Bah, humbug! No Christmas in Gaza

JVP News Roundup: No Holiday in Gaza

The news around Israel and Palestine has been relatively quiet of late. In the aftermath of Annapolis, little has changed, and, if one scans the mainstream media, one might think that little is really happening since the conference. But in the Gaza Strip, much has been changing as the suffering there is intensifying. Yet we hear very little about it.

While Israel has been openly speaking of and planning a large-scale invasion of Gaza for months now, the current thinking in the government and the military is leaning toward avoiding such a step. Unfortunately, this sounds a lot better than it is. Instead of invading Gaza, Israel is stepping up its military incursions and air strikes in the Strip. The reason given for this is the ongoing mortar and missile fire coming from Gaza at Israeli towns nearby. Indeed, the residents of Sderot, a working-class town near Gaza, have been witness to constant rocket fire. The obvious fact that Israeli incursions and attacks in Gaza have been going on all this time and the fire at Sderot continues would seem, however, to contradict the Israeli government's statements that their attacks on Gaza are aimed at preventing the rocket and mortar fire across the border.

While Hamas Prime Minister in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, has discussed the possibility of a truce with Israel, the fighting is not only continuing but gradually growing in intensity. Though reports conflict over whether or not Hamas is really prepared to offer a truce, Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert has already ruled out any possibility of such an arrangement despite the fact that former Defense Minister and IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz and former head of Israeli intelligence Ami Ayalon have both said that Israel should consider the matter.

Meanwhile, the situation in Gaza goes from bad to worse. Health care services are scant due to lack of medical supplies coupled with food shortages and reduced fuel supplies from Israel on which Gaza depends. People talk about Gaza being on the "brink of economic collapse," but one has to wonder at what point an economy is considered to have collapsed if not at the point where 80% of its population depends on international food aid, which itself has been sharply reduced. Indeed, it is probably time to stop worrying about when Gaza's economy will collapse and acknowledge that it already has.

The shortage of medical supplies only increases the need for seriously ill or injured people to be able to leave Gaza in order to get treatment, whether in Israel, Egypt or the West Bank. But, as Physicians for Human Rights-Israel reports, new bureaucratic restrictions, which are layered on top of the already cumbersome and arbitrary system at crossing checkpoints out of Gaza, are making it extremely difficult even for patients in emergency need to get to the medical care they need. more reprehensibly, PHR accuses the Israeli intelligence service, SHABAK, of forcing some patients to inform on others in order to obtain passage.

The issue of medical care is only the tip of the iceberg. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA) reports the following results of the siege Gaza has been under since Hamas' takeover of the Strip in June:

• More Gazans than ever need food and direct assistance
• Fuel shortages have threatened essential services and water supply
• Life-saving treatments are not available in Gaza's hospitals
• 17 per cent of patients with referrals were refused exit for treatment in Israel, East Jerusalem or overseas
• The on-going isolation of Gaza threatens the local economy
• Baby milk, medicines, and cooking oil are increasingly scarce
• Hundreds of businesses have gone bankrupt due to ban on imports/exports
• Thousands of labourers have lost their jobs due to the collapse of the building industry
• Building projects worth US$370 million are on hold indefinitely

Gaza at its best is not blessed with many resources and would have a hard time building a thriving economy even in favorable conditions. Under the current circumstances, there is absolutely nothing that can be done, by Hamas or by any other group in Gaza, to sustain its populace. Large-scale programs to generate revenue, such as an offshore natural gas project, are stymied by Israeli resistance. The UN-OCHA report shows that exports from Gaza have dropped to essentially zero since June.

Food shortages are epidemic. The World Food Program "...estimates that only approximately 41 per cent of humanitarian and commercial food import needs were met between 1 October and 4 November 2007. Basic items including wheat grain, vegetable oil, dairy products and baby milk are in extremely short supply." 80% of Gazans now receive food aid, compared to 63% in 2006. Two-thirds of Gazans live in "deep poverty," defined as living on $474 USD or less per month.

Water pumps that serve half the population lie in disrepair due to lack of parts. Of 3,900 industrial establishments in Gaza, 3,500 have shut down due to lack of raw materials, complicated now by lack of funds and reduced power supplies. Of 32,000 workers employed in this sector, only 3,000 (9%) remain employed. The construction and agricultural sectors have experienced similar devastation. The public sector, which employs some 40% of Gaza's workers, is the only sector that is still functioning and, while some payment of salaries resumed with the freeing of some public funds, payments remain sporadic and those gathering salaries have greatly increased burdens due to the enormous unemployment affecting their families.

Imports which numbered some 12,000 truckloads per month in May, 2005, are now down under 2,000 per month, consisting mostly of aid supplies. Exports are virtually eliminated. Human traffic in and out of Gaza has been severely curtailed, cutting off more sources for work for Palestinians who had worked in the West Bank, Egypt and even in some cases, Israel. UN-OCHA describes it thus: "Severe restrictions on the movement of people into and out of the Gaza Strip have also been imposed. Palestinians have not been allowed to leave Gaza since mid-June 2007 except for traders, aid workers, a restricted number of pilgrims and a limited number of medical cases. On 2 December the GoI began to permit to some of the 6,000 Palestinians with the necessary foreign residency, or papers to study or work abroad to exit Gaza through Kerem Shalom - the first time that crossing has been used for the passage of people. As of 11 December, 920 persons have crossed through Kerem Shalom, out which 198 were refused entry to Egypt and were sent back to Gaza."

This is a non-functional economy in any sense of the word. Mass starvation is only barely being staved off with the meager aid supplies being allowed in to Gaza. As the Red Cross, which usually does not make such statements, said, Gazans are being given "enough to survive, but not enough to live." The World Food Program also said that "...62 percent of household spending went on food, putting Gaza's non-refugee population on par with Somalia. That compares to 37 percent in a 2004 survey."

Relief does not seem to be forthcoming, as Gaza's 1.4 million residents are being held hostage to collective punishment in the political battles between Hamas and Fatah and between Hamas and Israel. That other countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, also wish to see Hamas fall means that Gazans are left with little hope for support. The recent donor conference for the Palestinian Authority saw some $7.4 billion pledged to the PA, but Gaza is not likely to see much of that money because of the antipathy toward Hamas. Empty words from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon are not going to help either.

Resolving the situation in Gaza is a complicated matter. Gazan society and internal politics, with their mix of clashing ideologies between Hamas, Fatah and other parties and the maneuverings between government, international and local NGOs and, perhaps most importantly, clan and family alliances (some of which have their own private militias and which form part of the backbone of Palestinian society) is not a simple arena. But what must be made clear is that the current situation is intolerable. Israel has legitimate security concerns, but such cannot justify collective punishment and the starving of nearly a million and a half people. That situation must be brought to an end immediately while other means must be found to reconcile the Palestinian factions and to find some at least temporary accommodation between Hamas and Israel.

Israel's siege and attacks on Gaza are not providing security to Sderot and Ashkelon. Hamas' attacks on Israeli towns only harm the Palestinian cause. Residents of Israeli towns near Gaza are frightened, and the people of Gaza are slowly starving to death. The current situation is the worst of all worlds. It only strengthens the resolve of the military leaders of both Israel and Hamas as it gives neither side a graceful option. International intervention, with the immediate goal of relieving the suffering in Gaza and rebuilding the Gazan economy must take immediate precedence, even above the other aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Otherwise, this miserable Christmas in Gaza will only be followed by even more horrifying ones.

Source: Jewish Voice for Peace:

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_934.shtml

Just a bit more detailed information about the ongoing siege in Gaza. I am posting this not because I want to instigate an argument about who is right and who is wrong, but because I still think that many people do not really grasp the severity of the conditions on the ground in Gaza. Inhumane would only scratch the surface. Make no mistake, this is a siege, which I believe is outlawed under the Geneva convention. Again, not defending Hamas at all, but security measures should take into account the civilian consequences. Collateral damage happens. It's not pretty, but it occurs. This extends beyond collateral damage and approaches gross violation of basic human rights. Now, for their parts, Hamas and Fateh are guilty of putting a grudge match ahead of the needs of their people. Moreover, Hamas's reluctance to engage in peace talks makes things all the worse (thought apparently they have shown signs of considering such a course). The issue is complex (as the article illustrates), and solutions won't be easy to find. Still, the current solution is perhaps the worst strategy that could be deployed short of carpet bombing.

As a final note, the JVP is a US-based Jewish NGO devoted to sustainable solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that respect the basic human rights and dignity of both parties.

Benazir Bhutto 'killed in blast'

Pakistani former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a presumed suicide attack, a military spokesman has announced on TV.

Earlier reports said Ms Bhutto had only been injured and taken to hospital.

Ms Bhutto had just addressed a pre-election rally in the town of Rawalpindi when the bomb went off.

At least 15 other people are reported killed in the attack and several more were injured. Ms Bhutto had twice been the country's prime minister.

She had been campaigning ahead of elections due in January.

The BBC's Barbara Plett says the killing is likely to provoke an agonised response from her followers, especially from her loyal following in Sindh Province.

The PPP has the largest support of any party in the country.

Scene of grief

The explosion occurred close to an entrance gate of the park in Rawalpindi where Ms Bhutto had been speaking.

Wasif Ali Khan, a member of the PPP who was at Rawalpindi General Hospital, said she died at 1816 (1316 GMT).

Supporters at the hospital began chanting "Dog, Musharraf, dog", referring to President Pervez Musharraf, the Associated Press (AP) reports.

Some broke the glass door at the main entrance to the emergency unit as others wept.

A man with a PPP flag tied around his head could be seen beating his chest, the agency adds.

An interior ministry spokesman, Javed Cheema, was quoted as saying by AFP that she may have been killed by pellets packed into the suicide bomber's vest.

However, AP quoted a PPP security adviser as saying she was shot in the neck and chest as she got into her vehicle, before the gunman blew himself up.

Excerpted From: BBC online

One of Pakistan's best chances for sustained democratic reform has just been lost. Pakistan is a country to which few of us have given the serious attention it deserves. Often it is lumped into the broader Middle East along with the assumption that is "just another Muslim autocracy" enmeshed in radicalism and culturally and political antithetical to liberalism and pluralism. Yet Pakistan has on several occasions held successful democratic democratic election--even electing women more than once--and has a tradition of an independent minded judiciary that often challenges the executive. The country is complex, politically unstable, and in the process of a virtual and literal war between reform and radicalism. The future of the country is far from certain, but the outcome of the struggle will reverberate throughout the region and the world. Whatever the eventual outcome, the struggle seems more violent and the situation more volatile by the day. Bhutto's death will only worsen this situation and further hinder any move toward reform.

Warnings about Blackwater unheeded

Despite Shootings, Security Companies Expanded Presence
By Steve FainaruWashington Post Foreign ServiceMonday, December 24, 2007;
The U.S. government disregarded numerous warnings over the past two years about the risks of using Blackwater Worldwide and other private security firms in Iraq, expanding their presence even after a series of shooting incidents showed that the firms were operating with little regulation or oversight, according to government officials, private security firms and documents.

The warnings were conveyed in letters and memorandums from defense and legal experts and in high-level discussions between U.S. and Iraqi officials. They reflected growing concern about the lack of control over the tens of thousands of private guards in Iraq, the largest private security force ever employed by the United States in wartime.

Neither the Pentagon nor the State Department took substantive action to regulate private security companies until Blackwater guards opened fire Sept. 16 at a Baghdad traffic circle, killing 17 Iraqi civilians and provoking protests over the role of security contractors in Iraq.
"Why is it they couldn't see this coming?" said Christopher Beese, chief administrative officer for ArmorGroup International, a British security firm with extensive operations in Iraq. "That amazes me. Somebody -- it could have been military officers, it could have been State -- anybody could have waved a flag and said, 'Stop, this is not good news for us.' "

Private security firms rushed into Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. The U.S. military, which entered the country with 130,000 troops, needed additional manpower to protect supply convoys, military installations and diplomats. Private security companies appeared "like mushrooms after a rainstorm," recalled Michael J. Arrighi, who has worked in private security in Iraq since 2004.

Last year, the Pentagon estimated that 20,000 hired guns worked in Iraq; the Government Accountability Office estimated 48,000.

On Feb. 7, 2006, Blackwater guards allegedly killed three Kurdish civilians outside the northern city of Kirkuk. That incident triggered demonstrations outside the U.S. Consulate and led Rizgar Ali, president of the Kirkuk provincial council, to complain to U.S. authorities in Kirkuk and Baghdad, Ali said in an interview. The incident was one of several shootings that caused friction between the U.S. and Iraqi governments..

On Christmas Eve 2006, a Blackwater employee killed the bodyguard of an Iraqi vice president in the Green Zone. Six weeks later, a Blackwater sniper killed three security guards for the state-run media network. On May 24, a Blackwater team shot and killed a civilian driver outside the Interior Ministry gates, sparking an armed standoff between the Blackwater guards and Iraqi security forces in downtown Baghdad.

By June 6, concerns about Blackwater had reached Iraq's National Intelligence Committee, which included senior Iraqi and U.S. intelligence officials, including Maj. Gen. David B. Lacquement, the Army's deputy chief of staff for intelligence. Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal, who heads the Interior Ministry's intelligence directorate, called on U.S. authorities to crack down on private security companies.

U.S. military officials told Kamal that Blackwater was under State Department authority and outside their control, according to notes of the meeting. The matter was dropped.
"We set this thing up for failure from the beginning," said T.X. Hammes, a retired Marine colonel who advised the new Iraqi army from January to March 2004. He added that private security guards regularly infuriated his Iraqi staff with their aggressive tactics and that he reported the problems "up the chain of command."

"We're just sorting it out now," Hammes said. "I still think, from a pure counterinsurgency standpoint, armed contractors are an inherently bad idea, because you cannot control the quality, you cannot control the action on the ground, but you're held responsible for everything they do."

U.S. officials argue that security contractors save money and free up troops for more urgent tasks, such as fighting insurgents. "Certainly there have been moments of frustration where people here have said, 'Maybe we should just take over the whole operation, even if it stretches our forces more,' " Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. "But the reality is that we think our resources are better utilized taking it to the bad guys than guarding warehouses and escorting convoys."

The State Department investigated previous Blackwater shootings and found no indication of wrongdoing, according to a senior official involved in security matters. He said the U.S. Embassy discussed any concerns the Iraqi government had about the company's conduct. "I'm not aware of the significant warnings," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of ongoing investigations related to the Sept. 16 shooting.

The Defense Department has paid $2.7 billion for private security since 2003, according to USA Spending, a government-funded project that tracks contracting expenditures; the military said it currently employs 17 companies in Iraq under contracts worth $689.7 million. The State Department has paid $2.4 billion for private security in Iraq -- including $1 billion to Blackwater -- since 2003, USA Spending figures show.

On Dec. 5, the State and Defense departments signed a memorandum of agreement designed to increase cooperation between the two and better define their authority over private security contractors. The nine-page agreement, which was approved by Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces there, for the first time set common guidelines for reporting serious incidents, the use of deadly force, coordination on the battlefield and possession of firearms.

But the laws governing security contractors still have not been clarified. On Sept. 30, 2006, Congress passed a provision aimed at giving the military authority over all contractors in Iraq, including Blackwater. But the provision has not been implemented by the Pentagon. The 15-month delay "has led to much confusion over who will be covered . . . and has called into question whether the Department plans to utilize this provision," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who sponsored the provision, wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates shortly after the Sept. 16 incident.
The Pentagon is studying whether the provision can withstand legal scrutiny, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.Contractors in Combat

In previous wars, the Pentagon had prohibited contractors from participating in combat. But in Iraq, military planners rewrote the policy to match the reality on the ground. On Sept. 20, 2005, the military issued an order authorizing contractors to use deadly force to protect people and assets. In June 2006, the order was codified as an "interim rule" in the Federal Register. It took effect immediately without public debate.

Critics, including the American Bar Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, warned that the Pentagon had used an obscure defense acquisition rule to push through a fundamental shift in American war-fighting without fully considering the potential legal and strategic ramifications.

The provision enabled the military to significantly raise troop levels with contractors whose "combat roles now closely parallel those of Constitutionally and Congressionally authorized forces," wrote Herbert L. Fenster, a partner with McKenna Long & Aldridge, a Washington-based international law firm that represents several major defense contractors. Fenster questioned the provision's legality in a lengthy comment he filed in opposition. The practice "smacks of a mercenary approach," he wrote in an e-mail.

But neither the military nor the State Department set guidelines for regulating tens of thousands of hired guns on the battlefield. Oversight was left to overburdened government contracting officers or the companies themselves, which conducted their own investigations when a shooting incident occurred. Dozens of security companies operated under layers of subcontracts that often made their activities all but impossible to track. They were accountable to no one for violent incidents, according to U.S. officials and security company representatives familiar with the contracting arrangements.

U.S. officials often turned to the Private Security Company Association of Iraq, a trade group funded by the security companies. Lawrence T. Peter, a retired Navy intelligence officer, served as the association's director while also working as a consultant to the Pentagon's Defense Reconstruction Support Office, which administers contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whitman, the Pentagon spokesman, said Peter earned "a few thousand dollars a year" as a consultant.
The association operated out of an office inside the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Logistics Directorate in the Green Zone. Jack Holly, a retired Marine colonel who heads corps logistics in Iraq, said that Peter and the association play "a critical role to help the private security community improve and regulate itself," adding, "They tried to fill a void that had been left by the U.S. government's failure to recognize the problem."

"The department didn't see him as an advocate" for the security industry, Whitman said, referring to Peter. "They saw him as a conduit for information to understand the role of private security contractors in the reconstruction process."

But others saw a conflict of interest. "It violates all the best lessons of what goes into good policy and smart business," said Peter W. Singer, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who has written a book on private security. "You do not hand over these questions to parties that are not merely mildly interested but they're the ones you are seeking to regulate."

The association sometimes resisted regulation. Earlier this year, Peter opposed the military's efforts to enforce orders requiring private security firms to obtain formal weapons permits from the Iraqi government, arguing that the authorization process was unworkable. Peter did not return messages seeking comment. His deputy, H.C. Lawrence Smith, said during an interview in Baghdad this year that the association sometimes helped the military in "writing the language in contracts relating to the role that private security companies play. We don't care what the contract is about, as long as the companies are treated fairly."

Maj. Gen. Darryl A. Scott, who oversees Pentagon contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the association had never "provided any input on contract language." He said he viewed it as a trade group that made unsolicited comments on policy on behalf of its membership. To employ Peter as a consultant, Scott said, "wouldn't be proper."Fury and Frustration

On June 27, 2004, one day before he left Baghdad, L. Paul Bremer, administrator of the now-defunct U.S. occupation government, signed CPA Order 17, a decree granting contractors immunity from Iraqi law.

Two years later, Matthew Degn, a then-36-year-old civilian contractor from Seattle, arrived in Baghdad as a senior policy adviser to the Interior Ministry. One of his assignments was to help the Iraqis regulate private security. He started by reading CPA Order 17.

Degn, a no-nonsense Army veteran who had taught national security and terrorism studies at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, offered a blunt assessment of the document. "You have no power," he told Iraqi officials.

Hostility toward Blackwater was already high in the Interior Ministry, which was dominated by Shiite militias. The February 2006 shooting incident in Kirkuk had damaged U.S.-Iraqi relations in the area, leaving the Americans "hated and ostracized," according to Ali, the provincial council president.

Ali said he "sent official letters to the American and the British consulates and met them in my office to find out who the murderers were. They didn't do anything or give me clear answers. They only said, 'The ones who did it were from the Blackwater company.' "

A Blackwater spokeswoman did not respond to e-mails or phone messages seeking comment. U.S. officials said they could not recall the incident.

Blackwater, based in Moyock, N.C., was founded in 1996 by a former Navy SEAL, Erik Prince. In Iraq, the company protects the U.S. ambassador and other diplomats. Blackwater has lost 25 employees in Iraq, according to Labor Department figures based on insurance claims. The firm says no one under its protection has been killed.

The State Department's reliance on Blackwater expanded dramatically in 2006, when together with the U.S. firms DynCorp and Triple Canopy it won a new, multiyear contract worth $3.6 billion. Blackwater's share was $1.2 billion, up from $488 million, and the company more than doubled its staff, from 482 to 1,082. From January 2006 to April 2007, the State Department paid Blackwater at least $601 million in 38 transactions, according to government data.
The company developed a reputation for aggressive street tactics. Even inside the fortified Green Zone, Blackwater guards were known for running vehicles off the road and pointing their weapons at bystanders, according to several security company representatives and U.S. officials.

"They're universally despised in the" Green Zone, said Arrighi, who has managed security for several companies since 2004. "That's not an overstatement. 'Universally despised' is probably a kind way to put it."

The Iraqis' fury grew as they realized that Blackwater was untouchable, Degn said. After the May 24 shooting of a civilian Iraqi driver outside the Interior Ministry gates, Blackwater guards refused to divulge their names or details of the incident to the Iraqi authorities. Degn, who was working in the ministry at the time, recalled that the Iraqis were outraged and the American advisers felt threatened.

"After that day, people looked at us a little different," Degn said. "There was a palpable feeling. . . . We knew that something monumental had happened, that we were in deep water. And we felt like we weren't getting anything done. We were going up and coming down, but they weren't listening to a darn thing we were saying."

The State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity said Blackwater became synonymous with private security, "like Kleenex or Reynolds Wrap" being used to describe generic products, and was blamed for incidents even when it wasn't involved. He said the shootings should be viewed in the context of the several thousand missions that Blackwater conducted safely on Baghdad's dangerous streets.

On June 6, Kamal, the deputy minister, brought up the issue of Blackwater before the National Intelligence Committee. The committee's weekly meetings at the Iraqi parliament were headed by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser, and attended by several U.S. officials, including Lacquement, the Army's deputy chief of staff for intelligence.
A spokesman for Lacquement, who is now commander of the Army Intelligence and Security Command, said that for "reasons of classification and security," he could not address whether Blackwater was discussed.

"Clearly the overall philosophy and tactics of Blackwater were not in keeping with winning hearts and minds," said a senior defense official involved in private security policy. The company's aggressive tactics provoked widespread frustration among U.S. commanders in Iraq, but the complaints "never got out of the brigade level" until after the Sept. 16 incident, he said.
Kamal's pleas to do something about the private security firms went nowhere. "Kamal was ballistic," Degn said. The May 24 shooting "had happened right on Interior Ministry grounds. That's what made it so explosive. But once again, the Americans blew it off, so where are you going to take it after that?"

Degn said he was also frustrated. "We sent many memos up the chain of command," he said. "I thought it was a huge issue. The coalition knew about it, but it was just another part of the war, so nothing was ever done. I felt it was completely ignored."
"I mean, how many of these incidents does it take before you're finally aware?" Degn added.'An Interesting Question'

In the spring of 2005, while on a one-year tour in Baghdad, Army Maj. Robert Bateman watched a Blackwater convoy barrel through a congested traffic circle, indiscriminately firing warning shots. Bateman, who frequently writes and blogs on military issues, described what he saw to his fiancee, Kate Turner, a first-year graduate student at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.

On Dec. 5 that year, Turner decided to ask Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who was visiting Johns Hopkins, what laws governed security contractors in Iraq.
"Iraq's a sovereign country. They have their laws, and they're going to govern," Rumsfeld replied.

Four months later, Turner raised the issue with President Bush when he visited the school.
"I asked your secretary of defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions," Turner said, according to a transcript of the exchange.

"I was going to ask him," the president responded, drawing laughter as he issued a mock entreaty. "Go ahead. Help."

"Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws which he assumed applied to those private military contractors," Turner said. "However, Iraq is clearly not capable of enforcing its laws. I would submit to you that this is one case that privatization is not a solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?"
"I wasn't kidding. I was going to pick up the phone and say, 'Mr. Secretary, I've got an interesting question,' " Bush replied. "I don't mean to be dodging the questions, although it's kind of convenient in this case."

Turner received a letter two weeks later from the Pentagon's Office of General Counsel. It directly contradicted Rumsfeld: "Contractors are . . . subject to oversight and accountability for their actions on the basis of U.S. law and regulation."

To date, not a single case has been brought against a private security contractor in Iraq. "The reality is the military has not had any oversight on this issue until recently," Arrighi said. "We could hire the Rockettes and give them guns, and they wouldn't know. It was a total wasteland."
Special correspondent Naseer Nouri in Baghdad and staff researcher Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this report.

I know we have covered some aspects of the Blackwater-security firm scandal on the blog before, but this report just makes it al seem even worse. Again, I am appalled and yet not surprised. I guess the thing that bugs me the most (well, except the whole killing civilians thing) is that no one really knows how many private security contractors there are in Iraq and Afghanistan--the Pentagon says about 20,000 while the Government Accountability Office says 48,000. Ummm...does this seem like a problem? As a final note, I would like to suggest that while apparently neither US nor Iraqi law seems to apply to security contractors, they are still subject to the rules of war and to international humanitarian and human rights law. If the US won't punish contractors and Iraq can't (because of the deals brokered with Bremmer and the CPA) it seems like the Hague might be the best place to go next.

Sioux Secede From Union

WASHINGTON —

The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,'' long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said.

A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.

The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.

The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said.

Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said.

"This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution,'' which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said.

"It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent,'' said Means.

The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence — an overt play on the title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.

Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks were in a row,'' Means said.

One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples — despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws.

"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children,'' Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.

The U.S. "annexation'' of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people,'' said Means.

Oppression at the hands of the U.S. government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies - less than 44 years - in the world.

Lakota teen suicides are 150 per cent above the norm for the U.S.; infant mortality is five times higher than the U.S. average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's website.

Source: Fox News

Well, I don't assume this will go anywhere, and at worst it will urn militant and be a disastrous replay of the AIM movement of the 1970s. All the same, good for them and they have my full support. I am not generally in favor of dividing states along ethnic lines, but given the appalling treatment that native Americans endure (and I mean the conditions on reservations and systematic discrimination, not even the history of genocide) I could get behind this. Hey, it's a much better justification for secession than the South ever had. Additionally, wait to go FOX news for covering this--haven't seen it anywhere it.

The Controversy Over Tariq Ramadan

Blog entry from Charles Kupchan

***Original Piece can be found at The Huffington Post, click here to be redirected there***

Posted November 28, 2007 | 05:32 PM (EST)

America's relationship with the Islamic world continues to be defined by hostile confrontation: the so-called war on terror, the bloody conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the political crisis in Pakistan, and the continuing stand-off with a theocratic Iran over its nuclear program. Managing these challenges has dominated the Bush presidency, and the same tasks will preoccupy whoever takes over in January 2009.

The next president, however, will also need to broaden the political discourse, redefining America's interaction with the Islamic world so that is not only about combating violence and extremism. With America's standing in the Middle East at historic lows, Muslim communities in Europe largely estranged from the majority populations around them, and Islamist movements on the march in the Middle East and beyond, building bridges of dialogue and understanding will be increasingly important.

The difficulties involved in building such bridges have been encapsulated in the controversy over Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss-born Muslim intellectual currently based in the Britain. A devout Muslim who insists that traditional Islam can coexist in mutual respect with the liberal societies of the West, Ramadan has become an obsession of the U.S. and European media. Indeed, The New Republic last June devoted more than 28,000 words - a substantial portion of the magazine - to probing his background and writings.

But despite all the attention, opinions diverge widely as to whether Ramadan should be revered or reviled. Some commentators praise him as Islam's Martin Luther, an intellectual activist who will help oversee an Islamic Reformation - and hence a perfect interlocutor for the West. Others assert that he only masquerades as a moderate reformer, and is in reality a dangerous absolutist who brooks no compromise between Sharia and modernity.

Ramadan certainly holds opinions that run contrary to mainstream Western views on many issues -- including gender equality, the role of religion in society and the benefits of global capitalism. But the inordinate amount of attention he attracts is less a product of his admittedly distasteful views than our own paranoia about the perceived threat that traditional Islam poses to our liberal and pluralist societies.

Ramadan purports to be intent on diminishing mistrust between the Islamic world and the West, including between Muslims living in the West and the non-Muslim majorities alongside them. He is certainly not the secularizing renegade that many Americans and Europeans would prefer as an intermediary. But precisely because he is seeking to build bridges between traditional Islam and modern Western society, he does represent the kind of intellectual capable of broadening understanding on both sides of the communal divide. He should be engaged with caution, not treated as a dangerous pariah.

Ramadan's recent employment history is a good indicator of the controversy he provokes. He is now a fellow at St. Antony's College in Oxford. But while one of Europe's finest universities finds him fit for an appointment, the United States does not even deem him worthy of entry. Notre Dame University offered him a professorship, to begin in 2004. Ramadan intended to take up the post, but was ultimately refused a visa by the U.S. State Department on the grounds that he had made financial contributions to two European charities that had provided funds to Hamas.

What makes Ramadan so hard to pin down is that he is simultaneously at home in seemingly incompatible worlds. He is urbane, erudite and multi-lingual. He supports "universal values," and argues that Muslims living in the West should participate fully in the political and civic societies of which they are a part. Ramadan condemns terrorist violence in favor of dialogue and peaceful resistance.

But Ramadan is also the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He believes in the upholding of traditional - his critics would say reactionary - Islamic attitudes toward the role of women, going so far as to side-step the question of whether female adulterers should be stoned. Ramadan disavows any hint of anti-Semitism, but is a vociferous critic of Israel's "unjust and wretched policies which continue to kill an entire people in an occupied territory." He rails against the economic inequalities and materialism that he attributes to the spread of capitalism.

To be sure, some of Ramadan's ideas are offensive to the West's liberal traditions. But so are those of devout practitioners of other religious creeds. In the end, Ramadan seeks a synthesis that enables his community to preserve its beliefs and traditions while coexisting peacefully with and within the Western world - precisely why he needs to be engaged, not shunned.

All the attention devoted to Ramadan has done at least as much to exaggerate his influence as to elucidate his views. In addition, his notoriety masks the reality that a Reformation within the Islamic world -- like its counterpart in Christianity -- will evolve more from deeper social transformations than from the role of individual leaders.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli certainly played important roles in the onset of pluralism within Christian Europe. But at least as important in bringing pluralism to Christianity and eventually separating church and state were the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution and the Industrial Revolution. The social upheavals they spawned hastened the spread of rationalism, the rise of middle classes, the establishment of public education systems, and other developments that shaped modern Christianity and prompted the secularization of political power.

Western intellectuals would be better served figuring out how to expose Islam to similar developments, and less time spilling ink over one public figure who, however controversial, may well be able to modestly advance Islam's dialogue with the West.

Red Cross demands Mid-East action

The International Committee of the Red Cross has called for immediate political action to contain the "deep crisis" in the West Bank and Gaza.

The statement was an unusual departure from its normally non-political stance.

The ICRC said the measures imposed by Israel had denied the Palestinian population the right to live a normal and dignified life.

The organisation says humanitarian assistance cannot possibly be the solution in Gaza and the West Bank.

The statement comes just days before a major donor conference in Paris.

Why do we call for political action? Because actually we do not think that humanitarian aid can solve the problem Beatrice Megevand Roggo ICRC

BBC Geneva correspondent Imogen Foulkes says politics is not usually a word which features in the language of the international Red Cross: the famously neutral organisation tends to work quietly in conflict zones, and when it does speak, it speaks of numbers of injured treated, or numbers of detainees visited.

But the ICRC now says that life in the West bank and Gaza Strip has become so dreadful that no amount of humanitarian aid can really help.

'Situation perpetuated'

"Why do we call for political action? Because actually we do not think that humanitarian aid can solve the problem," said Beatrice Megevand Roggo, ICRC director of operations for the Middle East.

READ THE ICRC REPORT IN FULL* Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

"In Gaza the whole Strip is being strangled, economically speaking, life there has become a nightmare. And for that there is no solution that can be provided by humanitarian organisations.

"We can try to put patches on problems, but we do not have the key to a lasting solution that would address the roots of the problem."

In fact the Red Cross and other UN aid agencies are pouring money into Gaza; senior aid officials, our correspondent says, privately fear they may be perpetuating a situation which really should not continue.

'Dignity denied'

Together with its statement calling for political action, the Red Cross has issued a report called Dignity Denied which paints a harrowing picture of life for the Palestinians - suffering an economic blockade which denies them jobs, medical care, and even food.

"The 1.4 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip continue to pay for conflict and economic containment with their health and livelihoods," the report says.

"In the West Bank, the establishment of Israeli settlements affects every aspect of Palestinians' lives and leads to the loss of much land and income, together with recurrent violence by settlers. Exhausting movement restrictions hinder access to work and have led to unprecedented levels of unemployment and poverty.

"Only prompt, innovative and courageous political action can change the harsh reality of this long-standing occupation, restore normal social and economic life to the Palestinian people, and allow them to live their lives in dignity."

The ICRC says it recognises Israel's right to take measures to defend itself.

"[But this] needs to be balanced against the Palestinians' right to live a normal and dignified life," said Ms Roggo.

Also on Thursday, the World Bank said increased aid and Palestinian government reforms will have no real effect unless Israel eases restrictions on travel and trade.

At the donors conference on Monday in Paris, governments are being asked to provide the Palestinians with US $5.6bn over the next three years.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7141875.stm

Another day, another humanitarian crisis. So very sad. I am glad the Red Cross is calling for a political solution to the crisis in Gaza. It seems like the US has jsut forgotten what is going on and has given Israel a green light to impose ridiculously draconian measures against all of the Gaza Strip (many of which are clear violations of international law). Now, before anybody steps up and says that both sides are guilty, I want to say that I agree. Hamas has done a terrible job and has made life worse for their own people (I won't even get into how the US and Israel have both contributed to Hamas' actions). However, given that all of Gaza's international trade and other interactions are controlled by Israel, as are most of its vital services such as electricity and water, Israel is to blame for the current humanitarian crisis. Yes, Hamas should be more open to negotiations and should renounce violence. But collective punishment is both illegal and morally repugnant. Many Palestinians would leave Gaza if they could, but let's recall that borders are most often closed and Israel curtails Palestinian freedom of movements, both into Israel and abroad. So, in a sense, this situation is a bit like a siege against a prison. Nice. Real nice.

*I added the ICRC report's link so you can go directly there and read it if you like. Click on READ THE ICRC REPORT IN FULL in the text above or on this addendum to find go to the pdf file. - Pope*

US students hurt in bus shooting

Two students were critically injured and four others hurt when they came under fire as they left a school bus in Las Vegas, US police say.

The six were all either middle or high school students and were shot just before 1400 local time (2200 GMT), the Associated Press news agency reports.

At least two people are believed to have taken part in the shootings.

Police are giving few details other than saying they are investigating a theory the shooting was gang-related.

It was not clear if the suspects had been on foot or in a vehicle.

According to local newspaper Las Vegas Review Journal, the six students were shot near a bus stop on "Alexander Road at Walnut Road".

Two are believed to be in their late teens and the others are believed to be juveniles, it said, adding that one of those hurt is a girl.

Two male casualties were reportedly shot in the torso and the others apparently suffered less serious wounds, the newspaper added.

The Las Vegas incident follows a series of gun attacks in other US cities in the past week, the BBC's Peter Bowes reports.

A 19-year-old man killed eight people and himself at a shopping centre in Nebraska, and a further five people died at a church and a faith-based training centre in Colorado.

What the fuck? Seriously. This is the third US shooting story the BBC has covered this week, and I know these aren't the only ones that have happened here this week. So seriously...gun control? For Xenu's sake people! Trust me, I like guns; I dig the 2nd amendment. I seriously enjoy target shooting. I even like gun shows...though the fact I didn't have to show ID the last time I purchased a firearm at one (legally mind you) bugged me a little...which is my bloody point! What the Hell is wrong this country? Yes, most people that buy guns use them safely and legally. But I bet most would also agree to register them, take a training course, and purchase a license without feeling like they were giving up a constitutional right, which by my read actually only allows for a "well regulated (read state) militia", and not that every not job gets to claim firearms as a right tantamount to voting. Bless us and guide us in your wisdom, Lord Xenu.

Germany moves to ban Scientology

Germany's federal and state interior ministers have declared the Church of Scientology unconstitutional, clearing the way for a possible ban.

The ministers have asked Germany's domestic intelligence agency to examine whether the Church's legal status as an association could be challenged.

Scientology is not recognised as a religion in Germany.

A Church of Scientology statement said the ministers were "completely out of step with the rest of the world".

The attempted ban is "a blatant attempt at justifying the on-going and never-ending discrimination against the Church of Scientology and its members in Germany," said the Church in a statement.

Critics accuse the organisation of cult-type practices and exploiting followers for financial gain.

But Scientologists reject this and say that they promote a religion based on the understanding of the human spirit.

Cult-type practices

Since January, when the Church of Scientology opened a new centre in the German capital, Berlin, Scientologists have come under intense public scrutiny.

People living near the centre complained that its members were actively trying to recruit and some politicians called for the organisation to be banned, accusing it of cult-type practices.

For years, Scientology has been monitored by German intelligence agencies, who claim the movement's structures and methods could pose a threat to the rule of law and "democratic order".

But the Church of Scientology insists that 10 years of surveillance "has uncovered absolutely no wrongdoing".

Under the ministers' new plan, the intelligence services have been asked to draw up a report on Scientology, and ministers will then have to clarify whether there is a legal basis for a ban.

But the BBC's Tristana Moore in Berlin says given the lobbying power of Germany's 6,000 Scientologists, who say they have a right to freedom of religion, it will be difficult to introduce a ban.

Scientology was founded in the United States in the 1950s by science-fiction writer L Ron Hubbard.

In October, a Spanish court ruled that the Church of Scientology of Spain should be re-entered into the country's register of officially recognised religions.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7133867.stm

Normally I am ardently opposed to most types of restrictions on religion and free association and such. Ok, I am always opposed this kind of thing. But if there is one world "religion" to ban, this is the one to ban. I mean, come on, it's a religion started by the guy who wrote Battlefield Earth for Xenu's sake. I guess I am bound by principle to respect the rights of Scientologists just the way I respect the rights of other made up faiths...Wiccans, Mormons, etc. But at least those groups don't function like secret societies that only reveal their true practice to those who have been initiated into the inner circle of...oh wait, never mind.

Added by Pope on 1/25/08 - Article from Time, an insightful read:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/media/time910605.html

Monitors denounce Russia election

Foreign observers have said that Russia's parliamentary election, won by President Vladimir Putin's party, was "not fair".

The statement was made by a joint observer team of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe.

With nearly all ballots counted, Mr Putin's United Russia had 64.1% of the vote, the electoral commission said.

Mr Putin said the poll was "legitimate" and a vote of public trust in him.

The election "was not fair and failed to meet many OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards for democratic elections," the observers from the OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly told a news conference in Moscow.

The statement criticised "abuse of administrative resources" and "media coverage strongly in favour of the ruling party".

The polls "took place in an atmosphere which seriously limited political competition" and "there was not a level political playing field", it said.

The OSCE had sent 330 foreign monitors to cover nearly 100,000 polling stations - far fewer than it had originally planned. It has accused Moscow of imposing curbs and delaying monitors' visas. Russia has denied the claims.

'No democracy'

Russia's electoral commission has dismissed mounting criticism from opposition activists and international governments, saying there were no serious violations on election day.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the vote was "free and fair".

The Communist Party, which with 11.6% of the vote was the only opposition party to gain seats in the State Duma, said it would mount a legal challenge to the result and would decide whether to boycott the new parliament.

The prominent opposition activist and former chess world champion Garry Kasparov described the election as "the most unfair and dirtiest in the whole history of modern Russia".

Several Western governments also expressed concern over the reports of irregularities.

"Russia was no democracy and it is no democracy," said German government spokesman Thomas Steg.

The US, Britain and France have called on Russia to investigate the alleged violations in the poll.

Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer also expressed concern over the conduct of the elections.

'Political stability'

With 98% of the vote counted, the country's liberal opposition parties looked certain to fail to clear the 7% threshold needed to enter parliament.

In total, 11 parties were competing for places in the 450-member lower chamber of the State Duma.

Two parties allied to the Kremlin - A Fair Russia and the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party - were poised to win seats.

Mr Putin described the election as a "good example of domestic political stability" and thanked the voters for the turnout of 63%.

"This feeling of responsibility of our citizens is the most important indication that our country is strengthening, not only economically and socially but also politically," Mr Putin said.

The independent Russian monitoring group, Golos, had earlier reported various violations during the voting, which it said amounted to "an organised campaign".

It had claimed that in a number of cases state employees and students were pressured to vote, and those voting for United Russia were entered into a prize lottery in St Petersburg.

In Russia's troubled region of Chechnya, run by pro-Kremlin President Ramzan Kadyrov, electoral officials have said a partial count showed United Russia won more than 99% of the votes on a 99% turnout.

United Russia's leader Boris Gryzlov acknowledged there had been violations but dismissed them as insignificant.

Putin's influence

On Monday, some 10,000 members of the pro-Putin Nashi (Ours) youth group held a rally in Moscow to celebrate United Russia's victory.

Mr Putin is constitutionally obliged to stand down after his second term as president ends in March next year.

The BBC's James Rodgers in Moscow says his party's win will enable him to continue wielding great influence in politics - even if he is no longer in high office.

Mr Putin announced this year he may seek the office of prime minister after his presidential term ends.

If predictions are correct and the Liberal Democratic Party enters parliament, its candidate Andrei Lugovoi - who is wanted in the UK for the murder of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko - will be guaranteed a seat.

A parliamentary seat would grant him immunity from prosecution and extradition.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7124585.stm

Saudi gang-rape victim is jailed

By Frances Harrison
BBC News

An appeal court in Saudi Arabia has doubled the number of lashes and added a jail sentence as punishment for a woman who was gang-raped.

The victim was initially punished for violating laws on segregation of the sexes - she was in an unrelated man's car at the time of the attack.

When she appealed, the judges said she had been attempting to use the media to influence them.

The attackers' sentences - originally of up to five years - were doubled.

Extra penalties

According to the Arab News newspaper, the 19-year-old woman, who is from Saudi Arabia's Shia minority, was gang-raped 14 times in an attack in the eastern province a year-and-a-half ago.

Seven men from the majority Sunni community were found guilty of the rape and sentenced to prison terms ranging from just under a year to five years.

But the victim was also punished for violating Saudi Arabia's laws on segregation that forbid unrelated men and women from associating with each other. She was initially sentenced to 90 lashes for being in the car of a strange man.

On appeal, the Arab News reported that the punishment was not reduced but increased to 200 lashes and a six-month prison sentence.

The rapists also had their prison terms doubled. But the sentences are still low considering they could have faced the death penalty.

The Arab News quoted an official as saying the judges had decided to punish the girl for trying to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media.

The victim's lawyer was suspended from the case, has had his licence to work confiscated, and faces a disciplinary session.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7096814.stm

This is completely idiotic and unacceptable. Is this an example of justice in Islamic Law? Obviously Saudi Arabia has no regard for women's rights, hell human rights. I feel ill.

Blackwater killings 'broke rules'

By Jonathan Beale
BBC News, Washington

The killings of at least 14 Iraqi civilians by guards from the security firm Blackwater were unjustified, FBI officials have told the New York Times.

The officials are investigating the 16 September incident in which 17 Iraqis were shot by Blackwater staff guarding State Department employees.

The revelations come as the US State Department's inspector-general admits his brother is linked to Blackwater.

The official admitted the link while giving evidence to Congress.

Members of Congress are conducting an investigation into the activities of private security firms like Blackwater.

The State Department's inspector-general, Howard Krongard, was the latest senior official called to give evidence on Capitol Hill.

Mr Krongard is responsible for State Department contracts and ensuring that the department behaves ethically.

At the start of the hearing, he wanted to quash what he called ugly rumours that his own family was linked to Blackwater.

He said his brother had no financial relationship with the private security firm.

Astounding revelation

But after a break in proceedings, his testimony dramatically changed.

"During the break, I did contact my brother... I learned that he had been at the [Blackwater] advisory board meeting yesterday," he said.

"I had not been aware of that and I want to state it on the record right now that I hereby recuse myself from any matters having to do with Blackwater."

That astounding revelation prompted only more questions as to why Mr Krongard had not previously established his brother's links to Blackwater, especially in the wake of the September 16 shootings that first put Blackwater under the spotlight.

The New York Times, quoting unnamed US officials, says a preliminary FBI investigation has found that at least 14 of the 17 shootings that day were unjustified and violated Blackwater's rules of engagement.

Blackwater still insists its employees came under attack before opening fire.

The FBI investigation is ongoing, but the State Department's links to Blackwater have already proved damaging.

BBC STORY HERE - CLICK ME!

This is just getting ridiculous. I don't know what to bitch about more... Blackwater mercenaries, the lack of ire this should be generating in the US, the corruption in the State Dept (nearly the entire Executive branch of our government is disgusting), or that I had to find this out from the BBC - our press is more interested in fucking OJ Simpson! Sigh. I feel icky.

People You Should Know: Pervez Musharraf

Pervez Musharraf

- President of Pakistan and Chief of Army of the Pakistan Army.
- came to power in the wake of a coup d'etat and suspended the constitution twice; since coming to power he has been supported by western countries including the US. He took power on October12, 1999, ousting Nawaz Sharif, the elected Prime Minister, thereby assuming the title of Chief Executive. Later on, he assumed the office of President.
- November 3, 2007, he as Chief of Army Staff, suspended the constitution, jailed the Supreme Court of Pakistan Judges and closed all private television channels. He declared an emergency, however, he had in effect imposed martial law in Pakistan.
- January 12, 2002, Musharraf gave a landmark speech against "Islamic extremism". He unequivocally condemned all acts of terrorism and pledged to combat Islamic extremism and lawlessness within Pakistan itself.
- For an overview of the economy, corruption allegations, poverty alleviation, and relations with foreign nations check out the Wiki entry for Musharraf.

Congress Shouldn't Have Health Care if Americans Don't

This is from the John Edwards website. I thought it was interesting:

Today, we're going live with our second major television ad in Iowa - a 30-second piece entitled "Health Care". In the ad, John describes his plan to hold Congress accountable for passing universal health care within six months of him taking office. Please take a look now and then pass it along to your friends and family.

Call for US to re-open UFO file

By Will Grant
BBC News
A group of former pilots and government officials has called on the US government to re-open an investigation into claims of UFO sightings.

Project Blue Book, run by the US Air Force, was stopped in the late 1960s.

The group, which includes former military officers from seven countries, all say they have seen a UFO or have conducted research into the phenomenon.

However, the Air Force says nothing has happened in the past four decades to justify resuming investigations.

Every year thousands of people say they have seen UFOs in the United States and their claims are usually met with scepticism.

But this panel of former military, government and aviation personnel from countries around the world has urged the US government to take such claims seriously.

The group say the apparent sightings of hovering orbs, glowing lights and high-speed spacecraft are a national security concern and should no longer be dismissed.

After the attacks of 11 September, the group said in a statement, it is no longer satisfactory to ignore radar returns which cannot be associated with existing aircraft and helicopters.

The panel has called on the US military to re-open an investigation dormant since 1969, called Project Blue Book, in which more than 12,500 UFO claims were investigated by the Air Force.

For now, it seems their pleas have fallen on deaf ears - the US Air Force says nothing has changed that would support a resumption of the investigation.

But those who believe they have seen UFOs, know they have influential supporters.

Among those on the panel is the former governor of Arizona, Fife Symington, and last month, the Democrat presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich, said during a televised debate that he'd seen a UFO.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7091922.stm

After the attempt at making a laughing stock of Congressman Kucinich with a UFO question in the debate recently, I am glad this issue is getting a little press. I am still really torn on what I think about this topic. One thing I do know is that it was not the correct forum to talk about it during the heat of a presidential debate. Let's not forget though that Carter and Reagan both said they saw UFOs. Reagan even references "alien invaders" basically in a speech he gave to the UN. But whether there are aliens here monitoring us or its secret black ops projects, I would like to see a little more transparency in government about what the truth is, because "it is out there". ;-)

Understanding ethical investment

I usually comment at the conclusion of an article but I thought I should just quickly say something at the beginning of this one. This is an editorial/opinion piece about investing in "ethical" funds and companies. I thought it was an important and neat take on strategies and practices in the new world of stocks and trading for the ethical investor. A little different from the normal topic, but I thought it was a good article.

Money Talk
By David Elms
Chief executive, Unbiased.co.uk

The number of people choosing to combine profits with principles is rising, with investment in "green" funds expected to exceed £7bn for the first time this year.

Ten years ago just £1.5bn was put into environmental funds or those considered to be "socially responsible", according to Ethical Investment Research Services (Eiris).

But growing concerns about global warming and carbon footprints is prompting investors to become increasingly ethically minded and eco-conscious.

Ethical funds typically invest their cash in socially responsible businesses, staying away from the arms trade or tobacco companies.

They may choose, for example, renewable energy companies or organic food producers.

Friends Provident pioneered ethical investing in 1984, and its Stewardship fund, which is now managed by F&C Asset Management, was the UK's first ethical fund.

The ethical investment market has been booming in recent years, and there are now more than 90 "green" funds available to UK investors, with 10 new ones launched last year alone.

Making money with a clear conscience?

Contrary to popular belief, many ethical funds deliver impressive returns.

You need to know what your ethical priorities are and how green you want to go

Investors tend to believe they will not make as much profit by steering clear of certain unethical sectors, such as tobacco and arms.

Yet a recent survey by analyst Moneyfacts proves that you can make money by sticking to your principles.

It found that many ethical investment funds are producing better returns over one- and three-year periods than their traditional counterparts.

These include the popular £285m Jupiter Ecology fund, launched in the late 80s, which ranks consistently high in performance tables.

It invests in companies around the world which show a long-term commitment to the protection of the environment.

Please remember that past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

What different types of funds are there?

There are many funds to choose from, which use different methods to put themselves into the "green" category.

So, before deciding where to put your money, you need to know what your ethical priorities are and how green you want to go.

While some funds won't invest in armaments, or tobacco, others take a "lighter" green approach and may invest in controversial sectors such as the oil industry, if the company is making best efforts to be ecological and are trying to benefit society.

Different strategies

There are three methods used by investment companies to classify their ethical funds.

Negative practices may include bad employment conditions, poor health and safety records, and poor pollution records

While some combine a mixture of these tools, others only use one.

Some funds actively screen out companies that are involved in practices deemed to be unethical.

This is called "negative screening" and these funds are considered to be the greenest of all, being "dark green", such as the Jupiter Ecology fund.

Industries typically subject to negative screening include the oil industry, the arms industry, the logging and mining industries, and the pornography industry.

Negative practices may include bad employment conditions, poor health and safety records, and poor pollution records.

Another method is "positive screening", when funds search for companies that are working to help the environment, such as sustainable energy or recycling companies.

Funds which employ positive screening are referred to as "light green" funds because they might include companies with a less-than-perfect record.

Yet some may say they are more effective than the dark green funds because they give companies an incentive to review and change their practice.

The final method used is "engagement".

These funds use their manager's shareholder status to push for changes in the way a company deals with human rights, the environment and corporate governance issues to influence it to do good.

Dig deep

It is worth checking exactly where your money is going.

Eiris can provide more information about ethical investment, as can the World Trade Organisation

Some popular ethical funds may leave some investors surprised at the shares they hold.

For example, the £1bn F&C Stewardship Growth fund, the largest UK ethical fund, has holdings in Tesco - which has attracted protests over its treatment of labour in developing countries.

But if you dig deeper there are good reasons why such stocks are held in an ethical fund.

Ethical funds launched this year include Marks and Spencer Money's Ethical Fund and Standard Life's European Equity Ethical fund.

The former avoids investing in companies that have a poor environmental record or are primarily involved in armaments, gambling, the fur trade, tobacco and pornography.

The latter is investing in European businesses that meet Standard Life's ethical criteria, especially those that are making efforts to preserve the environment or improve the quality of human life.

How can you research ethical funds?

When researching which funds are suitable for your needs, check the investment company's website and consider consulting an independent financial adviser (IFA).

There are also various organisations which can help you make an informed choice.

Eiris can provide more information about ethical investment, as can the World Trade Organization.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and are not held by the BBC unless specifically stated. The material is for general information only and does not constitute investment, tax, legal or other form of advice. You should not rely on this information to make (or refrain from making) any decisions. Always obtain independent, professional advice for your own particular situation.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7059547.stm

Turkey PM in 'decisive' US talks

Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan is in Washington for what Ankara has called a decisive meeting with President George W Bush on Kurdish rebels in north Iraq.

Turkey has threatened to send troops across the border to hit bases used by the Kurdish PKK rebels unless the US and Iraq does more to stop attacks.

The Turkish government is under public pressure to use force against the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party).

But Washington has urged Ankara not to launch cross-border strikes.

Impatience

Before leaving for Washington, Mr Erdogan warned the meeting came at a critical time.

"Our visit comes at a time when [Turkish-US] relations are undergoing a serious test," Mr Erdogan told reporters on Saturday, before departing from Istanbul.

"We have run out of patience with the terrorist attacks being staged from northern Iraq," he said, expressing hope that his talks with Mr Bush would produce "concrete measures".

In spite of promises of action from the Iraqi government and the US, who regard the PKK as the "common enemy", Mr Erdogan did not seem reassured.

On a stop in Italy on his way to Washington he told the newspaper La Repubblica "there hasn't been any concrete step" from the US administration to stop Kurdish violence.

The Kurdish rebels have intensified their campaign during the past month, killing at least 40 people, military and civilians, in Turkey.

The PKK has waged a violent campaign in the south-eastern region of Turkey since 1984, resulting in more than 30,000 deaths.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7079391.stm
Crossing into another country to attack terrorists... hmmmm... that sounds familiar... I'm looking at you Israel!... oh yeah and the US... although we obviously don't need to know for sure that the country poses a threat anymore, we just invade (see Iraq). On the specific issue of the PKK, I am not fully aware of the entire situation. I know that it is causes a lot of tension between Turkey and the EU/Kurds/US/"Iraq", but the history I am very vague on. I am sure Mr. Reed could shed a little light here for most of us on the history of the PKK.

Dennis Kucinich on PBS (over 20 minutes)

Chechen rebel urges global jihad

By Richard Galpin
BBC News, Grozny
A Chechen Muslim rebel leader is reported to have described the US, Britain and Israel as legitimate targets in a jihad, or holy war.

Doku Umarov said it was not just the Russian security forces who deserved to be attacked.

The separatist leader said all those who fight Muslims anywhere in the world were enemies.

Other Chechen separatists have denounced the statement, which was sent to US-backed Radio Liberty.

It was made earlier this month, apparently to coincide with the birthday of Russian President Vladimir Putin, but a video of it has only just been received by the radio station.

Mr Umarov said: "Our brothers are fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Palestine.

"Our common enemies are all those who have attacked Muslims wherever they are.

"Not only Russia, but also the USA, the UK, Israel and all those waging war against Islam and Muslims are our enemies."

'Criminal, provocation'

But it is hard to see what practical effect this statement will have.

The rebels in Chechnya are now largely confined to the mountains in the south of the Russian republic and attacks on the security forces are sporadic.

There are thought to be less than 1,000 fighters left after the second Chechen war, which was launched by Mr Putin eight years ago.

Even so, Mr Umarov's words have provoked a furious reaction from other Chechen separatists.

One, Ahmed Zakayev, who is now based in London, described the statement as "criminal and a provocation".

He is no doubt concerned it will result in the rebels being labelled as Islamic hardliners rather than separatists fighting for Chechnya to break away from Russian control.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7072225.stm

I believe it was Galileo who pointed out that there is a power struggle in the human social realm between the forces of reason, the beliefs in faith, and the passions of man. In recent years, the fundamental sects and extremists have all fallen back to the archaic principles of outdated belief structures and the US, the UK, Russia and pretty much the entire developed world have been reacting on fear of this or that to make their decisions. Where did reason go in all this? Is reasoning a dying art? I hope not. It is by far greater than the passions and whims of man or the ancient words of a system that is no longer relevant. I pray with all my heart it returns soon ;-), but seriously i do.