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)