Jim Dwyer, Eric Lipton, Kevin Flynn, James Glanz and Ford Fessenden. "Fighting to Live as the Towers Died"New York Times -- an incredible,
detailed reconstruction of the 102 minutes between the first attack and the final collapse.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/10/2003 12:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Michele, at A Small Victory, has a collection of personal accounts (two years worth, now) in her Voices project. My own modest blogging efforts are recorded at No Ordinary Day.
Christopher Hitchins seems to have joined the "Get over it!" crowd, with his latest. My feelings:
It started last week. The inability to concentrate. The restless sleep needing Tylonol PM to quell. The bubbling anger all the time. Actually it didn't start last week, it just started to flare up. As we near the second anniversary of the murders of September 11, 2001, I feel it more and more.
There was absolutely nothing that I could have done. 400 miles away, with local responsibilities and family to take care of. Too old to enlist and much too lame to fight. Hitchens joins the "Get over it" crowd with his latest column. Won't link to that drivel.
I don't want to get over it. I want to let it out, to feel it, to know how righteous anger feels.
I sometimes feel like an Old Testement prophet, a Jerimiah, raling at the loony left and those who would surrender.
I won't. It's them or me and mine. I choose me and mine. All I can do is write, so write I will.
And EMT, so EMT I will. Stopped to help last night at a call, Eight calls in two weeks, a record for me personally. I'm never that busy, yet now I am.
I'm not going to keep trying this hard so some towelhead can turn it all into dust. It's us or them, and the Carthage solution is the only one.
In readiness for the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Chinaâs Public Security Bureau has published a phrasebook to help its policemen deal with foreigners, criminally inclined or otherwise. Olympic Security English is a must for the well-prepared officer and a guide for those curious about the fears China harbours beneath its confident facade. Every possibility is covered in a series of imaginary dialogues, from lost passports to petty crime to earthquakes and terrorist attacks, via a long section on synonyms for "forbidden".
In the section "How to Stop Illegal News Coverage", a sports reporter is caught in the act of "gathering news" about Falun Gong, the banned meditation cult:
Policeman: What news are you permitted to cover?
Foreigner: The Olympic Games.
P: But Falun Gong has nothing to do with the Games.
F: What does that matter?
P: Youâre a sports reporter. You should only cover the games.
F: But Iâm interested in Falun Gong.
P: Itâs beyond the limit of your coverage and illegal. As a foreign reporter in China you should obey China law and do nothing against your status.
F: Oh, I see. May I go now?
P: No. Come with us to the Administration Division of Entry and Exit of Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau.
F: What for?
P: To clear up this matter.
#2
I guess they are already working on a catchy slogan for the games, say, "All applaud the heroic work of the committee for solidarity with the People's Republic of China and for unification of the great family of China in celebration with our stalwart leaders and visiting athletes who will demonstrate the international community's support for our historic mission." Nah, that's too short.
#4
"...All applaud the heroic work of the committee for solidarity with the People's Republic of China and for unification of the great family of China in celebration with our stalwart leaders and visiting athletes who will demonstrate the international community's support for our historic mission...."
You know what that needs? JUCHE!
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/10/2003 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
For the foreseeable future looks like the Olympics will be a venue where the police capability of the host country will be a concern for all. Will the danger be the national security force or the terrorists? In some cases the answer will be: yes.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 19:46 Comments ||
Top||
Hipboots required. EFL:
American counterterrorism officials believe the al-Qaida terrorist network primarily used Saudi Arabian men in the Sept. 11 attacks because they were easy to recruit and bring into the United States. But a Saudi official says Osama bin Laden sought out his countrymen to hurt the kingdom. "Really, he did it to attack us! Hello, are you listening? Hello?"
The Saudi official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity (first name Prince?) , said that bin Laden, who was born in Saudi Arabia, personally insisted that the attacks be carried out by a group mostly composed of Saudis. The official said that suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has told his CIA interrogators that the original plan was to use a more diverse group, until bin Laden changed the plan to hurt Saudi Arabia and Saudi-U.S. relations. CIA officials declined to comment on Mohammedâs interrogation and would not confirm the Saudi officialâs statements. "He said what?"
But the notion that bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader, set out to hurt the Saudis with the Sept. 11 attacks doesnât hold much water in U.S. counterterrorism circles. U.S. officials say al-Qaida drew heavily from Saudis because there were plenty who were willing to support the networkâs goals. Before the attacks, it was also easier for Saudis to receive visas to enter the United States than for people from some other countries. Thank you, State Department.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 1:17:27 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In fact the idiot who came up with the 'Visa Express' program for SA recently (post 9/11) received a big BONUS for insituting the program.
In October [2002], the State Department awarded a $15,000 "outstanding performance" bonus to the head of the office that permitted 13 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers to enter the country via expedited U.S. visas. Mary Ryan, who retired in September after a 36-year tenure (reportedly eased out after she defended her "visa express" program even after Sept. 11), received the award specifically for the 12-month period beginning April 2001. The express program, which was spearheaded by the U.S. Consul General in Riyadh, Thomas Furey (who also got a bonus), allowed Saudi nationals to apply over the Internet without ever being seen by a U.S. official. [Washington Times, 10-23-02]
RIYADH, Saudi-controlled Arabia (AP) - Saudi Arabiaâs religious police have declared Barbie dolls a threat to morality, complaining that the revealing clothes of the "Jewish" toy - already banned in the kingdom - are offensive to Islam. "Mommie, whatâs a ârackâ"?
The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, as the religious police are officially known, lists the dolls on a section of its Web site devoted to items deemed offensive to the conservative Saudi interpretation of Islam. "Jewish Barbie dolls, with their revealing clothes and shameful postures, accessories and tools are a symbol of decadence to the perverted West. Let us beware of her dangers and be careful," said a poster on the site. The poster, plastered with pictures of Barbie in short dresses and tight pants, and with a few of her accessories, reads: "A strange request. A little girl asks her mother: Mother, I want jeans, a low-cut shirt, and a swimsuit like Barbie." "Mommie, can I have titties like Barbie?"
"Hush, Fatima, you know your father will never be able to drown you if you do!"
Such posters are distributed to schools and hung in the streets by the religious police, or muttawa, an independent body affiliated with the office of the Prime Minister. Are they trying to ban Barbie or market her?
Vice police officials were not available for comment Monday. "Dammit, Achmed, we canât hang these posters, theyâre all wet and sticky!"
Sheik Abdulla al-Merdas, a preacher in a Riyadh mosque, said the muttawa take their anti-Barbie campaign to the shops, confiscating dolls from sellers and imposing a fine. Although illegal, Barbies are found on the black market, where a contraband doll could cost $27 or more. Thus creating a new class of criminals, the âBarbie-runnersâ.
"It is no problem that little girls play with dolls. But these dolls should not have the developed body of a woman, and wear revealing clothes," al-Merdas said. "These dolls have those tight jeans, those cre-e-e-e-amy smooth thighs and those, those, those THINGS on their chests ... oh by Allah, I have to go ... shoot my gun!"
"These revealing clothes will be imprinted in their minds and they will refuse to wear the clothes we are used to as Muslims," the sheik said. Kind of hard to get âem back into a burlap sack once theyâve seen the latest skank-ho fashions.
Women in Saudi Arabia must cover themselves from head to toe with a black cloak in public. They are not allowed to drive and cannot go out in public unaccompanied by a male family member. Other items listed as violations on the site included Valentineâs Day gifts, perfume bottles in the shape of womenâs bodies, clothing with logos that include a cross, and decorative copies of religious items - offensive because they could be damaged and thus insult Islam. An exhibition of all the violating items is found in the holy city of Medina, and mobile tours go around to schools and other public areas in the kingdom. "Oh, Mommie, look, the cool van is coming around with all the toys! Can we buy some, p-l-l-l-l-ease?"
"Fatima, hush, your father will only confiscate them."
"But Mommie, he plays with them in his den! I want some of my own!"
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/10/2003 12:57:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Where did they get the idea Barbie is Jewish? I don't recall seeing "Bat Mitzvah Barbie" or "IDF Ken" in the store! (Yeah, yeah, I know she was always seeing GI Joe on the side......)
I do like the dateline, however. "Saudi-controlled Arabia"?
Posted by: Baba Yaga ||
09/10/2003 1:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Just get a Burka Barbie on the market and all will be fine. Just make a skeletal framework inside so if the black outfit comes off, nobody sees anything except something that looks like a miniature steel frame of a skyscraper.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/10/2003 1:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Don't play dumb Baba. Everyone knows that Debbie Hirshfeld had the most luscious tatas in my 9th grade class. And AP, it would take a lot more than a mere burka to hide those delicious twin peaks... I mean, it wasn't just that they were large-- which they were-- but also their perky upward and forward thrust, plus... uh, I seem to be digressing from the topic... which was?
#4
At least this makes more sense than that article about Al-Queada saying Arafish was evil. Someone want to post something on that, I'm just plain out to lazy. ( AKA I'm a really lazy person. )
Posted by: Charles ||
09/10/2003 2:08 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Baba...I hope you're joking.In those parts,ALL bad things are caused by the JEW,therefore,so is Barbie.And Pokemon.Ditto Heavy Metal.Follow the logic?
Posted by: El Id ||
09/10/2003 5:53 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Work is going on even as we speak at Eglin on the Barbie bomb. It's a rigged wind corrected munitions dispenser able to spread the Bablets over a multi acre sized area. Mattel is the major sub-contractor.
#7
What is it about Islam that it is so terrified of such things as Barbie? I mean a *true* follower of any religion would not be involved in those things which are 'offensive' to that religion anyway. Weather it is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddist, Pagan or Athiest. So whats the beef?
Why does this organization have to 'protect' people (read: force their beliefs on everyone else)? Is Islam (and peoples belief in it) so weak that a silly fashion doll can destroy it?
I'l not trying to be anti-Islamic or anything. I just want to know.
#8
Methinks a "Shaheed and His 72 Virgins" Barbie collection would speed recruitment amongst the holy youth at the madrissas! In'shallah! The martyrs would be lining up endlessly after viewing this lucky shaheed being serviced by 72 virgin Barbies!
_______________borgboy
#11
TPF--Uh, no, I never noticed. But then, I was busy checking out the football team. Or the basketball team. ;)
CrazyFool--maybe it's the missionary aspect of the religion (Wahhabism) that makes them that way. If they can't make you convert to their way of thinking, they damn sure are going to try to make your behavior conform to their standards. That way it saves the faithful from the eeevillllllll influence of watching the infidels enjoying the forbidden fun thing (drinking, gambling, playing with Barbie), and reduces the danger of being led away from the faith.
Posted by: Baba Yaga ||
09/10/2003 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#12
COFFEE ALERT!!!
Remember folks, at least the way the Wahabbists play the game, a Muslim man is never responsible for his behavior if he can claim he was tempted - no discipline is req'd. And, they have a big problem with graven images, too - recall the logo story from a few weeks ago?
BTW, $27 is 100 Riyals - a nice round (like Barbie's outstanding) figure.
#16
Greg - and goats. You left out the goats. Goats are more common in the Middle East than mules. Unless you were classifying some of the things disquised with burkhas as mules, then I can accept that...
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Crazy Fool: Don't take this as being lame or cliched, but it's not Islam, it's Wahibism. To explain Wahibism to the unitiated (not that you are unitiated) you need to know it is based on the belief that ALL temptation must be eradicated so that sin cannot develop. (Remember the mutawwa's other English translated title is the Committees for the Promotion of Virtue and ELIMINATION of Vice) Ergo, the ban on female drivers in the Kingdom. In free countries, it is understood that the inherent benefits, rights and freedoms will be abused by a few, but overall, society as a whole will benefit if all have the opportunities to practice them. So free countries allow women to drive eventhough some women will use cars to liase with men who are not their husbands. But most women will use cars wisely as they have jobs to go to, kids to drop off, and just to get to where they want to go. In Saudi, this minority of women who might bring dishonor to their menfolk spoils everthing for the straight-pathed majority. Result: NO women can drive. So many families hire drivers from India, Pakland, etc. just to enable mama to live a semi-normal life. Same reasoning for prohibitions on mixing of the sexes at work.
One liberal Saudi friend once told me that the driving/working bans were stupid because Saudi women could always have affairs with their drivers; his anecdotal evidence show they do, although the Arab News won't carry the stories. Wonder why?
.com is also correct on how it's never the guy's fault there for succumbing to temptation, but rather the woman's walking around the mall without something covering her blond hair that made the guy ask her if she wanted to go to his house for a session. She would be lucky, BTW, if that's all that transpired.
And this just scratches the surface of life in the Magic Kingdom.
Posted by: Michael ||
09/10/2003 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
EFL:
The extremist Islamic group al-Muhajiroun risked further outrage today by calling a press conference timed to start at nine minutes past 11 on the second anniversary of the Twin Towers attacks. It will be used to announce the venues for the groupâs "Magnificent 19" rallies, which have been advertised with flyers showing the faces of the September 11 hijackers alongside Osama bin Laden and the World Trade Centre on fire. At those venues 19 speakers will talk about the lives of the 19 hijackers. "He was a good boy and loved his mother."
A fatwah against Muslims serving with British and US forces in Iraq will also be read out. Whatâs a rally without a fatwah or two?
Mr Mohammed said the first rally would be held in London after tomorrowâs press conference, followed by events in Birmingham on Friday, Manchester on Saturday and Leicester on Sunday. Outlining the motives behind the "Magnificent 19" rallies, Syrian-born Mr Mohammed appeared to compare the hijackers to folk heroes but he also claimed the events were not a celebration. Of course not, in public anyway.
He said: "Itâs the magnificent 19 not the magnificent terrorists or the magnificent heroes. Robin Hood was magnificent but he was an outlaw, the Magnificent Seven were outlaws." No, the Magnificant Seven were gunfighters who killed outlaws.
He added: "Itâs significant for everyone to remember the day the whole world changed. We need to look at what their motives were. We have 19 speakers and each of them will speak about the life of one individual, where they came from, their culture, what made them go to America and do this. All these questions need answers. We are not going to say this is a happy moment or this is a sad moment but look at the cause and effect." He doesnât understand cause and effect.
"I am expecting British Muslims who carry falsehood to be angry with us but Muslims around the world are praising this - we are not British Muslims we are Muslims in Britain." And there you have it.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 1:41:09 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Too bad I don't live in London, or I would definately attend these rallies... with a tear gas canister, or two, or three, or 19.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/10/2003 13:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Screw that Rafael! This calls for Baseball bats and brass knuckles! Oh please let some of those idiots demonstrate near me. I will appease them with reason and civility! NOT! I will kick some islamists butt!
#4
This is a fine opportunity for all those moderate Muslims out there to raise their voices in protest. I'm listening.
Posted by: Matt ||
09/10/2003 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The Coldstream Guards should show up just outside the venue and do a massive "Pass in Review", complete with mounted infantry, pipes, and a large band. They should keep it up until the muslim minnions give up or do something stupid. Then the REST of the British army, armed to the teeth, should show up to arrest them.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Assuming that some very patriotic lads don't beat the shit out of them before they can even speak, every one of these 19 should be hauled in for extensive questioning about their relationship with their assigned hijacker, and the guy issuing the fatwah should be arrested for threats and inciting violence.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/10/2003 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#7
should be arrested for threats and inciting violence.
I'm wondering if the British equivalent of a district attorney will be paying close attention to their speeches. There has to be some sort of law against incitement or promoting hatred.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/10/2003 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
"The Home Office promises that "every word and every statement" spoken at the events in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Leicester will be monitored by police and intelligence services for breaches of incitement or public order legislation. But the authorities are essentially powerless to prevent the conferences or to block the provocative advertising used to promote them."
#9
What are the odds that someone in this group doesn't endulge in a little idol-worship by attacking innocent civillians at one point in the not too distant future? I can't believe these people aren't in jail as a preemptive action.
Posted by: g wiz ||
09/10/2003 18:49 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The real goal of their rally is to help OBL in making people mad at Saudi Arabia. That's what the embassy's publicist says in the press release.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 19:50 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Okay, American Rantburgers (apologies to Bulldog) would one of you please explain to me why Britain gets a free pass on this S**T but if this were happening in Paris the vitriol would be rapidly flowing? I haven't heard of anything like this going on in France--but in the UK it's OK-huh?
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/10/2003 23:59 Comments ||
Top||
#12
NMM if you read carefully you'll find that nobody thinks it's ok. And actually it might be good for the UK to get to know it's enemy. By name
Update on the EU constitution.
Tony Blair indicated yesterday that the Government could drop opposition to giving legal force to an EU charter of fundamental rights, allowing European judges to overturn British laws. He signalled that the Government was ready to discuss the incorporation of the charter in the proposed new constitution for an enlarged 25-member EU. The Tories accused the Government of "raising the white flag". Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs and business leaders joined them in calling for a referendum on whether Britain should sign the constitution. Me too, donât forget me.
Although a White Paper published yesterday setting out the Governmentâs negotiating stance confirmed that it would not hand over powers on tax, defence and foreign policy, it disclosed that the charter of rights would be a bargaining chip in negotiations starting in Rome next month. I thought bargaining was only done if you wanted something useful in return? Unless youâre negotiating terms of surrender, that is...
No 10 insisted when the charter was drawn up three years ago that it was no more than a political declaration and promised that Britain would veto any attempt to incorporate it into EU treaties and make it legally binding. Keith Vaz, the minister for Europe at the time, claimed that it would have no more standing before EU judges than a copy of the Beano or The Sun. Are you guys beginning to see how the current UK government tries to do things re. European integration? Does the phrase "selling down the river" come to mind? It should do.
The charter sets out 54 rights and breaks new ground by outlining social and economic rights, including the right to strike. It bans human cloning and restricts deportation to countries such as America that carry out the death penalty. How could we possibly live without it?
The authors of the charter have long pressed for it to be given legal force and made "justiciable" in the courts of EU member states. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, told MPs that it did not give the EU any more powers. All these treaties, charters, constitutions... And yet Europe never seems to get any more powerful! How is that? And how stupid do Blair ânâ Co. think we are, exactly?
He said the Government would make a final decision on incorporation of the charter in the constitution "only in the light of the overall picture at the inter-governmental conference" [in Rome]. However, the charter was not listed among "red line issues" on which the Government has threatened to use the veto if they are included in the final document. Mr Straw rejected repeated demands from MPs on both sides of the chamber for a referendum before Britain signed the new constitution. "Public approval for a Constitution? Pah! Why should we let the commoners interfere in that sort of thing?"
The Government faced further controversy over the disclosure that, while publicly playing down the constitutionâs significance, the Prime Minister had privately described it as "absolutely fundamental". In a foreword to the White Paper he sought to counter the growing demands for a referendum by arguing that the proposed treaty did not "alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the member states". Time to up the schizo meds, Tony?
But Peter Hain, the Leader of the House, who represented the Government on the convention drafting the constitution, appeared to undermine those assurances. He told a newspaper that Mr Blair had told a Cabinet committee that the EU constitution was more important than Iraq. It would "define the relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe and the prospects for the euro and would last for generations". The only person who wonât admit that seems to be your boss, Peter.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative leader, said: "You just canât believe a word the Prime Minister says. Publicly he is saying this is just a tidying-up exercise. "Now we know from Mr Hain that he said privately it was a fundamental issue that could last for generations." One problem with IDS is his propensity to come out with quotes which make himself sound stupid.
The constitution is designed to simplify the EUâs structures to avoid bureaucratic deadlock when 10 new member states from eastern Europe and the Mediterranean join next May. Thatâs the BBC News line, anyway (stated as fact at the begining of every report).
But critics and honest pro-Europeans say it will be an irreversible step towards a superstate, with the creation of a full-time president and foreign minister, as well as the extension of the qualified majority voting system that allows decisions to be made without the unanimous support of member states. The Tories say it would result in the loss of vetoes on 31 policy areas. The White Paper says that Britain will not give up its veto on tax, social security, defence, foreign policy and criminal procedural law. At least Blairâs set himself tripwires with the "red lines". Soon as one goes (which surely they must come Romeâs horsetrading), even King Tony wonât be able to ignore the demands for a referendum. Iâm starting my own local referendum campaign now, anyway...
It says also that Britain will insist on the right to patrol its borders and retain the principle of unanimity in changes to the EUâs fund-raising arrangements - aimed at safeguarding Britainâs multi-billion pound annual rebate. Border safeguards, we need. Tax control, we need. A European President, we donât need. A European foreign policy, we donât need. A new constitution, we do not need. This situation would be farcical if only it werenât true.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
09/10/2003 7:01:32 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Tony Blair indicated yesterday that the Government could drop opposition to giving legal force to an EU charter of fundamental rights, allowing European judges to overturn British laws.
Time for the Poms to kiss their sovereignty goodbye. A shame, but then a reasonable person could see this coming.
#3
Bulldog, I was just wondering....say that your government decides to ok this thing, and adopt the EU constitution. (Yeah, I know this makes you puke, but bear with me for a moment.) Is there any provision where a future British government can tell the EU to piss off, or is it an irrevocable decision like admitting a state to the union here in America?
Posted by: Baba Yaga ||
09/10/2003 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Actually, sucession is supposed to be legal. I read somewhere that Texas has a special deal, as well, where it can split itself into four states.
I wouldn't think that ceeding British soverignity to the EU would be popular, but maybe it is and this move is an emergency move to increase backing. Gray Davis is cutting some deals too.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Hiryu, no one's talking about anything like that at the moment, but only because the final constitution has yet to be agreed. Once Blair's "red lines" get crossed, he'll find his 'no referendum' position untenable, I'm sure. According to this Telegraph opinion piece, that's happened already, with Blair's acceptance of a European Foreign Minister.
There has to be a referendum. It's utterly inconceivable that a responsible government would deny its citizens the right to vote on such an issue. Can you imagine Bush trying to pull off a stunt like this?
#6
BY, The constitution has "no legal personality". AFAIK, there will be no repercussions should a nation decide to leave, at the moment. If you read it, or excerpts of it, it's a ream of platitudinous bumf, with various developments (including adopting a common foreign ministry), amendments and changes to voting, veto, and some "human rights" sanctimoniousness thrown in. It's more the symbolism of the document, and the future promises, than what it binds states to immediately that's the danger.
SH, Believe me, ceeding sovereignty to the EU is not popular. Hence Blair's attempts to play down to meaning of the Constitution.
#7
SH- I don't know about Texas splitting itself up into 4 other states, but the secession issue was pretty much resolved by the Civil War. The southern states tried and failed. Any other state attempting to do the same thing now would face the 21st century version of that.
Some Texans tried to base their secession rights on the fact that they were an independent country at one time and still retained the option to leave. Negatory on that, skipper. California was also, I believe, independent (look at their flag.....it still says "California Republic"), but as much as some Americans might want them to leave when they keep doing silly things, they don't have the right either. Same with Hawaii. Once you're in, you're in forever.
Posted by: Baba Yaga ||
09/10/2003 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"Actually, sucession (sic) is supposed to be legal."
A bit OT, but the last time that theory was tested it didn't work out so well. It wasn't explicitly dealt with in the Constitution, but the original ratification procedures offer insight. Once 9 states ratified the Constitution it went into effect for all 13 states - one or two of the 13 had not ratified it when the first session of Congress opened and Washington took office. The non ratifying states sent Congressmen and Senators and there was no controversy about whether the new system applied to them. If there was no opt out then, hard to see how secession could be legitimate 80 years later or now. Although if Lee had been less of a gambler, the CSA might have pulled it off anyway.
#9
Peshawar...
Yes, Texas can, with US Congressional approval (simple majority, I think), split itself into five states. It was part of the pkg when it joined the union as it was a 10 yr old bona-fide independent Republic at the time. Other goodies included, unlike any other state to my knowledge, Texas retained all her public lands - including offshore. Owned by the State, not the US. Guess why tuition at the Univ of Texas System is so cheap... While Pres of Republic of Texas, Mirabeau B Lamar ceeded the mineral rights for all the public lands to the State Education System. Oil. Black gold. Texas T. Derricks, pump jacks, and rigs all over those public lands. Big $. I have to add that Karen Ault, my Texas History teacher from the 6th Grade (I think it was) would be so goddamned proud right now she'd bust! She always seemed like she was gonna do some of that anyway. You see, she thought I wasn't listening when I was oggling her, uh, superstructure... Man, she filled a sweater just like Barbie...
#10
Bulldog,
Was there any reaction in the British public last week when the French government adopted a fical policy that was not consistent with EU requirements.
With respect to sucession, I keep hoping that California will get pissed at the other states and try to suceed. We could even dynamite the San Andreas Fault so that they would no longer be Conus.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#11
SH, I doubt that many people got to hear of it, and those who did wouldn't have been surprised. Didn't help that the BBC wasn't exactly jumping all over the story. Perhaps if the media hadn't been so Hutton-obssessed at the time, it would have received more attention.
#12
Is there any provision where a future British government can tell the EU to piss off, or is it an irrevocable decision like admitting a state to the union here in America?
"A new article outlines how a member states would leave the EU: "A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the Council of its intention... The Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that state, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal."
There was never a formal way of leaving the EU, though in practice a state would simply have to repeal its legislation and go. This article is designed to show that the EU is a voluntary association which does not enforce membership. However, there is an implied threat that life might not be too comfortable outside as the departing member would have to negotiate an agreement for its trade and other relations. The clause is presumably designed never to be used."
#15
The Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that state, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal.
That little clause makes it sound like conditions will be put forth on secession. What it doesn't say is if secession is even an option. What happens if "The Union" says no to any withdrawal proposal?
#16
a relevant example might be Canada and Quebec. Canada has made it fairly clear that it would NOT use force to keep Quebec in - but there are some very complex issues involving national assets, the national debt, etc. Before even addressing whether Quebec would be in Nafta (presumably the US would have something to say about that :) ) And there is the threat that native Canadians (IE indians) in the north would in turn secede from Quebec - Quebec says that would violate international law, but its disputed (causing Canadian international lawyers to become experts on Bosnia, among other places)
Suppose in 2020 UK secedes from the EU, and Scotland insists on staying?
#17
Interesting point, LH. In that case it would be England and/or Wales and N Ireland seceding, not the UK. By 2020, after 15 yrs of EUnification, there probably wouldn't be a UK to speak of at all.
Pulling away from the EU octopus can't happen too soon. As you indicate, it will only become harder to do so in the future. This is not a policy of symbiosis of willing peoples. It's EUgoslavia, and eventually it will be a disaster on a much grander scale. At least that's the danger. The 'benefits' of a federalised, "homogenized" (you gotta laugh) Europe do not balance the risks.
No state would be coerced by the threat of force, into remaining in the EU, as things stand now. In the future, however, that may change. As for trade "punishment" upon withdrawl: trade's a two-way process. We can always find new markets. A price worth paying for independence.
#18
...Of course there would already be areas of conflict. The UK gave up rights to much of her traditional fishing waters upon joining the EU. We'd want them back, and what's left of the criminally mismanaged fish stocks within them.
#19
After looking at what's been happening in Europe for the last ten years, all the US would have to do to destroy the European Union in about six months is to do a complete financial blockade of the EU. Money HAS to flow between countries to sustain trade. The EU cannot live based on its internal economic activity. Trade is not only essential, but CRITICAL, even for some things like food, oil, and spare parts. Cut the cord, and the EU crumples like the house of cards it is.
IF all else fails, Bulldog, know that at least ONE Rantburger will offer you asylum, even if you do have to sleep on the sofa for a few nights!
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 17:13 Comments ||
Top||
#20
"What happens if "The Union" says no to any withdrawal proposal?"
The draft constitution says that if an agreement isn't reached, then the member state leaves the union two years after it first announced its decision.
"3. The Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned,
decides to extend this period."
And from the comments to the draft by the authors:
"The Praesidium considers that the Constitution must contain a provision on voluntary withdrawal from the Union. Although many consider that it is possible to withdraw even in the absence of a specific provision to that effect, the Praesidium feels that inserting a specific provision in the Constitution on voluntary withdrawal from the Union clarifies the situation and allows the introduction of a procedure for negotiating and concluding an agreement between the Union and the Member State concerned setting the arrangements for withdrawal and the framework for future relations. Moreover, the existence of a provision to that effect is an important political signal to anyone inclined to argue that the Union is a rigid entity which it is impossible to leave."
Also this comment:
"The Praesidium considers that, since many hold that the right of withdrawal exists even in the absence of an explicit provision to that effect, withdrawal of a Member State from the Union cannot
be made conditional upon the conclusion of a withdrawal agreement. Hence the provision that withdrawal will take effect in any event two years after notification. However, in order to encourage a withdrawal agreement between the Union and the State which is withdrawing, Article I-57 provides for the possibility of extending this period by common accord between the European Council and the Member State concerned."
Bomb-a-rama, I'm glad you posted that lying link of the Telegraph, whose propaganda where European matters are concerned seems to be about on the level of Hamas propaganda where the Jews are concerned. It shows the level of knowledge that several of the people here opposing the EU have.
It's also bitterly funny how people who are quick to find any small hint of bias in a BBC or Reuters report are also so quick to shallow and spread the enormous lies of the Telegraph. Just because said lies please them.
#21
Old Patriot, if you really want to declare war on the EU just because it's a free and peaceful union of democratic peoples... well, you can also choose to mutilate puppies as well, though I understand you are more inclined to politically-motivated sadistic evil, than ordinary personal sadistic evil.
Go on spreading your hate and your lies, people. The more ignorantly you speak about EU, the more you are making me wonder why I am even bothering with you folk.
#23
"...Telegraph, whose propaganda where European matters are concerned seems to be about on the level of Hamas propaganda where the Jews are concerned."
Stick with the Guardian then, Aris. Won't hear nasty things about the EU there, right?
#24
Aris, the European Union is beginning to look more and more like French quicksand every day. I cannot accept that any nation that has a truly democratic system of government that is representative of the wishes of the people would amalgamate themselves to this piece of rubbish called the "European Union Constitution". It isn't a constitution - it's a dictatorial power-grab by the people in Brussels. If Britain - or Greece, or any other member of the EU, once it actually "becomes a reality", wishes to leave, we, the FREE people of the United States will assist them. If that means destroying the economy of the European Union, so be it.
I've been in our military the majority of my life. I swore an oath to support and defend our Consitution, because it is the best way we know for people to live together in relative freedom. Nowhere in our Constitution can I find the kinds of chains the EU "constitution" forces on its signatories. It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
People - any group of people - have the God-given right to determine what kind of government they wish to have. That includes the people of Europe. A government imposed upon those people - regardless of who imposes it, even if it's their own government - has no binding power, and should be anulled. From all that I've read about the so-called "EU Constitution", I find it depressive, confiscatory, and opressive. I will continue to feel that way until proven wrong, or when hell freezes over, whichever comes sooner.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 17:38 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Hello Aris:
You were right the other day--I HAD inferred (incorrectly it turns out) that you were Muslim. My apologies in that regard.
Old Patriot is right--one of the reasons our revolution began was over the issue of "representation". Once we (and in the bigger scheme, all sovereign peoples) have selected our elected representation, those elected representatives do NOT have either the inherent or implied ability to transfer their allegiance to some "larger" entity (whether the EU or the UN). Instead, those elected representatives owe their allegiance to US, the very same folks who elected them. Similarly, they pledged to uphold OUR rule of law, not a code designed by folks located thousands of miles away (regardless of how well-meaning that entity may see itself as being).
#26
I asked a Polish citizen who was visiting Poland at the time they had their referundum, why she voted for EU membership. She said she was told to do so, perceiving it to be the right thing to do. This isn't the only story I heard about people voting 'yes' because they were told to do so by a favourite politician, neighbour, best friend, or priest (especially the priest).
Like OP said, people have the right to determine what system they wish to live under. I would respect the Polish people's decision to join the EU, if they made their decision knowing full well the facts and consequences. Unfortunately, I know this not to be the case and it gets my blood boiling when proponents like Aris proclaim the various poll results showing unwavering love for the EU as proof of how glorious the EU is and will be.
I'm sorry to break it to you like this Aris but in Poland's case the overwhelming support for joining is a reflection of the dissatisfaction with and failure of every government since 1990, and not because they love the EU so much. Moreover, timing is playing a big role as well. Poland for the first time since the 1920s, if ever, is experiencing a recession, just as every other country in Europe and the world for that matter. Poland is truly in economically bad shape, and in their minds the sky is falling. But had they waited for the economy to pick up, the polls that Aris likes so much would barely show a hint of love for the EU (atleast, they would think twice about joining, which in the current case, they didn't).
And how conveniant that by the time Poland becomes a full member of the EU, this constitution along with the details of 'how to leave the union', will become law. Keep dreaming Aris.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/10/2003 18:42 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Old Patriot> "If Britain - or Greece, or any other member of the EU, once it actually "becomes a reality", wishes to leave, we, the FREE people of the United States will assist them. "
Good for you. But if any member of the EU wishes to leave the EU, then *we*, the FREE people of the European Union will also assist them. Actually we'll even show them the way to the door.
So far people have been crowding to join, not been eager to leave. It doesn't seem as if the situation is likely to change in the near or far future.
"Similarly, they pledged to uphold OUR rule of law, not a code designed by folks located thousands of miles away (regardless of how well-meaning that entity may see itself as being)."
What do I care what *your* representatives pledged? *Our* representatives pledged to *our* constitution, which includes articles about the European unification.
And some other representatives of ours happen to be the members of the European Parliament, as democratically elected as the ones in the national parliaments, and no less worthy of our respect.
Rafael> Your ability to not only know the minds of your entire nation based on the handful of people you personally asked, but actually know *how* people would have voted *had* the situation been different in a handful of *hypothetical* years... well, that ability of yours continues to astound me. And if my grandmother had testicles she would have been my grandfather.
So far, the only thing that remains of your post is that you don't "respect" the democratic decision of your people, because you believe you know better than they do. What about the people in Britain who believe garbage such as the one linked by Bomb-a-rama above? If the British people took a vote against remaining in the EU, does that mean I would have the right to "not respect" that decision, because I believe them to have been misinformed. Nonsense.
Democracy demands that you respect democratic decisions regardless of how much cleverer than the majority you think you are, as long as individual human rights are respected.
Poland voted to join. Deal with it. It's your prerogative to consider it a mistake, but no matter how you fret about it, nobody *forced* them to join. It's Poland that asked to join. It's Poland that *voted* to join.
#28
And I'm not making mention of the polls as proof of how "glorious" the EU will be in the future. That would be stupid.
I'm making mention of all those polls (and referenda), so as to prove that the EU has *currently* huge amounts of public support, unlike in the Alternate Universe which people like Bulldog inhabit. In that Alternate Universe all the nations are quietly seething under the leash of Brussels tyranny and would leave it the moment anyone gave them the opportunity. The big bad EU there is somehow "coercing" those member states to remain in it.
There are no common points, thankfully, between that AU and reality. In our reality the most EU can be accused of doing is seducing, not coercing, nations into joining up.
But so far no nation has regretted this seduction enough to want to leave the union, it seems. Prognostications to the contrary about the new members, all seem to be based on a contempt for these people's intellectual abilities -- and thus their votes.
#29
Aris, as a Polish citizen, one who keeps in touch with people living there, I feel I can say something about their mindset. My conversations with them permit me to do so, and that's what I base my conclusions on. Interpret it as you wish.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/10/2003 19:15 Comments ||
Top||
#30
OK UK, here are these Fundamental Rights. Which one don't you like? Is it just that you want to keep your right to clone people and send them to death in the US or something else?
#31
I asked a Polish citizen who was visiting Poland at the time they had their referundum, why she voted for EU membership. She said she was told to do so, perceiving it to be the right thing to do. This isn't the only story I heard about people voting 'yes' because they were told to do so by a favourite politician, neighbour, best friend, or priest (especially the priest).
Appearently, most politicians, neighbors, best friends and priests support EU. I don't know what you think, but it seems a lot of people to me...
#32
In the last vesion of "Last of the Mohicans" Natie Bumpo's friend Jack, asks a British officer "Is the rule of English law to be replaced by absolutism?"
Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire ||
09/10/2003 19:30 Comments ||
Top||
#33
On a broader issue... I don't think that "guilty by association" should apply to EU (yes, i'm referring to France). EU is a noble experiment (which is bound to fail, IMO, because it is getting too large to be a coherent political or economic animal).
#34
Look, if it is such a terrific idea as Aris seems to think it is, why not put it to a vote by the British people? It's not like other countries haven't done the same. The only reason that seems to make sense as to why this hasn't been done is that the "for" camp doesn't think they have the votes.
In the end, I think it just boils down to "who's going to tell the Brits what to do"? Ok, I'm an outsider, so sue me, but it seems like even if the gang in Brussels would come up with a goofy idea that would be identical to a stupid idea from the gang in London, the Brits would resent the Brussels idea more, simply because someone else imposed it. We can argue all damn night if that makes sense or not, but that doesn't change a thing.
Posted by: Baba Yaga ||
09/10/2003 20:11 Comments ||
Top||
#35
"Look, if it is such a terrific idea as Aris seems to think it is, why not put it to a vote by the British people? "
Agreed. Assuming the British people also agree that they won't stop the *rest* of the EU from going ahead with the constitution or anything else they want done. In short if they agree to leave the EU, rather than sabotage it.
Or else we have nothing but a tyranny of the minority -- a British minority imposing its views on the rest of Europe.
#36
Appearently, most politicians, neighbors, best friends and priests support EU. I don't know what you think, but it seems a lot of people to me...
My contention is that they were misled and not told the whole story concerning EU membership. If they were and they don't care, then that's their problem. I also contend that had they known a little more about what was involved, Aris wouldn't be as happy today. Lastly, I contend that if the people who knew nothing about the issue were excluded from voting (not because they're stupid, but because they usually don't care about politics) then Aris wouldn't be happy at all.
But... we'll see how it turns out.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/10/2003 21:19 Comments ||
Top||
#37
--And some other representatives of ours happen to be the members of the European Parliament, as democratically elected as the ones in the national parliaments, and no less worthy of our respect. --
Well, Aris, I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Do you know how phrench pols get on the ballot? Not by convincing the great unwashed of their worthiness, they get on by convincing the elitist pols of their worthiness.
As to a minority imposing its will on the majority, welcome to democracy. What, you think it's always the will of the majority? You should know, your country gave us democracy.
Now as to the seccession clause, I swear samizdata.net discussed this and it took 2/3 of the EU to give the go-ahead. That might have changed. In other words, doomed.
As to American secession, if they vote to seceed, and the way we now have a pomo tranzi mindset, they just might go.
BINGO! Unless it changed, from 4/3 posting (boy am I good sometimes!)
A follow up on the yesterday's article about the EU constitution. In today's Telegraph's opinion section, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is concerned that "while we liberate Iraq, Europe is busy planning to enslave us":
The EU will no longer be a treaty organisation in which member states agree to lend power to Brussels for certain purposes, on the understanding that they can take it back again. The EU itself will become the fount of power, with its own legal personality, delegating functions back to Britain. Draft Article 9 puts Brussels at the top of the pyramid. "The Constitution will have primacy over the law of Member States," it says.
The new order may also be irreversible. Article 46 stipulates that the terms of secession from the EU must be agreed by two thirds of the member states. In other words, one third can impose intolerable conditions...."
And there you go.
Give it the good fight, bulldog, but if it's time to come home, let us know. We're here to help.
#38
"Article 46 stipulates that the terms of secession from the EU must be agreed by two thirds of the member states. In other words, one third can impose intolerable conditions...." And there you go. "
Anonymous, again I'm glad that you show how ready you are to believe the pleasing lies of propagandists, INSTEAD OF FUCKING READING THE DAMN CONSTITUTION YOURSELF.
"In other words, one third can impose intolerable conditions...."
In other words the guy you are quoting is a liar, and you are an idiot. The country leaving doesn't need even *one* vote agreeing with it (let alone two thirds of them), it can just say "we're leaving", and after two years time they have nothing to do with the EU anymore. And no other country can do anything about it.
And no, nothing changed in the draft about this. It was so from the very initial draft to the very end. It's just that you (and samizdata.net and rantburg.com and any other place populated by people that like shallowing their propaganda whole without actually checking if it's true or not) are using the same lies that British newspapers have used from the very start.
Keep on repeating your damn lies and vile propaganda, idiot anonymous boy, I'll keep on revealing them for what they are.
#39
Ooh, something more - Idiot anonymous boy, do go to that lying, phobic samizdata.net article you referred to ( http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/003244.html#003244 ) and read the comments on it. In particular take note who was the one to post the last comment on that thread.
Just to make my point that I'm not joking when I'm saying I'll keep on revealing your lies. Almost 6 months later you've still not learned any better, have you now? Little lying idiot boy.
#40
...after two years time they have nothing to do with the EU anymore. And no other country can do anything about it.
You're so fucking naive it's beyond belief.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/10/2003 23:38 Comments ||
Top||
#41
Excuse me Rafael, but the text is absolutely clear about this.
What it says is that a country can leave after two years if the remaining EU countries don't agree with that decision. If they agree it can leave even earlier.
People sign binding tenant's contracts longer than this.
The Telegraph is wrong on that one, period. Or rather it leaves out the essential.
Or what do you expect? Hastings the Sequel?
#42
It's also bitterly funny how people who are quick to find any small hint of bias in a BBC or Reuters report are also so quick to shallow and spread the enormous lies of the Telegraph. Just because said lies please them.
Sorry, but I have no personal interest in the UK's involvement with the EU other than the fact that I happen to like Poms generally. If they want to be beholden to some non-British entity, then that's their business. I only hope that they do what they feel is the right thing, whether it's EU membership or not.
#43
TGA, even you yourself said a while ago that it would be practically impossible. Now if I could only find the comment where you said so.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/11/2003 0:33 Comments ||
Top||
#44
Whether we are stuck in the EU or can leave after a two year period is not relevant here.
What is relevant is that we, the British people, are not being allowed a vote on a piece of legislation that will erode a large proportion of our sovereignty (I wont say 'permanently', as we have still have our Armed Forces...).
This is unnacceptable.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
09/11/2003 1:10 Comments ||
Top||
#45
TGA, The point about the Human Rights is, we don't suddenly need someone else to teach us our morality. We can decide that ourselves, as we've always done, and are perfectly capable of doing. We don't need our 'Moral Policy' faxed from Brussels!
Aris, Hope you've calmed down a bit since last night. Is the Greek government going to offer their demos a referendum on the issue of adopting a new constitution? I hope so, out of respect for history, if nothing else...
#46
...Of course the Council of Democracies won't solve the French Problem, but it will force far greater standards of responsibility upon members eligible to join. At present the UN is shot through with hypocrisy. Trying to argue the case for invading Iraq and overthrowing SH around a table with the likes of China and other dictatorships, whilst Libya heads a Human Rights commission down the corridor and starts criticising the US with a posse of third world dictatorships, is an absolutely ludicrous situation. And such a total lack of standards is what allows representatives of such countries as France (and, to a lesser extent, your own) to make such abominable and indefensible displays of cynicism, knowing they'll be supported by a large number of club members who are the 'bully boys' notionally representing entire countries but in fact representing only the interests of a few. There are enough democracies now to make such a global council possible. Something like the EU, but without the monstrous obssession with, and desire for, centralised control...
#48
Bulldog> Our current constitution (Article 28) allows all such treaties to be passed by a vote of the parliament alone.
"
1. The generally recognised rules of international law, as well as international conventions as of the time they are ratified by statute and become operative according to their respective conditions, shall be an integral part of domestic Greek law and shall prevail over any contrary provision of the law. The rules of international law and of international conventions shall be applicable to aliens only under the condition of reciprocity.
2. Authorities provided by the Constitution may by treaty or agreement be vested in agencies of international organizations, when this serves an important national interest and promotes cooperation with other States. A majority of three-fifths of the total number of Members of Parliament shall be necessary to vote the law ratifying the treaty or agreement.
3. Greece shall freely proceed by law passed by an absolute majority of the total number of Members of Parliament to limit the exercise of national sovereignty, insofar as this is dictated by an important national interest, does not infringe upon the rights of man and the foundations of democratic government and is effected on the basis of the principles of equality and under the condition of reciprocity.
** Interpretative clause:
Article 28 constitutes the foundation for the participation of the Country in the European integration process.
"
I would certainly have no problem with a referendum on the subject, but our constitution quite clearly says that it is not required for such a decision.
#49
Is anyone likely to mount a legal challenge based on:
"...to limit the exercise of national sovereignty, insofar as this is dictated by an important national interest, does not infringe upon the rights of man and the foundations of democratic government..."
? I can see plenty of room for interpretation there...
Now this is weird...
Campaigning ahead of Swedenâs euro referendum was suspended on Wednesday night after Anna Lindh, the countryâs foreign minister, was repeatedly stabbed while shopping in Stockholm. Göran Persson, prime minister, said it was too early to say whether Sundayâs vote would be postponed. An unidentified assailant stabbed Ms Lindh in the chest, stomach and arms while she was shopping in the cityâs exclusive NK department store on Wednesday afternoon. Police said her injuries were "serious but not life-threatening". "There is nothing pointing at a political motive right now," Björn Pihlblad, a police spokesman, said.
Mr Persson said his Social Democratic party would suspend all euro campaigning until further notice. Euro opponents also suspended campaigning and condemned the assault as an attack on democracy. She has been among the most prominent faces in the Yes campaign, featuring on thousands of billboards as well as on the campaign trail. An accomplished TV performer, she had been scheduled to represent the Yes side in a TV debate on Wednesday night.
Five separate opinion polls on Wednesday suggested Swedes were almost certain to reject euro membership in Sundayâs vote, with the No side strengthening its grip. Demoskop gave euro opponents 47 per cent of the vote, against 38 per cent for the pro-euro camp, widening the No lead from five percentage points to nine over the last week. Sifo put the No lead at 49-39 and Gallup at 47-35. So... One of the most prominent and popular campaigners for the "Yes" to the Euro campaign is attacked five days before voting. Could be a lone nutcase. Could be apolitical. Seems highly unlikely this would be motivated by anyone sane who was anti-Euro...
Police in Munich have prevented a planned bomb attack by Neo-Nazis. Munich Police Vice President Jens Viering said on Wednesday officials had seized a bag with 1.7 kilograms of TNT and 12 kilograms of "suspicious explosive material" in the south of the city and arrested six suspects in Munich, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. It remains unclear whether the planned attack was related to the discovery in June of an suitcase laden with explosives in the main railway station in Dresden. Among those arrested was 27-year-old far-right extremist Martin Wiese, the head of the Munich Neo-Nazi group "Comradeship South," whose friends had attempted to kill a Greek passerby on the fringes of Wieseâs birthday party in 2001. Police discovered two firearms, several knives, a balaclava, an axe and propaganda material in Wieseâs apartment. Just a reminder that not all nutbags wear turbans. And thinking about the upcoming Oktoberfest... not a nice thought about what could have happened. They have done it already on Sept. 26th 1980, when 13 people were killed, 210 wounded.
Posted by: True German Ally ||
09/10/2003 1:50:06 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The only thing I disagree with is the term "far right". These are fascist extremists. Far right is Pat Buchanan. These guys don't even play in the same universe. Catch them, whack them, and dump their bodies deep in one of the played-out salt mines around Salzburg. Ohly the guy doing the dumping should really know where these guys are iced.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
OP: Indeed. When exactly was it that racist groups became eternally associated with right-of-centre politics? And who did it? How exactly are the Nazis, the National Socialist German Workers' Party, so wildly different from Communists? Isn't it time to bring this slander to an end?!
#3
Uh the Nazis managed to form a coalition with Huber - something , help me here TGA - 's Nationalists, a party that was, well far right. Politics in 1920s Germany was not based just on economics, but on views on democracy, order, war, etc. in that sense there was a continuum, and the Nazis were at the far end.
Lets see - moderate Germany rightists were skeptical of democracy, and were nostalgic for monarchy. Nazis despised democracy. Moderate German rightists chaffed at the restrictions on the German military, and wanted to revise Germanys eastern boundaries - to which end they wanted to engage in diplomatic maneuvering, economic penetration, etc. Nazis tossed aside the Versailles restrictions, and revised boundaries by force.
You might just as well argue that communists are not leftists.
#4
What I'm saying, LH, is that people that strung out over an agenda don't even play in the political spectrum. They have nothing but disdain for politics and politicians. They are totalitarians first, last, and always. Their entire basis for existence is the imposition by force of their ideas. Referring to them using political expressions like "far-right" or "far-left" is distracting and useless. These nutcases don't "fit" in the political spectrum at all. Politics is the art of achieving results without having to use force. These idiots LIVE to use force - it's often replaced religion in their psyche, or incorporated as part of their religion (I.E., the Wahabis). We need to use labels that have nothing to do with politics, so we don't confuse the process. I still go back to "whack 'em & stack 'em", because that's the only language they understand. THey sure as hell don't belong among the civilized members of this world.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 17:26 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I think both OP and LH have valid points. The Nazis were never just "far right", they combined extreme nationalism with socialist ideas (not just in their party name). That made it easy for German communists to become nazis in the 30s, and in the 50s many nazis became good East German communists.
Les extrêmes se touchent (pardon my French). One of the leading masterminders of Leftist German terrorism in the 60s and 70s, Horst Mahler, is now a Neo-Nazi (one of the prominent antisemitic/antiamerican WTC conspiracy propagators btw).
#6
Applying a left or right tag Stalinists is to give them credit for an actual idealogy other than "whatever convinces the saps to give me and let me keep power."
As always though, internal terrorists shall be ignorred with respect to international terrorist at grave risk. Several folks dies in Oklahoma City so its helpful to watch your six.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 20:07 Comments ||
Top||
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer asserted Wednesday that US policy in Iraq had failed while calling for German-American ties to be redefined on the basis of equal partners. Heâs still digging.
"The American domino theory under which a liberated Iraq was supposed to stabilise the Middle East and democratise one country after another has not proven right," said Fischer in an interview with the news magazine Stern. Weâre just getting started.
He added: "The decisive question now is whether a strategy which has not worked will be replaced by one that can." And your plan is?
Fischer said Germany wanted a swift handover of sovereignty in Baghdad to Iraqi nationals and the United Nations. We are giving more and more authority to Iraqis every day. As for the U.N., forget it.
Moderate Arab and Islamic states must also be involved in stabilising Iraq, he said. What moderate Islamic state????
European states would hammer out a new plan for Iraq within the coming two months, Fischer said without giving any further details. We have European states helping us in Iraq, Herr Fisher, just not any weasel states.
While insisting transatlantic ties remained important, Fischer said in a separate speech to parliament that things would have to change between Berlin and Washington. "This means we must approach one another as partners," said Fischer, adding that Germany needed to hold a fundamental debate about the future of transatlantic ties. We held that debate, you lost.
Berlin would insist on a new multilateralism in global politics, said the minister. Insist all you like, weâll turn out the lights and leave the keys to the bases under the doormat. Goodbye, it used to be great.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 11:18:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"The American domino theory under which a liberated Iraq was supposed to stabilise the Middle East and democratise one country after another has not proven right."
That seems ridiculously premature. I know nobody who felt this would happen in a matter of months. I certainly assumed that such a transformation would be difficult and would quite possibly take decades to complete -- much like the stabilization and democratization of Europe.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
09/10/2003 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Is this a partnership where we do all the work and provide all the capital? Are we invited to the meeting where teh terms of the new relationship are set forth or will France and Germany let us know the new terms through a press release?
I hear the sound of the statute of limitation on friendship expiring.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"much like the stabilization and democratization of Europe."
Europe is stable?
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Anyone for a Thunder Run to Berlin?
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
09/10/2003 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Fischer (et al) needs to read "Winning Friends And Influencing People" -- fast. Too many more mistatements, such as this jewel, and he'll need "Do It Yourself Oral Surgery - How to Remove Feet."
Fischer, Shroeder, Chirac, De Villepin, Kofi, (et al) spend so much time within their little bubbles of influence surrounded by yes-men and sycophants, that they step on their dicks when they venture out and forget to turn off the babble tape.
Do you suppose that Fischer has clue one how his interview plays outside of his bubble - in Washington, for instance?
What if the US representative just laughed aloud and walked out the next time any of these self-absorbed bit-players steps up to the microphones and begins to pontificate about blah, blah, blah?
What if we just locked the UN doors and told everyone arriving some sunny Monday morning they had 48 hours to surrender their UN Credentials to US Immigration Officials - at their chosen Port of Exit?
#6
These assholes are blowing their load before the hooker even gets in the car, pardon my FRENCH. You mean in four months you have failed to convert the entire middle east into a prosperous, peaceful democracy ? Shame on you America. Oh, and blow it out your ass Fischer.
#8
"The American domino theory under which a liberated Iraq was supposed to stabilise the Middle East and democratise one country after another has not proven right," said Fischer in an interview with the news magazine Stern.
Hey, Joschka -- at least give us as much time as it took to get Germany straightened out in the 40s...
#9
This should have been filed under Short Attention Span Theater. Fischer seems to think that the US effort at straightening out Iraq is capable of being done quickly, and is a failure if that doesn't happen. Such thinking is a failure to appreciate the full scope of the endeavor.
#11
Fischer is a degenerate subhuman. His biggest accomplishment in life, was beating up German Police! Hey Joschka, how is that economic depression working out for you? 10.4% unemployment and negative GDP!!! LOL!!!
#12
America should just use our magic stick and transform the middle east. Why is it we never use the magic stick?
The real challenge is to see if we can reform Iraq quicker than we reformed Germany and finally put down the Werewolves. I'm not truly sure how long that took but I think it must have been longer than 4 months. Perhaps True German Ally has the answer?
#13
They're just pissed because they just found out that they still have to negotiate with the US over any involvement in Iraq, ie. contracts etc, even with a UN resolution. They probably thought the US can be pushed aside. In addition, those lost contracts in Iraq must've really hurt if they're still kicking and screaming about it now.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/10/2003 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#14
In a surprise move the US decalres that while the occupation of Japan was, in the end, sucessful, the occupation of Germany has been a miserable failure. Time to cut our losses and do our skiing in Scandanavia.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Yank, the "werewolves" were never a problem for the US army. The only significant "achievement" was the murder of the Aachen mayor (who gave the city to the Americans without a fight) by orders of Himmler. That was before the war had ended. The "werewolves" never killed a single US soldier and were probably a hoax like the dreaded "Alpenfestung". The term of "werewolves" was largely used by the Russian occupants to send thousands of young Germans to death and labor camps. Most of their activities consisted in graffitis and the like. Unfortunately I have to say that Condi and Rummy need a history lesson on that one.
#16
Oh-- Condi pants on fire & Rummy nose as long as a telephone wire had their history lesson alright--learned very well from Herr Goebbels--keep repeating a lie and the sheeple will believe it!
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/10/2003 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
#17
NMM, you sure you're not working for Schroeder's government? (the Hitler thing's been used already, sorry)
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/10/2003 18:50 Comments ||
Top||
#18
NMM, please no more comparisons. The idea about werewolves has become something of an urban legend (I guess some movies had to do with it).
I don't blame the 2 for telling a lie, they just might not be too familiar with that part of German history. Or might just have seen too many bad movies. That's all.
#19
Campaign to stop the war failed. Campaign to show the war was killing thousands of Iraqis failed. Campaign to portray the humanitarian disaster after the war failed. Campaign to show how Iraqis hated the occupation force failed.
Of course Herr Ficher is campaigning to denigrate the peace. He can't quit now.
Posted by: john ||
09/10/2003 21:08 Comments ||
Top||
#20
NMM - There you go again. You obviously have the hots for Condi - else you'd get a grip and let your IndyMedia tag lines go. As for Rummy, mebbe you're his bitch.
As for the occupation, the flypaper situation has made Iraq obviously unlike Germany postbellum. Arabs, in their uniquely asinine way, have made Iraq unique. The Germans are civilized and intelligent and rational, and the Arabs are, well, fucking Arabs.
It will take what it will take - and if we have any sense as a nation, we will persevere and win the peace. Those who are foaming at the mouth for quagmires and new Vietnams and failure are truly sick, cowardly, deranged, and fucked-up individuals in need of massive doses of soma. They must've rubbed up against an Arab at one of those pre-march rallies, though previously I wouldn't have guessed self-destructive dementia was quite so contagious.
#21
.com my point was--and is they LIED about the "werewolf" thing in Germany--yet it gets repeated as a fact by the gibbering Faux News people and some rantbourgeois.
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
09/10/2003 22:57 Comments ||
Top||
#22
There actually was a young West Point lieutenant who knocked out a Fräulein and arrested her as a "werewolf". She had tried to give him a BJ, a technique this young fine man had never heard of.
By Tom Hayden, AlterNet Tom Hayden reports from the WTO ministerial conference in Cancun each day. Read yesterday's report.
"We need an unbiased source to report on Cancun, boss!"
"Get me Tom Hayden!"
CANCUN, Sept. 10 â Thousands of campesinos will march on the convention center today when the WTO officially starts its proceedings with a speech by Mexican president Vicente Fox. Anti-WTO protestors may also attempt a creative disruption of the formal ministerial event, which they say is refusing to acknowledge the increasingly harmful impact of WTO regulations on wages and the environment over the decade since the organization was launched.
Nobody's said a word yet, so they're hollering. And they've bussed in some particularly brown-skinned fellows with Indio features so they can be Authenticâ¢...
At least 5,000 campesinos are camped on the grounds of Casa de la Cultura in downtown Cancun. Displaced by cheap corn imported from subsidized U.S. agribusiness, they have traveled with their families on buses from across southeast Mexico.
"Myra! This corn is entirely too cheap! Throw it away!"
They string their hammocks between trees, cook their meals together, and hold rallies under banners in Spanish that proclaim, "Indigenous People Are the Hope of Humanity."
Hell, yeah! Without indigenous people, where would be be? Answer me that, hah?
The makeshift rural village includes outdoor stalls hawking Che Guevara t-shirts and a Greenpeace truck mounted with solar electric panels.
How very rural!
The march will cross "Avenida Nader" accompanied by several large puppets ("without strings," they joke), but is expected to be blocked by Mexican federal and local police, in coordination with the FBI, before entering the luxurious First World where WTO delegates meet, stroll, and sunbathe in well-armed protection.
But without any puppets...
Today's march is a prelude to larger ones that will be launched Thursday through Saturday, the day when WTO delegates will be under maximum pressure to accept agreements further privatizing Third World economies. Thus, the protest strategy depends on demonstrating broad opposition in the streets to draft trade agreements that many Third World delegates are already reluctant to sign.
Yep. Broad opposition in the streets â does it every time. Especially when there are lotsa puppets and Che Guevara tee-shirts on the Avenida Nader...
On Tuesday, the protest campaign began modestly and amidst some confusion, with hundreds of people marching up to the police barricade, where they performed a Mayan ritual before returning to the campsite.
Oh, did they cut somebody's heart out and offer it to a sun god?
The protest was intentionally low-key to avoid mass arrests and detentions. As always, the protestors gather, study maps, construct puppets and placards, undergo civil disobedience training, and strategize at a "convergence center." The format symbolizes the coming together of the many diverse strands of the struggle, in notable opposition to a centralized hierarchy.
"Individually, each reed is fragile, but bound together into the fasces, they cannot be broken!"
The demands put forward by the protesters combine detailed denunciations of privatization with colorful representations of Mayan deities. A puppet of Caac, the rain god, thunders against the privatization of water. Yum Kaax, the corn goddess, opposes the dumping of cheap corn laced with GMOs. Kukulkan, the god of intellect, rebukes the theft of indigenous culture by corporate patents. Ixchel, the medicine goddess, curses the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Isabella, this medicine has penicillin in it. Throw me away and get me a guy with feathers in his hat to dance my ailments away!"
The police, over-reacting to the protests, constructed numerous traffic barriers and checkpoints that tied up traffic all the way to Cancun's international airport.
Any reaction is over-reaction, of course...
Although the police seem to have been instructed to avoid repressive tactics, the overwhelming police presence in itself could slow or disrupt the passage of delegates to the conference.
The Mexicops aren't beating people's heads in for no reason at all, so we'll have to pick on their very existence...
One immediate side effect yesterday was to undercut attendance at an international panel for global justice activists sponsored by the San Francisco-based International Forum on Globalization (IFG). Rumors immediately circulated that police were preventing attendees from attending, until it was discovered that the police reaction to the morning's march several kilometers away had temporarily closed the roads. The lack of movement coordination had caused the glitch.
So... ummm... never mind...
The Forum featured critical analysis from several leading thinkers of the global justice movement. Walden Bello, head of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South, spoke of growing internal divisions within the WTO due to the unilateralist policies of the Bush administration.
"Damn them unilateralists!"
Bello said, the U.S., suffering an economic crisis brought on by over-extension, and is seeking "protectionism for the U.S. and free trade for the rest of the world." He cited the U.S. effort to use the trade process to secure protection for pharmaceutical corporations in the face of popular demand for generic medicines. In addition, Bello noted, the U.S. trade representative is telling countries that they must support American "strategic interests" if they want trade consideration.
Sounds reasonable to me, but then, I'm an American. Lemme think real hard here... Who should we be friends with â those who oppose us at every turn? Or those whose interests are similar to ours?
Martin Khor of Malaysia, director of the Third World Network, described the unraveling of the so-called Doha development agenda of 18 months ago, and the subsequent disillusionment of Third World countries, which now realize that the U.S. and the EU "don't want to give anything up." Twenty developing countries, including Brazil and China, recently organized to demand that U.S. agribusiness subsidies be phased out, coupled with greater support for small farmers in developing countries.
Ummm... You mean phase out support to U.S. agribusiness and phase in support to inefficient small farmers in places like Liberia? I guess that makes sense. Not a lot of sense, but sense...
Lori Wallach, leader of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, released findings that reveal the "devastating" results of nine years of the WTO. Her analysis concluded that:
- the increased volume of trade has not resulted in higher wages for most Americans.
- import growth has eliminated almost twice as many jobs created by export growth.
Wages from exported jobs have had a beneficial effect on the countries receiving them, on the other hand...
- global poverty has increased (if one discounts the progress made by China with its strong state sector which WTO rules eventually will prohibit) and less-developed nations with the strongest links to global trade have higher rates of poverty;
Like to see the figures on that one, please. Oh, and break them down by country. There might be other reasons Pakistan is getting poorer...
- the gap between the poorest 20 percent of the world's population and the richest 20 percent is widening, with the poorest representing one percent of the world's income and the richest claiming 86 percent.
There is, of course, only so much wealth to spread around â it's all zero-sum, so if Peoria's better off then Mogadishu is equivalently worse off...
The Wallach and others advocate a strategy to "shrink" the WTO to a traditional trade agenda while derailing its ambition to become a world governing body for multinational corporations.
Hear! Hear!
The insistence of the U.S. and the WTO on imposing a market fundamentalism on developing countries, she notes, is a purely conservative corporate agenda, not a trade strategy. A strategy of "shrinking" the WTO would increase the movement's alliances with developing countries while also lessening the WTO's usefulness to corporations.
Oh, nice use of the "fundamentalism" tag, Tom! Yasss... It's far better to impose upon the lesser developed nations of the world a more efficient, centralized economic system, such as that epitomized by Kenneth Kaunda. Or Robert Mugabe.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/10/2003 20:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
notice that very few of the protesters seem to be starving?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/10/2003 21:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If things start getting rowdy, take out the leaders and give them some Napoleonic Code Justiceâ¢, throw their lawyers in the hole. Actions have consequences. These guys travel around all the WTO gigs, trying to create havoc. Peaceful protest is one thing, but vandalism and disruption, especially when one is a guest in a country is something else. I wouldn't like to piss off the Mexican Police Force.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/10/2003 21:35 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Wow even in Mexico the U.S. is liable for all evil. Is there a legal (or slightly illegal) to keep most of this rich riff-raff from getting back in the U.S.? Too bad I have to shlep off to work every morning and don't have time to bad mouth my country. If these guys had to work for a living they would starve!
#4
Looks like Tommy boy's still got a couple of Hanoi Jane's alimony bucks left so he can afford to be the play by play man for this latest stop on the Looney Tune curcuit.
Anyone know anybody down Cancun way that can slap a "Federales! Please beat me to a pulp!" sign on his back?
A total of 13 Canadian families have joined the $1-trillion US lawsuit that stems from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States. The families, who all lost relatives in the attacks, have joined thousands of Americans who launched the lawsuit last year. September 9 was the final day for people to join the suit. Paul Miller, the lawyer representing the Canadian families, says the legal action is aimed at bankrupting terrorist organizations. There are 190 people and organizations named as defendants. It alleges more than 200 defendants knowingly funnelled money to al-Qaeda for terrorist activities. The suit singles out some of the Persian Gulfâs largest banks and also points a finger at several Islamic charities. Three Saudi princes are also accused of propping up Osama bin Laden abroad to buy peace at home. Miller says heâs confident about the lawsuit, though he adds it could take a long time for the case to wind its way through the courts.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/10/2003 12:26:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good. Keep up the heat and publicity. Put the charities, banks, and Saudis on the defensive, limit their movement. Keep them out of the US with the threat of legal action. Another front on the WOT. State better keep its slimy little hands out of this one.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/10/2003 1:25 Comments ||
Top||
Details of yesterdays attack. EFL:
A suicide bomber exploded in an SUV outside the U.S. intelligence headquarters, killing three other Iraqis and wounding dozens, including four Americans, a Kurdish security official said Wednesday. The U.S. military in Baghdad had said six Americans were wounded but later said four intelligence officers were hurt along with a Kurdish peshmerga guard at the building. The Kurdish official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press that the vehicle was filled with TNT. He also said several homes in the neighborhood, which was cordoned off by U.S. soldiers, were destroyed. He blamed al-Qaida for Tuesdayâs attack but gave no reason for that assessment. Nobody has claimed responsibility. The Ansar al-Islam organization, with suspected ties to al-Qaida, was formerly based near Sulaymaniyah, about 30 miles east of Irbil and near the Iranian border. Ansar headquarters was bombed by U.S. jets during the war and surviving members of the group were thought to have fled to Iran. They are now believed to have returned to Iraq. Theyâd be my suspects.
A witness to the attack, Jafar Marouf, a 31-year-old teacher, was visiting a friend Tuesday night on the quiet residential street when he saw a white KIA four-wheel drive approach quickly, then explode with the driver inside. Marouf was slightly injured and spoke with the AP in the hospital. The Kurdish security official said U.S. intelligence officers worked in the bombed building, with some of the top officers also sleeping there. Others had quarters in two villas about 500 yards down the street. Itâs been quiet up there, so security may have been not as tight as it should have be. Theyâll be working on that now.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 9:17:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Denmark has said it will send an extra 90 troops to Iraq to bolster its 400-strong peacekeeping contingent. Defence Minister Svend Aage Jensby said the reinforcements were needed to deal with the extra workload and the rising crime rate facing the contingent, which is based in the southern Basra sector under British command. The Danish parliament is expected to approve the deployment when it returns from its summer break in early October. A majority of Danish MPs are known to have backed the idea of bolstering the force since the first Danish casualty occurred in Iraq last month. Corporal Preben Pedersen, 34, was killed by friendly fire near Basra on 16 August. But Mr Jensby has come under fire from opposition MPs for allegedly misinforming them about the death, which he initially described as a combat incident. Copenhagen has also been involved in plans for the post-war redevelopment of the country. A veteran Danish diplomat, Ole Woehler Olsen, was appointed in May as the regional co-ordinator in the province of Basra. You help, you get a say. How hard is that?
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 8:54:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Thanks, Denmark. I hope the Iraqis remember who helped rebuild their nation in the future, and don't forget who stood by without lifting a finger.
#2
Echo Bulldog re: Denmark, and add my gratitute to the Danish government and people. One correction, though. Many standing by ARE lifting one finger.
America, some say, is hobbled in its policies toward Iraq by not knowing much about what Iraqis really think. Are they on the side of radical Islamists? What kind of government would they like? What is their attitude toward the U.S.? Do the Shiites hate us? Could Iraq become another Iran under the ayatollahs? Are the people in the Sunni triangle the real problem? Up to now we?ve only been able to guess. We?ve relied on anecdotal temperature-takings of the Iraqi public, and have been at the mercy of images presented to us by the press. We all know that journalists have a bad-news bias: 10,000 schools being rehabbed isn?t news; one school blowing up is a weeklong feeding frenzy.
. . .
Conducted in August, our survey was necessarily limited in scope, but it reflects a nationally representative sample of Iraqi views, as captured in four disparate cities: Basra (Iraq?s second largest, home to 1.7 million people, in the far south), Mosul (third largest, far north), Kirkuk (Kurdish-influenced oil city, fourth largest) and Ramadi (a resistance hotbed in the Sunni triangle). The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all.
--Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better.
--The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won?t work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn?t sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men.
--Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran?s Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.
--Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question.
Hate to say "ayatollah you so," but . . .
. . .
--You can also cross out "Osama II": 57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf.
Wonder what the results would be in the rest of the "Arab Street" if you could survey opinion without the secret police looking over your shoulder?
--And you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked "Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74% to 18% that Saddam?s henchmen should be strung up from the lampposts punished.
This new evidence on Iraqi opinion suggests the country is manageable. If the small number of militants conducting sabotage and murder inside the country can gradually be eliminated by American troops (this is already happening), then the mass of citizens living along the Tigris-Euphrates Valley are likely to make reasonably sensible use of their new freedom. "We will not forget it was the U.S. soldiers who liberated us from Saddam," said Abid Ali, an auto repair shop owner in Sadr City last month--and our research shows that he?s not unrepresentative.
This will, of course, be the lead story on tonight?s network news and on NPR?s "All Things Considered." (NOT!)
Posted by: Mike ||
09/10/2003 6:33:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hope this is accurate. The last thing we need is to be slouching towards a general insurrection.
#4
Thanks for posting this, Mike. It's great finally to see some objective, statistical evidence on what the Iraqis think. The media keeps trying to sell us with individual anecdotes that it's a quagmire, while a handful of decent reporters and servicemembers publish their own, more positive anecdotes, but it's the cold, hard numbers that really matter ultimately.
Posted by: Dar ||
09/10/2003 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
This is nice to hear, but I am skeptical of Iraqi opinion polls even when favorable. These people have been through an 30 year period of fear and paranoia. Sadaam posted some pretty impressive polling numbers during the last Iraqi referendum. Are the just feeding the pollster a line?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#6
oh they love us. Guess that explains why that crowd tried to soak their hand in a massive pool of blood that was left after a bomb was thrown onto an American humvee from atop a bridge. The crowd which i saw on reuters tv yelled death to America and a group of young men said they feel happy to see American blood. Oh they really love us
#7
Thanks for adding further proof to my comments above, Stevey.
Anecdotal evidence = squat.
Statistical evidence = fact.
Or were you trying to suggest that since 100.00% of Iraqis don't love us, we've failed and should go home?
Posted by: Dar ||
09/10/2003 15:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I'm surprised that Murat missed the chance to post this first...but perhaps that's a time difference thing.
Notable, besides the results, is the polling organization: Zogby.
This is an organization that has not been very friendly to the Bush Administration in its polling in the US, particularly its polling of Muslims here at home. That makes the findings even more significant, and important.
But watch how little play this gets anywhere...
Posted by: R. McLeod ||
09/10/2003 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Zogby makes it more believable to me. He probably used local resources for the polling. I believe he is either from the ME or his family is. I beleive he speaks Arabic but I may be wrong.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 21:17 Comments ||
Top||
WASHINGTON - Most of the soldiers in and around Iraq with unexplained, severe pneumonia had taken up smoking shortly before falling ill, military medical authorities said Tuesday. The military is investigating 19 cases of severe pneumonia since March, including two fatalities. Four of those cases were linked to bacterial infections. Of the remaining 15, 10 patients, including the two who died, had elevated levels of a certain type of white blood cells. Nine of the 10 reported they had started smoking recently, said Col. Bob DeFraites, a top Army medical officer. Itâs unclear whether smoking caused or contributed to the pneumonia, but since tobacco smoke damages lungs, itâs a chief suspect, DeFraites said. "It may be a combination of the desert deployment with heat and dust and everything else in conjunction with the smoking," DeFraites told reporters in a telephone conference call. "Itâs not a coincidence, the association with smoking. ... Itâs a known irritant for lungs and a known risk factor for pneumonia in general. It may be sensitizing the lungs for the pneumonia." Hmmm, this might be possible, but lots of people smoke without getting pneumonia or hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Iâm guessing for now but I donât think this is it.
DeFraites and other military officials said the military has not seen an unusual number of pneumonia cases but was investigating the 19 illnesses because they were so severe, requiring the patients to be put on ventilators to help them breathe. All 17 survivors have fully recovered and are out of the hospital, DeFraites said. Army Sgt. Michael L. Tosto, 24, a tank driver from Apex, N.C., died June 17 from pneumonia that developed rapidly and killed him before he was airlifted from Baghdad to Germany. Spc. Joshua M. Neusche, 20, of Montreal, Mo., died July 12 in Germany after falling ill in Iraq. Of the 19 affected troops, 13 got sick in Iraq, three in Kuwait and one each in Qatar, Uzbekistan and Djibouti, DeFraites said. The 18 men and one woman included 17 Army soldiers, one Navy sailor and one Marine. The four soldiers with suspected infections included two with pneumococcal infections, one with a disease known as "Q fever" and one with a bacterium called acinetobacter baumannii, DeFraites said. All three bacteria are common causes of pneumonia. The 3 other than the one with Q fever are what we call "community acquired pneumonia" due to bacteria. Nothing too unusual about this when you factor in the stress, changes in nutrition, sleep, etc. Q fever is common in that part of the world so itâs not surprising that one of our guys got it.
Itâs not surprising that no clear clues to the cause have been found in five of the pneumonia cases, since the same can be said for many cases in the civilian health care system, DeFraites said. Fully 75% of community acquired pneumonia have no specific bacteriological diagnosis at the time of discharge from an American or British hospital.
"I wouldnât be a bit surprised if we werenât able to come down with a definite cause and effect relationship for each of these cases," DeFraites said. "I hope we can, but I wouldnât be surprised if we ran a bit short." Military authorities have ruled out some causes. Thereâs no evidence of the SARS virus or parasitic infections, for example. Thereâs also no evidence indicating that vaccinations against smallpox or anthrax were the cause, said Col. John Grabenstein, deputy director of the military vaccine office. Iâd buy that.
One of the most significant findings is that 10 of the sickened troops had high levels of white blood cells called eosinophils. Those immune system cells are associated with a wide range of conditions, including allergies and parasitic infections. "allergies" here means hypersensitivity pneumonitis which can look a lot like an acute pneumonia. Also caused by drug exposure -- e.g., a new medication in a susceptible soldier. Parasitic infections are rampant in that part of the world.
Levels of eosinophils in the 10 soldiers ranged from three times to 11 times higher than normal, DeFraites said. How interesting.
In the patients with pneumonia, doctors believe that something â possibly the cigarette smoke â irritated the lung cells, causing the eosinophils to come and cause inflammation. That caused pneumonia, the medical name for fluid filling up the lungs. Wrong, fluid filling the lungs is called "pulmonary edema." And I donât buy the theory. I donât think smoking had a lot to do with this. I hate to say that since Iâm a lung doc!
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/10/2003 12:45:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We're on the right track with the white blood cells. I'll bet it was allergies.
It's true that these people may not have had problems before, but you CAN be allergic to something on the other side of the planet. When you take into account the low numbers, and how severe the cases were, it make sense.
The soldiers had a high-level allergic reaction to something specifically in that part of the world. It takes trial and error to find allergy medicine's that work here in the US, but to identify the allergy AND administer the correct medication for that person in time. It's just not possible to do.
The fluid filling the lungs part sounds almost like what my allergies give me. And without my allergy medicine and anti-biotics, I'm sure I would be hard pressed to breathe myself. Hell, I know I'd be hard pressed to breathe, since I have been caught without my Allergy medicine before.
So my guess at this is severe allergic reaction. Anyone else want to put in a guess?
Posted by: Charles ||
09/10/2003 2:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Fourth-hand smoke? Somebody nearby was thinking of having a cigarette...
Iraqâs acting president on Tuesday called for Turkey to send up to 10,000 peacekeeping troops under a U.N. mandate, providing they deploy far from Kurdish territory. The invitation contradicts the foreign minister. Entifadh:"The Gulf of Oman needs more security, weâll send the Turks there!"
Ahmad: "But thatâs not even close to our country!"
Entifadh: "Even better!"
Entifadh Kanbar, spokesman for Ahmad Chalabi, the member of the Governing Councilâs nine-member presidency who is serving for the month of September, also said Chalabi had been invited by the Turkish government to pay ``a very important visit.ââ ``We are welcoming the participation of Turkish forces under the United Nations resolution ... in the western area in Iraq under the condition that this force should not exceed 10,000,ââ Kanbar said, referring to a resolution proposed by the United States. A Turkish force in Iraq is an extremely sensitive issue because of the large Kurdish population near the Turkish border, where some Kurdish rebels took refuge in the mountains after fighting a 15-year rebellion in Turkey. An estimated 37,000 people died in that fighting, and Turkey is concerned that instability in Iraq could re-ignite the war. Turks and Kurds have a centuries-old animosity. Turkey also worries the Iraqi Kurds may be trying to carve out a separate homeland in northern Iraq that could inspire Turkish Kurds. Keep screwing Uncle Sam and itâs more likely to become a reality (hmmm, a Rantburg Futures?)
Window's probably too long — five years, minimum...
Turks overwhelmingly opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, and many question whether their soldiers should risk dying for a mission they largely donât support. The Turkish government is weighing a request to parliament to send troops, under pressure from the United States, but is keenly aware such a move could divide the ruling party and threaten the governmentâs stability. Yet the influential Turkish military supports sending a force. ``The legitimacy (of the war) can be debated, but thatâs in the past now,ââ said Turkish Gen. Hilmi Ozkok. ``If the United States is unsuccessful and there is instability there, this will concern Turkey.ââ Is it only the military types that have any common sense in Turkey? Oh, hi Murat!
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said he expects his government to decide this month whether to send in peacekeepers. Parliament would also have to approve the deployment. ``I believe that when the government makes a decision, our party, and our (parliamentary) group will back it,ââ Gul said Tuesday, emphasizing no decision had yet been made. Unlike last time!
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/10/2003 12:19:19 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And if the Turks to go into Iraq, we have too worry about them carving out a piece of the Northern zone for themselves.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/10/2003 2:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Might be interesting how tribe leaders regard the occupation.
I have translated a recently published survey by a Turkish newspaper Milliyet on the stance of tribal leaders in Fallujah where probably the Turkish âpeace keepersâ will be stationed. Several tribe leaders where asked about a possible stationing of Turkish troops. Without further comment.
Mehemdi tribe leader Haji Resul: âWe wonât welcome Turkish soldiers in Fallujah because America wants them. With an UN resolution we wonât say anything, but if they come on American request weâll fight.â
Halabjah tribe leader Sadun Aziz: âEven if they are Muslim we wonât allow soldiers from any nation to enter Fallujah with the Americansâ.
Alvani tribe leader Jihad Acik: âThe Fallujah people wonât accept any occupierâ
Al Cumayli tribe leader Sheikh Mizher Casim Muhammet Musavvah: âWe call Muslim countries to help and not to occupy. We donât want soldiers here.â
The Ulema leader (Shia religious leader) sheikh Abdullah Al Cenabi threatened: âWe cut the throats of US soldiers and will behead the Turkish soldiers. Anyone who serves the Americans will be killed by the inhabitants of Fallujahâ
Posted by: Murat ||
09/10/2003 5:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
For those who are interested in the link of the above translation (it's in Turkish): http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2003/09/10/dunya/dun02.html
Posted by: Murat ||
09/10/2003 6:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mr Cenabi should have told:
"We cut the throats of US soldiers, will behead the Turkish soldiers and then we will crush Israel in six days".
#5
I believe that's what the famous Iraqi information minister kept saying prior and during the war. I think sooner or later it will be time for a shake up of these so called tribal leaders.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/10/2003 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I think sooner or later it will be time for a shake up of these so called tribal leaders.
Exile to southern Patagonia sounds about right. Far, far, southern Patagonia - say, Rio Gallegos. We can ask the Argentines if they'll take them - along with a suitable foreign aid bribe. Kinda hard to control the Sunni Triangle from there...
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
An Indonesian court today sentenced Imam Samudra to death for his pivotal role in the Bali bombings, the second time the death penalty has been passed in connection with the attacks. Samudra, a 33-year-old computer expert, had been charged with plotting, organising and carrying out crimes of terror in relation to the nightclub blasts last October 12 that killed 202 people, mostly foreign tourists. Samudra shouted ``God is Greatââ three times after the verdict was read, while several people in the courtroom cheered.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
09/10/2003 5:38:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Apparently, the penalty is death by firing squad. My suggestion here is to shoot not to kill right away. Put a bullet or two into the midsection first, in a location that will not kill him immediately. Let the little twat feel a fantastic amount of pain first, then finish him off.
The first video image of Osama bin Laden in nearly two years was broadcast on Al-Jazeera Wednesday, the eve of the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. The al-Qaida leader was shown walking through rocky terrain with his top aide, both carrying assault rifles.
Just in case they came across any infidels, y'know...
In an eight-minute audiotape accompanying the video footage, a speaker identified as bin Laden praises the "great damage to the enemy" on Sept. 11 and mentions five hijackers by name. On a second tape, a voice said to be that of chief deputy Ayman al-Zawahri threatens more attacks on Americans and calls on Iraqi guerrillas to "bury" U.S. troops. According to terrorism experts, such tapes reassure al-Qaida sympathizers that the terror network is still a force and its leaders still active and in seeming good health. A tape showing bin Laden would be crucial to that effort and the timing â the eve of the 9/11 anniversary â highly symbolic. The voice attributed to al-Zawahri also referred to the Sept. 11 anniversary. "On the second anniversary of the raids on New York and Washington we challenge America and its crusade, which is teetering from its wounds in Afghanistan and Iraq," the speaker says. "We tell them that we do not seek to kill, but we will chop off the hand which seeks to inflict harm on us, God willing."
They don't seek to kill? What? They're doing it by accident?
Bin Laden is believed to have been in the border region since December 2001, when U.S. and Afghan troops surrounded a giant cave complex in the eastern Afghan region of Tora Bora. On Dec. 10, troops intercepted a radio transmission that was believed to have come from the al-Qaida leader. U.S. warplanes blanketed the area with bombs, but the Americans relied largely on local Afghan forces on the ground.
Big mistake there, but we didn't know better yet...
Hundreds of al-Qaida suspects are believed to have escaped across the border into Pakistan, and bin Laden may have been among them. A challenge? Why now? Well... April or May would not be a good time for obvious reasons. It seems that nowadays terrorist groups have PR consultants as well. I am wondering whether we will see a similar PR stunt next year, just before the election (if he manages to survive that long!!!).
There's also the pattern of these releases being followed by a major attack somewhere in the world. Don't discount that...
#1
The video tape is total BS...nothing but old home movies being recycled as recent footage. AQ is very internet savvy, and they are aware that the prevailing opinion is that Binny is dead or incapacitated. If they want to prove that Binny is capable of ambulating, eating unaided, and wiping his own ass, they're going to have to do much better than this.
However, I find the audio tape much more interesting.
We tell them that we do not seek to kill, but we will chop off the hand which seeks to inflict harm on us
Translation: Leave us alone, or we'll hurt you...I mean it this time!
Interesting isn't it...we got Binny DFd to a 40 square mile area, and now this statement comes out. Are they feeling a little boxed-in.
#2
I picked up on that leave us alone comment too. Someone's afraid, very, very afraid. And I love the call from faraway places for the "guerillas" to "bury" U.S. troops. How inspirational when the "general" is waaaay back in a rear area calling on the guys to give it all.
Posted by: R. McLeod ||
09/11/2003 2:47 Comments ||
Top||
Arabic television al Jazeera showed on Wednesday what it said was a new videotape of al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri walking in mountains. In an audio tape run with the pictures, a man said to be Bin Laden praised the September 11 attackers. The airing of the tape came on the eve of the second anniversary of the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington, which were widely blamed on al Qaeda. "Whoever wants to be taught about loyalty and honesty should have known them (the attackers)...They were the most honest and the bravest," the voice said.
Tomorrow's 9-11...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/10/2003 14:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good news! I was afraid we weren't ever going to be able to confirm his death at Tora Bora... now, if this is confirmed to be a new tape, we'll get that chance somewhere else.
Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.
Doesn't Reuters take him at his word? After all, he is a "freedom fighter."
Posted by: Mike ||
09/10/2003 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What, not a talkie? I knew the freaks dribble over the virtues of primitivism, but surely someone could have gulped hard and used a camera with a mike. Oh, what's that? He can't talk? Well, he could have held up a recent newspaper or something, or used sign language. He can't do that either? You mean he's...stupid? He had a great opportunity to prove to the world he's still alive, and he blew it?! Next you'll be telling me he's dead, or something!
#4
Good point... that footage could be years old. Why wouldn't he talk on it? I can't imagine a reasonable explanation other than he can't (ie dead or mute)... Can anyone think of a reason he wouldn't actually talk on the tape like he did in past tapes?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/10/2003 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The guy needs to be holding up the day's Arabic paper for the video to be proof of his survival. Anyone can slap together a collage of scenes from previously filmed raw material. In a way, the appearance of this tape is good. Bin Laden has become the personification of terror. We almost don't want to get him before we clean up (i.e. kill or capture) the rest of his organization. His videos are also a wake-up call to the nation, reminding us of the continuing clear and present danger.
#7
Saw the tape several times, looks years old. Beard and face looked younger than the last confirmed video. al-J has been digging in their vaults again.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 16:13 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I'm pretty sure he does dye his hair and beard. I've seen older tapes were he's gray and then post 9/11 tapes where his hair is dark again...
#9
Check out the hat - its one of those afghan skimmers, and the foliage- decidedly not made this summer.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
09/10/2003 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Color me unimpressed. Is he going to attack the world with videotapes now?
Posted by: g wiz ||
09/10/2003 17:32 Comments ||
Top||
#11
For comments from "allah" himself on the status of UBL, feel free to check out allahakbar.blogspot.com
Infidels! I fatwa in you general direction.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
09/10/2003 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#12
thx Frank M. - I'd forgetten how funny that blog is ;-)
Frank G
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/10/2003 20:03 Comments ||
Top||
#13
/yawn . ohh wait a minute . they wanna bump up support for being muppets . ooh thats what media for . nothing special in being capitalist pig dogs (my bad interpritation of Allah says so). Islam lets us all expresss ourselves ! STAND BEHIND ME WOMAN CANT YOU SEE I'M IN CONTROL HERE . How very pointless having another Al' Jaz video of hate . Propoganda rules the dumb and all else deal with it . Al'Jaz U aint airing anything which means a damn . Global peace is the obj , and U aint even touching clothe , in a few ( decades ) U will realise how much u screwed up , and dont flatter yourself
Posted by: new visitor ||
09/11/2003 19:12 Comments ||
Top||
Salt to taste. EFL:
Iran consistently denies ever having sheltered or hidden Osama bin Ladenâs top lieutenant and operations ace, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, in the group of al Qaeda leaders present in the country. This assertion is wide of the truth. The Islamic Republic did in fact hide the bespectacled Egyptian medical doctor for close on a year. He was granted sanctuary, a base of operation and finally provided with a safe getaway route â as discovered by DEBKA-Net-Weeklyâs most reliable exclusive sources.
If it's their most reliable exclusive sources, I guess we should believe without reservation...
The Iranians looked after him very well. Last month, as the hunt drew near, they helped Zawahiri stay a step ahead of his pursuers and leave the country by a secret tortuous route.
Why not just give him a shave and a haircut, drive him up to the Caspian and put him on a boat? Who's going to see? Who's going to be paying real attention?
DEBKA-Net-Weekly learns that Iranian intelligence agents were personally ordered by Iranian intelligence minister Hojatoleslam Ali Younesi to spirit the wanted terrorist chief, disguised as an Iranian Shiite cleric out of his hiding place and across into Turkey.
"Here, Ayman! Put this here turban and ayatollah suit on! No one will ever guess! You'll look just like any other traveling holy man..."
Travelers from Iran are not required to show passports at the Turkish frontier.
On the other hand, if the Turks happen to be waiting for you, they'll club you into submission on the spot and whisk you away to a dark, damp cell for a long chat with people with magnificent moustachios and truncheons. Better to put on a baseball cap, hire an available chick for the weekend, and drive to Neka...
An Iranian spy cell buried in Turkey waited for him and conducted him to one of their own safe houses. There he stayed for two or three days before moving on to an unknown destination. And that is?
Zawahiri is as intent on keeping al Qaedaâs terror campaign alive as of keeping his head down.
So he goes running around wearing a turban and accompanied by Iranian intel guys with dark glasses and secret decoder rings?
Our al Qaeda watchers therefore point to his two most likely destinations: The Ferghana Valley, a lawless territory ruled by Al Qaeda that straddles Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and China; or the wild Pankisi Gorge badland on the Chechen-Georgian border. Iranian intelligence would be able to prepare the absconding terrorist mastermindâs welcome in the latter place through its active channels of communication with Chechen rebels and Saudi Al Qaeda fighters focusing on Chechnya and its environs.
I have my doubts there's a deep involvement by Iran in the Pankisi Gorge...
At the Pankisi Gorge, Zawahiri would have moved on to his next stop helped by many helping hands in his own movement. Weâve heard rumors heâs in Iraq.
I think you're thinking of Zarqawi...
Some made their escape there in late May, when Tehran plotted the flight of some of the al Qaeda perpetrators of the massive bombings in foreignersâ compounds in Riyadh on May 19. Flouting insistent Saudi and American demands to hand the wanted men over, Iranian intelligence gave them transportation and money to smooth their way as far as the Pankisi Gorge. Oh, Vlad!
If that's the way the Iranians really, truly do business, we can start the festivities any time. They don't know their business. Moving a dignitary by disguising him as another dignatary, even one of lesser stature, doesn't make sense. If you were going to move President Bush, for example, you wouldn't disguise him as Pete Rose or even as Monsignor Flaherty. You'd put him in a sweatshirt and a pair of sneaks, maybe hang a cigarette in his mouth, and hand him a Slurpee. The point is, you don't draw attention to yourself, unless you have more ego than brains, in which case you should avoid the intel business and stick with selling rare used Korans...
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 12:29:36 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
reg reqâd, so Iâll include it all without snarky comments... a sea change in attitude? Hat tip to LGF!
The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative.
No one seriously argues with the fact that Arafat was preventing Mahmoud Abbas, the prime minister he appointed, from combating terrorism, to the extent that was willing to do so. Almost no one seriously disputes that Abbas on whom Israel, the US, and Europe had placed all their bets failed primarily because Arafat retained control of much of the security apparatus, and that Arafat wanted him to fail. The new prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, clearly will fare no better, since he, if anything, has been trying to garner more power for Arafat, not less. Under these circumstances, the idea of exiling Arafat is gaining currency, but the standard objection is that he will be as much or more of a problem when free to travel the world than he is locked up in Ramallah.
If only three countries Britain, France, and Germany joined the US in a total boycott of Arafat this would not be the case. If these countries did not speak with Arafat, it would not matter much who did, and however much a local Palestinian leader would claim to consult with Arafat, his power would be gone. But such a boycott will not happen. Only now, after more than 800 Israelis have died in three years of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks, has Europe finally decided that Hamas is a terrorist organization. How much longer will it take before it cuts off Arafat? Yet Israel cannot accept a situation in which Arafat blocks any Palestinian break with terrorism, whether from here or in exile. Therefore, we are at another point in our history at which the diplomatic risks of defending ourselves are exceeded by the risks of not doing so. Such was the case in the Six Day War, when Israel was forced to launch a preemptive attack or accept destruction. And when Menachem Begin decided to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. And when Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield in Palestinian cities after the Passover Massacre of 2002. In each case, Israel tried every fashion of restraint, every plea to the international community to take action that would avoid the need for "extreme" measures, all to no avail.
When the breaking point arrives, there is no point in taking half-measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right.
Arafatâs death at Israelâs hands would not radicalize Arab opposition to Israel; just the opposite. The current jihad against us is being fueled by the perception that Israel is blocked from taking decisive action to defend itself. Arafatâs survival and power are a test of the proposition that it is possible to pursue a cause through terror and not have that cause rejected by the international community. Killing Arafat, more than any other act, would demonstrate that the tool of terror is unacceptable, even against Israel, even in the name of a Palestinian state. Arafat does not just stand for terror, he stands for the refusal to make peace with Israel under any circumstances and within any borders. In this respect, there is no distinction, beyond the tactical, between him and Hamas. Europeâs refusal to utterly reject him condemns Palestinians, no less than Israelis, to endless war and dooms the possibility of the two-state solution the world claims to seek.
While the prospect of a Palestinian power vacuum is feared by some, the worst of all worlds is what exists now: Terrorists attack Israel at will under the umbrella of legitimacy provided by Arafat. Hamas would not be able to fill a post-Arafat vacuum; on the contrary, Hamas would lose the cover it has today. A word must be said here about the most common claim made by those who would not isolate Arafat, let alone kill him: that he is the elected leader of the Palestinian people. Even if Arafat was chosen in a truly free election (when does his term end?), which we would dispute, this does not close the question of his legitimacy. Whom the Palestinians choose to lead them is none of our business, provided it is a free choice, and provided they do not opt for leaders who choose terror and aggression. So long as the Palestinians choose such a leadership, it should be held no more immune to counterattack by Israel than the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were by the United States. We complain that a double standard is applied to us, and it is. But we cannot complain when we apply that double standard to ourselves. Arafatâs survival, under our watchful eyes, is living testimony to our tolerance of that double standard. If we want another standard to be applied, we must begin by applying it ourselves.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/10/2003 9:43:36 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
But I very much disagree. The Israelis have hit on exactly the right tactic - making war on Hamas, rather than the PA - and they should stick with it.
Arafat is powerless at the moment, a mere obstructionist. His senility is becoming more obvious, clouding his judgment (such as it was) to a greater extent. Hamas is the obvious, internationally recognized bad guy in the demise of the road map. Bumping off Yasser at this moment, even exiling him, fogs the issue, widening it to include all of Paleostine. Israel should concentrate on thumping Hamas mercilessly, hitting at the politburo again and again, until all of them are dead, and any successors are dead or on the run, with Mossad agents hunting them down from Iceland to Nouakchott.
Listen! For the first time I can remember, there's no world outcry to "stop the killing."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/10/2003 22:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'm with Fred on this.
I might even go one further. The best that could happen is for al-Qaeda to try to carry out their threat against Arafat and for the Israelis to save his life.
#4
Half-right, Fred. The world has finally gotten to the point where it can't hide from the fact that the problem with Israeli-Palestinian peace is the Palestinians. That's a major sea-change, and it's just about world-wide now. Even the Arabs understand this. The world has also finally admitted something that it knew all along, and refused to admit: Hamas, Fatah, and all the other Arab groups, LIKE to kill "Jews". The world has finally awakened to the understanding that "it's the Jews today, and me tomorrow". So let them take out the little weasel. At the same time, don't stop taking out the members of Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and anybody else that wants to "kill Jews". They're doing us a favor. Let's accept and respect that.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 23:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I have no problem with the strategy, only with the timing. What's not appropriate now will be appropriate next year.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/10/2003 23:19 Comments ||
Top||
The prevailing assessment in Israelâs defense establishment yesterday afternoon was that the Tzrifin attack was perpetrated by a Tanzim cell from Nablus. If true, the attack could have been the trigger to change Israelâs policy toward Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, since Tanzim is affiliated with Arafatâs Fatah movement. But around midnight, the Hamas took responsibility for the attack both in Tsrigin and Jerusalem. As Sheikh Ahmed Yassin said last night, "the attacks could be by all the Palestinian groups, they are all fighting for vengeance."
The end of the cease-fire and the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas sparked renewed calls by Israeli politicians for Arafatâs expulsion. If his Fatah organization indeed proves to have been responsible for yesterdayâs attack, this might encourage the government to either accede to this demand or to take other steps against Arafat. Several such steps have been considered over the last week, including severing his ties with the outside world by reinstating a tight siege around his Muqata compound in Ramallah and disrupting the compoundâs telephone connections.
Arafatâs expulsion was once again discussed in last nightâs security consultations, but the defense establishment remains divided over the wisdom of the move, while Prime Minister Ariel Sharon attributes great importance to Americaâs position. Thus far, the Americans have opposed deporting Arafat, but solid proof of Fatah involvement in yesterdayâs bombing might reduce their opposition - or at least get them to consent to a renewed siege of the Muqata. Clock is ticking... What will happen next if Israel expels Arafat? According to NYT:
Mr. Arafat is riding in a car with Mr. Abbas, when he spots an obstacle. "Abu Mazen, thereâs a tree in the road!" Mr. Arafat cries, using Mr. Abbasâs nickname. But the car continues on its way. Mr. Arafatâs warnings grow more frantic.
Finally, the car hits the tree, and as the two Palestinian leaders stumble from the wreckage, battered and bruised, Mr. Arafat turns to Mr. Abbas and says, "Abu Mazen, I told you there was a tree."
Mr. Abbas replies, miserably, "But you were driving."
#1
Mubarak said that if Arafat were expelled Egypt would agree to take him in; he also said it would be grave mistake (or fatal mistake or something like that). This opens the door farther than it has been opened before.
#2
I guess he is not welcome to Frogistan France by wifey-poo. Even though he stole provided millions in the mattress bank account.
I guess he feels that his destiny is to be a pain in the ass former dentist the leader of the Palestinian People⢠in martyrdom misery dirt naps status quo their quest for running the Israelis out of town freedom.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/10/2003 20:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Just bomb him already.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
09/10/2003 20:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Arafart needs to be forced into a stoppered glass cage, just slightly larger than his body, and put on public display opposite the Wailing Wall. Let him sit there and slowly expire while pious Jews continue to pray to a God more powerful than Arafart can deal with. After a couple of months, send the whole thing to Mubarak.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 21:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
OP, some guy in a glass cage is hanging over the Thames in London. Time for an exchange?
Posted by: john ||
09/10/2003 21:48 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Settlements of seemingly intractable issues are settled by total domination or conquest by one party. If there is some trust or goodwill, then the two parties can compromise. Split the arafish from the gills to the tail longitudinally and keep half in Ramallah HQ and send the other half to Cairo.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/10/2003 21:56 Comments ||
Top||
#7
No, no!
Encapsulate him, yes. Tighten the control of his compound, keep troops in Ramallah - but don't kick him out now. Keeping the pressure on Hamas, to the virtual exclusion of the other bad guy elements, is the key at this point. It allows concentration of force on a single target, rather than frittering it away on multiple targets.
Kill Hamas dead, now. Wipe it out, root and branch. Then ask "who's next"? Maybe IJ will be dumb enough to step up. But the "moderate Paleostinians" will be becoming a lot more moderate.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/10/2003 23:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Fred---I admit that you have a good strategy. But when will be the right time to fillet the arafish?
I post this because Iâm so tired of going over the âevils of depleted uraniumâ. ABC has pointed out the risk of shipping something with less background radiation than common lead, all while they are not looking at the millions of undocumented and illegal border crossings done every day.
For a second year, U.S. government screeners have failed to detect a shipment of depleted uranium in a container sent by ABCNEWS from overseas as part of a test of security at American ports. "I think this is a case in point which established the soft underbelly of national security and homeland defense in the United States," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has been urging the Bush administration to do more to enhance port security.
Either that, or a demonstration of the fact that DU doesn't represent a threat in and of itself... Nah. That couldn't be it.
The ABCNEWS test was criticized by officials at the Department of Homeland Security, who assigned agents in at least four cities to investigate ABC personnel and news sources involved. "I think youâre a news reporter that is trying to carry out a hoax on our inspectors," Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Asa Hutchinson told Brian Ross, ABCNEWSâ chief investigative correspondent, for a report to be broadcast Thursday on World News Tonight and PrimeTime Thursday.
Could be right, Asa. But you have to watch that leveling of charges stuff. Next thing you know, ABCNews will be pointing out that you've been a raving heterosexual for some time...
Shielded by a steel pipe with a lead lining, 15 pounds of depleted uranium was packed in a suitcase that sailed through customs. The ABCNEWS project involved a shipment to Los Angeles of just under 15 pounds of depleted uranium, a harmless substance that is legal to import into the United States.
So why should they have picked up on it? Because it was shielded?
The uranium, in a steel pipe with a lead lining, was placed in a suitcase for the shipment. "If they canât detect that, then they canât detect the real thing," explained Tom Cochran, a nuclear physicist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which lent the material to ABCNEWS for the project.
Oh, so the problem wasn't depleted uranium, it was uranium of any type whatsoever. Why didn't you say so? I think I'll go back to school and become a nuclear physicist so that I can say stoopid things and people will think I'm really smart...
Cochran said the highly enriched uranium used for nuclear weapons, would, with slightly thicker shielding, give off a signature similar to depleted uranium in the screening devices currently being used by homeland security officials at American ports. The ABCNEWS suitcase containing the uranium was placed in a teak trunk along with other furniture put in a container in Jakarta, Indonesia, a city considered by U.S. authorities to be one of the most active al Qaeda hot spots in the world. The container was shipped to Los Angeles in late July, just one week before the bombing of the Jakarta Marriott Hotel that killed 12 people.
"Boys, somebody's gonna blow up a Marriott in Jakarta next week. Keep a close eye out for phoney fissile material coming through here in Los Angeles!"
"Will do, chief!
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has claimed major improvements in port security, in part because of enhanced vigilance overseas. "So that our borders become the last line of defense, not our first line of defense," Ridge said in a speech last week. He said the United States was increasing security "thousands of miles away, long before a container is first loaded on a ship."
Okay. That's what they're trying to do...
But in Jakarta, ABCNEWS producers David Scott and Rhonda Schwartz found that the chest in which they had placed the depleted uranium was never opened or inspected before being sent on to Los Angeles. "It took us only a few days to find a shipper willing to send a container to America with almost no questions asked," said Scott. "We did not tell the company about the depleted uranium," said Schwartz, "and they never asked." The shipment was handled by Maersk Logistics, part of the giant Maersk shipping company based in Copenhagen, Denmark. Note to self - is Copenhagen the hive of european terrorism?
Ja, sure! -ed.
Maersk company officials say their procedures do not require their agents to inspect containers loaded outside of the pier area. Maersk provided what it calls "door-to-door service," which allowed the container to be loaded at a furniture store. "We rely on screening of government authorities to validate shipping contents," said Maersk security official John Hyde.
Any idea how many individual containers come into the country every day? Me neither. I actually saw the figures once, and my mind boggled at it. Maybe I should give up my cunning plan to become a nuclear physicist. Large numbers frighten me...
In a statement, Maersk said the ABCNEWS findings had caused it to investigate and review its procedures overseas.
Good idea, on GPs...
"Any important deviations from normal procedure will be rectified immediately," the statement said. Furthermore, "Security procedures will be reviewed again in order to evaluate whether any adjustments should be made." The container arrived at the Port of Los Angeles on Aug. 23 and, given its origination in Jakarta, was targeted for screening by homeland security agents. "The system first passed the test because we did target this shipment," said Hutchinson. But homeland security officials say the radiation pagers and X-ray scanners used by inspectors did not detect anything suspicious or harmful.
Except for the lead tubing...
Scientific experts say the only way they could know that was to open the container. "The only way to know whether this is the real thing or depleted uranium is to actually open the container and take a look," said Cochran.
That would imply that they're also going to open Grandmaw's teak wood chest when she ships it back from her tour in Singapore. And Uncle Bob's mahagony chest that he's shipping back from Manila. Personal shipments are owned by someone, and being human beings they resent inquisitive gummint inspectors pawing through their stuff. Now, my personal opinion is that they should STFU because tomorrow's 9-11 and it's not my fault their attention span is less than two years long. But I don't have to pay the court costs when they sue for invasion of privacy because rather than containing depleted uranium it held Grandmaw's collection of crotchless underpants and Uncle Bob's collection of Playboys dating from 1954 to the present. Damn that Patriot Act!
When the ABCNEWS container was released from the port, it still had the same metal seal that had been put on in Jakarta, meaning it had not been opened.
Meaning either than both Maersk and the Department of Homeland Security hadn't done their jobs or that Grandmaw's and Uncle Bob's privacy had been respected, or both...
"The test that you put to them, which looks to me to be a fair test, they fail," said Graham Allison, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense and now director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Universityâs John F. Kennedy School of Government. "What indeed is the most likely way that a nuclear weapon would be delivered by a terrorist to the U.S.?" asked Graham. "The most likely way is in a cargo container ship." Ok Kids! Repeat after me : THE ONLY RISK FROM DEPLETED URANIUM IS WHEN ITS COMING AT YOU AT 3600 FPS.!!! IT HAS NO MORE RADIOACTIVITY THAN SIMPLE LEAD DOES!!!!
Posted by: Frank MARTIN ||
09/10/2003 6:26:39 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
meh, I remember reading somewhere that it is somewhat unhealthy to eat.. so.. dont suck on any depleted uranium paint chips ;p
#2
Are you sure bout that? My understanding is that it's only 40% less radioactive than pure uranium (which would make it about 4 or 5 orders of magnitude more radioactive than lead) but the type of radiation it emits has trouble getting through the first layer of dead skin. That's why touching it isn't dangerous... but inhaling it is because if it sits in your lungs for a long time it can cause serious problems...
#3
"ABC News, the Al-Jazeera of American news organizations."
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 19:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And in other news: Not to be outdone, CNN claims to have successfully sneaked and entire shipping container of hamsters encased in pectin right under the noses of the Los Angeles Port Authority for the 3rd time in as many days. When asked to comment, an oficial from PETA offered, "Hmmmmmm, sounds like a whole lotta hamsters if you ask me".
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/10/2003 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
#5
DU is roughly as radioactive as granite. Even pure natural uranium is not particularly radioactive. If it sits a long time (hundreds of years) it will become less pure and more radioactive.
Weapons grade uranium is about 10x as radioactive as DU. THAT bit isn't greatly comforting.
#6
To do a really scientifically valid experiment, ABC should have shipped a critical mass of uranium pieces, properly separated, of course, in a thick lead enclosure inside of a shipping container. In that way, their report would have greater credibility among the more educated and discriminating among us.
(/sarcasm)
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/10/2003 22:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Obviously the DU isn't a problem, but is anybody else concerned that a lead lined steel pipe didn't attract any more attention? Are there lots of innocent reasons for such a shipment?
From Geostrategy-Direct, requires subscription....
China launched an information warfare attack against Taiwan. The Internet attack involved the use of Trojan horse programs to infect private computers that were then able to break into government databases. "National intelligence has indicated that an army of hackers based in Chinaâs Hubei and Fujian provinces has successfully spread 23 different Trojan horse programs to the networks of 10 private high-tech companies here to use them as a springboard to break into at least 30 different government agencies and 50 private companies," Cabinet spokesman Lin Chia-lung told reporters in Taipei Sept. 4. Hit in the computer attacks were the National Police Administration, the Ministry of National Defense, the Central Election Commission and the Central Bank of China.The attacks were detected and countermeasures were taken before any networks were damaged. Chinaâs military has made information warfare a major priority.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/10/2003 2:41:04 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How stupid can they get? THey just alerted Taiwan to their intentions. Not only is Taiwan going to do whatever is necessary to see that this doesn't happen again, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that a counter-warfare campaign has already been started by Taiwan, using their best and brightest - which I'd match against ANYONE.
I know this was just a nusiance attack to counter the "change the name to Taiwan" campaign, but I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the guy that first brought this up, or his supervisors that approved it. I'll bet they're doing lower-edge repairs to the Three Gorges dam right now, on the upstream side.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
From Geostrategy-Direct. Requires subscription....
MOSCOW â Iran has examined the prospect of procuring a national air and missile defense system from Russia. Sources said Iran has been dismayed by the proximity of U.S. fighter jets and warships in neighboring Iraq. The Bushehr nuclear reactor, slated to begin operations in early 2005, is located in the Persian Gulf. Russian industry sources said Moscow and Teheran have discussed the possibility of Iran purchasing a national air and missile defense system based on the S-400. The sources said Russia has presented the S-400 as being able to intercept missiles and advanced aircraft entering Iranian air space.
The offer would be for an integrated system that could alert Iranâs air force of any aircraft movement throughout the Persian Gulf as well as in parts of neighboring Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. The alert would allow the air force to track foreign aircraft movement and plan a response. The Russian system would cost up to $4 billion and take three years to complete, the sources said. They said Rosboronexport has stressed the need for such a system for Iranâs military to repel any attempt to attack its nuclear program. Rosboronexport offered a similar air defense system to the United Arab Emirates in 2002, the sources said. Abu Dhabi has examined the system as part of its efforts to acquire air and missile defense capabilities. Taking up to three years to complete isnât fast enough for countermeasures to a US strike next year. Regardless, at least this shows where Pooty-Poot stands on WOT.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/10/2003 2:29:31 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bet ya Russia asks for all the money up front, with a "No Refunds" clause in case the government "changes" before its done.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
09/10/2003 14:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yep....Razzzzzz-Putin could be playin' the mullahs for suckers.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/10/2003 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
B1-Bs, B-2s, F-117s and F-22s, all stealthy, and cruise missiles flying in at treetop level are part of what that system would have to deal with. It'd be interesting to find out if it'll detect them or not.
#4
They are welcomed to engage us in a contest of wills like Soviet Union was and North Korea is.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Laurence of the Rats---I recall reading about the Bushehr reactor financing. The Russians were doing it for the Iranians with cash or 80% cash. The black hats of Iran think that they can buy their way out of the hole their mouths got them in. Rex Mundi has a great comment. It is sure not about oiiiiiillllllllll........
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/10/2003 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
(snicker)
Oh, yeah, that ruskie military hardware is top-notch, guys! Buy as much as you can!
#10
The S-400 is the follow on to the SA-10/20 IADS family...mucho dangerous systems. If Sammy had had these instead of shitty old SA-2/3s, it would have changed the strategic balance in the Gulf considerably and would have forced our air plan in Iraq to be much more cautious...and possibly would have cost us quite a few aircraft until we took them down. If Iran buys this system, it is a MAJOR problem for our SEAD efforts. If we are going to schwack Bushewar, we better do it soon...
#11
One problem with third-world nations buying Russian equipment - we've been watching it develop, studying the way it's being implemented in the Soviet Union (now Russia), listening to it ping, and much, much more. I'm sure our nation has been working furiously to overcome any advantage that equipment would have given a potential adversary. Works the same way with third-party buyers - we already know how it works, and have at least an idea how to counter it.
It's hard staying ahead of the pack. It's even harder when you have to start from the very back of the gaggle. Unfortunately for the mullahs, they're still trying to find out which foot to put into the left shoe.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
Tacoma, WA - A bail bond agent who thought he was recapturing a dangerous bail jumper was jailed after seizing the wrong man at gunpoint in a drive-through line. The agent pointed a shotgun at a woman driving a car with a baby in the back, ordered a male passenger out of the car and handcuffed him Monday afternoon at a Starbucks, police spokesman Jim Mattheis said. Believing he had caught a desperado who could be armed and dangerous, the agent drove away with the man as onlookers called 911. "They thought it was a kidnapping that took place in the parking lot," Mattheis said. One man followed the bond agent until officers caught up with his car. Fingerprints showed the man in handcuffs "was not the bad guy, which heâd said all along," Mattheis said. The bond agent was jailed for investigation of kidnapping and assault. Anyone here have some experience or insights on how these bondsmen and bounty jumpers can operate? Stuff like this--and that home invasion a couple years ago in Phoenix that was a burglary disguised as a bounty hunter raid--raise some serious concerns about how they can operate in such a quasi-legal role. If some bounty hunter mistook me for a felon, I would fight back any way possible thinking it was a ruse for a kidnapping or worse.
Posted by: Dar ||
09/10/2003 2:07:26 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Regulations for bondsmen differ between states. The idea is that went a perp bonds out, he/she signs a contract allowing the bondsman to invade his/her place of residence should the perp skip. The bondsman then puts up the bond for the accused's release. If the perp slips the bond is forfeit unless, the accused surrenders or is turned in within a specified number of days (90 for example.) The bondsman either tries to apprehend the skip his/herself or farms out the work to a bounty hunter. Some states require that the bounty hunter be licenced; other states go with the old west shootem-up option.
The system saves the state a large amount of cash as incarceration is a pricey proposition. I learned this from watching a one hour show on the Discovery Channel that featured Duane "Dog" Chapman before his 15 minutes of fame began.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 14:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The article made it sound like the bail bondsman himself tried to do the job, except that the word "agent" appears, which could mean an intermediary was used. A lot of times a bounty hunter is the one tasked with bringing in bail-jumpers.
#4
The bondsman can try to recover the skip themselves and save on the bounty. Usually the bondsman or bouty hunter will explain to the police what is going on before trying to apprehend the skip. The system apparently works well in some states and horribly in others.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
They catch tens of thousands of skips every year. How many of these stories have you read? As SH correctly points out, they usually coordinate with the police... this guy thought he had identified a skip and took the shot because he figured (in a drive thru, I guess) that he'd otherwise get away. Again, SH is spot on: this works a whole lot better than the rare as hell sensational press story indicates. I've done some time as a repo man and called in the bounty hunters more than once - felons who've jumped bail think little of not making car payments - doh! What amazed me was that anyone would give em' a car loan!!?!?!
#6
Thank you, gentlemen! I appreciate hearing from those more "in the know" than I am. If they catch tens of thousands of skips with active warrants every year, then there's bound to be a small percentage of "whoops!" as well.
I'd just like to be sure the system is not being abused. God knows if I am carrying and some guy tries to abduct me with a shotgun, I would look for every opportunity to blow his head off and escape--honest mistake or no. Let the cops sort it out.
Posted by: Dar ||
09/10/2003 22:29 Comments ||
Top||
BUFFALO, N.Y. â The government offered a $5 million reward Tuesday for information leading to the arrest of a Yemeni-born U.S. citizen who the FBI says may be a danger to U.S. interests abroad. The Liberian Government needs to send out a search team for this guy. Catching him would replace more than double what Chuck Taylor took to Nigeria.
Authorities said Jaber Elbaneh, 37, attended a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan in 2001 along with six other Lackawanna, N.Y., men in the months before the Sept. 11 attacks. Unlike the others who returned home, Elbaneh remained abroad. He is believed living in Yemen and "consorting with terrorists," said Peter Ahearn, agent in charge of the FBIâs Buffalo office. Without offering specifics, Ahearn added: "I can tell you right now and based on the amount of money that weâre offering, we are concerned that Mr. Elbaneh is a danger to U.S. interests overseas and to other interests overseas." Thought this guy got whacked by a predator. Must have bought some re-animation juice from Chemical Ali.
Ahearn said investigators did not have specific information that Elbaneh posed an immediate threat, "but we donât know everything." Elbaneh is wanted in connection with a federal criminal complaint unsealed in May. He is charged with providing material support to a terrorist organization and conspiring to provide material support, specifically to Al Qaeda. The six men who traveled with Elbaneh pleaded guilty earlier this year to charges of providing material support to a terrorist organization. They face seven to 10 years in prison when they are sentenced in December. Bet one of the six got a lighter sentence in the nicer correctional facility.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 12:53:52 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No! They were innocent! Er, right up until when they pled guilty....
#2
"Thought this guy got whacked by a predator"
Nope, it was a, er, "friend" of his.
In the past, police have identified Elbaneh as a former close associate of Kaman Derwish, another former Lackawanna resident who is alleged to have been al-Qaida's chief recruiter in Lackawanna. Derwish is believed to have been killed by a CIA missile in Yemen last November, but the CIA has never confirmed the incident.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
The United States refused to let five foreign pilots fly into U.S. airspace after security checks showed they could pose a risk to the country. Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security, said the department had recently expanded the scope of its checks on 6,000 foreign pilots who are required to pass security clearances before being allowed to fly into the country. Do we plan to pull aircraft over to the curb to insure that an approved pilot is flying the plane?
"We have directed additional checks through the FBIâs Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force and other agencies. As a result... we did have five foreign pilots that were denied permission to enter U.S. airspace because of security concerns," Hutchinson told reporters. That would be really inconvenient if my fuel tanks werenât full.
He did not identify the nationalities of the five pilots or whether they worked for commercial airlines or were flying private planes. Wonder where they went to flight school?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 12:44:24 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Five out of six thousand is a pretty teensy percentage. Good or bad? You be the judge.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/10/2003 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
As far as Im concerned, unless they are former pilots in the Air Force/Navy/Marines or Coast Guard, they are suspect. Not citizens of the US? even more so, foreign national? line forms to the right buddy.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
09/10/2003 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Guess I missed the boat on this one. I saw this as classic Bureaucratic buffoonery. Ms Hutchison appears to be trying to convince us that we are safe from a semi trailer blowing up in the Holland Tunnel because the DMV says that 99% of all truckers with valid US liscences are known not to be Jihadis.
I am not interested in the slightest what the security picture looks like from her office in Washington. I want to know:
1. What percentage of planes that land in the US or pass through US air space are approved foriegn pilots?
2. How is the pilot's actual identity checked when they land?
3. How the identity of the pilot is currently being validated as the plane enters US airspace in flight?
This program looks like window dressing to me.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 20:24 Comments ||
Top||
Theyâve used up their monthly allowance of run-on sentences for their birthday party:
Run-on sentence alert!
The 55 years of the DPRK are a period of heroic struggle and victory in which it has firmly defended the sovereignty and dignity of the country and the nation, foiling every move for aggression and challenge of the imperialists and a period of great creation and change in which it has turned into a powerful socialist country, independent, self-supporting and self-reliant in national defence, paving the untrodden path and a period of devoted service for the people in which it has looked after the destiny of the people and provided them with genuine freedom and happiness in a responsible manner, it says, and goes on: after a deep breath
Upholding leader Kim Jong Ilâs idea and guidance with loyalty is most ardent patriotism and a decisive guarantee for further demonstrating the dignity of the Republic.
Are you sure that's a sentence?
He represents the motherland and destiny of the nation. All the officers and men of the Peopleâs Army and the people should cherish the undisputed loyalty to him and hold higher the banner of devotedly defending the leadership of the revolution. They should approach and put into practice everything from the stand of devotedly defending the leadership of the revolution, become his faithful comrades who share the same destiny with him and make a long journey of the Songun revolution to the last.
They should, huh? Usually they do, in this kind of article...
To build a great prosperous powerful socialist nation is the fighting goal of the Republic and the fixed will of the Workersâ Party and people of Korea. The invincible military power guarantees the building of a great prosperous powerful nation. Only when the army is strong, is it possible to firmly protect the gains of the revolution and successfully push ahead with economic construction.
On the other hand, if all the money and groceries are going into the army, what's left for the poor guy back at the industrial zone?
All the officers and men of the Peopleâs Army should firmly hold the arms of the revolution and justice given by the Party, safeguard the leadership of the revolution headed by him at the cost of their lives and defend socialism of Korean style. The drive to build a great prosperous powerful socialist country is a struggle to convert the Republic into an economic power.
Like South Korea is. That's the way they dunnit... No, wait. Maybe they didn't...
All the people should possess the fixed fighting spirit and grit and progressive style of work to demonstrate the motherland of Songun to the world and build and create all things as he does.
As who does?
Only then is it possible to turn the country into a great prosperous powerful country in the near future. Independence is the life and soul of the Republic.
That's independence for the state, not for the citizen, of course, so don't get any ideas...
The DPRK will, in the future, too, not make even the slightest concession in defending the supreme interests of the country and the nation, but fight against the imperialists to the bitter end in a do-or-die spirit. Invincible is the just cause of the Korean people who are fighting in firm unity with the people of all the countries advocating independence in the invariable idea of the foreign policy: independence, peace and friendship. Cards please.
3.0. Revolutionary slogans dropped into a lidless word blender and splattered across the page with no rhyme or reason. The writer should be shot, if he hasn't been already.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 12:10:11 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Although the use of run-on sentences was typical of what usually comes from that bunch, I found the tone and timber of this bit a little....tame. There were no references to a "sea of fire" or other such gobbledy gook. As a result, they score low with me today.
Perhaps the writer needs an increase in his ration of grass--he seems all tuckered out!
#4
What a windbag! You are right - this is pretty tame.
Source:
K C N A:
The Korean Central News Agency is the state-run agency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
It speaks for the Workers' Party of Korea and the DPRK government.
It was founded on December 5, 1946.
It is located in the capital city of Pyongyang. It has branches in provincial seats and in some foreign countries.
News is transmitted to other countries in English, Russian, and Spanish.
The KCNA is in charge of uniform delivery of news and other informations to mass media of the country,including newspapers and radios.
It develops the friendly and cooperative relations with foreign news agencies.
Unfortunately the people of NK have been steadily fed this B-S for their entire life and dont know any different. They dont get any news except this personallity cult B-S about how great and glorious Kimmie Boy is and how dispicable the 'Imperialists' are.
#7
I think I'll give em a pass on this one. After all, it's a birthday party. They've been saving their lawn clippings for weeks. They want to let their hair down and throw back some White Slag. Every day can't be a spittle fest. You run of spittle! When they get a hold of Condi's remarks, we may see the return to the Sea of Fire⢠and Merciless Chastisement to Punishment that we know fills their shriveled little hearts.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/10/2003 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Sorry, guys, 5.0 at best. Structure rambles on, no Juche, no Army Based Policy, no Sea of Fire...where's the passion, dammit?
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
09/10/2003 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#9
What we're probably missing here is the stage direction in the announcement:
#11
Let's see...heroic struggle and victory...okay
Kim Jong Il...represents the motherland and destiny of the nation. Hmmm...asskissy lacks suction.
The rest of this limp effort sounds like the start of the annual "Let's Eat Less Tree Bark So the Army Doesn't Pass Out From Hunger" campaign.
#12
It sounds like there's about to be a change of personnel in the Korean Central News Agency. It sounds like neither the guy that wrote it, nor the guy that delivered it, was sincere. It sounds like even they're getting tired of the spittle and juche. 4.2 is the best I can do. Hope the guys working on this had their bags packed and tickets for China ready - they'll need them, like yesterday.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 19:06 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I'm saddened at KCNA's loss of spirit. Where's the fire, where's the passion, where's the Juche? Pah. Weak, 4.5.
The Islamic militant group Hamas issued a statement Wednesday claiming responsibility for two suicide bombings a day earlier that killed 15 people and wounded dozens.
"Here, lemme hang this 'kick me' sign on my back... Whaddya think?"
We all knew it.
In a statement faxed to The Associated Press, Hamasâ military wing, Izzedine al Qassam, said the two bombers who carried out the attacks were Hamas members Ramez Abu Isleem, 24, and Ihab Abdel Kader Abu Isleem, 20. Despite having the same family name, the two werenât believed to be close relatives. "These two operations came as the beginning of our retaliation for the enemyâs crimes against our people," the statement said.
"We're providing them with another justification for whacking our top brass and the rest of the world's not going to say a thing because the blood's not dried yet..."
"We send our greeting to the cells that shared in the implementation of the two operations, and we call upon them to carry out more," the Hamas military wing said.
"Maybe we should change the sign to read 'Kick Me HARD'"...
"From now on it has become allowed for them to target the Zionistsâ houses and buildings and to destroy them in retaliation for the enemy policy of targeting civilian houses. We hold the criminal enemy responsible for whatâs going to happen in the future, God willing," Hamas said in the statement. And we are holding you responsible.
"We are Arabs. We are incapable of controlling our own actions..."
The statementâs headline read: "We are capable of reaching the depths of our occupied land. Then wait for more."
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 11:37:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"..We hold the criminal enemy responsible for whatâs going to happen in the future, God willing," Hamas said in the statement.
If the IDF does what it should have done a long time ago, then yeah, they will be. That would include liquidating scores of terrorist organization members, starting with Yasser Arafart.
#2
"In other news today, Israel announced the purchase of 60,000 tons of tank ammunition, 25,000 500-pound precision guided bombs, and enough small-calibre ammunition to 'supply every member of the Israeli military, including reserves, with 5000 rounds apiece'. There has been no response to this announcement from the Palestinian Authority or any of the militant Islamic organizations."
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 19:11 Comments ||
Top||
Chadian rebels have said that they have captured the airport at the town of Bardai, in the far north of the country. Yawn, another day, another African rebel offensive.
The rebel Movement for Democracy and Justice in Chad (MDJT) said its forces took the airport in an attack that killed more than 30 government troops. The rebels have called on government soldiers based in the town to surrender. There has been no comment on the incident from the authorities in the capital, Ndjamena. The MDJT rebels have been attacking government positions in northern Chad since 1998, despite a peace deal signed in January 2002 between the two warring sides. Itâs a African Peace(tm) attack.
Early this year, the government signed a peace deal with another main rebel group, the National Resistance Army (ANR), which was active in eastern Chad, near the border with Sudan and the Central African Republic. The peace accord included the integration into the national army of former rebels, who were also given an option of returning to civilian life. National Army of Former Rebels, I guess itâs kind of like recycling, in a wierd sort of way.
The MDJT rebel group was founded by former Defence Minister, Joussouf Togoimi, who was injured in an explosion a year ago. He was taken to Libya where he was reported to have died. That happens to a lot of people in Libya.
Mr Togoimiâs apparent death deepened a division in the movement with some of the rebels insisting on continuing their armed campaign to oust President Idriss Deby. Could be the same people who arranged the "explosion".
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 10:51:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Isn't there a social disease named after Chad?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I thought we were the Chadian People's Movement for Justice and Democracy?!
The military wing of the Islamic militant group Hamas threatened on Wednesday to change tactics by attacking Israeli houses and buildings after Israel tried to kill a Hamas political leader in his home in the Gaza Strip. Dire Revenge(tm)V3.0.
"There is no word in Arabic for 'dumbass.' Stupidity is a decadent western concept, like cause and effect..."
"The targeting of civilian houses is a violation of all red lines. Therefore the Zionist enemy will have to shoulder responsibility for the targeting by us of houses and Zionist buildings everywhere in occupied Palestine," the Izz el-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamasâs military wing, said in a statement. You start booming people in their homes, Israel throws the gloves away.
"We are Arabs. We can't be expected to control our actions. Besides, world opinion has ignored or dismissed all the atrocities we've committed up until now. Why should the new crop of atrocities be any different?"
Hamas is sworn to the destruction of the state of Israel, which it says is built on occupied Palestinian land. It has spearhead a suicide bombing campaign that has killed hundreds of Israelis since a Palestinian uprising began 34-months-ago. "We reiterate that in the past we have avoided targeting houses and Zionist residential buildings but the enemy was the one to initiate it and the enemy has to harvest what it has sown," said the statement, which was sent to news organizations. The Palestonekillers have shot and stabbed individuals at home before, but I donât recall bombings. They donât say directly, but I think thatâs what they are threatening
An Israeli missile on Wednesday flattened Hamas political leader Mahmoud al-Zaharâs house in the Gaza Strip, killing his eldest son and a bodyguard. Zahar was lightly wounded. "Our painful operations were to tell the enemy that we have struck you when your security arrangements reached a climax yesterday. Our response came, and has not been completed yet," the statement by the Hamas military wing said. "We sent this message to tell the terrorist (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon and his Nazi government that we are able, by Godâs will, to achieve our goal in a time which we will determine," it said. Fire up the bulldozers.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 10:30:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"The targeting of civilian houses is a violation of all red lines. Therefore the Zionist enemy will have to shoulder responsibility for the targeting by us of houses and Zionist buildings everywhere in occupied Palestine," the Izz el-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamasâs military wing, said in a statement.
Instead of trying to kill civilians in public areas, now they're going to go after them in their homes? Not much difference from typical terrorist tactics, as far as I can see. But hey, go ahead and do that anyway, and when the IDF pours into Gaza and the West Bank, they'll finally perform the housecleaning that should have been done a long time ago.
#4
So what are the rockets and mortars targetting from Gaza?
What I can't comprehend is why a majority of people can't see through this BS.
Posted by: Daniel King ||
09/10/2003 11:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
According to this report, Hamas is squealing to the rest of the arab world for help. Seems the Israeli targetted assassination of Hamas leadership is hitting 'em where it hurts, and hard. Keep up the good work, IDF!
#8
I hear a lot of comments here and elsewhere that "Gaza will soon be wiped off the face..." or now Hamas has gone too far and soon the IDF will "kick ass"...
How I wish this were true, but after 2 years of watching Israel bleed from a thousand cuts, I don't believe she will ever do anything different. Proof in point, another attempted assissination of a Hamas leader, and they escape because of too small a bomb. WTF? Drop a 5000 pounder, kill off an entire city block. But MAKE YOUR POINT!! Kill the Bastards no matter what it takes. Otherwise you are seen as weak, and not serious...
No wonder the Arabs continue their strategy of attack, They see it as working.
Very tragic, I have such tremendous respect for what the Israelis have built in the desert. Why won't they do what's necessary to fix this?
TRANSFER or GENOCIDE.
Posted by: Francis ||
09/10/2003 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#9
It would be the same thing as the Al Qaeda going too far on 911. If they bomb houses, they will be liquidated - especially Arabfart!
#10
Actually, an overwhelming majority of Americans see through this BS, Daniel. Every poll done for the last 10 years show "sympathy", i.e. support, for Palestinians has never been higher than 15 percent.
Most Americans aren't dumb.
Posted by: R. McLeod ||
09/11/2003 2:39 Comments ||
Top||
Dammit. EFL:
Israeli warplanes flattened the home of senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar on Wednesday, wounding him and killing his son and a bodyguard, in retaliation for twin suicide bombings that killed 15 Israelis a day earlier.
Another hit on the politburo. If anything's going to have an effect, it'll be this...
In meetings with security chiefs overnight, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz decided to intensify targeted killings of Hamas leaders. Mofaz and his advisers were in session when they received word of the Jerusalem bombing. Hamas did not claim responsibility, but had threatened unprecedented revenge for Israelâs failed attempt to kill Hamas leaders, including founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin, in a weekend airstrike. People in the West Bank village of Rantis said they believe two young men from the Abu Isleem clan, both Hamas supporters, carried out Tuesdayâs bombings. The two - Ramez Abu Isleem, 24, and Ihab Abdel Kader, 20 - disappeared last week, villagers said. Hamas did not announce the names of the bombers. On Wednesday, the Israeli military raided Rantis and arrested 20 clan members.
Seems like it was them...
Israeli warplanes bombed the home of Zahar, a senior official in Hamas, less than 12 hours after the attack on the Jerusalem coffee house. Witnesses said Zahar was nearby when the two-story structure was flattened. Zaharâs bodyguard and his 29-year-old son, Khaled, were killed, hospital officials said. Well, at least he wonât get to take over Daddyâs job.
Twenty-five people were wounded, including three women and five children. Zaharâs wife suffered serious wounds but was in stable condition after surgery, said Dr. Hazaa Abed, director of surgery at Shifa Hospital. A daughter of Zahar also was lightly wounded. Another of his sons, Sami, was missing.
Missing what?
Zahar himself left the hospital, and Hamas officials said he was taken to a safe place. Weâre hoping for complications and a long slow painful death.
An ambulance driver, Rami Salameh, said he evacuated Zahar. "When I moved him to the stretcher with the help of other people, he screamed from pain in his back, but he was talking to us, saying `Iâm OK, Iâm OK,â" Salameh said. Hope itâs very painful.
On Tuesday, Israeli troops in Hebron killed two Hamas members - including the groupâs leader in the West Bank city - and a 12-year-old bystander, and blew up a seven-story apartment building where the militants were hiding out. Good, they did get them, I hadnât heard.
Posted by: Steve ||
09/10/2003 9:08:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If the "moderate" Palestinians have any survival instincts smarts at all, they'll adopt the practice of shunning with respect to the leaders and membership of Hamas. IDF could help this process along by publicising the blast radii of their current weapons.
Patriots for the Defense of America today issued "Americaâs Failing War Effort: A Report Card," a scathing critique of the Bush administrationâs foreign policy. Unlike left-leaning voices critical of the war, Patriots criticizes the Bush administration from a pro-American, pro-defense perspective. It maintains that Bush has failed to uphold the moral obligation of his government to defend American lives and interests. Patriots assigned the Administration an average grade of "D+" for its failure to execute a war against the most pressing foreign threats. The categories graded are as follows:
The "Hot War" (Iraq and Afghanistan): Iraq posed a real threat to the U.S., but not as great as that posed by nations like Iran and North Korea. Each of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought in a shameful manner, sacrificing American troops to unjustifiably restrictive "rules of engagement."
Grade: C
We're nit-picking here. A war with Iran, no particular causus belli, with a frothing at the mouth, probably WMD-equipped Iraq on one flank? Or North Korea, where the leader's a nutbag but the subject matter's got nothing to do with the overall objective â defeating the Islamists who've declared war on us? Where the hell did this guy go to war school?
The "Cold War" (Iran and North Korea): Two out of three members of the "axis of evil" have gone unpunished, despite the overwhelming terrorist and/or nuclear threats they pose. Even worse, the U.S. has appeased them, encouraging further aggression.
Grade: D-
The U.S. has remained diplomatically engaged with them, which isn't appeasement. "War is diplomacy by other means," remember? We certainly haven't "encouraged further aggression" by making Kimmie go into hiding. And we haven't "encouraged further aggression" by slapping the Syrians â publicly. Nor have we "encouraged further aggression" by announcing that the Iranian government's going to fall eventually and expressing our support for the people who'll eventually do it.
The "Breeding Grounds" (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan): These governments claim to be allies in the war against militant Islamic terrorism, but fail to suppress terrorists in their own midst. Bush has failed to issue an ultimatum demanding their cooperation.
Grade: C-
He's also failed to dig a canal across equatorial Africa. Issuing ultimata when you've lack the capability of enforcing them is a sign of a big mouth and a low IQ. Bush actually got Pakland's cooperation in the immediate wake of 9-11 by issuing an ultimatum â a fairly hair-raising ultimatum, if I recall correctly. But its eventual dismemberment â part to Afghanistan and/or Iran, part of India â is a far piece down the road. Who knows? They may even adopt a policy of sweet reason and make such a fate unnecessary. And attacking the Soddies at this time would reinforce the "attack on the entire Muslim world" meme. I think the ultimate goal is to have them withdraw from the field of battle without admitting they'd been there, to lick their wounds for the next hundred years or so. I also think Bush has a chance of pulling this off, since AQ has managed to poop in the punchbowl with the Riyadh bombings and yesterday announced that everybody's apostate but them.
Israel and the Palestinians: The American "road map" for peace has forced Israel to negotiate with Palestinian terrorists, requiring Israel to abdicate its right to self-defense. This policy is self-defeating for America, since Israel is a natural ally in the war against militant Islam.
Grade: F
The road map represented Bush's equivalent to Clinton's Camp David offer to Yasser â that Yasser later claimed to wish he'd taken (Israel was busy flattening Ramallah at the time). It was put together in concert with all the usual suspects who would have shot down or disregarded the legitimacy of a purely American proposal â Russia, the EU, and the UN, plus with input from the Arab states. It was handed to the Paleos on a silver platter, and they tore it up, jumped up and down on it, and then pooped on it. Hamas and IJ were the perps and Israel is now in the process of trying to knock off the entire politburo of Hamas â Shanab's dead, Rantissi was a "just missed," Sheikh Yassin had his britches dusted, and today they barely missed Zahar, knocking off one of his kids in the process. Hamas only has five people in its politburo, and one's based in Lebanon, to coordinate with the Syrians and Hezbollah. White House objections to date have been either proforma or non-existent. So the road map had a result and it wasn't to cripple Israel.
Military Deployment and Readiness: Despite massive new defense spending, the Bush administration has failed to use its military powerâespecially the threat of its nuclear arsenal—in a way that minimizes risks to American troops, and maximizes the American ability to destroy the enemy.
Grade: C
Military action has to be proportionate. Waving nukes is Kim Jon Il's tactic. Our policy calls for use of nukes in response to the Bad Guys' use of WMD. From the Bad Guys' point of view, there's not an awful lot of difference between a nuke and a few tons of MOAB, but we're a civilized nation and we try not to take out entire counties to get a dozen turbans.
International Law and Diplomacy: While American policy is widely criticized as too "unilateral," in reality the Bush administration has demonstrated an undue, self-abasing deference to international opinion and the U.N.âresulting in pointless delays and setbacks in the war.
Grade: D+
Unlike the people who write this sort of manifesto, Bush has to worry about the U.S. and its position in the world. There is, in fact, more than one country in this world â you can check for yourself. Without a certain amount of "self-abasing deference" to other countries, the British would certainly have waved and said to have a nice time as we were engaging in operations all by our lonesome. So would the Australians, just like the Canadians for the most part did. The Spanish and Portuguese and the Italians are capable of sniffing just as disdainfully as the Frenchies and the Germans, but they didn't, because Bush and his team presented a case and they agreed with its premises.
A copy of the 19-page report is available for download as a PDF.
If you want to waste time on it...
Patriots for the Defense of America was founded in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.
So was Rantburg...
Its mission is to promote Americaâs moral right to self-defense and to advocate a strong, uncompromising foreign policy.
Sounds more like its mission is posturing and making faces.
Posted by: Foster ||
09/10/2003 3:38:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Gee, why were they so generous, must be government employees. Why aren't airline pilots armed? Why are our borders still open? Why does Saudi Arabia still exist? How come Colin Powell is sec of state? Why don't we get a really tough, no nonsense, take no prisoners type, like Janet Reno? She'll fry women and children to get her way!
Posted by: TJ Jackson ||
09/10/2003 4:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Israel and the Palestinians: The American "road map" for peace has forced Israel to negotiate with Palestinian terrorists, requiring Israel to abdicate its right to self-defense. This policy is self-defeating for America, since Israel is a natural ally in the war against militant Islam.
Grade: F
Actually, I agree with this. However, what these idiots fail to realize is that not everyone is free of 'playing by the book'.
These people critisize Bush, but I don't see them out there fighting, or trying to help Isreal kill Hamas. We can't fight the entire planet at once ( despite popular belief ). So we have to APPEASE people sometimes.
It's just as stomach-churning for the Administration as it is for us, but these things take time. We can't take down the Paleo resistance and all the 'Axis of Evil' members in just two years! It took us, Britain, Canada, Australia, India, and others more than 5 years too take out just three countries. Give him another at least that long.
Why at least 5 years? Because the UN and Humanitarian groups for terrorists didn't exist back then.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/10/2003 4:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Nice perspective! Cut through all the B.S. and tells it like it is. Of course this is way to Right-Wing to be a viable policy. We canât just attack NK and Iran at this time. Maybe after we finish up in Iraq we can/should address these problems. But then again we may not have to since Kimmie and the Mullahs are taking notice of what we have done in Iraq. A âCâ grade is a pretty good mark from this group. Where do I join?
#5
The grade isn't very relaistic. What grade would Clinton get for handling the dead sailors of the Cole? I would assign that as an F and maybe put the FDR response to Japanese attack as an A.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#6
These people critisize Bush, but I don't see them out there fighting, or trying to help Isreal kill Hamas. We can't fight the entire planet at once ( despite popular belief ). So we have to APPEASE people sometimes.
Appease terrorists? Seems to me that their kind would be the last ones that you'd want to appease.
It's just as stomach-churning for the Administration as it is for us, but these things take time. We can't take down the Paleo resistance and all the 'Axis of Evil' members in just two years!
The obvious solution is to let the IDF perform the task of cleaning out the West Bank and Gaza of Palestiniant terrorists, instead of pressuring Israel to exercise restraint. They are more than capable of doing it.
#7
It's always easy to sit back and throw stones when your action doesn't put your own neck at risk. I wonder how many of the members of this "organization" are also members of the military. I'd bet darned few!
I find Bush a constant surprise. First he does something so incredibily right it's refreshing, then he does something so incredibly stupid it'd disgusting. I do hope there are some major shakeups in his cabinet after the next election, and there are enough bodies in Congress to back him up, rather than weasels in Democratic clothing that have only one policy - block anything not the policy of the Democratic Party.
I'd give this group's report card a "D-", and it's prestentation an "F". Arguably, Bush knows things they cannot, but there's more than enough information available to make a more detailed analysis than this. These bubbleheads are all Pat Buchanan righties. Buchanan has proven to me that he's nothing but a self-styled ass.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Constructive criticism is one thing. Unrealistic stupid criticism helps Dean become president. I doubt that the interests groups that prepared the report are smarter than that.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"Or North Korea, where the leader's a nutbag but the subject matter's got nothing to do with the overall objective â defeating the Islamists who've declared war on us"
I think that the Iraq had about as little to do with the "overall objective" as Korea would have been. It had a secular (though tyrannical) government which itself hated the Islamists quite a bit. What the overthrow of Saddam did was not make a victory for the actual "overall war" but simply create a new battlefield where democracy and islamofascism will fight. *If* Iraq transforms into a secular democracy in 10 years time, *then* it'll be a victory for US and allies and the civilised world in general.
But it won't actually be much of a loss for the Islamofascists, since they never *had* Iraq on the first place. Poll shows 33% percent of Iraqis want an Islamist government? Ouch. What if *they* end up in charge? US will have done nothing but use its troops in the service of islamists.
Instead of declaring a "war on terrorism" (something which seems ridiculous to me as terrorism is not an ideology by itself, but rather a methodology) I think I'd have appreciated it much more if Bush had declared a war on islamofascism instead. Same way as western democracies earlier fought against nazism, and had a cold war against communism. All ideologies.
Being an islamofascist government could be casus belli enough, which seems to me atleast as a valid one as the never-can-find-them WMDs has been. Instead of portraying 9/11 as showing to the world that *terrorists* are a danger for everyone and must be fought before they reach the American shores, it could be said that these attacks proved that *islamofascism* is a global danger, which must be fought, etc, etc.
Again the same assurances could be given that this isn't directed against the peaceful Muslim nations, only those who use the precepts of their religion to impose tyranny on their populations and/or make war on other nations, etc.
Iraq didn't use the WMDs it had, even when US itself was attacking. Even in the Gulf War when we knew it had them, regardless of whether it still had them during the recent war or not. I don't see much reason why an attack on *Iran* would have motivated them to use them on US troops instead.
An attack on Iran might have been riskier and more difficult, but the overthrow of the model Islamist government (besides Afghanistan) would seem to me a much stronger blow than the war on Iraq has been on islamofascism so far.
#10
Aris, the answer to your comment is simple: any nation that actively pursues WMD (specifically nukes), and has made threats against the US or its friends, is on the shit-list. Why Iraq and not NK, for example? Because the mission in Iraq was relatively easy. Iran & NK are much harder nuts to crack.
I'm happy for you that you don't perceive WMD to be a threat to your country. But many Americans (those with their head out of the sand) rightly believe that WMD in the hands of terrorists or lunatics or Coca-Cola haters, are a threat to them. And I'm glad that Bush doesn't wish to find out if OBL has the will to use them. And yes, Saddam was a secularist (though he has recently converted), but that wouldn't stop AQ & Iraq from having a marriage of conveniance. The risk of that happening was too great.
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/10/2003 19:08 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Aris,
Any of these countries is a tough nut to crack. In many ways NK will be the toughest because it has hostages and has been allowed by the international community to progress form programs to actual possession of nukes.
50 years ago the international community made a committment to the South Korean people to protect their country from sunjigation by the North. We wrote that committment in the blood of Americans, Greeks, Turks and the blood of men from countries throughout the free world. In the last ten years we have betrayed that committment to freedom in the interest of a sunshine policy.
This sunshine policy is not a failed policy just in North Korea. It is a policy that is in the process without the likelihood of a positive result in Iran, Sudan, the PLA, Cuba, Syria, Liberia and many other places in the world.
The French initiative to lift sanctions on Iraq was just another chapter of the sunshine policy that almost drove the school bus into the ditch. Without sanctions Iraq would have necessarily resumed development of nuclear weapons if for no other reason than that Iran is currently developing nukes.
From the perspective of the US, WMD are only dangerous if they are handed/sold to terrorists.
I think we all agree Iran, Iraq and Syria are certainly capable of providing WMD to Hizbollah, Hamas or IJ. From the Greek perspective, I would think that poliferation of nukes to your Arab neighbors would be a real concern. I doubt that Turkey plans on being the only conventional-only power in the highly volatile neighborhood.
I don't bring this up to incite Murat or you. I bring up this point to emphasize that the WMD crisis will be in your neighborhood first. proliferating long range missiles and plutonium throughout the region is a big mistake no matter how much we all want to get along with Iran and Syria.
In some ways mature Americans feel that we have let the Korean people down through lack of vigilence. It baffles us that the international community doesn't feel any responsibility for Korean crisis or for preventing Iraq or Iran from becoming a simular situation.
A couple of years ago a teracher died that I knew. He was a coworker of my fahter's. With his obituary I saw a picture of him as a young man with a crewcut wearing a green uniform with a rack of medals. Evidently, he was an ace in the USMC during WWII. My dad may have mentioned it but, for me, he was the guy that let us cut a cheap Xmas tree from the farm he called Little Vermont every year.
In my opinion, the sunshine generation has squandered his legacy and the legacy of his whole generation. Not just Americans but also the brave men of Crete who stopped the Nazi advance for many long months.
Its sad.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 21:12 Comments ||
Top||
#12
When we were first attacked, two years ago to the day less one, Americans didn't know anything about Islamofascism. Even in the intelligence community, I don't think we had built the order of battle that's come to be apparent at its lower levels, still hazy at its upper levels. It was a many-headed hydra, not the collection of sometimes competing, sometime cooperating multi-nationals we see now. Ten or twelve years ago we had three main strains - Libya-Sudan, Syria-Lebanon-Palestine, and Iran. AQ was actually a minor player.
Our enemy today is Islamofascism - the gift to the world of the Wahhabi sect, and a relatively recent growth industry. But our enemy is also the mindset and the organizational principles that it's absorbed. We don't cover the IRA a lot in these pages, or November 17, or the Colombian killers, but the tactics and the disregard for human life, even contempt for human life, are traits they hold in common with the AQ killers. They're also traits they share with Saddam - witness the mass graves - and with North Korea, where everybody's an egg to go into the omelette. Beyond the bounds of religion and ideology, you can also throw in Zimbabwe, Liberia, and for that matter the majority of the states in sub-Saharan Africa. The disease we're fighting is the subjugation of individual liberty, regardless of the proclaimed justification. If you're dead, what do you care that you were helped from this vale of tears by a Baathist or a North Korean communist or an Iranian Revolutionary Guard or by Subcommandante Pedro and his gang of drug running leftists?
I, and most of us here, can see why Bush is doing what he's doing. We don't always agree with the methods employed. Sometimes I think he should be more ruthless, occasionally I think he should rely more on diplomacy. My personal bitch is that he should be reminding the world continuously that we're trying to protect individual liberty, to remove the totalitarian yoke from the neck of the common man, whether it's that of Wahhabi Islam, Baathism, Communism, or the worship of the Divine Elvis.
Individual liberty isn't an exclusively American ideal. In fact, I think the idea originated in Greece...
Posted by: Fred ||
09/10/2003 21:40 Comments ||
Top||
#13
In fact, I think the idea originated in Greece...
Read the Ten Commandments, not as a Biblical ordination from God, but as a set of rules to live by. If you think about it even just a little bit, you'll see where our Founding Fathers discovered the "unalienable rights" we all enjoy (when they're not being trampled underfoot by a dictatorial government or shoved into the broom closet by some athiest with his nickers in a twist).
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 22:55 Comments ||
Top||
Slightly EFL
Hoping to use the Iraq crisis to get control of the oil fields once more kick-start the stalled process of overhauling the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan today suggested enlarging the Security Council to make it more representative of 21st-century geopolitical realities. Acknowledging that this issue has been simmering for more than a decade, he said: "I think the Iraqi crisis brought this to the fore. But in tackling it this time, I hope we will be much more creative and much more daring, and look at the issue in a broader context." We're relevant, really!
While more specific proposals will be unveiled in his speech to the General Assembly in two weeks, Mr. Annan indicated that he would favor expanding the number of permanent Council members, now five nations, each with veto power, and the elected membership, 10 countries serving staggered two-year terms. "Besides, I've got these worthless idiot cousins I keep promising a job...."
In a report issued shortly before the news conference, Mr. Annan said the decisions of the Security Council increasingly "lack legitimacy in the eyes of anyone with a pulse the developing world, which feels that its views and interests are insufficiently represented among the decision makers." He added, "Legitimacy of action, which may include military action if approved by France, is essential to ensuring durable solutions to the security needs of our time." "Repetitive and sterile debates often crowd out the items that really matter," he said in the report. "Decisions can often be reached only on a lower-common-denominator basis and, once reached, command little or no attention beyond the confines of the General Assembly chamber." For once, he said something hard to argue with.
And then he proposed adding more people to chat?
The backdrop of his report was not only the current Iraq crisis, but the sense that threats like terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, usually handled by the armed forces of the US, UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Denmark Security Council, had unreasonably overshadowed threats like poverty and the lack of oil money going to the UN now that Sammy?s gone AIDS epidemic. I hope I got all of the Coalition of the Willing's names in the last paragraph. My apologies if I missed one of them.
Posted by: Baba Yaga ||
09/10/2003 1:01:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
For once I find myself 100% on Kofi's side. I think it would be swell if UNSC had twice or even 20 times as many veto-weilding members as it has now-- never mind if they rotate while weilding their vetoes-- they may even do somersaults while they rotate for all I care-- since the more members of UNSC, the more certain that it will become as irrelevant as UNGA where (I quote Kofi)"Decisions can often be reached only on a lower-common-denominator basis and, once reached, command little or no attention beyond the confines of the... chamber."
Sounds good to me!
But then, I am all for anything that reduces the prestige and influence of the U.N.... But Kofi?
Posted by: Charles ||
09/10/2003 2:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The UNSC is irrelevant in part cause the Perm5 reflect the power balance of 1945(when France and UK had empires) , not 2003. Hard to kick current P5 off, (and would we really want UK off,or diluted into an EU seat?) So best bet would be to expand. Germany, Japan, and India belong. Which would make a Perm8. Paralysis would be a problem - at least for those of us who actually want the UNSC to be effective. One option would be to allow a UNSC res to pass unless TWO permanent members voted no - but this would presumably be unacceptable to US, Russia, and China. (UK and France would have to be thankful theyre kept as perm members) So possibly leave US, Russia, and China with an absolute veto? Thus recognizing two ranks of great powers? More realistic would be to give an absolute veto to the US alone, thus more realistically representing the real power situation - but Russian and Chinese support for reforms would be needed, especially when the muslims start complaining about absence of a muslim power.
#4
The problem here was the U.N. was never designed to be a world government but people are attempting to use it as one. It has no checks and balances and has horrible representation. The Europeans are over represented (2 vetos alone), non-representative governments are over-represented (2 vetoes in Russia and China). There is no apparent "Requirements" to be a member other than not being Taiwan.
Today countries are forming together and creating essentially political parties within the U.N. further eroding it. Has one asked if Europe is prepared to give up its multiple votes (including its dual vetoes) when the EU if formally created? If not then why doesn't the United States get more than one vote? Look at these numbers I compiled during the first U.N. vote
U.S.... pop 280+million GDP 11+trillion
U.K ... pop 60+million GDP Around 1.7 trillion
France .pop 50+million.. GDP Around 1.5 trillion
Germany pop 80+million... GDP Around 2.1 trillion
As you can see the BIG three of europe do not even come close to the U.S. in populatation or GDP, while in the U.N. we get one lousy vote. Plus this helps highlight that the Europeans are really in no place to help us in Iraq, especially since their economies are in much worse shape than ours with Much higher social spending rates.
If you truely want a workable organziation I believe you are going to have to scrap the U.N. and form something new, with better representation and some membership requirements. The current members that are over represented are never going to give up the power they currently have period.
Posted by: Patrick ||
09/10/2003 11:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Give me a round of Vetos for all my friends.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Patrick - Bravo! 100% agreement! The UN is a grand idea - that has failed due to a flawed format. Something better, with features such as you listed, can be designed and formed... A UN of the Willing, so to speak... Melike.
#7
The only thing the United Nations has ever been good for is to siphon off money that could best be used to a better purpose. Not only is membership a major need for reform, so is fiscal responsibility. Today, that responsibility is non-existent. If that major problem isn't addressed, all the bandaids in the world won't fix the UN.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/10/2003 14:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Patrick: Actually, the UN was designed to be a world government.
In 1941 Roosevelt and Churchill announced the Atlantic Charter calling for the "establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security" following the war.
In 1943 the U.S. House of Representatives passes the Fulbright Resolution calling for the "creation of appropriate international machinery with power adequate to establish and to maintain a just and lasting peace, among the nations of the world."
In the late stages of the War, when the United States, United Kingdom and Soviet Union were debating the structure of a future global organization, several proposals for a regional approach to international peace and security were made. The most notable was the British proposal based around the creation of regional commissions for Asia, Europe and the Americas. These regional commissions, led by a Great Power, would in turn report to a world council made up of Great Powers.
Roosevelt was, however, in favour of a universal organization. Claiming that the League of Nations was in effect a regional organization, Roosevelt feared that the Senate would reject regionalism out of fear that it would lead to further conflict. In addition, Roosevelt believed that a regional commission for the Americas was not needed. Beyond this, the decline of the stability of the alliance between the Great Powers led Roosevelt to conclude that a universal organization was the only way to ensure global stability.
Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill eventually agreed to the more centralized Security Council, recognizing that each of the Great Powers would have the ability to block actions by using their veto.
The U.N charter had envisaged a regular military force available to the Security Council and directed the creation of the Military Staff Committee to make appropriate plans. The committeeâconsisting of the chiefs of staff (or their deputies) of the Big Fiveâwas unable to reach agreement, with the USSR and the other four states on opposing sides; thus no regular forces were established.
#10
If the UNSC wants to be something like a reflection of power, it should have the countries which HAVE some power to do things. My suggestion: Expand to 20. USA, Russia and China veto powers, UK, France (you cant get rid of it), Germany, Japan and India are "half veto powers" (means, they need to combine 2 vetos to block something). These countries should be permanent members. The other ten should rotate, without veto powers.
I might add that Germany is the second biggest money contributor to the UN (after the U.S.). With the current system it would have to leave at the end of next year (which might be just in time when we get a sane government again).
#11
Logical, TGA, but highly undesirable. US, Russia, China as the big three? Giving Russia and China such enhanced power makes things worse than before.
Nah, let it remain as it is: discredited in concept and impotent. The French did the world a favour by showing how open to corruption the system of the security council is. What's really needed is a new council, of democracies.
#12
...Of course the Council of Democracies won't solve the French Problem, but it will force far greater standards of responsibility upon members eligible to join. At present the UN is shot through with hypocrisy. Trying to argue the case for invading Iraq and overthrowing SH around a table with the likes of China and other dictatorships, whilst Libya heads a Human Rights commission down the corridor and starts criticising the US with a posse of third world dictatorships, is an absolutely ludicrous situation. And such a total lack of standards is what allows representatives of such countries as France (and, to a lesser extent, your own) to make such abominable and indefensible displays of cynicism, knowing they'll be supported by a large number of club members who are the 'bully boys' notionally representing entire countries but in fact representing only the interests of a few. There are enough democracies now to make such a global council possible. Something like the EU, but without the monstrous obssession with, and desire for, centralised control...
EFL
West African peacekeepers took a crucial step toward securing Liberiaâs peace Tuesday, making their first major move into the volatile countryside and brokering a cease-fire to end the latest battle between rebels and government troops. Fighting erupted early Tuesday when rebels attacked and overran Kakata, 40 miles northeast of Monrovia, said Col. Theophilus Tawiah of Ghana, the peace forceâs chief of staff. "Oops, sorry!"
About 650 soldiers from Guinea-Bissau arrived just outside Kakata as the two sides traded fire. The contingentâs Nigerian operations chief and a senior commander from Guinea-Bissau then met with leaders in the clash, negotiating an end to the battle. ``Our chief of operations intervened. The fighting has ceased and the people are deployed,ââ Tawiah told The Associated Press, referring to peacekeepers. After the fighting eased, the peacekeepers moved into the town in armored cars and trucks. Peacekeepers rounded up the rebels, who had briefly taken control of Kakata, loaded them onto trucks and transported them to their base at Tubmanburg - passing over miles of government-held roads without any reported incident. At least three rebel soldiers were wounded in the skirmish. Two trucks loaded with peacekeepers - an advance team preparing for the arrival of the larger force - had slept in Kakata overnight. The rest of the force arrived later Tuesday. None of the peacekeepers fired weapons during the fighting, Tawiah said. Hey look! The Uruguayans are coming!
The deployment to Kakata, delayed for several days, marked the peace forceâs first major push outside the capital since they arrived more than a month ago. At least 200 civilians fled Kakata on Tuesday, said Coralie Lechelle, of the French aid group Medecins sans Frontieres. Liberian Defense Minister Daniel Chea insisted the peace force ``must be firm against any cease-fire violations.ââ Speaking at Careysburg, a crossroads 20 miles south of the fighting, Chea said ``the attack today is a test-case for their resolve.ââ As opposed to yours.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/10/2003 12:32:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm just waiting for Nigeria to be declared a province of Liberia.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/10/2003 1:53 Comments ||
Top||
The U.N. Security Council delayed a vote to lift sanctions against Libya until Friday, after France threatened a veto to gain greater compensation for the relatives of people killed in a French airline bombing. A modest proposal: put it to a vote and let the French veto it. Letâs let the French demonstrate their superior diplomatic skills in explaining it.
After difficult closed-door negotiations, the council on Tuesday agreed to give the French a last chance to win a settlement with Libya similar to that for families of victims of the Lockerbie air disaster. But Britainâs U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, the current council president, and other members made clear they would not accept any further delays. In a fast-moving day of diplomacy, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin ... who is alleged to be a man
... spoke twice with his British counterpart, Jack Straw, threatening to veto the lifting of sanctions unless families of the 1989 UTA bombing were satisfied. By definition, werenât they satisfied when the French signed off on the last deal?
The French Foreign Ministry said in a statement that ``a fair agreement ... appears to be within reach.ââ But Foreign Ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous said, ``The victimsâ families must confirm their satisfaction with the negotiations - that would be the deciding factor for us.ââ The United States and Britain have pressed for a vote since Aug. 15, when Libya agreed to a $2.7 billion compensation deal for families of the 270 Lockerbie bombing victims and acknowledged responsibility for the attack. The deal will give each victimâs family $5 million to $10 million, a settlement that embarrassed France. The red in the French flag signifies their blushing, right?
The French government settled with Libya in 1999 for just $33 million to be shared by families of the 170 people killed in the bombing of a UTA flight over Niger in 1989 - giving relatives of each victim about $194,000. When French families learned of the Lockerbie settlement, they demanded more money. The United States had been so sure of a vote to end more than a decade of sanctions stemming from the Lockerbie bombing that 50 relatives of the victims sat in the Security Councilâs visitor gallery to witness it. Instead, on a procedural vote, all 15 council members then voted in favor of adjourning the meeting until Friday. "Nuttinâ to see, folks, move along, through this door, letâs go and nuttin Friday and nuttin next week and ...
``The council is united and determined to address this issue at 10:30 a.m. on Friday,ââ Jones Parry said. ``I donât want to talk about any more delay.ââ "Until 11 am on Friday, then Iâll talk about more delay!"
U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said the United States was ``very disappointedââ that the vote didnât take place Tuesday ``and our hearts go out to the families of the victims who have been waiting and suffering so patiently for the day to come when this vote takes place.ââ Franceâs U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere would not predict what will happen in Fridayâs vote. ``What the council has decided ... was to give a last chance to these negotiations,ââ he said. There should be no negotiations. France and Libya signed a deal. That was it.
The sanctions - a ban on arms sales and air links with Libya - were indefinitely suspended in 1999 after two Libyans sought in the Lockerbie bombing were handed over for trial. But Libya has pressed for the embargoes to be lifted - not just suspended - to restore its standing in the international community. Britain and the United States have said Libya has met all the requirements to lift the strictures. ``Libya has accepted responsibility,ââ Jones Parry told the council on Tuesday. ``Libya has agreed to pay a substantial sum of compensation to the relatives of those who were murdered. And Libya has agreed to cooperate with any further Lockerbie investigation and has renounced terrorism.ââ The Lockerbie families will be paid $4 million each when U.N. sanctions against Libya are lifted. If the United States lifts its own sanctions against Libya, the families will receive another $4 million and if Libya is removed from the U.S. State Departmentâs list of countries sponsoring terrorism, they will get an additional $2 million. If the United States refuses, each Lockerbie family will get an additional $1 million after October. Interesting arrangement, rather limits the downside.
A Scottish court convicted Libyan intelligence agent Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi of the bombing in 2001 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. A second Libyan was acquitted.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/10/2003 12:25:40 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If the French blow this one by vetoing it, then they will be putting another nail in their foreign relations coffin themselves. If the UN puts up with their crap, then they will also, as an organization, be snug in their coffin.
What say you, France?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/10/2003 1:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
France: " We are above you Americans! We deserve twice what you are getting! "
Yeah, well, tell that to everyone else when we put it too a vote Friday. If we don't, then I'll be angry. And you won't like it when I'm angry..... * Show image of France being punched into oblivion by giant green fist with a American flag tatoo. *
Posted by: Charles ||
09/10/2003 1:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I beleive the French government is being represented by Maurice Clarett's agent ... I mean lawyer.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/10/2003 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Sacre bleu! We are the ones who are supposed to be doing the shafting, n'est pas? Not the way around the other.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
