf, who left his Birmingham home four years ago, was described at the time as a plot ringleader who had contacts with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Stringent new security checks were immediately introduced at UK airports - causing chaos at the height of the holiday season.
Passengers were stripped of their hand luggage and banned from taking liquids on board planes.
Mums were even forced to sample baby milk in front of security guards to prove it was safe.
The suspects arrested here were held on charges ranging from plotting to murder to aiding an act of terrorism.
Some were later released because of insufficient evidence - including Rauf's 22-year-old brother Tayib.
Rauf is still being held in Rawalpindi on forgery charges as well as allegedly having explosives.
Mr Habib said the explosives charge related to Rauf's possession of hydrogen peroxide. The liquid can be mixed with other chemicals to make explosives. But it is also commonly used as a mild antiseptic.
He added: "These are not serious charges and I hope he will be acquitted and freed."
UK prosecutors yesterday said the dropping of charges against Rauf would make no difference to the case against the 17 people awaiting trial here.
Rauf left Britain in the wake of the killing of his uncle Mohammed Saeed.
He was stabbed to death in his Birmingham home in front of his wife and two children after a row over an arranged marriage.
After moving to Pakistan, Rauf married a woman related to the leader of a banned Islamic militant group.
A charity set up by his father Abdul had its assets frozen amid claims it raised cash to fund terrorism.
don.mackay@mirror.co.uk
Comment on this Article
French Candidates Try Softer Touch to Woo Minorities - Sarkozy Bombs
By ELAINE SCIOLINO
New York Times
December 14, 2006
PARIS, Dec. 13 - The conference was supposed to be a day of healing, a way for Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister who wants to be president, to rid himself of his image as the enemy of France's ethnic Arab and black African residents.
But no sooner had the invitation-only event in the Interior Ministry's crystal-chandeliered, velvet-draped reception hall begun on Wednesday than Mr. Sarkozy came under attack.
"When the minister calls people 'scum,' it doesn't help us, because we cannot avoid feeling that we're being targeted," said Malik Meraoumia, an ethnic Arab businessman from Amiens. He added: "What he did, he split France in two. The impression I have is, there's the France of the suburbs and there's the rest."
Mr. Sarkozy is still reeling from his description of young troublemakers in the country's grimy suburbs as "scum" and of his subsequent handling of the nightly clashes there late last year, in which he said the answer was zero tolerance of crime.
In a Cevipof poll in September, 49 percent of French voters who responded said they were afraid of him. Just last week, Mr. Sarkozy failed to show up for a dinner in Paris that brought together more than 300 Franco-African party members, sending a top aide in his place and opening himself up to criticism.
But on his home turf on Wednesday, Mr. Sarkozy clearly wanted to prove that he was a conciliator and that he was as concerned about job opportunities, quality education and decent housing for young people as he was about law and order.
"I'm not allowed to disappoint you," he said in a speech to the hundreds of attendees in closing the conference. "This day will be useful only if it has a tomorrow."
Reiterating his support for some degree of affirmative action in France, he added: "You are French exactly like the others, but you are burdened with a certain number of handicaps. We have to help you more than the others."
Mr. Sarkozy did not take part in the whole daylong conference, even though he was the host. He sat in on the end of the final session and took no questions after his speech. He was not around to answer Mr. Meraoumia, who had raised his concern at a morning session.
Officially, the conference was not a campaign event. Mr. Sarkozy is not yet the official nominee of the governing Union for a Popular Movement, although he is expected to be nominated next month.
With France's presidential election four months away, Mr. Sarkozy and the other leading candidates are campaigning hard to seduce the country's alienated and disadvantaged ethnic populations.
One goal, certainly, is to persuade the largely ethnic Arab and African populations that live in the suburbs to register and vote. But a much larger aim is to convince the French electorate as a whole that the country's economic, social and cultural divide can be narrowed and that people can feel confident abut the future.
"Five years ago, immigration and integration were not campaign issues of the mainstream parties," said Vincent Tiberj, a sociologist. "This time, the French are questioning the failure of integration and asking themselves about their capacity to integrate new foreigners. The debate has changed."
Inclusiveness has also emerged as a major theme for Ségolène Royal, the Socialist Party's nominee. It is high even on the agenda of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front who, in a recent poll, was supported by 17 percent of voters surveyed.
Mr. Le Pen, who has traditionally campaigned on an anti-immigrant platform tinged with racism, has changed his strategy this time.
On Monday, he unveiled an election poster that seeks the support of Arab and black voters and criticizes what he characterizes as the failed integration policies of the political establishment.
In one poster, a young black woman with a long mane of hair and a bare midriff makes a thumbs down sign. The slogan reads: "Right/Left. They have broken everything!"
Another poster shows the 78-year-old Mr. Le Pen walking with the young woman and a number of other people under the slogan, "With Le Pen. All Together, Let's Lift Our France Back Up."
In unveiling the campaign, Mr. Le Pen's daughter, Marine, who is his campaign manager, explained that his candidacy would "bring people together regardless of religious, ethnic or even political traits."
In a speech in September, Mr. Le Pen for the first time urged "French people of foreign origin" to join his movement. In a subsequent interview with a Web site run by suburb associations, he denied ever making a judgment about the "superiority of one race over another."
As for Ms. Royal's campaign, the Socialist Party in the "93," the postal code for the Seine-St.-Denis area where most of the difficult suburbs of Paris are, unveiled an anti-Sarkozy poster campaign this month.
Its message is that if residents of the suburbs stay away from the polls - as they have tended to do - they will end up with Mr. Sarkozy as president.
Ms. Royal herself is finding that thorny issues such as unemployment, delinquency and violence do not lend themselves to easy answers, and she is already recalibrating her message for the suburbs.
When Ms. Royal was in the Paris suburb of Bondy in May, she took a strong anticrime line. Among her proposals were mandatory military or community service for delinquent youths over 16 and the creation of "parents' schools" for those whose children commit "acts of incivility."
"We need a return to the heavy hand," she said.
Back in Bondy last month for the Parliament of the Suburbs, a gathering of 400 people from disadvantaged suburbs throughout France, she emphasized the positive and kept her message more vague.
She called the integration of minorities into the labor force "a question of survival" for France's struggling economy, adding, "France not only needs you, but it is you who are the future of France."
Neighborhood leaders and residents of the suburbs have criticized politicians to varying degrees for using the suburbs as a convenient backdrop to promote their message.
Indeed, some participants at Wednesday's conference at the Interior Ministry, titled "The Minister of the Interior Welcomes the Youth," dismissed it as a performance for the news media.
"It's clear this is a media show," said Mohamed Hamidi, a high school teacher who is the editor of the Bondy Blog, a popular Web site about the suburbs. "For Sarkozy to try to seduce the voters of the suburban neighborhoods now - it's too late."
Comment on this Article
French mutiny brewing against the euro
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
The Telegraph
Dec 13 06
French exports slumped in October and the country's car industry slid deeper into crisis, heightening fears that France is buckling under the strain of the super-strong euro.
The monthly trade deficit ballooned to $2.7bn, following two months of sliding industrial orders and a shock halt to economic growth in the third quarter. Car output is down 14pc so far this year.
French trade minister Christine Lagarde blamed the grim trade figures on the tight policies of the European Central Bank, which has raised interest rates six times in a year to 3.5pc. The rate rises are the key factor pushing up the euro.
"We sold one less Airbus, we haven't sold any satellites, and we have not sold any ships. Frankly, the battle against inflation has been won. It's high time the ECB began thinking about growth," she said.
Her comments came as French leaders of all stripes stepped up attacks on the bank, accusing it of "monetary masochism". The euro has risen 11pc against the US dollar and most Asian currencies this year, and 20pc against the Japanese yen.
French premier Dominique de Villepin called on EU states this week to reassert national control over their economies and set proper limits on the powers of the ECB. "We must clarify matters in exchange rate policy, which means taking back our sovereignty."
Mr de Villepin was alluding to a clause in the Maastricht Treaty (111-4) giving EU ministers power over the currency. It is a tool that could - in effect - enable politicians to set interest rates, stripping the ECB of its independence. "This is a tough fight that we are going to have to carry out at a political level," he said.
Ségolène Royal, socialist candidate for the presidential elections in May, went even further, accusing the ECB's president Jean-Claude Trichet of usurping democratic authority.
"It's not for Mr Trichet to dictate the future of our economies: it's a matter for our leaders chosen by the people. We must completely change the charter of the central bank," she said.
ECB governor Guy Quaden said there was no reason for states to "panic" about the currency level. "The euro is relatively high but we are not in uncharted waters. It's striking how one hears these complaints during presidential campaigns," he said.
However, critics say the landscape has changed beyond recognition since the last bout of European currency strength in the early 1990s.
Italy has lost 40pc in competitiveness against Germany since the exchange rates were fixed ten years ago, while France last lost over 20pc - yet they still have to compete in the same currency zone.
Germany is re-emerging as a Teutonic Tiger with exploding exports to China, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East, while Europe's 'Club Med' bloc are steadily losing share of world markets.
Derek Scott, Tony Blair's former economic adviser, said the euro system was becoming unworkable as the one-size-fits-all monetary policy drove countries further apart.
"The ECB faces an impossible task because there is no such thing as Euroland: there are groups of countries going different ways," he said.
"Germany has clawed back competitivenes by squeezing its economy, but Italy, France, Spain and others have been enjoying property booms. Boom goes bust," he said.
"In the end, the ECB may to have to respond to the needs of the weakest economies, or monetary union will fall apart," he said.
Philippe de Villiers, leader of the eurosceptic MPF movement, said he was launching a referendum drive for a return to the franc. "The euro is a failure. It's weakening our industry and our exports to the point where Airbus is preparing to build plant directly in the United States and China," he said.
"As we saw with the Czech and Slovak currency split, leaving the euro is technically quite simple. We could do it in eight days," he said.
Comment on this Article
Oh, Diana!
Diana crash inquiry findings to be announced (i.e. More Whitewash)
Staff and agencies
Thursday December 14, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
The Paris car crash in which Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed died was an accident, an official police inquiry is expected to conclude today.
The former Metropolitan police chief Lord Stevens will announce the findings of his three-year investigation at a noon press conference in central London.
The Princess of Wales, 36, and her 42-year-old lover died when their Mercedes crashed in the French capital's Pont de l'Alma tunnel on August 31 1997.
At the time of the crash, the car was being pursued by paparazzi photographers as it was driven from the Ritz hotel to Fayed's flat.
A French investigation into the tragedy concluded that the couple's chauffeur, Henry Paul, who also died, had lost control of the Mercedes because he was driving too fast while under the influence of alcohol.
However, conspiracy theorists claim the princess and Fayed were murdered by the British establishment to cover up allegations that she was pregnant and the couple were due to announce their engagement.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, Fayed's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, described the report's expected conclusions as "shocking".
Mr Fayed, who owns Harrods, insisted he was "the only person who knows the truth" about the crash and that Lord Stevens' report had "betrayed" him and the British public.
"How can I accept something really shocking? I know deep in my heart that I'm the only person who knows the truth," he said.
Mr Fayed, who will give his official reaction to the report at a press conference this afternoon, claimed Lord Stevens had spent £5m of taxpayers' money "wasting my time".
He said the detective had "done all what the intelligence wanted him to do" - referring to his previous claims that British spies were involved in the crash. "I am the only person who was close to Diana and to my son," he said. "She had no family. She had friends that pretend they were her friends."
Asked what grounds he had for disputing the report's expected findings, he said: "The evidence is made up just to make it convenient for the terrorist and the gangster who murdered my son."
Clarence House, the official residence of Prince Charles, and Scotland Yard would not comment ahead of the release of the 800-page report, which will be published on the internet.
Lord Stevens was asked to undertake the major inquiry when the inquest into Diana's death was opened and adjourned in January 2004.
He will be joined by Paul Stephenson, the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police, and Detectice Chief Superintendent David Douglas, the senior investigating officer.
Princes William and Harry were understood to have been briefed on the outcome of investigation yesterday.
Last year, the Prince of Wales was interviewed as part of the inquiry and was apparently asked in a one to one meeting with Lord Stevens whether he had ever plotted to assassinate his ex-wife.
Lord Stevens is expected to dismiss numerous conspiracy theories that have arisen, and it has also been suggested he will criticise the paparazzi more harshly than the 1999 French investigation did.
One conspiracy theory suggests the blood samples from the car's chauffeur were switched, a claim understood to have been disproved by new DNA tests.
Other revelations rumoured to be in the report include allegations that the US secret service was bugging the princess's telephone conversations in the hours before she died and confirmation that she was not pregnant.
Forensic teams examined the wrecked black Mercedes S280 in painstaking detail, and the inquiry is said to bring together around 20,000 documents and 1,500 witness statements. New witnesses were discovered, and cutting edge computer technology used to put together a 3D model of the crash.
Lord Stevens admitted the inquiry had been "far more complex than any of us thought". "We have new witnesses, we have new forensic evidence," he said.
However, the MI5 whistleblower David Shayler today said the results of the investigation should not be taken at face value, claiming parts of the evidence did not add up and warning that conspiracy theories would continue to circulate.
"For example, James Andanson, a paparazzo who was in Paris that day, who was alleged to have owned the Fiat Uno [in the tunnel at the time of the crash] but claimed to have owned a different one, was found some months later burnt-out in his car 150 miles from his home.
"The French have concluded that it was suicide, but I would contend that if someone wanted to commit suicide in a car, they attach a hosepipe to the exhaust, put it through the window, and they go very peacefully.
"No one I know commits suicide like that."
Lady Butler-Sloss, who is now in charge of Diana's inquest, is due to resume the hearings in January 2007.
Comment on this Article
Diana probe says death was accident, but conspiracy rumours persist
AFP
14 Dec 06
A long-awaited report into Princess Diana's death in a Paris car crash is expected to dismiss theories of a murder plot by British intelligence, concluding that it was just an accident.
But even as it was to be published, the father of Diana's boyfriend Dodi al-Fayed dismissed its expected findings as "garbage" and insisted a conspiracy was behind the couple's death in 1997.
Fleeing paparazzi photographers, Diana, 36, her boyfriend Dodi, 42, and chauffeur Henri Paul, 41, were killed in a car crash in a Paris underpass in the early hours of August 31 that year. Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones survived the crash.
Press reports suggest the report by Lord John Stevens -- the former commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police -- has concluded that Diana died after the drunk driver lost control of the car.
It largely confirms the findings of a two-year investigation in France, which said Paul lost control of the black Mercedes because he was driving too fast while high on drink and prescription drugs.
The latest report is said to have upset Princes William and Harry when they were briefed earlier in the week about how paparazzi photographers behaved before and after their mother's death.
According to The Times, Stevens and his team believe that had Diana, al-Fayed and Paul worn their seatbelts, as Rees-Jones did, they could have survived.
Stevens is expected to criticise the paparazzi.
In 1999, the French investigation formally cleared nine photographers and a press motorcyclist of manslaughter charges.
In February this year, three photographers were convicted of breaching France's privacy laws for taking pictures of Diana and Dodi on the night they died.
Leaked details of the report also failed to silence plot theorists who believe that British intelligence agents assassinated the princess and her Muslim lover Dodi to prevent them from marrying.
Hours before its release, Mohammed Al-Fayed dismissed the report for rejecting a key conspiracy claim and accused Lord Stevens of being "blackmailed" by British intelligence.
Al-Fayed has long maintained that it was a conspiracy involving British intelligence agents, and notably said Paul's blood samples were switched to falsely implicate him as drunk.
"He has just done what the British intelligence has asked for," Al-Fayed said of Lord Stevens. "They blackmailed him, definitely."
He added that he had hired five of Britain's leading pathologists to conduct their own investigation, the results of which ran counter to Lord Stevens' reported findings. "If he has done DNA it is garbage," he said.
Fayed also authorized an exclusive jeweller to release a video which it said showed Dodi picking up an engagement ring for Diana, just hours before both died in the car crash.
In a letter to AFP, which obtained a copy of the video, the jewellery company Repossi said it was making the images available after receiving authorization from Al-Fayed.
The black-and-white video -- which was timestamped August 30, 1997 -- shows a man resembling Dodi entering Repossi's upscale Place Vendome boutique in central Paris.
The man entered at 5:44 pm and stayed a total of seven minutes. During that time he can be seen examining items of jewellery pulled out of a case and placed on a table. At the end of his visit, he seems to pick something up off a table and then leaves.
Comment on this Article
Flashback: US bugged Diana's phone on night of death crash
Mark Townsend and Peter Allen in Paris
Sunday December 10, 2006
The Observer
The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.
Among extraordinary details due to emerge in the report by former Metropolitan police commissioner Lord Stevens is the revelation that the US security service was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in a car crash in Paris.
In a move that raises fresh questions over transatlantic agreements on intelligence-sharing, the surveillance arm of the US has admitted listening to her conversations as she stayed at the Ritz hotel, but failed to notify MI6. Stevens is understood to have been assured that the 39 classified documents detailing Diana's final conversations did not reveal anything sinister or contain material that might help explain her death.
Scotland Yard's inquiry, published this Thursday, also throws up further intelligence links with the Princess of Wales on the night she died. The driver of the Mercedes, Henri Paul, was in the pay of the French equivalent of M15. Stevens traced £100,000 he had amassed in 14 French bank accounts though no payments have been linked to Diana's death.
Stevens's conclusion is that Diana, her companion Dodi Fayed, and Paul himself died in an accident caused by Paul driving too fast through the Pont de l'Alma underpass in Paris while under the influence of drink. The car was being pursued by photographers at the time.
Tests have confirmed that Paul was more than three times over the French drink-drive limit and was travelling at 'excessive' speed. The inquiry will quash a number of conspiracy theories that have circulated since 31 August 1997, among them that Diana was pregnant. It also found no evidence that the princess was planning to get engaged to Dodi, son of Mohamed Fayed.
The Harrods tycoon believes that Paul's blood samples were swapped to portray him as a drunk in an elaborate cover-up by the establishment to stop Diana marrying Dodi, a Muslim.
Stevens is expected to concede that while there was a mix-up it was an accident and that the original French post-mortem which found that Paul was three-times over the French drink-drive limit was correct.
He is also expected to discount the role of the white Fiat Uno which struck Diana's car shortly before the crash, even though British police officers have failed to track down the vehicle which left paintwork on the black Mercedes.
The inquiry will support the findings of the original French accident inquiry in criticising the paparazzi as a possible reason for encouraging Paul to speed. The 'bright light' theory - the claim that the driver was deliberately blinded by a beam immediately before the crash - is also dismissed by Stevens.
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Al Fayed calls Diana accident report "outrageous"
By Jeremy Pelofsky
Reuters
13 Dec 06
WASHINGTON - The father of Princess Diana's companion on Wednesday called "outrageous" a forthcoming report that said the couple's deaths were the result of a tragic car accident rather than a murder plot.
Mohamed al Fayed, the father of Diana's lover Dodi al Fayed and owner of the famed Harrod's department store in London, also questioned whether the investigator who headed the inquiry, Sir John Stevens, was blackmailed into ruling out foul play.
"It's shocking. It's completely outrageous that a leading Scotland Yard officer can come up with such an unbelievable judgment," al Fayed said in an interview with NBC's "Today" show.
Diana, who was 36, and Dodi al Fayed died after their chauffeur-driven Mercedes crashed in a tunnel in Paris in August 1997 as they tried to elude paparazzi on motorbikes.
A two-year inquiry by French authorities in 1999 ruled that al Fayed's driver Henri Paul, who was also killed, was to blame because he was drunk and driving too fast.
Stevens, the former head of London's police force, has spent almost three years probing what happened. His investigation extended to the British royal family, conducting a lengthy interview with Diana's ex-husband Charles.
Al Fayed said his son had bought an engagement ring for Diana and that she had told him hours before the crash that she was pregnant. He also accused the British government of involvement in the plot.
Stevens is "being definitely blackmailed to say exactly what the British intelligence want him to say," al Fayed said. Without citing the source of the information, he said that six months ago British intelligence agents stole Stevens' computer.
"I'm sure they find something very devastating for him and used what they have, information, to blackmail him," he said.
Al Fayed has charged that his son and Diana were murdered by British secret services because their relationship was embarrassing the royal household.
Witnesses, officials and royal commentators have dismissed arguments that the death of Diana, who was seen as one of the world's most glamorous people, was anything more than an accident.
Comment on this Article
The Red Menace Old & New
KGB influence 'soars under Putin'
BBC News
By Steven Eke
Dec 13 06
Four out of five political leaders and state administrators in Russia either have been or still are members of the security services, a study suggests.
The unprecedented research implies a huge expansion of KGB-FSB influence in politics and business in recent years.
Many of the officials concerned have been appointed under President Vladimir Putin - himself a former spy chief.
This has led many liberal commentators to claim their influence is growing unchecked, and threatening democracy.
Politics and business
This new research was conducted by Olga Kryshtanovskaya, a respected academic, for the Centre for the Study of the Elite, part of the prestigious Academy of Sciences.
It confirms that the siloviki - ex-KGB operatives or those working for its successor organisation, the FSB - have done well in President Putin's Russia.
It has long been thought that their influence was growing. But this first, concerted attempt to provide empirical evidence of its scale, has produced some surprising results.
Among the presidential administration, members of the government, deputies of both chambers of parliament, regional heads, as well as the boards of Russia's top state corporations, four in five officials worked for the KGB, or continue to work for one or more of its successor organisations.
The research also suggests the political and business elites are rapidly coalescing, with some key industrial figures, such as the head of the state weapons export agency, also from the same security service heritage.
Contrast
How different Russia looks from other formerly communist countries in eastern Europe, where there have been attempts to identify individuals who worked for Soviet-era security services, many of which were highly repressive.
Some of these individuals have been put on trial for their alleged crimes.
But perhaps more significantly, there has been a real effort to keep them out of politics and big business.
But whatever it means for Russia's future as a democracy - or not - so far, unhappiness about Russia's new ruling class has been expressed only by the country's beleaguered liberal minority.
Comment on this Article
Russia "does not murder spies any more"
By Louis Charbonneau
Reuters
Dec 14 06
BERLIN - The head of an organisation of former Russian spies was quoted as saying on Thursday Stalin-era policies of Moscow assassinating enemies had ceased, and ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko was probably murdered by criminals.
Former KGB agent Valentin Velichko, head of a Moscow-based Russian nationalist foundation called "Dignity and Honour", said in an interview that Litvinenko, who died on November 23 from severe radiation poisoning, was a traitor but was not killed by Moscow.
"That was long ago. It belonged to the days of Stalin," Velichko told Die Welt newspaper. He was referring to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, who in the 1930s led a campaign of political persecution, repression and executions.
"In those days there was a special department called "V", which handled the liquidation of political opponents," said Velichko, who also heads the Veterans of Foreign Intelligence.
Asked about the assassination of Bulgarian dissident writer Georgi Markov, who was killed with a poison dart coated with deadly ricin shot from an umbrella in 1978, decades after Stalin's death, Velichko said this was probably the last one.
"In the system of Russia's secret services there was and is no department for liquidations," he said.
Velichko was asked if some people in his organisation might have wanted to settle scores with Litvinenko. He said, "No".
"I see it (Litvinenko's murder) as a dispute among criminals," he said.
At the same time, Velichko said Litvinenko had revealed secrets, which "made him a traitor under the law."
In a statement associates released after his death, Litvinenko accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of ordering his killing. The Kremlin has denied involvement.
POSSIBLE SUSPECT
German police vowed on Wednesday to examine the validity of comments by a Russian businessman Dmitry Kovtun, a contact of Litvinenko's, that he must have picked up traces of polonium from the murdered man when they met in mid-October.
The mid-October meeting in London was well before Litvinenko fell ill on November 1. A German prosecutor has said Kovtun could be a possible suspect in the case.
Kovtun, who also met Litvinenko on the day he fell ill and who is now in hospital in Moscow, denies any part in Litvinenko's poisoning.
Police in Hamburg on Thursday rejected a newspaper report that Kovtun had been in Berlin earlier this week. Investigating officers still did not have contact with their Russian counterparts despite repeated requests for assistance from Moscow, police said.
Velichko also told Die Welt that the use of polonium 210 to kill Litvinenko was a crude assassination that would not have been used by Russia security services.
"Professionals don't use polonium," he said.
Comment: For the full low-down on the Litvinenko affair see: Litvinenko - By Way Of Deception
Comment on this Article
Litvinenko witness denies fleeing France
MOSCOW, Dec 13, 2006 (AFP)
A Russian man linked to events surrounding the poisoning murder of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko on Wednesday denied accusations in a newspaper report that he had fled his home in France.
"I have not vanished at all, I'm still at my house and I never spoke to a journalist from the Times," Russian Yevgeny Limarev told AFP by telephone.
The British Times newspaper reported, without naming its sources, that Limarev had fled his home in the French Alps.
"I yesterday (Tuesday) met the police again to tell them about anonymous death threats," the Russian added, after telling AFP on December 7 that he feared for his life and was "ready to talk to British and Italian investigators."
Limarev declined to say whether investigators had been in touch with him.
The probe into Litvinenko's death has led from Britain to Germany and Moscow, where British detectives spent the last week.
Limarev said he gave Mario Scaramella, an Italian contact of Litvinenko, a memo accusing former Russian secret service agents of seeking to kill certain exiled Russians.
Scaramella met with Litvinenko in London the day he fell fatally ill. The Italian said they had discussed a Russian secret service hit-list on which both of their names figured.
"Mario did indeed receive information about this from my contacts and asked me if they were credible. I answered yes," Limarev earlier told AFP, confirming that the contacts were "contacts from Russia" whom he could not name.
"My name has been brought up in the case along with Litvinenko and
Scaramella," Limarev said. "And I really fear something might happen to me."
Litvinenko died on November 23 after being poisoned with the radioactive substance polonium-210. Scaramella also tested positive for polonium contamination but not at a deadly level.
Comment on this Article
Cancer-ridden Castro may not live to see in new year
By Leonard Doyle, Foreign Editor
The Independent
14 December 2006
The ailing Cuban President Fidel Castro is battling terminal cancer and could be dead by Christmas, senior Western diplomatic sources have said. Observers close to the Cuban regime have reported that the leader is suffering from an aggressive form of stomach cancer and has refused radiation therapy or any other form of treatment.
Cuban officials are notoriously tight-lipped over the health of their President which they treat as a closely guarded state secret. While occasionally they have broken their silence to report that Mr Castro is suffering from a non life-threatening illness, these claims have been roundly discounted by Western sources.
Mr Castro's death, when it comes, is expected to have repercussions far beyond the shores of Cuba. On the one hand there are fears of an exodus of Cubans towards the US.
Equally, concerns have been raised that hardline anti-Castro groups in south Florida will stage their own attempt to destabilise the regime by sending a flotilla of ships to the island in expectation that Cubans will be prepared to rise up against the government - a scenario with potentially disastrous consequences.
Either way, political developments in Cuba have the potential to influence domestic politics in the US. When, in 2000, the then president Bill Clinton allowed the child Elian Gonzalez to be sent back to his homeland, the Cuban vote turned solidly Republican - and many blame the controversy for Al Gore's subsequent loss of the presidential election that year. Now, as the 2008 presidential campaign grinds into action, Cuba will again become an increasingly sensitive topic in America, especially as speculation surrounding Mr Castro's health mounts.
Cubans themselves are used to being told very little about the inner workings of their government on security grounds, but dissidents say uncertainty over the country's political future has fuelled impatience with the secrecy surrounding his health. While posters proclaiming "80 more years" of Castro's leadership are still hanging all over the capital, Havana, and the country decked the halls on Saturday for his birthday celebrations - for which he was himself absent - many Cubans doubt their leader will ever govern again.
Despite repeated assurances by the authorities - the most recent came last week as Vice-President Carlos Lage Davila spoke at the end of a conference on Mr Castro's place in history - that Mr Castro will return to lead Cuba for years to come, more and more people suspect he is close to death, even though they have been told little about his condition other than that he underwent emergency surgery to stop intestinal bleeding in July and is now recovering. "It's strange they have not said anything about Fidel," Orlando, a telephone company worker and government backer, told Reuters. "They must have their reasons, but I'm worried. It has been a long time since we heard about him."
Even at his 80th birthday celebrations, held with much fanfare over the weekend, Mr Castro did not get a mention other than a cursory "Viva Fidel" at the end of a speech by his brother, designated successor and acting President, Raul Castro. "People are convinced he has cancer," said Joel, a social worker. "We all expected to see him at the parade, and nobody said a word."
Comment on this Article
US opens new Guantanamo camp jail
BBC News
Friday, 8 December 2006
The US has begun moving terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay into a new $37m (£19m) maximum-security prison.
The US has begun moving terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay into a new $37m (£19m) maximum-security prison.
Forty-two prisoners were transferred from another high-security facility on the US naval base in eastern Cuba, the Associated Press reported.
The new 178-cell prison will allow commanders to close the wire-fence camp originally built for early detainees.
The US holds some 430 men at Guantanamo Bay on suspicion of links to al-Qaeda or the Taleban, most without charge.
UN human rights investigators and foreign governments have called on the US government to close the entire detention centre.
But the new facility has been built to provide more permanent secure accommodation for those judged to be "enemy combatants" and detained by the US military.
Guard security
The new facility is designed to limit contact between detainees and reduce the risks of attacks on staff, AP reported.
The individual cells contain long, narrow windows looking out towards communal areas furnished with metal tables and stools.
Designed as a communal living space, that area will now be off-limits.
"The new, climate-controlled camp is designed to improve quality of life for both detainees and the guard force," base Commander Robert Durand told AP.
An open-air recreation area has been divided into smaller spaces, which will hold only one detainee at a time.
There will be facilities for detainees to meet lawyers, plus medical facilities.
The triple suicides at Guantanamo Bay in June prompted fresh protests against the camp from lawyers and human rights activists.
A senior US state department official and a Navy admiral appeared to say the deaths were part of a co-ordinated attempt to discredit the US, calling them "a jihadi tactic" and an act of "asymmetrical warfare".
Comment on this Article
Analysts: U.S. at root of effort to topple Lebanese government
By Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers
Thu, Dec. 07, 2006
BEIRUT, Lebanon - American political leaders watched with alarm during the past week as the Hezbollah militia laid siege to the U.S.-backed Lebanese government, but few would acknowledge publicly what most analysts and politicians here say is obvious: American policy may bear much of the blame.
Many in Beirut say that U.S. failure to stop Israel's onslaught against Hezbollah last summer crippled the Lebanese government - a U.S. ally - while strengthening Hezbollah - a U.S. enemy. That created an environment in which the Shiite Muslim militia could call for overthrowing Sunni Muslim Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and his Cabinet.
"Hezbollah has more support in the population now because they are the 'victorious resistance,'" Cabinet member Ahmed Fatfat said. "And it weakened the government because we did not get any concessions ... the last war was a disaster for Lebanon and the image of the United States."
Fatfat, like several other Cabinet members, has been in hiding at the government building in downtown Beirut for days as tens of thousands of protesters outside demand a new administration led by Hezbollah, a group that's on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
The standoff between Shiite Hezbollah and its allies and the Christian and Sunni government has sparked street fighting in Beirut's neighborhoods and raised the specter of civil war.
It's also underscored a belief among some regional leaders that the United States has lost its footing in the Middle East. On Tuesday, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended in Washington that the Bush administration reach out to Syria and Iran - U.S. foes - in a search for ways to resolve Iraq's violence. The group called for Syria to cease aid to Hezbollah and to stop trying to topple Saniora's government as part of a deal that might include Israel returning the Golan Heights to Syria.
But those suggestions seem behind the times as Hezbollah presses its campaign to force Saniora out.
Fatfat and other Lebanese officials said that while there was a complex set of reasons for the crisis - Syria is trying to derail a tribunal from investigating Syrian participation in political assassinations, Shiites long have felt underrepresented by their government, Iran is pushing against U.S. interests across the region - the conditions largely were set by U.S. actions during the conflict last summer.
The fighting began in July when Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, an act that began weeks of thunderous Israeli bombing and artillery barrages - often using munitions bought from U.S. suppliers - that killed at least 1,000 Lebanese, mostly civilians. Hezbollah answered by launching hundreds of rockets into Israel.
Saniora pleaded with American officials to intervene, but for weeks Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others said there first must be a "durable solution," meaning primarily that Hezbollah had to be contained and then disarmed.
As the fighting stretched on for more than a month and the Bush administration didn't intervene, Saniora looked ineffectual, a nearly unforgivable sin in a region in which military force and political strength are often synonymous.
"This summer was a catastrophe on many levels. This summer was bad news," said a Western diplomat in Beirut, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation. "In general, Lebanon is in a much, much weaker position now than it was in June. There's no question at all levels - politically, economically, in terms of unity - everything is much worse now than it was in June."
How did the U.S. response contribute to that?
"It was painful to be here this summer, you know. I'll just leave it at that," the diplomat said.
Hezbollah officials have harped on the Lebanese government's reliance on U.S. help at a time when American policy makers weren't putting pressure on Israel to stop its aerial bombardment.
"It's no coincidence that all those who supported Israel in the war are today supporting what remains of this falling government," Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Thursday night via video feed to a cheering crowd of thousands.
"Does any Lebanese accept ... supporting a government that George Bush and (Israeli Prime Minister) Ehud Olmert support?" he asked.
The sea of men, women and children booed and screamed for the government's downfall.
Asked for comment, a representative at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut referred a McClatchy reporter to remarks by Rice last summer in which she said any peace deal had to ensure that Lebanon didn't return to its "status quo," again meaning that Hezbollah must be brought under control.
But Hezbollah now appears more in control than ever.
The United Nations Security Council resolution - with American approval - that ended hostilities in August mandated that Lebanese and United Nations troops patrol southern Lebanon, Hezbollah's heartland. The introduction of soldiers in the south, where the militant group was used to complete freedom of movement, probably ordained that Hezbollah would move against the government.
Hezbollah "knew all along that Saniora's government is pro-American and wants to disarm them as a military organization," said Hilal Khashan, a political studies professor at the American University of Beirut who's written extensively about the group.
The push against Saniora was an easy sell to Hezbollah's rank and file.
"Saniora's government did not help us during the war," said Hussein Ali, who was sitting with a group of friends across from his shoe store in a southern suburb of Beirut.
Ahmed Musalmani, who sells ceramic tiles, added: "And Fuad Saniora was kissing Condoleezza Rice."
Rubble from Israeli bombing runs stood in piles throughout the neighborhood. Where buildings once stood, craters were carved in the ground. Collapsed roofs leaned against fragments of walls.
The two men were with a group that was heading to join the demonstration downtown outside the building where Fatfat and his fellow ministers were living behind armed guards.
"You cannot play with Hezbollah," Ali said. "We are going to bring down the government."
Comment on this Article
Stiff Upper Lips
Damage Control: Freedom of Information: Top secrets for public inspection
Robert Verhaik
UK Independent
9 Dec 06
Britain is not the same country it was two years ago. Following the introduction of new rights of access, with the Freedom of Information Act on 1 January 2005 the Government has been forced to give up its secrets, while Whitehall has had to offer up its most sensitive files for public inspection. What we have witnessed is a seeping release of documents, memos and classified papers that has shone a light into the darkest workings of our democracy, as well as revealing fascinating facts about the rich and famous along the way.
I was one of many journalists who took part in the stampede for stories that followed the introduction of the new regime two years ago next month. It was a moment of great anticipation. We had all seen how the governments of other countries had been opened up to public scrutiny through the use of right-to-know legislation. In America there had been startling revelations about President Kennedy's assassination, Watergate and the political scandal of Nicaragua. Now it was our turn, finally, to get to the truth about war with Iraq, the death of Princess Diana ... and Wham!'s historic tour of China.
STATUS: Catnapped?
SUBJECT: Humphrey
DATE: 13 Nov, 1997
The first conspiracy to be tackled using new powers was a political whodunnit: the mystifying case of Humphrey, the Downing Street cat. The one-year-old stray arrived at Number 10 in 1989, and by the time Labour came to power eight years later, it had already served under two Prime Ministers.
But not long after the Blairs crossed the threshold, rumours began circulating in the media about how Cherie didn't really like cats because she found them unhygienic.
Previous suggestions that Mrs Blair and Humphrey were not on the best of terms had triggered an "impromptu" photo-shoot to portray the two of them as very good friends. Then on 13 November 1997, the Number 10 press office quietly announced that Humphrey had been retired. But if Downing Street had hoped this would put an end to the stories, they must have been very disappointed. Soon the corridors and bars of Westminster were engulfed by dark conspiracy theories - about how Cherie had ordered Humphrey's exile, or worse, had had Humphrey bumped off.
"Humphreygate", as it was known, took the gloss off Labour's landslide victory, and the cat's sudden and convenient disappearance even became a metaphor for the political expedience employed by Alastair Campbell and his Number 10 masters. Yet no matter how hard they chased the story, Fleet Street's finest were unable to find out what had really happened. Downing Street and the media appeared to have reached a stand-off; no journalist could find the killer fact to run a full story and Campbell & Co were not prepared to put them out of their misery for fear of opening the floodgates to a wave of intrusive questioning.
But Labour's ability to hold on to the "secret" of the story of Humphrey the cat - and later, much more sensitive information such as the Attorney General's advice on the legality of war with Iraq - was already under threat. In fact, Labour had sewn the seeds of its own PR downfall when in opposition it promised to end the culture of Whitehall secrecy. And in 2000 the Government finally honoured its promise by enacting a Freedom of Information law that would give the public the right to see documents, memos, cabinet minutes and a host of other material relating to information held by 100,000 public bodies. The first flood of requests under the act were rather predictable and allowed Labour to respond with blanket rejections. The Attorney General's advice on the war with Iraq, for instance, was covered by any number of exemptions. A demand to see Peter Mandelson's bank accounts was easily brushed aside by citing data-protection laws. Tony Blair's conversations with George Bush about how to catch Osama Bin Laden could not be released because of issues of national security. And so the stonewalling went on.
But a question about a cat? What harm could that do? Alastair Campbell may still have been reluctant to make any release but, under pressure from the Lord Chancellor, he bowed to the wishes of his political masters. So, in 2005, the Humphrey files were opened. The dossier, an inch and a half thick, was testimony to Whitehall's pre-occupation with paperwork and filing on even the most trivial of matters. On the day of disclosure the media held its breath as the country's leading political hacks waded through the material, letter by letter and memo by memo. And when the white smoke finally rose above Westminster, it looked as if Cherie Blair was off the hook.
There was nothing in the 121 pages to say that the PM's wife had strangled the cat in a fit of rage. Nor was there any evidence to suggest that Alastair Campbell had thrown him into the Thames - though this was the story one tabloid had come very close to running. Instead the papers revealed that Humphrey really was the victim of nothing more sinister than enforced retirement. At nine years old, Humphrey, like a minister past his sell-by date, had been found no longer to be up to the job. In short, he was simply a mouser who could no longer catch mice.
STATUS: Kitchen hell?
SUBJECT: Gordon Ramsay
DATE: Mar-Sept, 2005
The conditions inside the kitchens of one Britain's most popular chefs might have remained a secret had The Independent's consumer affairs correspondent not used the Freedom of Information Act to ask to see health inspectors' reports. These showed that a visit last March to Gordon Ramsay, the great man's three-star Michelin restaurant in Chelsea, uncovered some rather embarrassing contraventions of the food safety laws.
Ramsay was ordered to "thoroughly clean" the freezer, mend broken kitchen tiles and stop storing cleaning materials next to food. The restaurant was also found by Kensington and Chelsea council to be breaking rules on electrical safety and did not have an accident book - although at no stage was there any threat to public health.
Worse was to come in September 2005, during an inspection by Westminster council of another of the chef's most high-profile ventures, Gordon Ramsay at Claridge's. Although standards were generally found to be high, the inspector - whose name is blanked from the document - discovered a washing-up sink placed so close to food preparation that there was a risk of "contamination". The chefs were seen to be wiping their hands on " dirty cloths". "More frequent hand-washing required," the inspector noted. Other problems included the storage of butane gas next to food, the stowing of wine in an electrical cupboard (the bottles were quickly removed) and the absence of soap from the ladies' staff lavatory. What it all added up to, of course, was Ramsay's very own kitchen nightmare.
STATUS: Mystery death?
SUBJECT: Winston Churchill
DATE: 4 July, 1943
One of the most bitterly contested conspiracy theories of the Second World War concerns the mysterious death of General Wladyslaw Sikorski, the Polish war-time leader. Some historians believed that Winston Churchill had a controlling hand in the plane crash that killed Sikorski off the coast of Gibraltar on 4 July, 1943. Churchill's motive, it was alleged, was that he wanted to protect the Anglo/Russian pact by killing the man who continued to call for Stalin to be charged with war crimes.
In 1968, the theory resurfaced as the plot for Soldiers, a play scripted by the German writer Rolf Hochhuth, directed by Kenneth Tynan and supported by Laurence Olivier. Three years after Churchill's state funeral the play was intended as a piece of incendiary theatre - and it didn't disappoint. By the following year, Peter Carter-Ruck, one of the country's leading libel lawyers, had been instructed to begin defamation proceedings against the writer and producers of the play. He was acting for members of Churchill's family and the pilot of the plane, who had been blamed for the crash.
Previously classified documents, released this year, reveal that the defence team had enlisted the help of the now-notorious historian David Irving. More importantly, the documents show the concern at the heart of government about what else might come out in the legal case - lending credence to those who believed there might be more to the crash than the government maintained. A second set of documents provides further tantalising evidence of the name of one of the possible Polish accomplices to the alleged plot.
STATUS: Target?
SUBJECT: Bob Marley
DATE: 3 Dec, 1976
Shortly after the reggae artist made his international breakthrough he was the target of an assassination attempt. In December 1976, two days before " Smile Jamaica", a free concert organised by Jamaican Prime Minister Michael Manley in an attempt to ease tension between two warring political groups, Marley, his wife Rita and manager Don Taylor were wounded in an assault by unknown gunmen at Marley's home. Though Marley suffered only minor injuries, Rita was wounded in the head and Taylor took four bullets to the groin.
Under the new powers, papers released by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office shine more light on to the alleged political motives behind the shooting, which had long been hotly debated. A memo sent to London from the British embassy in Kingston speculated that the "purpose of the raid was presumably to deter Marley from giving his performance". The memo added: "The staging of the show was a typical example of the way in which the government has recently been using and abusing its powers in order to further [its] electoral prospects." This seems to give support to those who'd always believed the opposition party, the JLP, to be involved.
At the time, however, despite growing evidence of a political dimension to the attack, the Foreign Office hedged its bets: "On the other hand it seems barely credible that the JLP leadership could have sanctioned such an attack which was bound to bring discredit upon the JLP." Whatever the truth, the concert proceeded on 5 December, and an injured Marley performed as scheduled.
STATUS:War criminal?
SUBJECT:Robert Maxwell
DATE: 5 Nov, 1991
The story of Robert Maxwell's rise to public prominence is the story of an extraordinary journey that took him from humble origins in Czechoslovakia to the heart of the British Establishment, where he became the trusted confidant of governments.
Jan Ludvick Hoch - as his parents named him - arrived in London at the start of the Second World War, a refugee escaping the tyranny of the Nazi occupation of continental Europe. In 1942 he enlisted in the British Army and fought bravely - as he told it - in Germany, where he was decorated for gallantry in action.
After demobilisation he started a career in publishing. Through a series of aggressive takeovers he grew a media business that included Mirror Group Newspapers, which by the end of the 1980s was one of the biggest in Fleet Street. But Maxwell's business empire was built on debt and deception. He had "borrowed" millions of employees' money from company pension funds to prop up his increasingly precarious financial position. Then in 1991, when his finances were collapsing, he disappeared while sailing in the Atlantic.
The last words of Robert Maxwell were communicated at 4.45am on 5 November, 1991. He contacted the bridge of his luxury yacht to complain about the temperature of his cabin, demanding, in his customary gruff tone, that the crew turn up the air conditioning. Twelve hours later, a Spanish fisherman spotted his naked body floating in the ocean, 15 miles from his boat. And in the days that followed his death, it emerged that there was plenty to trouble the flamboyant media baron.
In January 2006, one year after the Freedom of Information Act had come into force, I decided to use the new powers to try to once again open up the case.
Maxwell was 68, in poor health, weighing 22 stone, with a weak heart and lungs, and facing a financial crisis. Even in 2006, these were the only salient facts about Maxwell's condition of which we could be certain. But with the arrival of the Freedom of Information Act, it was possible to dig deeper. My first suspicion was that there must be something more to Maxwell's financial troubles.
The scale of his debt and the whiff of corruption hanging over the missing millions from his pension schemes led me to surmise that perhaps the police were already on to him. My first inquiries with the Metropolitan Police, who had been in charge of the investigation after his death, simply turned up the official report which made it clear that the authorities were only properly alerted to the pension scandal after his death.
I decided to make a request under the FOI Act, hoping to uncover files that might throw some light on other police investigations into his financial dealings. Four weeks later, I was contacted again by an officer and on 8 March this year, an email simply entitled "Maxwell" dropped into my inbox.
Robert Maxwell had indeed had a good war. Shortly after his arrival in Britain in 1942, the Czech refugee had enlisted as a private in the British Army. Three years later he had risen through the ranks, and led his platoon from the Normandy beaches into the heart of Germany.
All this concurred with the conveniently abridged version of his service history that Cap'n Bob liked to tell people whenever his war record came up in conversation. But there was much more to be revealed about his activities in the final months of the Second World War.
In March 1945, he received the terrible news that his mother and sister had been executed as "hostages" by the Nazis in occupied Czechoslovakia. In a note to his future wife, Betty, he wrote : "As you can well imagine, I am not taking any prisoners, and, whatever home my men occupy, before I leave I order it to be destroyed." A month later, his platoon was involved in mopping up resistance from the German defenders. On 2 April, Maxwell ordered his men to fire mortars at a German village. He wrote to Betty: "A few minutes later, I saw them running out of the houses and we started firing at each other. I got two of them, and I ordered the mortars to shell the village for a few minutes."
It proved to be an effective tactic that led to the surrender of the remaining Germans - and inspired Maxwell to try it again as he moved towards a nearby town. "So I sent one of the Germans to fetch the mayor of the town," he wrote. "I told him that he had to go to tell the Germans to surrender ... otherwise the town will be destroyed. One hour later, he came back saying that the soldiers will surrender and the white flag was put up, so we marched off, but as soon as we marched off a German tank opened fire on us. Luckily he missed so I shot the mayor and withdrew."
It was this act of brutality, disclosed by Maxwell himself in his authorised biography, that I now learned had been the subject of a war crimes investigation. The Met file showed that two officers from the newly created war crimes unit had been investigating the case for several months. They had begun tracing members of Maxwell's platoon and had established the name of the German town where he had ordered the bombardment. This was shocking. But there was even more to the war crimes investigation than first met the eye.
The date of the investigation was April 1990, seven months before Maxwell's body was found floating in the Atlantic. The prospect of being put on trial for the cold-blooded murder of a civilian and the ignominy of being the first Briton to be prosecuted for war crimes under newly enacted legislation must have weighed heavily on his mind.
Maxwell may have thought about fighting the case and clearing his name. But there was little he could do to dispute the facts. Was this how he was to be remembered? Convicted of war crimes in front of an Old Bailey jury before being bundled off to prison? He knew that he was ill and would not last long in prison. Could it be that in a depression, Maxwell had left his sweltering cabin, walked slowly towards the aft of the yacht and eased himself into the cooling waters of the Atlantic?f
STATUS: Fatal fact?
SUBJECT: Princess Diana
DATE: 31 Aug, 1997
What of the most sensational of all British conspiracy theories - the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in a Paris road tunnel?
The facts are now well known. On 31 August 1997, Diana was killed in a car crash in the French capital, along with her lover Dodi Al-Fayed, and their driver Henri Paul. The vehicle was being pursued by paparazzi photographers. As it raced at high speed through Paris, with many of the motorbikes dropping behind, the Mercedes entered the Pont de l'Alma tunnel under the River Seine, a notorious accident black spot.
It was here that the driver is believed to have lost control of the vehicle, causing it to glance off the right wall of the tunnel and then smash into the reinforced-concrete 13th pillar of the underpass. Witnesses described the sound of the crash as like a small explosion.
Wide disparities in witness statements and some of the forensic evidence have helped to fuel the Diana conspiracy industry and ensured that every newly uncovered facet of Diana's life and death is viewed as a contributory part to a central order of events that supports one sinister theory or another.
The arrival of the Freedom of Information Act has triggered the disclosure of important documents that have revived speculation about the events leading up to the accident in the Paris tunnel. A Government minute compiled in the aftermath of the accident and anonymously addressed to Tony Blair states that Diana and Dodi got into the Mercedes car as part of a ploy to avoid the paparazzi. A memo to Mr Blair on the day of Diana's death told how when the couple arrived at the Ritz hotel in Paris they were "immediately subject to media attention". When they left on the night of the accident the photographers were waiting. "They tried to leave quickly but the first hire car failed to start," says the memo.
But then a second file, disclosed in compliance with another FOI request, gave a quite different explanation. The file sent by Sir Michael Jay, the British ambassador in Paris, on 23 September to the Foreign Office said the switch to another car had been "a last minute change of plan aimed at diverting waiting paparazzi". There was no mention of a first car failing to start. Curiouser and curiouser?
The flurry of papers sent from Paris following Diana's death also reveal the hurried diplomatic discussions as arrangements for removing the body and beginning the investigation into her death got underway. Sir Michael noted how he was told that the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, wanted to return to Paris to pay his last respects to the princess. "I explained that paying last respects was not a strong British or Anglican tradition," he wrote.
Back in Britain, so the papers reveal, the Government was at pains to avoid controversy as the country went into mourning. A letter from the cabinet secretary Robin Butler to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister said: " The Prime Minister has asked that in the period immediately following the tragic death government ministers should avoid engaging in activities which could result in political controversy." What activities the PM had in mind, however, is not immediately clear.
STATUS: Alien visit?
SUBJECT: U.F.O.s
DATE: July, 1977
The National Archives Office in Kew, formerly known as the Public Records Office, holds the largest database of secrets in the world. Millions of documents in electronic and hard copy have been painstakingly filed under classified headings ranging from "restricted viewing" to "top secret".
For an investigative journalist there can be no more exciting a phrase than the words that flashed across the top of my documents: "Classified - not for release until 2010". The black ink stamp of secrecy meant that mine was the first unrestricted eye to see these documents for 30 years.
Since the 1950s, when the first reports of UFOs reached this country from America, the men from the ministry had maintained a contemptuous silence about the possibility of alien visitors. So it is still surprising to me, even today, that there exists at the heart of the Ministry of Defence, working in a committee room supported by secretarial staff, a special unit whose sole purpose is to investigate and collate reports of UFOs. These papers are Britain's very own X-Files.
Many of the documents contained fanciful reports from old ladies, children or UFO enthusiasts - and, on the whole, they do not make very convincing reading. But after a great deal of digging I finally came across a slightly thicker file, with much more MoD correspondence than any of the others. This time the observers were not children, confused old ladies or UFO nuts but an RAF pilot and two NCOs based at RAF Boulmer in Northumberland.
In July 1977, Flt Lt A M Wood reported "bright objects hanging over the sea", the closest of which was "luminous, round and four to five times larger than a Whirlwind helicopter".
The RAF personnel estimated that UFOs were three miles out to sea at a height of about 5,000ft. The officer's central report is carefully backed-up by the NCOs. With great attention to detail, he writes: "The objects separated. Then one went west of the other, as it manoeuvered it changed shape to become body-shaped with projections like arms and legs."
All three men who were positioned at the picket post at the RAF station were able to observe the strange objects for an hour and 40 minutes. At the same time a radar station detected the objects in exactly the same position as the men had observed them.
The accompanying MoD report describes Flt Lt Wood as "reliable and sober ". It adds: "Two contacts were noted on radar, both T84 and T85, at RAF Boulmer. They were also seen on the Staxton Wold radar picture which is relayed to West Drayton ... On seeing the objects on radar the duty controller checked with the SRO at RAF West Drayton as to whether he could see the objects on radar supplied from RAF Staxton Wold." This account was deemed so sensitive to the national interest that the MoD had delayed its release for an extra three years. It was the most credible evidence to emerge from Britain of extraterrestrial life visiting our world. Could this really have been Britain's very own Roswell experience?
STATUS: China crisis?
SUBJECT: Wham!
DATE: April, 1985
Wham! made pop history in 1985 when they became the first Western group to tour China. It was an event that was closely watched by British diplomats stationed in Beijing. The embassy's description of the 15,000 sell-out concert characterised it as an extraordinary culture clash with the audience mystified by the dancing and singing performances of George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley.
The embassy's unnamed first secretary wrote: "Neither the Chinese nor Wham! knew quite how to behave faced with something completely beyond their experience."
After the concert, the diplomat wondered if the authorities would allow more. "There is no reason to suppose that the Chinese have been discouraged by their experience ... Financially they must have done very well. There was considerable interest by the younger Chinese in the visit. There was a lively black market in tickets for the concert, although this was no doubt encouraged by Wham!'s generosity in giving a free copy of their latest tape away with each ticket."
STATUS:More murders?
SUBJECT:The Yorkshire Ripper
DATE: 1969-1975
A secret Home Office report from 1981, released in June of this year, revealed that Peter Sutcliffe, the serial killer known as the Yorkshire Ripper, probably committed "many" more attacks on women than the 13 murders and seven attempted murders for which he was finally jailed.
The report by Sir Lawrence Byford noted: "There is a curious and unexplained lull in Sutcliffe's criminal activities [between 1969, when he twice came to the attention of police over incidents involving prostitutes, and 1975, the date of the first murder for which he was convicted] and there is the possibility that he carried out other attacks on prostitutes and unaccompanied women during that period ... We feel it is highly improbable that the crimes in respect of which Sutcliffe has been charged and convicted are the only ones attributable to him."
At the time police identified at least six more attacks that matched Sutcliffe's modus operandi or his description. They tried to question the killer, now in Broadmoor, but he refused to help. Other documents show that Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister at the time, was so angry at the failure to catch the killer that there was talk of sending Scotland Yard to take over from the West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester forces.
STATUS: Royal romance?
SUBJECT: Princess Margaret
DATE: The 1950s
The keepers of the secrets of Buckingham Palace and Clarence House have been unable to prevent the publication of legal advice concerning a proposed marriage between Princess Margaret and her life-long love, the dashing Battle of Britain hero Group Captain Peter Townsend.
Papers finally revealed under the Freedom of Information Act show that although the Princess would have been removed from the line of succession, she could have kept her royal title if she had married the divorcé Townsend - a question that had provoked much argument over many years between constitutional experts. In a letter prepared for transmission to senior Commonwealth prime ministers, the British PM Anthony Eden (himself remarried after a divorce) said that even though the Queen would not give formal permission for the marriage because of Townsend's divorce, "Her Majesty would not want to stand in the way of her sister's happiness".
There was even an opinion from the Lord Chancellor that the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, under which the rights of the Royal family to marry are restricted, did not apply to Margaret.
Comment on this Article
British military inquiry rejects Kenya rape claims
Press Association
Thursday December 14, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
An inquiry into allegations that British soldiers raped more than 2,000 Kenyan women found no reliable evidence to support a criminal prosecution, the government said today.
The investigation, carried out by the special investigation branch of the Royal Military police, examined the claims and found much of the evidence cited in the cases appeared to have been fabricated.
In a statement today, the Ministry of Defence said the 10-month investigation had concluded there was "no corroborative evidence that would lead to the successful prosecution of a named individual in a UK court".
Impact, a human rights group representing Maasai women in the case, said it would continue its attempts to have the accused men prosecuted.
"There are a number of cases with concrete evidence, and even if the British write a hundred reports, justice must be done," the organisation's Johnson ole Kaunga said.
"They seem to be saying rapes took place but they can't find who did it. They have spent three years and millions ... just to tell us what they have always said. This is a joke."
Mr Kaunga said Kenyan police were conducting a parallel investigation, but were not available for comment.
The Royal Military police interviewed 2,187 mostly Maasai and Samburu tribeswomen who said they had been sexually assaulted by British troops training in Kenya.
"A large amount of the information provided by the Kenyan police and medical authorities appears to have been fabricated," a spokesman for the MoD said.
The investigation also examined claims that "institutional acquiescence" had led to rape complaints being ignored by the army, but again concluded that there was no case to answer.
The allegations, which date back over 55 years, arose in summer 2003 when several women demonstrated outside the British high commission in Nairobi, claiming their mixed race babies were the result of rapes by British soldiers.
The Adjutant General, Lieutenant General Freddie Viggers - the army's principal personnel officer - said: "The British army has taken these allegations extremely seriously, and they have been extensively and sensitively examined.
"It has been a complex and detailed investigation which has been subject to rigorous internal and external reviews, and all viable lines of inquiry have been pursued."
There are concerns that the findings, which were independently verified by Devon and Cornwall police, will strain relations between Britain and the Kenya, where up to 4,000 British troops undergo training each year.
Gen Viggers thanked the Kenyan authorities for their cooperation with the inquiry. "The British army greatly values the opportunity to train in Kenya, and we look forward to continuing our strong relationship with our Kenyan counterparts," he said.
Comment on this Article
Newspapers that used illegal information listed
David Leigh and Rob Evans
Thursday December 14, 2006
The Guardian
A league table of newspapers and magazines which have paid private detectives to obtain illegal information about celebrities and other individuals was published yesterday. The Daily Mail came top.
Richard Thomas, the information commissioner with the job of protecting people's privacy, compiled the report from evidence found by his investigators during a raid on a private detective who was working undercover for a string of newspapers and celebrity magazines.
The detective, Stephen Whittamore, sold information he obtained from the police national computer until he was exposed and convicted in 2005. More than 60 Daily Mail journalists had bought 982 separate pieces of information from Whittamore and his associates, according to Mr Thomas's figures. The Mail's sister titles, the Evening Standard and the Mail on Sunday, also featured in the top 10.
Last night, the Mail's owners, Associated Newspapers, dismissed the league table as "utterly meaningless" as it was a snapshot based on the activities of one detective agency. A spokesman said the data came "from an inquiry into the activities of one particular agency nearly five years ago which resulted in four people, not journalists, receiving conditional discharges".
Other newspapers in the table include the Sunday People, the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Times and the Observer (which is owned by the Guardian Media Group).
Mr Thomas, who has accused the tabloids of driving a black market which destroys people's privacy, decided to publish the league table after what he calls "disappointing" talks with editors on the Press Complaints Commission, the newspapers' self-regulatory body.
The editors have refused to rewrite their code, he says, and some oppose his call for criminal penalties great enough to act as a deterrent. He adds: "Freedom of speech is not freedom to break the law by bribery or deception where there is no public interest justification." He writes that he unsuccessfully asked the editors' committee, chaired by the Murdoch executive Les Hinton, "to make it clear that it is unacceptable without an individual's consent, to obtain information about their private life by bribery, impersonation or subterfuge" unless there was a clear public interest.
He added: "It is difficult to imagine a prosecution - let alone a conviction - of any journalist able to show that he or she was pursuing a story to prevent or detect crime, to expose public impropriety or was otherwise acting in the public interest."
One of the most prolific users of private detectives on the list is Best magazine, owned by a subsidiary of the US Hearst group. It is aimed at middle-aged women. Twenty of its staff bought information at least 130 times. Yesterday, Michelle Hather, the editor, declined to comment.
Glenn "Trigger" Mulcaire, a private detective who worked for the Murdoch-owned News of the World, is awaiting sentence for hacking into voicemails of the royal family and other celebrities, along with the paper's royal reporter, Clive Goodman. This week, a private detective from Surrey was sentenced to community service after admitting obtaining details of mobile phone bills in divorce cases. Last month another team of Cambridgeshire "blaggers" making bogus phone calls admitted working for City law firms in business disputes.
Roger Alton, editor of the Observer, said: "Yes, the Observer has used the services of an outside agency in the past, and while there were strong public interest defences for most of those cases, it is possible that some of the inquiries did not sufficiently fit that criteria. As a result, I have now taken steps to ensure that no inquiries will be made through outside agencies unless I believe that there is a compelling public interest to do so."
Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, who sits on the PCC, has told his journalists "that they must observe the law when seeking information" since the information commissioner started to raise concerns about abuses this year.
His spokesman added: "Associated Newspapers, in common with all newspapers and broadcasters, and many other organisations, including lawyers, use search agencies to obtain information entirely legitimately from a range of public sources ... In addition, the law specifically makes provision for journalists making inquiries in the public interest."
Paul Ashford, the editorial director of the Express newspapers, said: "I've spoken to our editor and cannot provide any instances of our having obtained information this way." A spokesman for Trinity Mirror, the owner of the Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and the People, declined to comment.
Comment on this Article
British PM Quizzed Over Scandal
By Adam Boulton
Sky News
Dec 14 06
Tony Blair has been questioned by police in connection with the cash-for-honours investigation, Downing Street has said.
The Prime Minister was not spoken to under caution.
Mr Blair gave explanations of why he nominated individuals for peerages, the spokesman continued.
He added that the PM was not accompanied by a lawyer while being quizzed inside Downing Street.
"Given that the Scottish National Party made the complaint about people nominated for peerages by the Prime Minister, you would expect that the police would ask to see the PM as their inquiries come to a conclusion," the spokesman added.
The interview lasted between one and two hours.
The aide flatly denied that the interview had been deliberately timed to coincide with the release of a report into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.
The cash-for-honours inquiry revolves around a series of loans made to both main political parties by millionaire backers before last year's general election.
It was sparked by claims that wealthy Labour backers were being rewarded with peerages and was later widened to cover similar claims about the Conservatives.
Sky News Political Editor Adam Boulton said: "We've been getting the message that they (the police) possibly haven't got the evidence to go all the way and indict the Prime Minister. Today's events indicate that."
Angus MacNeil, the SNP MP who triggered the inquiry, said: "This revelation will be shaking the very foundations of Westminster.
"For the Prime Minister to be questioned by the police during a criminal investigation is unprecedented."
Comment: Perhaps it is also high time Mr. Blair was questioned about his war crimes in Iraq and the manipulation and lies that constantly spill from his mouth. Handing out peerages is the least of his worries though this may serve to oust him before his departure thus placing him out of the spotlight and away from the possiblity of difficult questions regarding the Iraq invasion. Blair's appalling record of self-aggrandizement would always be one of the reasons he was chosen to promote the phoney "War on Terror." This quality will also be his undoing at a time his handlers see fit.
Comment on this Article
Kalahari Kapers
Kalahari Bushmen win ancestral land case
By Alex Duval Smith
14 December 2006
The Botswana High Court has given more than 1,000 Kalahari Bushmen the right to return to their ancestral hunting grounds by ruling they were wrongly evicted by the Botswanan government four years ago.
Campaigners said the landmark decision will advance the rights of indigenous people all over the world. Supporters of the Bushmen - traditional hunter-gatherers whose proper name is the San - accused the government of evicting them to exploit the potential diamond and mineral wealth on their reserve.
A panel of three judges in the southern Botswanan town of Lobatse ruled that the San were illegally moved from their ancestral land in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve.
After a 2-1 ruling, Judge Mpaphi Phumaphi, who delivered the swing vote, said the government had forced them out of the reserve by depriving them of their livelihood. "In my view, the simultaneous stoppage of the supply of food rations and the stoppage of hunting licences is tantamount to condemning the remaining residents to death by starvation," he said.
Miriam Ross, of the London-based pressure group Survival International, said the ruling was historic because it added to a "growing body of case law and a mounting international consensus that recognises the rights of indigenous peoples".
She said a similar case in South Africa three years ago had granted the San rights to mineral revenues from their ancestral land. But the Botswana case marked the first time a modern African court had recognised the ancestral land access rights of indigenous people, she added.
The Botswana government would not comment on the ruling but said it was considering appealing.
There are estimated to be 100,000 Bushmen in southern Africa, and about half are in Botswana. None live the 20,000-year-old traditional hunter-gatherer life centred on tracking and killing game on foot using poison arrows.
Because of their change in lifestyle, it is unlikely that many San will return to the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, which is the size of Belgium. The ruling gives them the right to do so, but does not compel the government to provide services such as water, clinics and schools in the park.
The San have suffered decades of discrimination at the hands of the local Setswana population whose name for them, Basarwa, means "people without cattle".
White settlers once hunted them for sport. Renowned for their ability to track game by reading delicate signs in the sand, the San in South Africa were used by its armed forces as frontline "trackers" in the Apartheid era.
Yesterday's ruling reverses 20 years of a Botswana government policy to "encourage" the San to leave the reserve. From 1997, the authorities began to cut services to them, such as mobile clinics, in the park. Payments were offered to those who volunteered to move to a resettlement camp 30 miles away.
For that reason, the government has always argued that it did not evict anyone. However, human rights campaigners in Botswana say the authorities took advantage of the San's low levels of education by spreading rumours that boreholes in the park would be sealed and those who remained would be killed by the Botswana Defence Force.
San advocacy groups say they have been watched by police. Most anthropologists have been denied research permits to study them in the park.
But it is unlikely that many San will return to the park. Even before the evictions began 20 years ago, most had given up their nomadic existence in the park and had settled around boreholes in it.
Nevertheless, life in the park - close to the ancestors who are crucial to the wellbeing of the San - was better than at the New Xade resettlement camp, where residents have no jobs, resettlement grants are spent on alcohol, and Aids is rife.
Desire for tourism in the Kalahari and concern for its dwindling wildlife are the government's principal motives for resettling the San.
Claims from European pressure groups that the government is motivated by a desire to allow diamond mining in the park have been discredited. Even if true, the move would produce such an international outcry that it would be unlikely.
But it will take major investment to make the park viable for tourism. Animal populations, down to a mere 5 per cent of levels 30 years ago, were decimated by government-built cattle fences around the park, which cut off game from natural migration routes and water.
De Beers boycotters ask DiCaprio for support
The creators of a new website designed to promote an international boycott of the De Beers diamond company have placed a full-page advertisement in Variety, the Hollywood entertainment newspaper, appealing to the actor Leonardo DiCaprio to help with their campaign.
The site, www.boycottdebeers.com, accuses the company of complying with the government of Botswana in forcing bushmen from land in a park in the Kalahari desert, created to protect them from the encroachments of modern civilisation.
The diamond giant has denied any connection with the eviction of the bushmen.
However, several international models, including Imam, Lily Cole and Erin O'Connor, who have previously worked for De Beers, are supporting the campaign and have vowed not appear on behalf of the company again.
DiCaprio plays the lead role in the newly released thriller Blood Diamond, which highlights the money-trail from diamond mining to conflicts in Africa. De Beers has responded to the film by saying its diamonds are 100 per cent untainted by war and violence.
David Usborne
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Kalahari Bushmen lose desert battle
Staff and agencies
Wednesday December 13, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Bushmen forced out of the Kalahari desert by Botswana's government will not be allowed to return, the country's top judge ruled today.
Two other high court judges are still due to deliver their own verdicts later in the day, in a case which has attracted worldwide attention to the fate of the Bushmen, who are among Africa's last hunter-gatherers.
However, the decision by the court's chief justice, Maruping Dibotelo, most likely means the Bushmen will fail in their attempt to return to the desert from which they were evicted four years ago.
"The contention of the applicants that the government unlawfully deprived them of their land ...must fail," the judge ruled, according to Reuters.
About 100 Bushmen, some with animal hides on their clothing, were waiting outside the courtroom in Lobatse, south of Botswana's capital, Gaborone.
Roy Sesana, leader of the pressure group which brought the case, said the chief justice's opinion meant the high court could not be considered impartial.
"It's not fair. We are very sad about this statement," Reuters quoted him as saying. "They were told how to give the verdict. They were blinded and they had their ears covered."
The Bushmen, whose ancestors have lived in the Kalahari for thousands of years, say they have been forced to resettle in bleak camps to make way for diamond mining, Botswana's most lucrative export.
Backed by foreign supporters, including Survival International, a British-based pressure group which campaigns for the rights of indigenous and tribal people, the Bushmen launched a civil lawsuit to try to force the government to let them return.
The government insists the Bushmen have changed their lifestyle so much that they do not belong in the Kalahari any more and are affecting conservation efforts. They are better off in settlements, where they have access to clinics and schools, it says, adding that diamond mining has nothing to do with the decision.
The Bushmen's legal campaign has been strongly backed by international campaigners, among them South African anti-apartheid hero, Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Survival International says that more than one in 10 of the original 239 Bushmen who signed up to the legal case have since died in government resettlement camps.
The pressure group alleges that the Bushmen have been forced out to make way for increased operations by De Beers, the world's biggest diamond mining company, which denies any such plans.
The government has resettled about 2,000 Bushmen mostly in 1997 and 2002 and says all but about 24 had voluntarily left the reserve. About half of southern Africa's 100,000 surviving Bushmen live in Botswana. The Bushmen have said they will appeal if they lose the case.
Comment on this Article
Flashback: Bushmen: The harmless people
Alison George
New Scientist Print Edition
11 November 2006
In 1950, a 19-year-old girl left the elite Smith College in Massachusetts to join her family on an expedition that would change their lives. Prompted by her father's desire to visit unexplored places, the family set off for the Kalahari desert in search of Bushmen living out the "old ways" of hunter-gatherers. The girl, Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, went on to celebrate them in her 1959 book The Harmless People, which became a classic of popular anthropology. Nearly 50 years on, Marshall Thomas's latest book The Old Way revisits the story - and finds that the Bushmen's fate is more complex than it seems.
Elizabeth Marshall Thomas went on three expeditions to visit the Bushmen of what is now Botswana and Namibia. They were the last major population of hunter-gatherers. Marshall Thomas returned to her English degree at Smith College, Massachusetts, and has written seven books, both fiction and non-fiction, including the best-selling The Hidden Life of Dogs. Her latest book, The Old Way, was published in October (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, $25).
Westerners mourn the loss of this hunter-gatherer society, but you take a rather different view...
Yes, for me they are living in somewhat the same way, but with different economics. The idea that you help your own is still present. This is what kept the human race alive for 150,000 years.
The hunter-gatherers told anthropologists they don't define themselves by how they get food but by how they relate to each other. We saw that. They tried to keep jealousy at a minimum, with nobody more important or owning more things than anyone else.
You gave things away rather than keep them. You wanted other people to think of you with a good feeling.
Is that the "old way" of your book title?
Yes.
There was a time when the playing field was level and all species lived in this way. How people and their domestic animals live now is profoundly different.
Are there still efforts to help the Bushmen regain that idealised notion of the hunter-gatherer life?
There are, and I think it's unfortunate. Tourists want to see it, and WWF and other organisations want to preserve the local ecosystems - which is a good thing. But it's the Bushmen's ecosystem and the reason that it's there today is because of their way of life. So I have a little problem with some foreign group telling them what they must and must not do.
Also, gathering food is not going to be as viable as it was in the past because back then the population density was one person per 10 square miles, but now there are many more people and much less space. And people don't have the skills they need to live in the old way. Foreign groups are asking young African men to go back to stone-age hunting when these men know perfectly well that everyone else has rifles.
So there's no going back?
No, though anybody could become a hunter-gatherer - you'd just have to learn it. But you don't see a lot of volunteers stepping forward to do it now because it's much too difficult. After the old lifestyle collapsed, the Bushmen were encouraged to be farmers like other Namibians, and they tried. Some farms were started around a place set up for them called Tsumkwe. But for a number of reasons the experiment didn't work very well and Tsumkwe is now a hellhole with a huge alcohol problem. Even so, if the farmers received the help they needed the farms might be a way of moving forward. On land that the Bushmen own they could do all sorts of things, such as sports hunting, where foreigners pay to hunt big game. The Bushmen could be paid guides, for example.
Are these the people you lived with?
Some of them are the very same people. We spent most of our time with the Ju/wasi - also spelt Ju/'hoansi in textbooks, but I use the older spelling because it looks closer to how it sounds. The Ju/wasi we knew lived in what is now Namibia. We also visited the /Gwi people who live on the border between Botswana and Namibia.
You wrote that the expedition was like voyaging into the deep past?
Yes. The Bushmen had Palaeolithic technology. They didn't plant crops and had no domestic animals, no fabric or manufactured goods. They sometimes used small bits of metal for arrowheads, but since the arrows were merely a variation of bone arrows, the technology did not change.
What did they eat?
Most food was gathered by the women. When people think of gathering, they think of it as mostly plant food, but it produced proteins such as turtle, snake, caterpillar, honey ants and the like. The most exciting food, however, was large antelope that the men hunted, and that amounted to about 20 per cent of their food. The success rate of hunting was a lot lower than gathering, but they could get large amounts of meat that would feed the whole group - usually about 25 people - for a while.
A big adventure for a 19-year-old girl. Didn't these experiences end up in a famous novel?
Yes. Sylvia Plath also went to Smith College, and we were in the same writing class as part of our literature degrees. Our teacher used to read aloud from our writings, but didn't give names. But I knew that Plath was in that class later because I recognised the style of poetry. I wish I had known her. But I believe I appeared briefly in The Bell Jar as a girl who won a prize for writing about her adventures among the pygmies of Africa.
What do you make of the accusations by some academics that your writing is too sentimental?
My mother Lorna also wrote about the Bushman culture and we were both accused of over-emphasising the lack of violence in Bushman culture, but we were only reporting what we had seen. In the Bushmen groups we visited, we observed that there was much emphasis on cooperation and on avoiding jealousy. The reason was that life was pretty marginal and one way to get through was to have others who help you in your hour of need. Everything in their culture was oriented to this.
So it isn't that they have a natural "niceness" - I never said that they did. They're just like everybody else. What they have done is recognise the damage one person can do to another and try to put a limit on it.
What about research that shows if you scale up the violence in Bushman society, it's as bad as Detroit?
There is no question that violence did happen in Bushman societies. I knew of a group of 15 where one man killed two others with an arrow. The men in that group killed the killer. So now three had died, and three in 15 is a pretty high percentage: that's higher than the murder rate of Detroit. But the reason the Bushmen we encountered were focused on not fighting was because they were a society that recognised the human proclivity for fighting and tried to remove its causes.
They had the same difficulties as everyone else but they treated it differently, and they recognised the value of having a low-violence society.
Did you sense that this kind of life couldn't last?
It was obvious that in the outside world there was a desire for land expansion. The pastoralists wanted it for grazing, and the white farmers for farms. People thought: "Why not take the land from the Bushmen, they're not doing anything with it?" The farmers and the pastoralists thought the Bushmen would be put to "better use" if they were made to work on the farms. My father saw it all coming. The first year we were there, a farmer followed our tracks and captured some Bushmen for slaves. My dad found out and went and got them back.
How did it all come to an end?
The /Gwi we knew were displaced by farmers from the lands they had always used. Most of them died of thirst, starvation or disease. Part of the Kalahari was designated "Bushmanland" in 1970. Unfortunately this was meant to be home not only to the original inhabitants but to all Bushmen from all language groups. The density of people meant the end of hunting and gathering. Many of the Ju/wasi now live in Tsumkwe, and depend on the wages of the few who can find work.
Did the ideas about Bushmen becoming hunter-gatherers again stop the farms taking off?
Yes. And that's my brother John's message too. He made a film called The Kalahari Family, and the last section is titled "Death by myth". He believes Bushman farms failed because they didn't get the support they needed, due to the efforts channelled towards getting them back to a hunter-gatherer way of life.
From issue 2577 of New Scientist magazine, 11 November 2006, page 52-53
Comment on this Article
Random Acts of Random Minds
Blogging 'set to peak next year'
BBC News
Dec 14 06
The blogging phenomenon is set to peak in 2007, according to technology predictions by analysts Gartner.
The analysts said that during the middle of next year the number of blogs will level out at about 100 million.
The analysts said that during the middle of next year the number of blogs will level out at about 100 million.
The firm has said that 200 million people have already stopped writing their blogs.
Gartner has made 10 predictions, including stating that Vista will be the last major release of Windows and PCs will halve in cost by 2010.
Gartner analyst Daryl Plummer said the reason for the levelling off in blogging was due to the fact that most people who would ever start a web blog had already done so.
He said those who loved blogging were committed to keeping it up, while others had become bored and moved on.
"A lot of people have been in and out of this thing," Mr Plummer said.
"Everyone thinks they have something to say, until they're put on stage and asked to say it."
Last month blog tracking firm Technorati reported that 100,000 new blogs were being created every day, and 1.3 million blog posts were written.
Technorati is tracking more than 57 million blogs, of which it believes around 55% are "active" and updated at least every three months.
Gartner also predicted that:
# By 2010, the average total cost of ownership of new PCs will fall by 50%
# By 2010, 60% of the worldwide cellular population will be "trackable" via an emerging "follow-me internet"
# By the end of 2007, 75% of enterprises will be infected with undetected, financially motivated, targeted malware that evaded their traditional perimeter and host defences
Comment on this Article
Execution of Fla. Inmate Takes 34 Min.
By Ron Word,
Associated Press
Dec 14, 06
Death penalty opponents criticized the execution of a convicted murderer who took more than half an hour to die and needed a rare second dose of lethal chemicals.
Angel Nieves Diaz, 55, convicted of murdering a Miami topless bar manager 27 years ago, appeared to grimace before dying 34 minutes after receiving a double lethal chemical dose Wednesday.
Department of Corrections spokeswoman Gretl Plessinger said she doesn't believe Diaz felt any pain. She said Diaz started snoring and became unconscious after the first three drugs were administered and never regained consciousness.
Plessinger said Diaz had liver disease, which required the second dose of lethal chemicals. But Diaz's cousin Maria Otero said the family had no knowledge that he suffered from liver disease and said the execution was political.
"Who came down to Earth and gave you the right to kill somebody?" Otero said, referring to Gov. Jeb Bush. "Why a stupid second dose?"
Bush said in a statement that the Department of Corrections followed all protocols: "A preexisting medical condition of the inmate was the reason tonight's procedure took longer than recent procedures carried out this year," the statement said.
Diaz was pronounced dead at 6:36 p.m., despite his protests of innocence and requests for clemency made by the governor of his native Puerto Rico.
A spokesman for Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, called Diaz's death a botched execution.
"They had to execute him twice," Mark Elliot said. "If Floridians could witness the pain and the agony of the executed man's family, they would end the death penalty."
In most Florida executions, the prisoner loses consciousness almost immediately and stops moving within three-to-five minutes. Two doctors watching a heart monitor then wait for it to show a flat line. They then inspect the body and pronounce death. The whole process happens within 15 minutes.
Diaz's final appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court challenged the chemicals used in the state's procedure, saying it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. His appeals were rejected about an hour before his execution began.
Attorneys for him and other condemned inmates have been unsuccessfully challenging Florida's three-chemical method, saying it results in extreme pain that an inmate cannot express because one of the drugs is a paralyzing agent.
Puerto Rican officials, including Gov. Acevedo Vila and Senate President Kenneth D. McClintock, wrote Bush asking him to stop Diaz's execution, but he declined. Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, abolished capital punishment in 1929.
Moments before his execution, Diaz again denied killing Joseph Nagy during a robbery at the Velvet Swing Lounge. There were no eyewitnesses to Nagy's Dec. 29, 1979, murder. Most of the club's employees and patrons were locked in a restroom, but Diaz's girlfriend later told police he was involved.
Comment on this Article
Imagine: Yoko Ono's driver accused of trying to extort millions from her
TOM HAYS
Associated Press
14 Dec 06
Extortion note delivered on anniversary of John Lennon's killing
NEW YORK - A chauffeur for Yoko Ono was arrested Wednesday for trying to extort $2-million from her by threatening to circulate embarrassing photos of her, and he also spoke of killing her and son Sean Lennon, police said.
Koral Karsan was arrested after Ono reported the plot, New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said. Charges were pending.
Karsan, while being led into a police station, denied trying to extort Ono.
"No," he said. "No way."
As he was led out of a Manhattan police station, Karsan said Ono was trying "to stop me from pursuing a sexual harassment case."
Ono's spokesman denied it.
"That is completely false. She's the victim here," the spokesman, Elliott Mintz, told the New York Post.
The security staff for Ono, the widow of John Lennon, told detectives that Karsan wrote in a rambling note to her that he had secretly photographed her and made audiotapes of her in private moments. Karsan warned he would make the material public if she didn't pay him, police said.
Mintz said Karsan had worked for Lennon's widow for at least six years, driving her on an almost daily basis when she was in New York.
"She is one woman who has been through enough," Mintz said. "For an employee - especially a trusted employee who drove her - to attempt a shakedown has left her just absolutely shocked."
On Dec. 8, the 26th anniversary of Lennon's killing, Karsan dropped off the note and a photo of Ono in nightclothes at the Dakota apartment building, where the former Beatle once lived with her and where she still resides, police said.
Karsan, 50, talked about killing her, her son and himself during a later conversation with one of her associates, which was recorded by investigators, police said.
The audiotapes of Ono were apparently recorded while she was speaking on a phone in the car with Karsan at the wheel, Mintz said.
"You're reminded that this takes place around that time of the anniversary, when she is in a particularly vulnerable position," Mintz said. "It just adds insult to injury. This one's really cold."
On the night of Dec. 8, 1980, Lennon was returning with Ono to the Dakota from a recording studio when Mark David Chapman opened fire with a .38-calibre revolver, hitting him four times.
In Karsan's Long Island neighbourhood, people who knew him were stunned to hear of the allegations.
"He wouldnt say much about Yoko, very closed-mouthed about her, never said anything detrimental," Gertrude M. Follett, a real-estate broker who works from a house next door, told The New York Times. "He loved his job, and we always assumed she was happy with him. He was a charming man, always impeccably dressed. We never would have thought he would do what theyre saying."
Comment on this Article
Author traces journey of 'God's gold'
By Matthew Kalman, Globe Correspondent | October 15, 2006
MAR THEODOSIUS, West Bank -- Until today, the main claim to fame of this sleepy monastery, home to 10 nuns on the edge of the Judean wilderness in the West Bank, was the tradition that said the Three Wise Men slept in the caves here after visiting the infant Jesus Christ in Bethlehem.
Now, a new book contends that Mar Theodosius is the last hiding place of one of the greatest treasures of antiquity: the gold and silver vessels of the Temple in Jerusalem.
British archeologist Sean Kingsley said he followed the journey of the legendary vessels for the first time since they disappeared from public view more than 1,500 years ago and traced them to their current location in this walled monastery east of Bethlehem in the Palestinian West Bank.
Kingsley's critics say there is no evidence to support his thesis, and plenty of evidence that it's ludicrous.
The vessels in question include some of the icons of biblical Judaism -- the seven-branched gold candelabrum, bejewel ed Table of the Divine Presence, and a pair of silver trumpets.
Many people, including Israeli government officials, believe the Temple vessels are hidden somewhere in the Vatican vaults. In 1996, Religious Affairs Minister Shimon Shetreet asked officially for the pope to return them. The Vatican denied the vessels were there.
Kingsley argues that the vessels were taken from Rome when it was sacked by the Vandals in AD 455.
In his new book, "God's Gold: The Quest for the Lost Temple Treasure of Jerusalem," published in Britain by John Murray and in the United States by Harper Collins next spring, Kingsley describes what he says was the odyssey of the priceless haul: from Jerusalem to Rome and back again via Carthage and Constantinople, to what he says is its final resting place at the Greek Orthodox monastery of Mar Theodosius on the edge of the Judean desert, in the village of Ubadiyah, about 6 miles east of Bethlehem.
Kingsley holds a doctorate in the arch eology of the Holy Land from Oxford University and is a visiting fellow at the Research Centre for Late Antique and Byzantine Studies at the University of Reading. He is managing editor of Minerva, the International Review of Ancient Art and Archaeology, and was one of the archeologists who discovered the largest trove of sunken treasure ever recovered off the coast of Israel.
Kingsley says his research suggests that the precious vessels were hidden in the caves under Mar Theodosius to escape the sacking of Jerusalem by Muslim invaders in AD 614.
Nuns at the monastery said there was no treasure buried at Mar Theodosius, which was itself destroyed during the same Muslim invasion and left abandoned until the late 19th century. During a visit to the caves beneath the monastery, a reporter was told that no precious artifacts had ever been recovered from the site, probably because it was left in ruins for nearly 1,300 years and any valuables there were looted by hermits and grave robbers.
Israeli specialists scoffed at Kingsley's theories.
"I've been there several times studying the skeletons of monks who were massacred by the Persians in the seventh century," said Joe Zias, an Israeli anthropologist and archeologist. "It doesn't have any such treasure, and if it did it was plundered by the Arabs or Persians centuries ago."
The story of the vessels has long fascinated historians. According to Josephus, a first-century Roman-Jewish historian, 50 tons of gold and silver vessels were plundered from the Temple by the Roman Emperor Vespasian and his son Titus during the conquest of Jerusalem in AD 70.
"Contemporary sources show that it survived on public display in the Temple of Peace in the Roman Forum from AD 75 into the early fifth century. Then it suddenly disappeared. Who stole God's gold?" Kingsley said in an interview.
According to his research, it was Gaiseric, king of the Vandals.
"In AD 455, Gaiseric looted and burnt Rome in 14 days and threw everything he could, including the Temple treasures, into ships and took them to the Temple of Carthage," he said. "They would not have liquidated the loot. It gave them power."
"In AD 534, the emperor Justinian brought the Vandal king into Constantinople. The records show that they resurrected the triumphal procession in AD 71. The historian Procopius of Ceasaria clearly describes the treasures of Jerusalem being paraded at the head of this triumph."
But the treasure did not remain in Constantinople for very long.
"The emperor Justinian was a student of classical antiquity, and he was aware that every civilization that controlled the Temple treasure had eventually been consumed by it. Fearful, he sent the treasure back to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem in around AD 560," said Kingsley.
Procopius report ed that a Jewish court adviser warned Justinian about the dangers of keeping the vessels. The emperor "became afraid and quickly sent everything to the sanctuaries of the Christians in Jerusalem, " Procopius wrote.
During a subsequent Persian invasion, Kingsley argues, a monk called Modestus from the monastery at Mar Theodosius found himself in charge of the priceless vessels and hid them in the isolated desert caves at the monastery.
Kingsley said he peered over the wall of the monastery and saw evidence of archeological looting in the area, but hoped the Temple treasures -- if they are there -- would remain undisturbed.
Comment on this Article
Big Brother and Senator Johnson: Qui Bono?
Control of US senate in question as Democrat rushed to hospital
AFP
14 Dec 06
Democrats risked losing their control of the US senate to President George W. Bush's Republican Party after a senator was rushed to a hospital to undergo emergency surgery.
Democrat Tim Johnson, 59, one of the two senators from South Dakota, was taken Wednesday to George Washington University Hospital in the US capital for a "comprehensive evaluation by the stroke team," his Senate press office said Thursday.
Democrats took control of the Senate from the Republicans in November's legislative elections, but will have a mere one-vote majority when they convene in January.
The loss of Johnson would mean the 100-member body could revert to Republican control if South Dakota's Republican governor appoints a Republican to replace him.
The Senate would then be split 50-50, with Vice President Dick Cheney wielding the tie-breaking vote.
Johnson underwent surgery early Thursday, the New York Times and the Washington Post reported, giving no further details. CNN, quoting two unnamed Democratic sources, said that Johnson was undergoing brain surgery.
The senator's office early Thursday had no new information, but promised an update later in the day.
On Wednesday Johnson's office said in a recorded statement that the senator had not suffered a stroke as initially feared, saying merely that he "continues to undergo testing and procedures" at the hospital.
If Johnson cannot serve the remaining two years of his six-year term, South Dakota's Republican governor Mike Rounds would choose a suceessor, a top state official told AFP.
"Our state law does prescribe that if there a vacancy in the office of United States senate, that the governor appoints a replacement and that person serves until the next general election," said South Dakota Secretary of State Chris Nelson.
It is unclear, however, how "vacancy" is defined: in 1969, then South Dakota senator Karl Mundt suffered a severe stroke and never returned to Washington, but remained in office until 1973.
Johnson served five two-year terms in the House of Representatives, then was elected to the Senate in 1996 and reelected in 2002.
He was named the incoming chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, and is to hold seats on the senate's appropriations, energy, commerce and banking panels.
Johnson fell ill around mid-day Wednesday during a telephone press conference on Iraq policy. His oldest son Brooks has served with the US army there.
Nelson said Johnson is seen as a major figure in his state's political scene.
"We obviously feel bad about what has happened to the senator, and hope that this is just an unfortunate one day event and that he will be able to serve us quickly," Nelson said.
Comment: Hmmm... where did I hear about that strange technology that can induce a stroke in a targeted victim? Oh, yes... it's in a scientific paper HERE.
Comment on this Article
S.D. Sen. Johnson in critical condition
By MARY CLARE JALONICK,
Associated Press Writer
14 December 2006
WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson was in critical condition recovering from emergency brain surgery Thursday, creating political drama over whether his illness could cost Democrats newly won control of the Senate.
The South Dakota senator, 59, suffered from bleeding in the brain caused by a congenital malformation, the U.S. Capitol physician said. He described the surgery as successful.
The condition, usually present at birth, causes tangled blood vessels that can burst.
Democrats hold a fragile 51-49 margin in the new Senate that convenes Jan. 4. If Johnson leaves the Senate, the Republican governor of South Dakota could appoint a Republican to fill the remaining two years of Johnson's term - keeping the Senate in GOP hands with Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking power.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he had visited Johnson in the hospital Thursday morning and that he was confident of a full recovery.
Asked about whether Democratic control of the Senate might be jeopardized, Reid said, "There isn't a thing that's changed."
Reid refused to comment on Johnson's medical condition, declining to even answer a question on whether the senator was conscious. "To me he looked very good," Reid said.
Johnson was taken to the hospital on Wednesday after becoming disoriented during a conference phone call with reporters. At first, he answered questions normally but then began to stutter. He paused, then continued stammering before appearing to recover and ending the call.
"The senator is recovering without complication," said Adm. John Eisold, the Capitol physician. "It is premature to determine whether further surgery will be required or to assess any long-term prognosis."
Eisold said doctors drained the blood that had accumulated in Johnson's brain and stopped continued bleeding.
Johnson's condition, also known as AVM, or arteriovenous malformation, causes arteries and veins to grow abnormally large and become tangled.
The condition is believed to affect about 300,000 Americans, according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. The institute's Web site said only about 12 percent of the people with the condition experience symptoms, ranging in severity. It kills about 3,000 people a year.
The senator's wife, Barbara Johnson, said the family "is encouraged and optimistic."
In a statement from Johnson's office Thursday, she said her family was "grateful for the prayers and good wishes of friends, supporters and South Dakotans."
A person familiar with Johnson's situation said surgery began late Wednesday night and ended around 12:30 a.m. Thursday and that the next 24 to 48 hours would be critical in determining Johnson's condition. The person spoke on condition of anonymity out of respect for the senator's family.
If Johnson were forced to relinquish his seat, a replacement would be named by South Dakota's GOP Gov. Mike Rounds.
A Republican appointee would create a 50-50 tie, and allow the GOP to retain Senate control.
However, Senate historian Don Ritchie said senators serve out their terms unless they resign or die. Nine senators have remained in the Senate even though illnesses kept them away from the chamber for six months or more.
Rounds' press secretary, Mark Johnston, said Thursday the governor had nothing new to say. "We're watching as much as everyone else," he said.
The governor, elected to a second four-year term last month, has been widely seen as the Republican candidate with the best chance to challenge Johnson in two years.
Other than Rounds himself, top possibilities if a replacement senator were needed include Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard and state Public Utilities Commission Chairman Dusty Johnson, considered a rising star in the Republican Party. Retiring GOP legislative leaders, such as state House Speaker Matthew Michels and Senate Majority Leader Eric Bogue, also might be considered.
Johnson, who turns 60 later this month, was admitted to George Washington University hospital at midday after experiencing what his office initially said was a possible stroke.
His spokeswoman, Julianne Fisher, later told reporters that it had been determined that the senator had suffered neither a stroke nor a heart attack.
Fisher said that after making the conference call with reporters from the recording studio in the basement of the Capitol, he then walked back to his office but appeared to not be feeling well. The Capitol physician came to his office and examined him, and it was decided he should go to the hospital.
He was taken to the hospital by ambulance around noon, Fisher said. "It was caught very early," she said.
Johnson is up for re-election in 2008.
In 1969, another South Dakota senator, Karl Mundt, a Republican, suffered a stroke while in office. Mundt continued to serve until the end of his term in January 1973, although he was unable to attend Senate sessions and was stripped of his committee assignments by the Senate Republican Conference in 1972.
Johnson, who was elected in 1996, holds the same seat previously held by Mundt.
South Dakota Secretary of State Chris Nelson said there were no special restrictions on an appointment by the governor and a replacement would not have to be from the same political party.
The Senate last convened with a perfect balance of 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats in January 2001. Then, the two parties struck a power-sharing agreement that gave control of the Senate to Republicans but gave Democrats equal representation on committees.
That arrangement lasted only until June 2001, when Vermont Republican James Jeffords became an independent who chose to vote with Democrats on organizational matters, giving Democrats control until Republicans won back the Senate in the 2002 midterm elections.
Johnson, a centrist Democrat, was first elected to the Senate in 1996 after serving 10 years in the House. He narrowly defeated Republican John Thune in his 2002 re-election bid. Thune defeated Sen. Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, two years later.
Johnson underwent prostate cancer treatment in 2004, and subsequent tests have shown him to be clear of the disease.
Johnson is the second senator to become ill after the Nov. 7 election. Wyoming Sen. Craig Thomas, a Republican, was diagnosed with leukemia on Election Day. He is back at work.
Comment: Is this fishy or what? A senator from a Republican dominated state, where the legislature and governor have the power to appoint a Republican to take his place, in a Senate that is a Democratic majority by one vote. And it's Dick Cheney who would break a tie vote.
Coincidence?
We think not.
Comment on this Article
Big Brother Controlling Your Head
Scott Thurston
The Jailhouse Lawyer
Anyone who thinks someone isn't watching, listening to and constantly plotting to control the minds of the masses might be shocked to view the following list of patents by a string of inventors who apparently found a variety of ways to do it all.
The problem: which devices will be chosen, and when were they put in service. Notice that many of these patents are 20 to 30 years old.
The list was sent to me by a reader who noted that it was marked Top Secret, and the patent list was to be removed from public domain. Of course the list immediately ended up on the Internet.
In the chance that the list is bogus, I did a search on the patent names and numbers. They came up as legitimate invention ideas being hawked, sometimes by their inventors, on line. Most commonly they were in lists of mind control devices. Beyond that, I have no reason to verify or deny them as factual. Click on the highlighted search links and decide for yourself.
Do they work?
What other explanation do we have for the masses following George W. Bush into an attack on Iraq like they did, with few questions asked? What other reason do we have for the people taking the Bush Supreme Court appointment over Al Gore to the presidency, even though most voters chose Gore in 2000?
This list ought to alarm everybody. I am betting it doesn't.
(Go to original for hyperlinks.)
Silent Subliminal Presentation System, US Patent #5,159,703, Oliver Lowery, October 27, 1992. A silent communications system in which non-aural carriers in the very low or very high audio-frequency range, or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum, are amplitude-modulated with the desired intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally for inducement into the brain.
Hearing System, US Patent #4,877,027, Wayne Brunkan, October 31, 1989. A method for directly inducing sound into the head of a person, using microwaves in the range of 100 MHz to 10,000 MHz, modulated with a waveform of frequency- modulated bursts.
Psycho-Acoustic Projector, US Patent #3,568,347, Andrew Flanders, February 23, 1971. A system for producing aural psychological disturbances and partial deafness in the enemy during combat situations.
Noise Generator and Transmitter, US Patent #4,034,741, Guy Adams and Jess Carden, Jr, July 12, 1977. An analgesic noise-generator.
Method and System for Altering Consciousness, US Patent #5,123,899, James Gall, June 23, 1992. A system for altering the states of human consciousness involving the use of simultaneous application of multiple stimuli, preferably sounds, having differing frequencies.
Subliminal Message Generator, US Patent #5,270,800, Robert Sweet, December 14, 1993. A combined subliminal and supraliminal message generator for use with a television receiver; permits complete control of subliminal messages and their presentation. Also applicable to cable television and computers.
Superimposing Method and Apparatus Useful for Subliminal Messages, US Patent #5,134,484, Joseph Wilson, July 28, 1992. Method of changing a person's behavior.
US Patent #4,717,343, Alan Densky, January 5, 1988. A method of conditioning a person's unconscious mind in order to effect desired change in the person's behavior, and which does not require the services of a trained therapist.
Auditory Subliminal Message System and Method, US Patent #4,395,600, Rene Lundy and David Tyler, July 26, 1983. An amplitude-controlled subliminal message may be mixed with background music.
Auditory Subliminal Programming System, US Patent #4,777,529, Richard Schultz and Raymond Dolejs, October 11, 1988.
Apparatus for Inducing Frequency Reduction in Brain Wave, US Patent #4,834,70l, Kazumi Masaki, May 30, 1989.
Ultrasonic Speech Translator and Communication System, US Patent #5,539,705, M. A. Akerman, Curtis Ayers, Howard Haynes, July 23, 1996. A wireless communication system, undetectable by radio-frequency methods, for converting audio signals, including human voice, to electronic signals in the ultrasonic frequency range, transmitting the ultrasonic signal by way of acoustic pressure waves across a carrier medium, including gases, liquids and solids, and reconverting the ultrasonic acoustic pressure waves back to the original audio signal. This invention was made with government support under Contract DE-ACO5-840R2l400, awarded by the US Department of Energy to Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
Non-Audible Speech Generation Method and Apparatus, US Patent #4,821,326, Norman MacLeod, April 11, 1989.
Apparatus for Electrophysiological Stimulation, US Patent #4,227,516, Bruce Meland and Bernard Gindes, October 14, 1980.
Method and Recording for Producing Sounds and Messages to Achieve Alpha and Theta Brainwave States and Positive Emotional States in Humans, US Patent #5,352,181, Mark Davis, October 4, l994.
Method and Apparatus for Translating the EEG into Music to Induce and Control Various Psychological and Physiological States and to Control a Musical Instrument, US Patent #4,883,067, Knispel et. al., November 28, 1989.
Method of and Apparatus for Inducing Desired States of Consciousness, US Patent #5.356,368, Robert Monroe, October 18, 1994. Improved methods and apparatus for entraining human brain patterns, employing frequency-following-response (FFR) techniques and facilitating attainment of desired states of consciousness.
Method of Inducing Mental. Emotional and Physical States of Consciousness, including Specific Mental Activity, in Human Beings, US Patent #5,213,562, Robert Monroe, May 25, 1993.
Device for the Induction of Specific Brain Wave Patterns, US Patent #4,335,710, John Williamson, June 22, 1982. Brainwave patterns associated with relaxed and meditative states in a subject are gradually induced without deleterious chemical or neurologic side effects.
Method and Apparatus for Repetitively Producing a Noise-like Audible Signal, US Patent #4,191,175, William Nagle, March 4, 1980.
Apparatus for the Treatment of Neuropsychic and Somatic Diseases with Heat, Light, Sound and VHF Electromagnetic Radiation, US Patent #3,773,049, L. Y. Rabichev, V. F. Vasiliev, A. S. Putilin, T. G. Ilina, P. V. Raku and L. P. Kemitsky, November 20, 1973.
Non-Invasive Method and Apparatus for Modulating Brain Signals through an External Magnetic or Electric Field to Reduce Pain, US Patent #4,889,526, Elizabeth Rauscher and William Van Bise, December 26, 1989.
Nervous System Excitation Device, US Patent #3,393,279, Gillis Patrick Flanagan, July 16, 1968. A method of transmitting audio information via a radio frequency signal modulated with the audio info through electrodes placed on the subject's skin, causing the sensation of hearing the audio information in the brain.
Method and System for Simplifying Speech Waveforms, US Patent #3,647,970, G. Patrick Flanagan, March 7, 1972. A complex speech waveform is simplified so that it can be transmitted directly through earth or water as a waveform and understood directly or after amplification.
Means for Aiding Hearing, US Patent #2,995,633, Henry Puharich and Joseph Lawrence, August 8, 1961. Means for converting audible signals to electrical signals and conveying them to viable nerves of the facial system.
Means for Aiding Hearing by Electrical Stimulation of the Facial Nerve System, US Patent #3,170,993, Henry Puharich, February 23, 1965.
Hearing Device, US Patent #4,858,612, Philip Stocklin, August 22, 1989. A method and apparatus for simulation of hearing in mammals by introduction of a plurality of microwaves into the regions of the auditory cortex.
Comment on this Article
Suffocating Suffolk
Suffolk Serial Killer: Jewellery left on women's bodies
Sandra Laville and Hugh Muir
Thursday December 14, 2006
The Guardian
The Suffolk serial killer left jewellery on the naked bodies of his five victims in an apparent signature of his crime, the Guardian has learned. The revelation reinforces suspicions that the perpetrator was intent on targeting young women who sell their bodies and letting the police know that this was a campaign against prostitutes on the streets of Ipswich.
Sources said the individual who killed five prostitutes in the East Anglian town carefully stripped each victim leaving only the rings and necklaces on their person.
The development came as detectives in Suffolk appeared to be narrowing their hunt to a handful of regular clients of the five prostitutes.
Senior officers are hoping that the speed with which the individual has killed his victims means he has made mistakes and left vital clues.
"We are building up an intelligence picture and have a number of interesting subjects," said Detective Chief Superintendent Stewart Gull of Suffolk police. "Clearly some of them [the clients] want to remain anonymous, but if they have been in Ipswich in the red light district, they need to come forward before we come knocking on their door."
As of last night, up to 4,000 members of the public had phoned a hotline with information for the murder investigation. An extra 100 officers are expected to be drafted in to double the size of the force working on the investigation, which is one of the biggest in recent years.
Detectives have begun tracing and interviewing men who regularly used the 30 or so sex workers in the red light district. One of them, an American known as Gary, told reporters yesterday he had spoken extensively to detectives but insisted he was "not at all" implicated in the murders. He said he knew the missing prostitute Paula Clennell and had put police in contact with people who may have seen her last.
Officers have yet to identify any vehicles or search any homes in their hunt for the deadliest serial killer of sex workers since Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper. Police also believe the killer may have kept all or some of the women's clothes, perhaps as a trophy of his killings.
But police were last night investigating numerous reports of women's possessions being found in and around Ipswich. One suggested that clothes had been discovered in the river Orwell, near the town, while another claimed that a handbag had been found in Norwich Road, a street in Ipswich's red light district close to where a pair of trainers belonging to Gemma Adams were recovered. The trainers are believed to be the first item of the dead women's clothing to have been found by the police.
At least one of the women, Anneli Alderton, 24, was asphyxiated, and police were focusing on similarities in all five cases. "We have a number of promising leads," said Mr Gull.
Officers are trying to find out what happened between the last sightings of the five young women and the discovery of their bodies by analysing CCTV footage, speaking to other prostitutes and drug workers who knew them. Detectives are known to be interested in talking to a "chubby-faced man with spectacles" driving a blue BMW, who was seen by a group of prostitutes talking to Ms Alderton in the red light area three days before her body was found. The sighting is a new one. Until yesterday police believed Ms Alderton was last seen on Sunday December 3 after visiting her mother in Harwich and travelling to her home in Colchester.
The Guardian has also passed on details of the possible sighting of one of the victims, Annette Nicholls, 29, by a former sex worker who said yesterday Ms Nicholls had called at her house last Thursday or Friday, shouting through the letter box. This was two or three days after Ms Nicholls was last thought to have been seen alive. Police suspect she is one of the two bodies discovered near the village of Levington on Tuesday.
Mr Gull revealed the difficulty of the task facing his officers, who are being helped by forces from several other counties and a senior officer from the Metropolitan police.
"These tragic events have clearly overwhelmed us in terms of capability and capacity," he said.
Police have brought in a forensic psychologist from the National Police College for Excellence who is drawing up a profile of the killer. But they will draw on other professionals, including soil analysts and, if necessary, the FBI, where there is deeper knowledge of the methods of serial killers.
Detectives now know the killer took the lives of the last three women in the space of six days. Ms Adams, 25, was the first body to be discovered on December 2. Tania Nicol, 19 was discovered six days later in the brook where Ms Adams' body had been dumped.
The body of Ms Alderton was found last Sunday in woodland close to the village of Nacton, south of Ipswich, and on Tuesday the bodies of two women, believed to be Ms Nicholls, 29 and Ms Clennell, 24, were found 100 metres from each other in scrubland near the village of Levington.
Tony Blair, yesterday spoke of the "horror of the situation". David Cameron, the Tory leader, said: "We all want this monster to be caught and to be locked up."
Comment on this Article
Suffolk Serial Murders: Snatched, killed and discarded
Sandra Laville
Wednesday December 13, 2006
The Guardian
Police describe the five Ipswich murders as an unprecedented crime unfolding in real time
The man walking along Old Felixstowe Road, near the village of Levington, could not be sure at first. In the failing light he stepped off the road and approached the darkened form. Only then was he sure. She was naked, lying in the wet scrubland where she had been dumped. It was 3.05pm.
Article continues
Forty minutes later a police helicopter hovered over the open ground south of Ipswich as detectives sealed off the area and covered the body with tarpaulin.
The glare of the helicopter's searchlight lit up the wasteland below and there, 100 metres away from the bustle of police activity, the pilot saw the second body. Like her friend, she had been tossed in the grass and stripped of her clothes.
Within a few minutes the worst suspicions of police officers in Suffolk were confirmed. Any lingering hope that this was not a serial killer disappeared in the late afternoon with the discovery of the suspected fourth and fifth victims of a predator on an apparent mission to murder young women who work in the red light area of the East Anglian town.
What they were witnessing, Detective Chief Superintendent Stewart Gull said, was what he called a "crime in action".
Perhaps spurred by the publicity, the murderer was on a frantic killing spree. Where at first he had carefully hidden the bodies in a brook, he was now snatching women off the street within days of each other, killing them, dumping their bodies and moving on to his next victim.
Half an hour after the bodies were found, Det Chief Supt Gull appeared before the media. With shaking hands, he asked for water as he spoke of the latest horrific discovery in a county where until now crime has been comparatively low. He could not say whether the young women were the two that the police had been searching for since their relatives reported them missing a few days ago. But the families of Paula Clennell, 24 and Annette Nicholls, 29, were being told of the discovery of the bodies as he spoke.
"I can't be sure. It is an assumption at this stage. But it is a natural assumption that these are the bodies of the two missing women," he said.
Like Gemma Adams, 25, who was the first woman to be found on December 2, her good friend Tania Nicol, 19, whose body was discovered six days later in the same stretch of Belstead brook, west of Ipswich, and Anneli Alderton, 24, found in the village of Nacton on Sunday, these girls were prostitutes.
Pock-marked and painfully thin, they all bore the obvious signs of heroin and crack addiction and were locked in a vicious cycle of selling their bodies to feed their crippling habit.
"This is an unprecedented inquiry," said the chief constable of Suffolk police, Alistair McWhirter. "When you look back to the Yorkshire Ripper, you are talking about murders carried out over months and years."
Last night Suffolk police were faced with the task of investigating five murders. Already overstretched, the small force called in a senior Metropolitan police commander, Dave Johnston, an experienced homicide detective.
Other officers were drafted in from Essex and Norfolk, and Suffolk asked the Association of Police Officers to activate their national intelligence centre, which holds details of all known sex offenders. So far little is known about the killer. A postmortem examination on Ms Alderton, who was found on Sunday night close to the latest two victims, revealed yesterday that she had been strangled before being dumped in woods near the A14.
Earlier postmortem examinations on Ms Adams and Ms Nicol did not reveal any evidence of strangulation. Further toxicology tests are being carried out but police are being hampered because the bodies were dumped in water.
As detectives worked through the night, they could not disguise their shock at the sudden increase in the speed of the killings, fearing that as they spoke another woman could be attacked.
The few young women who might have considered taking to London Road, the red light area, last night were warned again to stay indoors. "We are gravely concerned for their safety," said one officer.
The families of Ms Clennell and Ms Nicholls, who had scoured the streets of Ipswich over the past two days looking for the women, were left to digest the news they had dreaded.
For the Clennells there was one visible memory of Paula, a mother-of-three who had not been seen since 1am on Sunday. It came in a television interview she gave a few days ago.
Asked about the killing of Ms Adams and Ms Nicol, she said she and her friends were "wary about coming out now". But for herself, she was prepared to take the risk, because she needed the money. Less than 48 hours later, she too was dead.
Comment on this Article
Suffolk Serial killer probe focuses on mystery man in car
AFP
14 Dec 06
British detectives probing the deaths of five women by a feared serial killer are hunting a mystery man in a blue BMW who may provide a key to the affair, a top policeman said.
The focus on a "chubby" driver seen by witnesses came as police were expected to confirm formally the identity of two bodies believed to be victims of the so-called "Suffolk Strangler," centred on the quiet town of Ipswich.
Other new lines of inquiry being followed by detectives include pieces of clothing possibly belonging to the dead women, whose bodies were all dumped naked in streams and fields near Ipswich over the last two weeks.
The police chief leading the investigation, Detective Chief Superintendent Stewart Gull, confirmed the hunt for the BMW and its driver in a radio interview, while stressing the complexity of the case.
"Clearly we have received a significant volume of calls ....and a lot of interesting information and that's just one aspect that clearly we're looking into and looking to expedite," Gull told BBC radio.
The probe in the normally tranquil town, about 80 miles (130 kilometres) north-east of London, are ploughing through some 2,500 calls from the public and trying to trace the victims' last movements.
Three sex workers are already confirmed dead -- Gemma Adams, 25, 19-year-old Tania Nicol, and 24-year-old Anneli Alderton.
And Gull confirmed again that he feared the two bodies found Tuesday "may well be" those of missing prostitutes 24-year-old Paula Clennell and Annette Nicholls, 29 -- although they have not yet been formally identified.
Two days after those grisly discoveries, police are desperate to find the clothes worn by any of the dead women, and want to establish if clothing found in a local river and a handbag from the town centre are significant.
One of the latest two bodies has already been removed from woodland for a post-mortem and the second is likely to be taken away Thursday after two days in situ while police gathered forensic evidence.
Ipswich was again eerily quiet Wednesday night, despite the Christmas party season being in full swing elsewhere in Britain.
In the red light district, only one prostitute was openly touting for business, but dozens of police and journalists were about.
As the massive hunt for what some British press are calling "The Ipswich Ripper" continues, new theories are emerging as to his methods and identity.
Police are checking whether the killer may be responsible for the death of teenage prostitute Natalie Pearman, who was strangled in the nearby city of Norwich and found semi-naked in 1992, along with four other murders, the Daily Mail said.
Her mother told the newspaper: "The police said as soon as there is confirmation of a strong link I will be the first to know about it."
But Gull told BBC television that his team were not linking the deaths to others in the region.
Meanwhile, a friend of Clennell sent her a text on the day she vanished asking if she was OK and received reply which police believe may have been sent by the killer to buy time or for kicks, the Daily Mirror said.
Suffolk Police could not confirm or deny the claims.
Unidentified senior detectives told The Times that all five victims were either suffocated or strangled, and found naked except for their jewellery.
The case has evoked the memory of one of Britain's most notorious serial killers, east London's elusive Jack the Ripper, who murdered five prostitutes in 1888, as well as the "Yorkshire Ripper", Peter Sutcliffe, who preyed on prostitutes, murdering 13 women between 1975 and 1980.
Comment on this Article
Blowing Hot Air
Family at war over where to bury Billy Graham - And He's Not Dead Yet
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
14 December 2006
When he is dead, historians will argue about the influence of America's most famous evangelist, Billy Graham. Yet while he is still alive, his family are arguing about where to bury him.
In an unseemly dispute that has pitched the 88-year-old Rev Graham's five children against each other, a struggle is being fought as to whether the evangelist who famously ministered to George Bush and persuaded him to become a born-again Christian, should be buried in a memorial library being built by his eldest son or at a hillside location, preferred by his wife.
The library is being constructed in Charlotte, North Carolina, by Franklin Graham, himself an evangelist and the head of the Billy Graham Evangelist Association(BGEA), the organisation started by his father in 1947 with the aim of spreading Christianity around the world.
Due to be completed by next spring, visitors to the converted barn and silo will be able to view exhibits from Mr Graham's life and take in a garden where a site has been set aside as a possible burial spot.But Mr Graham's younger son, Ned, is trying to persuade his other siblings to instead follow the wishes of their mother, Ruth, who is ill with a degenerative spine condition. He has also complained that the memorial "library" will not actually contain any books.
"I've spent the last few years trying to help my parents preserve their mental acuity, independence and dignity," Ned Graham, also an evangelist, told the Washington Post. "And I'm saddened that the family is not unified on this issue."
Mrs Graham reportedly said of the library: "It's a circus. A tourist attraction."
For more than half a century, Billy Graham has been seeking to spread Christianity by a series of "crusades" that have seen him preach live to more than 210 million people in 185 countries. He has also enjoyed close relationships with a number of US presidents, including Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton.
Perhaps most famously, Mr Graham ministered to the current president in 1985, helping him give up a serious problem with alcohol and eventually leading the 40-year-old Mr Bush to become a born-again Christian. Mr Bush once said of Mr Graham: "[He] planted a seed in my heart and I began to change."
Mr Graham, who last year attended the ground-breaking ceremony for the library, is now almost blind and suffers from Parkinson's disease. Though he held what he said would be his final crusade last year, he appeared in summer at an event in Baltimore organised by Franklin Graham. In a letter released at the time, he said: "As I grow older, my confidence in the inspiration and authority of the Bible has grown even stronger."
Franklin Graham has headed the BGEA for the past six years. In an interview with the Post, Mr Franklin said he was preparing two possible sites for his parents' burial. "Some of the board members feel the library ought to be the place," he said. "I would hope that every person who comes through hears the message and by the time they come out of the library be confronted with a decision to accept or reject God."
Comment on this Article
Sen. Bill Frist: Free trade pact will benefit U.S., India and strengthen democracy
By Sen. Bill Frist
The Examiner
Dec 14, 2006
WASHINGTON - The hard work of finalizing the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement last week convinced me that the world's two largest democracies need to develop a strong trade partnership based on free exchange of goods and ideas. Most senators recognize we need to improve our relationship with India and that's why the nuclear cooperation pact attracted overwhelming support before it finally passed last week.
WASHINGTON - The hard work of finalizing the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement last week convinced me that the world's two largest democracies need to develop a strong trade partnership based on free exchange of goods and ideas. Most senators recognize we need to improve our relationship with India and that's why the nuclear cooperation pact attracted overwhelming support before it finally passed last week.
While it's a good beginning, however, we can't let this energy agreement stand alone. Once the U.S. and India settle the thorny outstanding trade issues in the World Trade Organization talks, the president should begin an effort to negotiate a full scale U.S-Indian free-trade agreement. America's economic prosperity and security would benefit.
To begin with, American competitiveness in the global economy depends on expanding our global commercial partnerships. Over the next decade, India will almost certainly grow to have the world's largest population. Its economy has already grown larger than Germany's - the largest in the E.U. - and will eventually surpass Japan's. India's growing middle class provides a fertile market for American goods and its skyrocketing economic growth creates a strong environment for American investors.
Trade volumes have already begun to grow and, with a trade agreement, they would grow further. Between 2001 and 2005 alone, trade between the U.S. and India increased from $14 billion to $26 billion. In the same period, over 1 million Indians - the great majority of them skilled professionals - have also moved to the United States to work and set up businesses. While the U.S. and India have committed to a goal of doubling trade within the next three years, even that level would lie far below the potential. By letting both countries do what they do best, opening up trade with India will continue to increase the standard of living in both countries.
In addition, both India and the United States face a mortal threat from radical Islam. Islamic fascist terrorists have killed more citizens of India than those of any other country. India's position as the world's largest democracy and its ever-growing economy means that al-Qaida and their ilk will target it even more often in the future. The United States must stand with our democratic allies like India as we continue to wage a global war on terror.
In the long term, we should also consider inviting India's neighbors - Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh in particular - to join agreements we make with India. Each of these countries has the potential to play a major role the war on terror, and an enduring relationship with each will require both economic and military cooperation. As India plays a leadership role in its region, it should be the first country we approach.
Of course, concluding a free trade agreement will take a lot of work. A final agreement should, of course, include measures to protect the environment and workers while promoting governmental transparency. Small details also matter. The World Trade Organization's ongoing Doha Round talks themselves have stalled on agricultural issues. Both the U.S. and India have legitimate interests at stake that require resolution. But we cannot let these differences stop all progress. The prospect of a much broader trade agreement might be just the thing to get the talks moving again.
Should it come to fruition, a U.S./India free trade agreement would comprise over a quarter of the world's economy - the largest free trade zone in history. A free trade agreement with India, quite simply, is a national imperative. We should start work towards one without delay.
Sen. Bill Frist is the retiring Senate Majority Leader from Tennessee.
Comment on this Article
Le Pen backed by more than a quarter of French voters
PARIS, Dec 14, 2006 (AFP)
More than a quarter of French voters support the far-right ideas espoused by Jean-Marie Le Pen, the National Front leader who is hoping to make a strong showing in presidential elections next year, a new poll released Thursday showed.
Twenty-six percent of the 1,000 adults questioned in the TNS Sofres survey said they were "completely" or "pretty much" in agreement with Le Pen's views on restricting immigration and defending France's "traditional values".
The proportion of people opposed to Le Pen's stance has fallen over the past year, to 70 percent (from 73 percent in 2005) - the lowest level since the mid-1990s.
Those scores suggested Le Pen was well-placed to compete in the April-May presidential elections against the field of 38 other candidates.
In the last elections in 2002, he surprised the country and Europe by knocking out all other candidates in the first round of voting except for incumbent conservative President Jacques Chirac.
Chirac went on to crush Le Pen in the knockout follow-up round when left-wing voters decided it was "better to vote for a crook than a fascist".
This time around, Le Pen trails well behind the two leading presidential contenders, the Socialist Party's Ségolène Royal and the ruling right's Nicolas Sarkozy.
But his influence can be seen in the programmes of both, suggesting a general shift to the right has occurred in French politics. Sarkozy, in particular, has adopted similar attitudes on immigration and on boosting public security.
The TNS Sofres survey found that only 34 percent of the French thought Le Pen's ideas were "unacceptable". That was a five-point drop from a year ago, an eight-point drop from 2003, and a 14-point drop from 1997.
Nearly half (47 percent), however, judged his ideology "excessive", compared to just 15 percent believed it to be "fair".
The number of people thinking the National Front was a "danger for democracy" has now slid to the lowest level since the early 1990s and stood at 65 percent.
Le Pen's opinion that "there are too many immigrants in France" met with record support - 59 percent agreed with him. But 77 percent disagreed with his view that French citizens be given preference over foreigners residing in the country legally.
His call for "traditional values" to be defended in France drew the support of 39 percent of those polled, while 53 percent disagreeing.
A third approved of his tough line against suburban violence, his views on security and justice, and his criticism of the political establishment.
The survey was carried out December 6-7.
Comment on this Article
Child Exploitation
They sweat, you shop - Yes, Victorian Sweatshops are Back
Bibi van der Zee
Thursday December 14, 2006
The Guardian
When shops signed up to the Ethical Trading Initiative and promised to look after their employees, the hope was for guilt-free cheap clothes. But how much have things really improved?
There is an odd moment when shopping, with which most readers will probably be familiar. It's that second when you're standing in Tesco/Primark/Asda fingering (for example) a £20 sequinned top, and into your head pops the image of an exhausted woman, head bent, sewing on each of those sequins. The glitter of the top dims a little.
You might put it back. Or you might reassure yourself that we are no longer in the Victorian era of labour sweatshops - don't most companies these days sign up to some ethical code or other? - and head for the till.
Well, there is an ethical code. It's called the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI). But as the past few months have shown there are serious doubts as to how much this means. In October an undercover investigation for Channel 4 turned up evidence that suppliers for Tesco - one of the ETI's founding members - were using child labour, an allegation that Tesco refutes.
Then last week anti-poverty campaigners at War on Want released a report about the conditions and pay of Bangladeshi workers supplying Asda, Primark (also ETI members) and Tesco. It did not paint a pretty picture. Again, all three companies vigorously defended their ethical position.
Many anti-poverty campaigners have nice things to say about the ETI (although one woman laughs when I mention it and someone else sighs). But there are some serious flaws in the set-up, and these are only going to become more problematic.
The ETI lives and dies by its admirable "base code", a list of fundamental principles such as the right to a living wage (ie, a wage on which you can support yourself and your family), the right to safe, hygienic working conditions and the abhorrence of child labour. But one of the biggest problems is that, although any companies signing up to the ETI must sign up to the base code, they are not committing themselves to living by those principles, only to working towards them. There is a big difference.
Companies that sign up are using their membership as a sort of endorsement, as if it guarantees something in the way the Soil Association logo or the Fairtrade mark do.
Take Primark: it resisted signing up to the initiative until this year. Then the ETI released a joyful press release announcing that the chain was planning to "provide till notices for interested customers that set out the company's commitment to continually improving working conditions in its suppliers' factories". (So already Primark was visualising its ETI membership as in-store advertising for its ethical credentials.)
Then, when Primark's name came up in the War on Want report, its response - and implied defence - was that "as members of the Ethical Trading Initiative we are fully committed to the campaign to improve working standards in Bangladesh". The ETI becomes a sort of shield.
And what happens if you are proven to have come in under par? The ETI does not seem to deal in public rebukes or summary ejections. There is a procedure should it be necessary to remove a company from the list, but the head of communications at the ETI cannot remember if any company has ever been chucked out.
In a brave exercise this year the ETI got an independent organisation to measure whether it had actually achieved anything. In some ways the results could be interpreted positively: major improvements in areas such as health and safety and working hours by ETI companies were recorded. But looked at more harshly, the results might be perceived less favourably: with 90 categories, there were major improvements in only 12, after 10 years of work.
Anti-poverty worker Deborah Doane of Core, the Corporate Responsibility Coalition, thinks that the ETI was important when it started up, as a forum for people to talk about all these things. "But it has focused too much on the voluntary bit - the pat on the back mechanism - without looking at what you need to change this picture. The companies which signed up haven't done as much as they should."
Some companies really are trying to improve, but others are proving to be brilliant at what are seen as cosmetic ethical initiatives - using organic cotton, starting up Fairtrade T-shirt ranges - all of which create an undeserved rosy glow around the industry.
In fact, conditions are worsening for many workers in Bangladesh, China and other developing countries, and more bad news will be emerging over the next few months.
Our obsession with cheap, trendy clothes means that retailers push suppliers to offer them lower and lower prices (something similar happens in the food industry). One supplier was quoted in the independent report on the ETI as saying that "they struggled to meet this element of the base code [non-excessive working hours] due to the need to meet tight production deadlines with short lead times". It is only fair to point out that even if the ETI is ludicrously weak, in the end it is the companies that need to take action.
And campaigners in this area seem to agree that the only way to get the big companies to change at this point is regulation and legislation. If we are depending just on voluntary codes and self-regulation, it is going to be slow progress.
For now, working conditions are still sunk in the 19th century, except that the sweatshops are that much further away.
So is there any way of ensuring that you are not supporting sweatshop labour?
For a start, you can support any ethical clothing initiatives by the big companies; that's what will encourage them to keep going. Besides that, buy from small companies, buy second-hand clothes, apply pressure yourself . . . not much of an answer, really. Especially if you're a garment worker in Bangladesh.
Comment on this Article
Young boys from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sudan are still being sold as slaves
UK Independent
14 December 2006
Amir is a victim of the trade in child camel jockeys. But he cannot tell his story. When he opens his mouth, he can only make incomprehensible sounds.
Sold by his parents at just five to take part in races in Dubai, he fell off the back of a camel in a race and was badly trampled by the camels running close behind. His face was shattered so badly he cannot speak any more. He is blind in one eye. He is just six years old. His life is ruined before it has even begun.
Today, child camel jockeys are not allowed in Dubai any more, because of a prolonged campaign by Anti-Slavery International, one of the charities featured in The Independent's Christmas Appeal this year. Campaigning to change the law, and advocacy on behalf of vulnerable people, is one of the key aspects of the agency's work.
But such advocacy is not yet over, according to Tanveer Jahan of Anti-Slavery International's local partner in Pakistan, the Democratic Commission for Human Development (DCHD).
The town of Rahim Yar Khan sits on the edge of the desert. It is a dirt-poor sort of place but dotted around the town are several palatial residences. Those are the hunting lodges of wealthy Arabs from the Gulf states, who come here to hunt the abundant wildlife of Pakistan's desert. But, according to Ms Jahan, that is not all they hunt.
They also employ local agents to find children to work as camel jockeys. The use of children may have been banned in Dubai and the rest of the United Arab Emirates but that is not the end of the story. Before the ban, there were believed to be 3,000 child jockeys in the UAE - most of them from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sudan. But only 1,000 ever returned home.
No one knows what happened to the others, but the use of child jockeys has not been banned in all countries. And, according to Ms Jahan, they are still recruiting in Rahim Yar Khan.
Children are favoured as jockeys because they are small and light enough not to slow the camels. But the conditions they face are grim. Mubasher Hussain was sold by his parents when he was seven years old. Today, aged 12 and safely back in Pakistan, he tells his story in the sunny garden of the government school where he is catching up on lost years.
"My parents told me they were going to perform the Haj [the pilgrimage to Mecca], but they took me to Dubai," he says. "There was a sheikh, Mohammed Khalifa. My parents gave me to him. They told me to stay with the sheikh while they performed the Haj but they didn't go. My father got a job in Dubai, working in a slaughterhouse."
That is a common arrangement, according to Ms Jahan. The camel owners agree to arrange visas for the whole family if they sell one son as a jockey. As Ms Jahan puts it: "The child is the main bargaining chip".
For the family, it is an opportunity to work in Dubai, where they can earn far more than at home. But for the child, it is the start of a nightmare.
"I spent one month learning to ride the camels. When I fell off, the supervisor used to beat me, sometimes with a stick. I was scared on the camel. I was very high up and the camel went very fast. But after I learned how to ride I was not so scared.
"We worked every day from before dawn till eight at night. In the morning we had to feed the camels and clean the stables. When it got hot in the middle of the day we had to move the camels to the shade. In the afternoon we had a couple of hours to play.
"Then in the evenings we had to practice riding. I got to see my parents once a week. I was allowed to go and visit them.
"They gave us very little food. The sheikh wanted to keep us small for riding the camels, so they wouldn't give us enough. I was hungry most of the time, but my brother used to sneak some food to me in the night."
Still Mubasher is one of the lucky ones. He never fell in a race and he escaped serious injury.
Nasir Hussain, no relation, was not so lucky. He was sold at the age of five. He fell off the camel in the middle of a race and was trampled. "I was terrified," he says. "My father was there watching the race and he ran on to the course to save me. My leg was badly hurt so he picked me up and carried me off the course.
"They took me to the hospital. I was told the sheikh paid my hospital bills but he never came to the hospital. No one from the camel stables came."
Today Nasir is seven years old. His leg is still badly damaged. It is much shorter than the other, and he walks with a severe limp that will never go away. His toes have splayed out unnaturally to support his weight. After the accident, his parents were able to bring him back to Pakistan without any objection from the camel owner. But for Mubasher, who was never injured, it was not so easy.
"After two years my parents went to the sheikh and told him they wanted to take me back to Pakistan," he says.
"He refused. So my parents went to the police. They raided the stables and rescued me. The supervisor who used to beat me, who was named Akil, spent 15 days in prison. The police took me to my parents, and they brought me back to Pakistan."
But the problems do not end with the children's return to Pakistan. During their time as camel jockeys, they do not go to school. When he returned to Pakistan at the age of nine, Mubasher could not read or write.
He could not even do simple maths sums. As a result of campaigning by Anti-Slavery International and DCHD, the Pakistani government has agreed to a special programme to help the camel jockeys catch up in schools. They are given extra tuition in special classes to help them make up the lost time, and a small scholarship of 600 rupees (£6) a month.
According to government figures, 336 children returned to Pakistan, but Ms Jahan says her organisation's research shows the real number is closer to 600. "Some are kidnapped and smuggled, but most are sold by their parents," she says.
"They sell them because of poverty. If a family has five or six children they will sacrifice one for the others. But it's all a pipe dream: they don't get much money. Most of the money goes to the agent who finds the child. And the child's life is totally ruined."
For Ms Jahan, the struggle goes on. She is determined to track down where the thousands of missing child camel jockeys have gone, now the practise is banned in the UAE, and get them home. She also wants to win the returned children more financial support.
"A lot of these children who have fallen off the camels need reconstructive plastic surgery for their injuries," she says. "But you can't get plastic surgery for 600 rupees a month."
The school where Nasir and Amir are learning today is a dusty open yard. There is no school building and the children sit in the hot sun on the ground. This is a government school but there is not enough money for anything more.
When we ask Nasir which he prefers, Pakistan or Dubai, where he was abused and terribly injured in his fall from a camel, his answer is surprising. "Dubai," he says. When we ask why, his answer is simple. "There is electricity there. And good buildings."
In the corner, Amir sits silently. No one knows how he feels about Dubai, where he lost one eye, and the ability to speak.
Comment on this Article
Rah Rah Raj
Using India to Keep China at Bay
Tim Beal
Foreign Policy in Focus
December 12, 2006
U.S. attempts to construct and consolidate an alliance to contain China's seemingly inexorable rise registered another milestone in November when the U.S. Senate passed a bill to allow the government to transfer nuclear fuel and technology to India. The nuclear deal with India flies in the face of long-standing U.S. rhetoric about nuclear proliferation and is yet another blow to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
There has been a degree of opposition in the United States to the agreements with the India deal. For example, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, former President Jimmy Carter was scathing about the "dangerous deal with India." Many predicted a difficult time for the administration in pushing through a bill so flagrantly in conflict with its posturing on proliferation. "In concluding its nuclear deal with India, the Bush administration faces significant opposition in Congress and tough questions from its allies on whether the arrangement could set a precedent encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran and other potential foes of the United States," opined Steven Weisman in The New York Times.
But when it came to it, this "significant opposition" faded away like the morning mist. On November 17, the Senate decided by 85 votes to 12 that, in the words of The New York Times correspondent, the "goal of nurturing India as an ally outweighed concerns over the risks of spreading nuclear skills and bomb-making materials."
The U.S. decision to tie the nuclear knot with India is in part about money-the size of the growing Indian economy and the profits to be made in the new nuclear-military relationship. More importantly, however, India figures prominently in general U.S. geostrategic aims in Asia and toward China in particular.
The Economics of the Deal
India is the second fastest growing major economy in the world. According to the CIA its real GDP grew 7.6% in 2005, not far behind China's 9.3% and over twice America's 3.5%. It is also, again according to the CIA, the fourth largest economy in the world on a purchasing power parity basis (China comes in at number two) and accounts for 1.1% of world imports. In general, India is a large and increasingly attractive market and economic partner.
The nuclear deal links this rapidly growing economy more closely to the United States and also boosts trade in a particularly profitable sector. The nuclear industry is big business, and "nuclear transfer" translates into significant sales for U.S. nuclear technology firms.
Then there are conventional armaments. India is a major military power with an appetite to match. In 2005 it was the largest buyer of arms in the developing world with purchases of US$5.4 billion. Russia, to America's chagrin, was the largest seller to the developing world, and India is its principal market. The administration hopes that the nuclear deal will change all that by paving the way for a huge $6 billion contract to buy 124 U.S. fighter aircraft.
Such arms deals, of course, will have no relationship with proliferation, because that is what countries like Russia, China, and North Korea do, not the United States. Bill Clinton, in his State of the Union speech in 1999, proclaimed, "We must increase our efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons and missiles, from [North] Korea to India and Pakistan." In the world of geopolitics, however, seven years is a very long time. And the past is very much a different country.
Strategic Partnership
Although important, money is only part of the reason behind the nuclear deal. The U.S.-India strategic relationship-and that's what they are calling it-gives the United States leverage over India in many ways, or so it is hoped in Washington and feared in Delhi. The Communist Party of India, a junior partner in Singh's coalition government, has warned that "the strategic relationship only means that India will be part of the U.S. strategies of global policing and undermine its role in international politics and its resolve to promote multilateralism in international relations." United Progressive Alliance Chairperson Sonia Gandhi said that the UPA, and the Congress party, would not accept anything outside the original agreement of July 18, 2005.
One huge danger, which for obvious reasons is seldom articulated in public, is that India will become embroiled in America's anti-Islamic crusade. India has, in the past, refused to send troops to Iraq. That particular request is unlikely to surface again, given likely U.S. plans for disengagement. But as the relationship deepens, similar requests might be more difficult for India to reject. Nearly one-seventh of India's population is Muslim, and inter-communal violence, and terrorism, is a constant concern.
While deployment of Indian troops to Iraq is unlikely, the United States may well call on India for other forms of assistance, such as support against Iran. India has traditionally maintained good relations with Iran, in part to counterbalance Pakistan. Also, for a number of years, India has talked with Iran about a pipeline that would supply natural gas from Iran via Pakistan. This energy deal must produce palpitations in certain Washington hearts. Not merely would it provide revenue for Iran (and Pakistan), and give India (and Pakistan) a degree of energy security, away from the immediate attention of the U.S. navy. It would also tie the three countries together in mutual benefit.
Containing China
For America, however, the real strategic target of the U.S.-India relationship is China. How the United States implements its China containment strategy, and how successful such a strategy will be, is another matter. China has military, economic, and diplomatic cards to play. India came off badly when it picked a fight with China in 1962 and is not looking to revive any conflict. China overtook the United States a couple of years ago as the major supplier to the Indian market. President Hu Jintao has just concluded a visit to South Asia where he appears to have pulled off quite an achievement in developing a better relationship with India without annoying Pakistan, something that Bush has not been able to do.
In addition, China (presumably with Russian approval) implemented a significant strategic counter-offensive in June 2006 by inviting India (along with Iran, Pakistan, and Mongolia) to become full members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). This invitation reversed China's position, stated as recently as January, that India and the other countries would have to be content with observer status. The SCO, formed in 2001 to check U.S. influence in Central Asia, may well expand to counterbalance a similarly expanding NATO. So the contest for India's favor is by no means a forgone conclusion.
Moreover, India has its own games to play and is no mere cat's paw of other powers. Apart from its perennial contest with Pakistan, it seeks a dominant position in South Asia with its interventions in East Pakistan/Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and expansion of influence in the Himalayan states. It has also sought a degree of primacy in the Indian Ocean and adjacent Southeast Asia. In short, India is looking to establish a role commensurate with its importance on the world stage.
Nevertheless, the strategic interests of India and America with respect of China have a natural overlap. Washington would probably view favorably any increase in India's ability to project military power in Asia. The U.S.-India agreements allow for closer cooperation in defense and in areas such as satellites and space exploration. It is not clear to what degree the United States will help India develop its nuclear missile capability, and such protocols will certainly not be made public. The New Framework for the U.S.-India Defense Relationship of June 2005 certainly does not clarify this matter.
India's missile program is a key determining factor shaping the U.S.-India-China triangle. India's Agni III missile, which has a design range of 3,500 km, had an unsuccessful test in July when it only reached 1000 km. India claims that a special steel to be used in its scheduled 2007 test will increase the design range between 15 and 30%. The distance between Delhi and Beijing is 3,800 km, so the improved Agni III, if successful, will bring all of China within range. How much help are Indian scientists getting from their new friends in Washington? It is not yet known but one area of missile cooperation the New Framework did specifically mention was "missile defense." On November 27, India claimed to have successfully conducted an anti-missile test, intercepting one (nuclear-capable) Prithvi with another.
This developing friendship between the United States and India has all sorts of ramifications. It influences, for instance, America's relationship with Pakistan, and the United States needs Pakistan in its increasingly difficult struggle to control Afghanistan. However, Washington's willingness to jeopardize other important relationships indicates just how central the containment of China is to U.S. strategic policy.
Tim Beal teaches at Victoria University of Wellington. He is the author of North Korea: The Struggle Against American Power (Pluto Press, London and Ann Arbor) and is currently working on a study of the impact of China and India on international political economy. His personal site is at www.vuw.ac.nz/~caplabtb/beal.html.
Comment on this Article
Israel warns of impending al-Qaeda attack in India
Associated Press
14 Dec 06
JERUSALEM - The Israeli Foreign Ministry has issued an urgent warning of an impending al-Qaeda attack in the peaceful Indian region of Goa, a popular destination for Israeli backpackers.
The ministry's announcement warned of a "concrete threat" of an al-Qaeda attack in the area in the next few weeks. This is peak tourist season in Goa, a former Portuguese colony renowned for its palm tree-lined white beaches, resorts and hedonistic parties, and tens of thousands of foreigners, including many Israelis, are expected to be there.
B.S. Brar, director general of police in Goa, told India's CNN-IBN news channel that "there is no specific intelligence" of an impending attack.
"We have no concrete warning of any type of attack," he said.
"Goa is one of the safest places," he said, urging tourists not to stay away during the peak tourist season.
While India has suffered dozens of terror attacks in recent years, none of them have been linked to al-Qaeda. However, security analysts believe that the group may have informal links with Pakistani-based Islamic militants, most notably Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, who are fighting to wrest control of Indian-held Kashmir from India.
A dozen-odd groups want have been fighting since 1989 for the independence of the Muslim majority Himalayan region from mainly Hindu India or a union with mostly Muslim Pakistan.
Comment on this Article
Sacred Cows
Orthodox Jewish Attitude to the 'Holocaust'
Speech delivered by Rabbi Aharon Cohen of Neturei Karta
International Conference "Review of the Holocaust", Teheran 11-12 December '06
1. Honourable friends, peers and colleagues. We are gathered here to discuss and consider from many angles a tremendously prominent issue from among the tragic events of the 2nd World War. The issue which has become known as the 'Holocaust'. As is known this issue revolves around the policy and actions adopted by Nazi Germany against the Jewish People. This is of course in the context of their much wider murderous activities at that time. My aim is to try and give you the Orthodox Jewish approach to this matter.
2. Firstly let me express my gratitude to the illustrious organisers of this valuable event for granting my colleagues and myself the opportunity to express our views on this matter and we consider this opportunity a very great privilege.
3. I and my colleagues are what is known as Orthodox Jews, that is Jews who endeavour to live their lives entirely according to the age old Jewish religion and way of life known as Judaism. We are here under the banner of the group known as Neturei Karta which is not a separate movement or organisation but propagators of the philosophy expressing the opposition by Orthodox Jewry to the idea known as Zionism - the secular nationalistic movement to form a sectarian State in Palestine. As is well known, Zionism and the Holocaust have become very much intertwined over the years and the Zionists make a great issue of the Holocaust in order to further their illegitimate philosophy and aims. I wish to talk briefly about both of these topics and their connection.
4. We put effort into attending occasions such as this because we feel that we have both a religious and religion based humanitarian duty to spread our message as much as possible. Consequently I pray that our discussions and conclusions at this conference will be correct and true in every aspect.
5. I would like firstly to recap briefly for everyone present, because of its relevance to the subject of the Holocaust, the fact that Judaism and Zionism are totally different and diametrically opposed concepts. Judaism is an age old G-dly way of life going back thousands of years full of moral, ethical and religious content. Zionism is a comparatively new - little over one hundred years - secular nationalistic concept completely devoid of ethics and morals. Although, it must be said that sadly there are religious groups among the Jewish People who have been affected and infected by the Zionist nationalistic philosophy and have 'bolted' Zionism onto Judaism, incorrectly and falsely against the teachings of Judaism as handed down through the generations.
6. Judaism teaches that although the Jewish People were promised the Holy Land, now known as Palestine, this was only subject to certain conditions, basically that we had to maintain the highest of moral, ethical and religious standards. Our religious teachings and literature - our Torah - are replete with warnings that if these conditions were not fulfilled then the Jewish People would be dispersed in a divinely decreed exile.
7. This is what took place. The conditions were not fulfilled to the required degree and the Jewish People were dispersed to the four corners of the globe, as history confirms. Right up to the present day the Jewish People are in a divinely decreed exile in which we are required to be loyal citizens of the countries in which we find ourselves and we are prohibited under oath from trying to force our way out of the exile by the efforts of our own hands. We are also prohibited under oath from trying to form a State of our own in Palestine. To contravene these prohibitions would constitute a rebellion against the wishes of the A-lmighty and we are warned of dire consequences of making any such attempt.
8. The philosophy of the secular movement of Zionism totally ignores and transgresses the clear Jewish teachings outlined and because of this, Zionism was condemned right from its inception by the great Jewish Religious authorities.
9. Furthermore, Zionism right from its inception completely ignored the fact that there was an indigenous population in Palestine comprising mostly Palestinians, and the Zionists have followed a policy of depriving the Palestinians of their hope for self determination on the land they had occupied for centuries. Depriving the Palestinians of their homes, livelihoods and lives. So committing a shocking contravention of religion based humanitarian justice.
10. Judaism however, preaches compassion and consideration for the property and certainly the lives of every fellow man.
11. It will of course be clear from the above firstly that the Zionists do not represent the Jewish People as a whole, and furthermore that anti-Zionism is to be applauded and not to be confused with the ancient bigotry of anti-Semitism. Something which we know is very well appreciated here in the Islamic Republic of Iran where the Jewish community lives peacefully with full civil rights and has done so for thousands of years.
12. Now one of the pillars of justification for Zionism is the event of the Holocaust, with the Zionists claiming that the Jews must have a State of their own in order to prevent (as they claim) the events of the Holocaust ever being repeated. 'Never Again' is their slogan. So I would like to set out the Orthodox Jewish view on the Holocaust.
13. Firstly, the facts. There is no doubt what so ever, that during World War 2 there developed a terrible and catastrophic policy and action of genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany against the Jewish People, confirmed by innumerable eye witness survivors and fully documented again and again. I personally was spared the worst effects of the War because I was living in England which thankfully was not occupied by Nazi Germany. However, I and many many others lost countless friends and relatives who perished under the Nazi rule by intentional murder and genocide. Three million Jews in Poland, more than half a million in Hungary, many tens or hundreds of thousands in Russia, Slovakia, France, Belgium, Holland and more. The figure of six million is regularly quoted. One may wish to dispute this actual figure, but the crime was just as dreadful whether the millions (and there were millions) of victims numbered six million, five million or four million. The method of murder is also irrelevant, whether it was by gas chamber (and there were eye witnesses to this), firing squads or whatever. The evil was the same. It would be a terrible affront to the memory of those who perished to belittle the guilt of the crime in any way.
14. However, the Orthodox Jewish teaching and attitude is that the perpetrators of a crime, although fully guilty and responsible for their actions, would never have succeeded in their evil unless the A-lmighty wished it. So, to that extent the victim or victims have of course to attempt to avoid the evil, but if this proves impossible, then they have to accept the will of the A-lmighty. Our teaching is that part of the decree of exile divinely imposed upon us, is that it is not the task of the Jewish People to bring our persecutors to justice. That is the task of the A-lmighty. Our task is to accept the will of the A-lmighty and to strive to improve ourselves, removing from our behaviour the deeds that may have been the cause of our suffering. That has been the Jewish attitude during all the long history of Jewish suffering.
15. In no way can we have the audacity to, as it were, try to prevent the will of the A-lmighty and assume that we are capable of preventing such a thing from happening again. That would be heresy.
16. The Zionists, with their secular pompous approach behave in complete opposition to this philosophy and dare to say 'Never Again'. They have the audacity to think that they can prevent the A-lmighty from repeating a 'Holocaust'. This is heresy.
17. Furthermore, as we all know, they compound the wrong of this policy by imposing themselves in a most cruel and harsh manner on the Palestinian People.
18. I must add that the use by the Zionists of the Holocaust to further their aim of a sectarian State is the height of hypocrisy when one bears in mind that the Zionists turned each stage of Nazi oppression to their own advantage, to further the aim of forming a State. In the thirties when the Nazi policy was to expel the Jews from Germany, it is well documented how the Zionists cooperated by working together - yes together - with the Nazi authorities to evacuate 'suitable' Jews i.e. young healthy pioneer material, from Germany to Palestine. Then during the war when the killing was proceeding, it is again well documented how their attitude was one of callousness, not helping when they could even though they were able to. They needed the suffering and the deaths in order to be able to push for their State when the war would end. Finally, after the war they turned the whole issue of the Holocaust and the pity and sympathy it evoked into almost an article of faith in order to ensure as much as possible the acquisition of their State. Claiming that Zionism was there in order to prevent another Holocaust, when in fact Zionism predated the Holocaust by decades. They then proceeded to justify their atrocities against the Palestinians in order to further their cause.
19. To sum up, the Orthodox Jewish view is that yes there was a Holocaust to a terribly significant degree whatever that was. But in no way can it be used to justify the illegitimate and criminal cause and actions of Zionism.
20. My friends I wish to end with the prayer that the underlying cause of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East, namely, the State known as 'Israel', be totally and peacefully dissolved. To be replaced by a regime fully in accordance with the aspirations of the Palestinians. When Arab and Jew will be able to live peacefully together as they did for centuries.
21. May we then merit the time when the glory of the A-lmighty will be revealed to all and all mankind will be at peace with each other.
Comment on this Article
University embarrassed by professor's Tehran visit
CAROLINE ALPHONSO
Globe and Mail
14 Dec 06
Shocked St. Francis Xavier distances itself from meeting of Holocaust deniers
St. Francis Xavier University is embarrassed that one of its professors attended a gathering of Holocaust deniers in Tehran, but the institution's leader says it is too early to tell what action will be taken, if any.
"My main feeling is it's just an embarrassment for the university. I think it's an embarrassment for Canada to have lent any credibility, no matter how thin, to that particular conference with that very hurtful agenda," university president Sean Riley said in a telephone interview yesterday.
Among those speaking at the two-day conference earlier this week was Shiraz Dossa, a political science professor who has spent 18 years at the university in Antigonish, N.S.
Dr. Dossa told the Globe and Mail that he is not a Holocaust denier, and called those who deny the Holocaust "hacks and lunatics." Still, his presence at the conference, sponsored by the Iranian government and featuring speeches by anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, has raised eyebrows on campus and has been condemned by some university officials.
Yesterday, the university distanced itself from Dr. Dossa's decision to attend the conference, which has been roundly denounced internationally. Dr. Riley said faculty members have the right to free speech, but stressed that Dr. Dossa isn't receiving any university money to be in Iran.
"Despite all that, it's still our name and he still works at our university," he said. "So I want to make it very clear . . . that the university is not lending any credibility, not an ounce of credibility, to the exercise that occurred in Tehran."
He added: "I think there's going to be a lot of discussion about the appropriateness of attending the conference, that's for sure. I'm already expecting to have different things suggested within the university community. It's not appropriate at this point to map out any specific things that will happen."
Raymond Lahey, bishop of Antigonish and the university's chancellor, said in a letter to The Globe and Mail that the institution was stunned to learn of Dr. Dossa's attendance.
"We are more than wincing at the thought," he wrote. "I am certain that the Xaverian community is shocked that a member of faculty should have taken part in this conference in any capacity."
A university spokesman said the political science department was aware that Dr. Dossa was attending a conference in Iran, but not the nature of the gathering.
Dr. Dossa, the only Canadian at the event, said he willingly accepted Tehran's invitation to present his paper on the abuse of Holocaust imagery.
At the university, he teaches courses such as History of Political Thought, and Third World Politics. People claiming to be his students on ratemyprofessor.com have both praised and complained about his teaching style.
As news of his presence at the conference spread around campus, students posted messages on the student union website. Some defended him.
". . . The man is emphatically not a Holocaust denier. He is a serious academic, anyone in any of his classes that didn't need to be spoon-fed regurgitated textbook crap could see that. I'm sure he was thoroughly embarrassed when he found out who some of the other guests at the conference were," one person wrote.
Elaine MacLean, president of the St. Francis Xavier Association of University Teachers, defended academics' right to attend such conferences. "Certainly academic freedom ensures that our members have the freedom to teach, to discuss and to criticize," she said.
But at least one attendee is likely to face legal action for his role at the conference, where he denied the Holocaust during a speech. Revisionist academic Robert Faurisson might be brought to court, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said. France has a statute making it illegal to deny the existence of the Holocaust.
Comment on this Article
Messing With Mother Nature
Prize offered to tag an asteroid
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
Thursday, 14 December 2006
The Planetary Society will give a prize to the designers of a mission that would allow the huge asteroid's orbit to be tracked with the most precision.
A $50,000 (£25,000) competition has been launched to find the best way to tag a 400m-wide asteroid.
The Apophis space rock is set to make a close pass of Earth in 2029 and scientists would like to confirm that it poses no danger to our world.
The competition has support from the US and European space agencies.
"The threat of a strike from asteroids is always a very low probability at any given time, and yet bad things will happen," said the Planetary Society's director of projects, Bruce Betts. "We need to know whether Earth's name is on it," he told BBC News.
Apophis will come closer to Earth in 2029 than the orbits of many communications satellites - but it will not hit the planet, that is clear.
The concern centres on the small chance that its orbit could be perturbed enough in the flyby to put the rock on a collision path for its return in 2036.
Concept mission
Further investigations with ground telescopes are expected to show beyond doubt that this will not happen and that Apophis represents zero risk.
And Planetary Society thinks an innovative tracking mission could make doubly sure. Hence, the prize for an individual or team that can put together the best concept for tagging a huge lump of rock.
"You could use a beacon; you could put a reflector on it that you ping; you could put a spacecraft in orbit and track that. There are any number of possibilities and ones we haven't thought of, I'm sure," said Betts.
The Society is organising the competition in cooperation with the European Space Agency (Esa), the US space agency (Nasa), the Association of Space Explorers (ASE), the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), and the Universities Space Research Association (USRA).
The winning entry or entries will be submitted to space agencies to see if they want to carry the ideas through.
Already they are considering a number of concept missions that would assess the best way to deflect or destroy dangerous space rocks.
The Planetary Society competition was launched here at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting.
Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Comment: Perhaps this article should take into consideration the likelihood that this might indeed pose a lot of danger to our world.
Furthermore, it should be noted that many other studies confirm the likelihood of comets hitting the planet much sooner, and even at the present time. See here
Comment on this Article
Media Bias on Global Warming Called 'Inconvenient Truth'
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
December 07, 2006
(CNSNews.com) - A U.S. Senate committee hearing considering the media's handling of climate change was told Wednesday that media bias on global warming was an "inconvenient truth," although participating experts disagreed sharply over which side of the debate receives preferential media treatment.
(CNSNews.com) - A U.S. Senate committee hearing considering the media's handling of climate change was told Wednesday that media bias on global warming was an "inconvenient truth," although participating experts disagreed sharply over which side of the debate receives preferential media treatment.
"Journalists who have pledged to be neutral long ago gave up their watchdog role to become lapdogs for one position," Dan Gainor, director of the Business and Media Institute (BMI), told the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee.
The "alarmist" press behaves "as if at any moment, everything could go over the edge," Gainor said.
He cited as an example the fact that Matt Lauer, host of NBC's "Today Show," had "lent his status to a Sci Fi Channel program that listed global warming among potential threats to our species, including asteroids, aliens and evil robots."
"Scientists who dare question the almost-religious belief in climate change - and yes, they do exist - are ignored or undermined in news reports, as are policymakers and pundits who take similar views," Gainor added.
The BMI is a division of the Media Research Center, which is the parent organization of Cybercast News Service.
Gainor said the press had a poor record when it came to predicting climate change.
"In more than 100 years, the major media have warned us of at least four separate climate cataclysms - an ice age, warming, another ice age and another bout of warming," he added. "Even by their count, they're 0 for 3."
Gainor quoted from a New York Times editorial in which the newspaper had acknowledged: "Cooling, warming - we never get it right."
"That's the inconvenient truth," Gainor added, invoking the title of a movie on climate change produced by former Vice President Al Gore.
Contrary to Gainor's assertion that global warming skeptics are "ignored or undermined," Naomi Oreskes, director of the science studies program at the University of California San Diego, told the committee the press had in fact "bent over backwards to give space to a very small number of people in the scientific community."
Oreskes described the skeptics as "a few people out on the edges" who she conceded "should be listened to."
Oreskes argued that there was "a consensus" within the scientific community on the issue of man-made climate change.
Global warming was not "just a fad or fashion," she said. Lawmakers should be guided by the "overwhelming evidence" pointing to the need for "immediate action to reverse the trend of mounting greenhouse gas emissions."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, the ranking Democrat on the committee, questioned the usefulness of "attacking the media" on its coverage of the issue, saying that doing so "won't change the truth."
To support her stance on climate change, Boxer quoted from articles in a number of newspapers and business journals that stressed the need for the U.S. to take the lead in dealing with global warming.
But noting that none of the quotes she cited gave differing views on the issue, Gainor thanked the California Democrat "for making my point for me."
Boxer clashed with Gainor when she noted that both of them are former newspaper reporters - she for the Pacific Sun in San Francisco and he with the Washington Times. "How can you be against a free press?" she asked. "This is a free country, and we treasure a free press."
"I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment," Gainor responded. "I just want to see journalists do a better job when they cover this issue."
Several times during the hearing, Boxer - who will become the committee chairman when the Democrats take control of Congress in January - expressed her support for the media, at one point telling members of the press covering the hearing, "say whatever you want," before qualifying, "keep the editorials on the editorial page."
'Scare stories'
A large part of the hearing also dealt with the actual science of global warming.
During that discussion, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) asked: "If there's a fire in a house, do you have to figure out just how hot it's going to get and how much damage it's going to do before you tell the people inside to get out?"
Lautenberg also referred to a statement once made by the committee chairman, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who wondered whether man-made global warming was "a hoax" being perpetrated on the American people.
Lautenberg then asked the panel of experts whether they considered man-made climate change to be some kind of "bad joke."
David Deming, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, replied that he didn't agree with the term "hoax," because that word implied deliberate deception.
Deming preferred the phrase "mass delusion" about "something that doesn't really exist," he said, adding that the delusion was caused by "scare stories" - like "those about houses burning down."
Noting Deming's response, Daniel Schrag, professor of geochemistry in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, said that he was himself among the ranks of "the deluded," because he believed "the evidence on global warming is absolutely clear."
Robert Carter, a research professor at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia, told the hearing that he agreed with the use of the word "hoax." Some agencies and institutions were "deliberately spreading misinformation" for monetary or ideological gain, he charged.
Oreskes said she considered skeptics' response to global warming a sign of "denial." While there's "always some uncertainty" in scientific endeavors, "human activity has changed the chemistry of the atmosphere," she said.
During his opening remarks, Inhofe accused the media of "hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism."
Even believers in man-made global warming had criticized the media for presenting "a quasi-religious register of doom, death [and] judgment," Inhofe said.
The panelists did agree on at least one point regarding the media and how it handles climate change. All of the experts criticized the 2004 movie "The Day After Tomorrow," which depicts global warming causing a sudden new ice age in North America.
"The 'science' in that movie is just preposterous," Schrag said.
Comment on this Article
Remember, we need your help to collect information on what is going on in your part of the world!
Send your article suggestions to: sott(at)signs-of-the-times.org