Channel 9 prompted some quick action after we found a children's toy that had a plane between two towers. Lisy Corporation officials are defending their company and say they feel they were tricked into putting the toy in their candy bags.
MORE IMAGES OF TOY
It's hard to imagine how the little toy could make it into the hands of children. It shows a jetliner flying into a set of Twin Towers.
Moises Soto is just 11 years old, but he doesn't need school to know right from wrong and good toys from bad.
"It looked like a plane crashing into the Twin Towers," he says.
Moises knew immediately what this toy was all about when he saw his 2-year-old nephew, Isa, playing with it.
"It's not appropriate. It was a tragedy that happened and it's not good to have a toy like that," Moises says.
The toys are packaged with candy sold at Hispanic groceries. They were distributed as far away as Boston.
The company that sold them, but now has recalled them, is called Lisy Corporation, a Miami-based spice, snack and candy company.
"We gave our people, immediately, the authority to get it from the stores and to send it back," comments Luis Padron, Lisy Corportation.
Upon realizing the nature of the toy, and the product number 9-0-1-1 on each toy, Lisy Corp. sent a letter to stores saying the toy "resembles the Twin Towers and an airplane. [It is] "totally inappropriate"
Lisy says they were sold the toys by L&M Import and Export. The product was coded as a plastic swing play set and sent in two versions, one with a man swinging between the towers. The product was packed in bulk, with the airplane version out of sight.
"So when they packaged it, that box has many toys inside and they never realized it, 'cause they called it a swing set," says Padron.
For the second day in a row, the importer of the toy, L&M Import and Export refused to comment. But, they told Channel 9 they didn't think it was a big deal, saying they consider it just a toy for children and don't think it's inappropriate.
#1
Gee I have a great idea for a toy. Little cruise missles slamming into the Three Gorges Dam. Let's slip it into our exports to China. Buy Lucky Dragon rice and get a surprise.
The WTC attack videos sold very well in China and I read of rumors that the Chinese Numero Uno (Jiang?) watched it over and over. In addition steel girders scrapped from the WTC was bought by Chinese and some of it were used to make statues of the WTC with planes embedded.
Posted by: ed ||
08/28/2004 0:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
These toys are popular in the middle east with our friends the muslims. This stuff sells like hot cakes.
Saudi Arabia is set to launch a major campaign to track down those possessing unlicensed weapons as the grace period to surrender such weapons ended yesterday. The Interior Ministry said it will impose punishment up to 10-year jail and SR50,000 fine on violators of the weapons law. "We don't have any plan to extend the grace period," said Brig. Mansour Al-Turki, spokesman for the ministry. "Maximum punishment will be imposed on the violators of the law," Al-Riyadh Arabic daily quoted him as saying.
The campaign against illegal possession of weapons comes after alarming reports that such weapons are used in most of an estimated 10,000 shooting cases that take place in the Kingdom in a year. It also comes as part of the Kingdom's efforts to stamp out terrorism. Turki said the ministry will not accept any justifications from holders of unlicensed arms such as non-awareness of the law or absence from the country. However, he said authorities would consider special situations of individuals if they were genuine and if they could prove it. The spokesman also explained the limitations of those who carry licensed arms as they are not allowed to carry or use them in unwarranted circumstances or places. "Licenses are given for personal use and hunting. There are people who are licensed to use their weapons only at their home or cars. The weapons for hunting are licensed to use during the hunting season and the hunting area," he explained.
Security officers are exempted from the law. However, Turki pointed out they have to follow the regulations set by the ministry on carrying and using their official weapons. Security officers are also given personal weapons. "They carry and use their weapons in specific places following certain regulations," he added. Gen. Turki ruled out the possibility of giving license to those who had carried unlicensed weapons. "They will not be given the weapons back with license. The grace period was given to save them from punishment," he added.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/27/2004 8:41:59 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
hmmm, how long a grace period would be extended to ex-pat Merkins, or, Allan forbid, Joooooos?
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/27/2004 21:18 Comments ||
Top||
Yemen's former interior minister helped the alleged planner of the USS Cole attack pass through security checkpoints in the months before the 2000 bombing, according to a document.
By my calculations, this brings it officially to 100% of the population of Yemen that was involved in the Cole bombing...
Buncha slackers, can't ever give 110%.
Defense lawyer Abdul Aziz al-Samawi read an official letter by former Interior Minister Hussein Arab, who was removed in April 2001, instructing security authorities to give "safe passage to Sheik Mohammed Omar al-Harazi with three bodyguards without being searched or intercepted. All security forces are instructed to cooperate with him and facilitate his missions." The order was valid from April 2000 until the end of 2000. The Cole was attacked Oct. 12, 2000.
These things have expiration dates? Cheez...
Al-Harazi is one of the names used by Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the sixth defendant and alleged planner of the suicide attack that killed 17 American sailors on the ship. Al-Nashiri is being tried in absentia. He is in U.S. custody at an undisclosed location.
Neener neener.
"Melinda, the 'medium' sized panties, please."
If convicted, the men could face the death penalty. But that sentence is considered unlikely because the defendants are not accused of being the actual bombers.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
08/27/2004 12:44:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
From Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty
"The media has to be aware that the Muslim community is a new community, already socially marginalized, and by continually demonizing it, we don't help anything. We want to make sure that more and more of the community opens up, becomes part of mainstream politics, and so on and so forth. This is happening, [but] these kind of attacks actually hamper that process." Ghayasuddin Siddiqui said. Siddiqui is the leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain and director of the Muslim Institute. ....
Many other British Muslim leaders agree. Inayat Bunglawala is the spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain .... said the worst offenders are the mass-circulation tabloids. "They do a lot of harm," Bunglawala points out, "by implying that most Muslims sympathize with the terrorists." ....
William Rees-Mogg is the former editor in chief of The Times, the respected London broadsheet newspaper. "... is the general tone of the popular press exaggerated hostility to British Muslims, as such? I don't think that, no," he told RFE/RL. He explained that, because of the war on terrorism, British Muslims are in an unfortunate position. "I think the British Muslims are in a situation one can have a good deal of sympathy with. It's rather the same as the situation which Irish people living in Britain had during the period of the IRA atrocities. British Muslims are in rather the same position in that there is a broad suspicion that if they are Islamic terrorists, that they will be members of the Islamic community. And it's inevitably so," Rees-Mogg said.
Some Muslim leaders also complain that some in the British media do not always report objectively about the variety of opinions in Iraq. Hashem Ali is a spokesman for the Iraqi Community Association in London. .... He gave an example of recent coverage that he said implied that many British Muslims support radical Shi'a cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's insurgency. "A week ago, it was about this issue of two Mahdi army people who are British citizens. It might be true, whatever they have said, but this doesn't reflect the common opinion of the Iraqi community here [in Britain], and this coverage is enticing tension among communities in this country," Ali said. ...
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
08/27/2004 11:52:44 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The press also needs to report what is being preached in the mosques and taught in their religious classes. Then let the people decide who is demonizing who.
Posted by: ed ||
08/28/2004 1:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I agree.
That should convince them of how wrong they are, and of how much the have wronged the muslims.
#3
Enough of your lies, Gentle. We kill people who try to enslave us. That's why so many of you devil-worshippers are dying in the ME. It would be a lot more if your oil money didn't buy off so many media and academic whores in the west. The day is coming when Islamic pig-money won't matter, and then this will be settled.
Members of Bristol's Muslim community say they are outraged after a controversial billboard was put up close to a city mosque. Community and religious leaders have demanded the advertisement, with its photo of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden next to the words 'Go Get 'Em', be taken down immediately. It is just around the corner from the Bangladeshi Shahjalal Jamia Mosque, in Stapleton Road, near the M32 Eastville roundabout. Advertising a new 15-rated PlayStation2 computer game 'America's 10 Most Wanted', Muslims who live and work in the area say it's "insensitive and undiplomatic". Abdul Wahab, a trustee of the mosque and the founder chairman of the city's Bangladesh Association, said it could increase racial tension in the area.
Though not nearly as much as a bunch of turbans doing a Guy Fawkes imitation is someday going to...
He said: "What if someone was to read 'Go Get 'Em' as meaning go and attack the Muslim community in Bristol? Whoever put this up has no common sense whatsoever. By putting it next to a mosque, it effectively paints the Muslim community as a bunch of terrorists. It should be removed before any more damage is done."
"It offends our delicate senibilities! Take it away! Mahmoud! Bring me rose water!"
Scores of Muslims work and live in the Stapleton Road area. Building work on the mosque began a few years ago and although it is not yet completed, the building is already used regularly. Amer Salman, a director of the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society, which represents a number of the city's mosques, said: "To put this advert up near a mosque is insensitive and undiplomatic, to say the least. It's obviously been put up out of ignorance and stupidity. The idea of putting anything up that portrays violence is bad taste, but to put it next to a religious building is completely wrong."
#1
"Whoever put this up has no common sense whatsoever. "By putting it next to a mosque, it effectively paints the Muslim community as a bunch of terrorists."
Sorry jerky, but your actions in 1. assuming that the billboard is aimed at you and 2. all but admitting that Osama = Muslims worldwide, YOU are doing yourself a disservice and YOU are the one drawing attention to the Muslim community as a "bunch of terrorists".
Posted by: Chris W. ||
08/27/2004 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"By putting it next to a mosque, it effectively paints the Muslim community as a bunch of terrorists.
You could always try and publically condemn the violent actions and murderous tendencies of your Islamist brothers against civilization, and then perhaps people wouldn't associate all Muslims with terrorist.
You've brought this shit on yourselves by your silence.
#5
When you guys start looking at a picture of Osama with the words "Go Get 'Em" and say, "F*ck Yeah! Let's go get 'em!", then I might have some interest in what does or does not offend you. Until then, ESAD.
#9
If the Muslims get all out of joint, and start violent acts, the billboard people can always add an arrow to the sign, for a slight additional fee. Always playing the victim. They better pray to Allan that no terrorist acts are committed in the area, or they WILL, rightly or wrongly be the targets of wrath. If they have it together the Muslims would be proactive in condemning terrorism and people like Binny, but I assume too much.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/27/2004 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Boo-friggin'-hoo. It's tough all over pal.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
08/27/2004 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#11
As long as the west caves whenever they play the victim card they will continue to play the victim card. Whatever works. I'll reserve my revulsion for the company that I suspect will pull the sign before this deluge of victimhood.
South Korean government officials are struggling to confirm persistent reports from North Korea of the recent death of its leader Kim Jong Il's favorite mistress, a former dancer who was elevated in the Communist state's pantheon to the status of "respected mother."
The woman, Koh Young Hee, a Japanese-born Korean dancer, was treated in Paris last spring for advanced cancer. Over the summer, Ms. Koh, the 51-year-old mother of two of Mr. Kim's sons, was flown back to the North Korean capital, Pyongyang, where she fell into a coma. The Japanese newspaper Sankei Shimbun reported recently that North Korean diplomats in Paris bought an "extremely expensive" coffin and shipped it to Pyongyang by charter flight.
Emblematic of a people who revere the turtle as a national symbol, North Korea two weeks ago unexpectedly closed its northern border to foreign tourists, a major source of foreign exchange. Then on Sunday, Mr. Kim's National Defense Commission severely restricted the number of Pyongyang telephones that could be used to call foreign residents and embassies. The Russian news agency Tass said these restrictions were intended to prevent "possible leaks of information.''
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
08/27/2004 12:22:31 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Some say this death would have serious psychological effects on Kim. Kim, who has heart problems, had been refraining from drinking on Kohâs advice.
What happens if a psychopathic Stalinist god-king with nukes goes on a grief-stricken drinking binge? Let's hope we don't find out.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/27/2004 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I can't figure out how these Korean names work. I'm really confused. Like Kim Jong Nam. If you refer to him in the third person then he's Mr. Kim. So the last name is first. Now here's where I'm really confused: If Kim Il Sung is the father of Kim Jong Il, and Kim is the last name, and Kim Jong Nam is the son of Kim Jong Il & his mother is Sung Hye Lim and he has two other sons named Kim Jong Chul & Kim Jong Woon, then how to Korean people determine their kid's names? Like in Hispanic people your name is First name, middle name, father's last name, dash mother's maiden last name. If you're a woman you lose your mother's maiden last name when you marry & that name becomes your husband's paternal last name. So, with that as a guide, how the hell does one make sense out of this Korean mess? They must not have a naming system. It must just be random.
#8
Koreans use the same name system as the Chinese. The surname comes first, the "given" name comes second, and what we think of as the "middle name" comes last.
Taking a hypothetical American named John Gerald Smith, then if his name was given in the Chinese/Korean order it would be "Smith John Gerald". There are always three names, and each is always a single syllable. (The Japanese have multi-syllable names, always two, with the surname first and the given name second.)
It's common for a son to be given part of his father's name, which is why "Il Sung" and "Jong Il". But it doesn't have to be first->second, and that's why "Jong Il" has sons named "Jong Nam", "Jong Chul" and "Jong Woon".
Posted by: Steven Den Beste ||
08/27/2004 21:17 Comments ||
Top||
#9
SDB: I thought you were on a break? :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/27/2004 21:19 Comments ||
Top||
The Pentecostal Church has created a controversial revival movement among Muslim asylum seekers in the greater Oslo area. In the past six years 16,000 refugees have visited the white wooden church in Sandvika, a suburb in Bærum just west of the capital. Some asylum center leaders say the church is tricking their visitors. Pentecostal meeting leader Robert Leine said that they just wanted to spread tolerance and were responsive to the wishes of the various asylum centers. Coffee, cakes, Iranian pop music, a little proselytizing and a special bus - these are the ingredients behind the church's popular meetings with asylum seekers.
Since 1998 over 16,000 asylum seekers have attended the church's Thursday meetings. About 70 percent of these visitors have been Muslims. The revivalist campaign has also resulted in 80 former Muslims letting themselves be baptized. The congregation drives their own bus around and often enters the centers to meet the refugees. This has led to tighter security, and the Hvalstad center for underage asylum seekers banned the Pentcostalists earlier this year. The Hvalstad center found the recruiting unpleasant, and felt the youngsters were being lured with refreshments and day out without being warned in advance that they would be attending a Christian meeting, an aspect that can lead to various complications.
Like beheading, for example.
The Directorate of Immigration (UDI) said that how the arrangement and approach of the Pentecostalists is handled is up to the respective centers to decide. NOAS, the Norwegian Organization for Asylum Seekers, tries to inform and advise refugees, and often feels that the revivalists are putting problematic pressure on the newcomers.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
08/27/2004 11:11:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A Lithuanian Jew said that he had been attacked and injured by a man claiming to be a Palestinian as he was about to enter Berlin's main Jewish museum with two friends, police said Thursday. The 21-year-old Lithuanian, who was wearing a kippa head covering, told police that he was confronted on Wednesday by the Palestinian, who told him that "Jews have to be killed". The aggressor then hit him in the abdomen. The 19-year-old suspect, who was known to police, was placed under arrest.
Posted by: TS(vice girl) ||
08/27/2004 10:00:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just mebbe the Zionists are correct about Israel being the safest place for Jews...methinks the pits of Ponar beckon those who put their faith in "international law"...
#2
I am thinking of wearing a skull cap just to hide my really bald spot In this redneck town I live in I would probably get harrased buy some skin head pukes though. What I want to know is why this kid didn't just pound this little prick into the pavement. The Palestinian should be deported. What will really happen, nothing.
A bomb exploded early Friday near a Greek Orthodox church in Turkish northern Cyrpus where a controversial Mass is due to be celebrated next week, causing damage but no injuries, police said. The explosion occured at the disused Saint Mamas church in Guzelyurt, or Morphou, some 30 kilometres (18 miles) west of the capital Nicosia, where Greek Cypriots are planning to hold an Orthodox Mass for the saint's feast day next Thursday for the first time in 30 years. Windows, a door and the roof of the church were damaged and windows in several neighbouring shops were blown off by the force of the blast at around 3:30 am (0030 GMT). A Molotov cocktail was also hurled at the church facade, according to the Turkish Cypriot news agency TAK.
The decision to allow the Mass, and an evening service the previous day, to celebrate Saint Mamas Day, feast of the town's patron saint, was part of the rapprochement between Greeks and Turks, but was fiercely opposed by Rauf Denktash, leader of the breakaway Turkish statelet. "The arrival of thousands of Greek Cypriots .. and their wish to return every Sunday constitutes a serious provocation towards Turkish Cypriots," Denktash said earlier this week. "They have many churches on their own side of the island," Denktash added, calling the celebration of the Mass "a political act" by the Greek Cypriot government "to which we must react without violence."
Posted by: TS(vice girl) ||
08/27/2004 8:51:35 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One should drown the fanatic arshole who did that in the Mediteranean sea, I hope he'll be catched.
Posted by: Murat ||
08/27/2004 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
So Murat, how does it feel to know that you and all your family were once Greek, forced to change your language and religion by the invading Turks?
Posted by: mary ||
08/27/2004 9:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Murat,
I would have said, "Many should drown the fanatic...." (and "catch" is an irregular verb, so the the past tense is "caught" -- today seems to be Good Grammar Day here at R.U.), but otherwise I, too, agree completely.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/27/2004 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I'll believe "Murat" on this when he applies the same ire to terrorism in Iraq. For some reason, he celebrates it, even when the targets are similar.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/27/2004 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Mary, I have friends from Eritrea who are Catholic, thanks to the Italian invasion, but who can remember being forced at swordpoint to convert from Judaism by Constantine. So what? History happened a long time ago. If we hold on to such long-ago grudges, the whole world would turn into Yugoslavia!
Comparing this with Iraq needs some irony (a lot).
Trailing Wife, tanks for the grammar course, next time I read my hastily typed comments.:)
Posted by: Murat ||
08/27/2004 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Comparing this with Iraq needs some irony (a lot).
Really?
Is your memory so poor as to be unable to stretch back less than a month?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/27/2004 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#10
And just for giggles, I went back through Rantburg's archives, and in the articles dealing with the church bombings in Iraq, I couldn't find a single quote from the 'Rat! Was it beneath his notice? I find that hard to believe -- FOUR churches were bombed on August 1st, killing around a dozen people, and Murat makes no comment. I'm sure he condemned it somewhere, if only in his own mind.
Then again, maybe not. Murat (or his doppelganger) has been quite the cheerleader for the "resistance" in Iraq.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/27/2004 11:01 Comments ||
Top||
#11
he's pro-terrorist, and above all, anti-american. Turkish penis-envy
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/27/2004 11:09 Comments ||
Top||
#12
C'mon folks, let's be nice, Murat isn't a terrorist sympathezier. I appreciate the fact that he'd drown whoever did this in the Med. I would only add some Chicago-style concrete shoes to that person before heaving him overboard, but otherwise Murat is right on.
Murat isn't the problem in the Middle East, he just has a differernt point of view. That's rather, um, American.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/27/2004 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#13
respectfully disagree, Steve - basing my opinion on more than his (yes, I agree with him on this one) comment above - see, for example: 90%+ of his previous comments
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/27/2004 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#14
...just when I'm ready to write Murat off as a hopeless troll, but Frank G makes the point - next time Americans are killed he'll go back to stomping around and waving his loincloth.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
08/27/2004 11:39 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Murat isn't a terrorist sympathezier.
His recent comments could have fooled me.
Can we at least say his outrage is extremely selective?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/27/2004 12:35 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Could this be the original Murat? I would have sworn he was knocked off by the dread bedwettian or Robert Crawford.
#1
Well...Well Germany,what goes around, comes around; or as Darth Vader would put it: "Your lack of faith is disturbing...You will "PAY", in your insignificant rebellion!" I guess staying out of the war didn't help.
#2
All insurance policies have a clause about not paying for acts of war; they've just defined "war" - even if Germany hasn't declared one - for future policies.
Sounds like the German insurance companies not only realize there's a war on, they think it will come to them.
Now if we could only get the Dems here to realize it....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/27/2004 9:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
In the past "terror acts" were understood as plane hijacking or the like. War, civil war and other unrest was excluded before. It's logic to include attacks with WMD, and only fair because any company would immediately be broke, if they had to pay out life insurances after a WMD attack.
#4
Well hell, there goes the (direct) profit motive! Think some of the Bad Guyz dabble in the stock market - since they influence prices? Sure - I'll bet there are front groups, relatively legit and espectable, who get some dirty money and launder it through the market. Short!
Posted by: Abu Soros ||
08/27/2004 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#6
And then there are the currency markets, Abu. Selling Dollars short, eh? Go ahead, pull out your US passport, Abu - note that it's now on the shit list - and when it expires, you'll never get another. Think: Deep Cavity Searches. ;->
Canada's relations with the United States suffered under prime minister Jean Chretien -- even many Liberals have admitted as much. When Paul Martin assumed leadership of the party, he promised to mend the broken fences along the 49th Parallel, calling for a "more sophisticated" relationship between Canadian and U.S. politicians. It would be difficult to imagine any better way to advance this cause than to rid his party's caucus of Carolyn Parrish.
I'll be vastly surprised if he does, though. I think Parrish is the authentic party...
Posted by: rex ||
08/27/2004 15:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another whiney leftist who had her twinkies confiscated by an abusive older brother when a child. . . .
#2
I'm really starting to loathe Canada. I found myself enjoying the replays of their hurdler tripping all over herself, and I'm going to start looking more carefully for the "Made in Canada" label.
Don't worry yourselves about being mistaken for Americans. Only an idiot would make that mistake. Y'all are France Lite.
#3
"We are not joining the coalition of the idiots," she said.
"because we started it"
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/27/2004 17:39 Comments ||
Top||
#4
LOL @ France Lite, that about sums it up. They hate us like the frogs do, they all have that smug "I'm better then you" attitude that the frogs do. They even have Quebec, which makes France look friendly. Let's face it, now that the USSR has fallen, the world needed another "Evil Empire" regardless if we do more to help people then any other nation in the history of the planet. A great example of all that "love" is all the booing of US athletes at this years olympics. They hate us, and they have hated us long before mean old George Bush became pres.
#6
I think you guys are missing the point of the article. Canadians do not share twirpy Ms. Parrish's negative opinions of Americans.[well maybe Quebec and Torontonians employed by CBC do he, he] The National Post's Editorial Page article dumping on Carolyn Parrish is VERY significant because it comes from the lips of a powerful Liberal Party supporter, the Izzy Asper family, who now own the National Post. Izzy Asper passed away recently but his son[Leonard?] writes all the editorial pages of the Asper chain of newspapers so Canadians across Canada are reading the Izzy Asper family's put down of Carolyn Parrish. This lady is a loose cannon, who will never see an important position within the Liberal Party again. Here's a link to Letters to the Editor of the Toronto Sun as a measure of how ordinary Canadians are appalled by Carolyn Parrish's remarks. Ironically, there were but one or two Carolyn supporters and they were Americans. Canadians who wrote letters told Parrish to buzz off in no uncertain terms. http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/Letters/home.html
And keep in mind ACTIONS count louder than a menopausal hysteric's words. As has been said on other threads, Canadian troops are the largest coalition partner after US and the UK in Afghanistan. Canadian intelligence officers were in Iraq with US and UK troops from the get go-though Chretien refused to admit it until the bitter end. Canadian frigates were patrolling the Persian Gulf and protecting US supply ships from AQ attack-once again Chretien was loathe to tell anyone. Yesterday I posted an article about Canada contributing NATO officers to come to Iraq to train Itaqi law enforcement/military. Canada is our good neighbor and ally. Canda just has a loose cannon politician, sort of like our Swimmer and Carol whatsherface and who can forget Barbie Boxer and Charlie Schumer?
Posted by: rex ||
08/27/2004 18:53 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Oh rex, don't be so serious. I think Wayne Gretzky's American wife should be named ambassador to Canada. That way Canadians can watch the most famous Canuck following her around, attached to the hip like a useless, but decorative appendage. Much like the US-Canada relationship now.
Posted by: ed ||
08/27/2004 20:15 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I work with alot of Cadadians and they share our loathing of the LLL party members. The question for them is what to do about it. We have the same problem. If the people rise up and be counted the LLL will run away and hide like cockroaches. Getting started is the tough one.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/27/2004 20:31 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: tipper ||
08/27/2004 12:40:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mr Ali puts the controversy over his plans down to what he calls post-9/11 Islamophobia.
Ye old victim card...always a standard tool to shut down criticism.
It is probably true that Canada's neighbour, the United States, would not entertain Mr Ali's vision.
Don't count on it. Our Supreme Court justices are becoming increasingly "sensitive" to international legal precedent. Also, the ACLU would love to take on the Sharia law challenge. Fits their mandate to defend the weird, the perverse, and anything that is anti-Christianity.
But there are women who speak out in support of Sharia too...In Mr Ali's front room, he introduced me to eloquent and educated Muslim women who accept that Sharia has a bad name because of how it has been interpreted. "This is a chance for us to develop a progressive and tolerant form of Sharia, one that is consistent with 21st Century notions of gender equality," so a female PHD student told me.
Good watchwords Ms.[leftwing brainwashed] Muslim Moron..."progressive" and "tolerant". Go for it! Sharia law hurts Muslim masochists like you, not me.
"But inheritance law is unfair," I said, "women always get less than men." "That is because women's outgoings are less than men's as the man must always support every woman in his family, so it is fair he gets more," I was told by a chorus of female voices.
You can take them out of the ME cesspools but you can't change their love of being dominated by authority figures.
Marion Boyd, a lawyer and former feminist activist,
ie. NDP socialist flunkey, probably was an affirmative action law school candidate to boot...
She hinted strongly to me that the government could not allow Jewish courts and forbid Muslim ones; that would be discrimination.
Like I said Ms. Boyd is not too swift.
Muslims and Jews may not always be natural allies, but on this they are united. All religious people have the right to settle difficulties according to their religion, the rabbi told me, as he sat in front of a large poster of Jerusalem.
I will naturally be accused of anti-semetism by the usual professional victim/bad actors...however, the good rabbi is not too swift like Ms. Boyd. If he cannot see the differences between Judaic law and Sharia law, he is in desperate need of early retirement.
Posted by: rex ||
08/27/2004 2:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sheer idiocy. Once they get their foot into door, it would be hard to close it when they would try to slip in more and more. Within a century or less, Canada would be done over if this comes to pass.
#3
The ACLU in the US doesn't hate all religion, just Judaism and Christianity. Given the Canadian penchant for wating to be different Zarathustra don't discount this passing muster. Stranger things have happend. But I know how anti-religion/ignorant of religion my younger Linux friends up in Canada are. They want nothing to do with any state sponsored religious laws or religion. Can't see as I blame them. I don't think this really has legs.
#4
I doubt whether 50% of Toronto's jews use the Beth Din.
Here are some possible scenarios:
1. Canada establishes Sharia courts.
2a. Courts produce mideast type decisions
3a. Canadian Moslems ignore the Sharia courts.
2b. Courts produce progressive type decisions.
3b. Wahabi Moslems criticize courts as infidels.
2c. Courts produce mostly progressive decisions at first, then harsher and harsher decisions.
3c. Progressive Moslems welcome the earlier progressive decisions, then get worried but by then the Sharia courts have jurisdictional history. Progressive Moslems try to get Canada to protect them from their own Wahabi kinfolk. No luck. Wahabi sharia becomes a new Canadian value.
#5
I fail to see the difference between this and an agreement in a private contract to settle the contract through a private arbitration association, which is ROUTINE in the US. And if you think theres pressure from muslim husbands on wives to agree to Sharia which is more favorable to them than civil courts, theres also pressure from businesses on consumers to agree to private arbitration which is more favorable to them. In the arbitration situation we say "youre a free adult, with freedom to contract, if you dont like it dont sign it"
mhw - i think youre correct - reform jews dont use bet dins, and conservative Jews rarely use one other than for a divorce or conversion(to Judaism)
#6
LH-I like your first sentence in #5. One question for you though:
Take all the players in your scenarios: Parties in a private arbitration, muslim husbands, muslim wives, reform jews, conservative jews. Which of these groups has no concept or history of self-advocacy?
1. Im not sure thats universally true (note also i didnt mention Orthodox Jews, and we could get a whole long debate about Orthodox Jewish wives
2. Some on the left would say that some classes of consumers pushed into private arbitration have no history of self-advocacy. My point being if we're going to nullify freedom of contract for muslim wives based on the assertion of no history of self-advocacy, we open up the possibility of nullifying freedom of contract on related grounds for others.
#8
I fail to see the difference between this and an agreement in a private contract to settle the contract through a private arbitration association, which is ROUTINE in the US.
Is it ROUTINE in the US to measure a woman's testimony as only half as valuable as a man's? Is it ROUTINE in the US to rule that every scrap of inherited property goes to the sons?
Oh, sure, in Canada it will only be used for civil matters. At least until the Islamists win their next fight -- extending its coverage to criminal matters involving Muslims.
Question for Canadians -- Are Native Americans in Canada entitled to their own legal codes? How do those codes interact with Canadian laws? If there are different laws, expect the Islamists to complain about the "special treatment" and demand to be allowed to live under the laws THEY want.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/27/2004 10:10 Comments ||
Top||
#9
LH-I wasn't focusing so much on the technical points, more the big picture. If you stand back and say, "based on what I know about the lives of Muslim women, what I have learned about the history of Muslim women, are they likely to get shafted and return to victimhood status if Sharia law is installed in the Canadian justice system?
#10
Are Native Americans in Canada entitled to their own legal codes? How do those codes interact with Canadian laws? If there are different laws, expect the Islamists to complain about the "special treatment" and demand to be allowed to live under the laws
In Oklahoma, several Indian tribes have their own courts, they issue drivers licenses, they collect taxes for their own use, they have their own police force; they even have compacts with several states on tobacco taxes and gasoline taxes. They enforce their laws on matters which take place on Indian lands.
There are several reasons why sharia won't work and the reasons all boil down to primarily jurisdiction. The operative paradigm in dealing with Indians is that the lands they still retain are theirs to do as they see fit. An imam can't come into the US buy up several hundred square miles of property and declare sharia in effect without consulting local jurisdictions. There is only a single precedent for that and that started the American Civil War.
#11
RC - what routine in the US is to allow someone to write into a contract that any disputes under it must be settled by a designated private entity, like the American Arbitration Association. AAA is typically more efficient than the civil courts, and depending on the jurisdiction probably less favorable to consumre plaintiffs. Whether that means its less fair or more fair is obviously a matter of opinion. Its allowed NOT because the state deems it a fair alternative, but because the parties VOLUNTARILY submit to it.
Jules - I can stand back and say that workers who dont form a union, or who accept an unfunded pension plan, or work for Walmart are likely to get shafted. If Im going to step back and make judgements like that im going to have to do it for ALL unequal bargaining situations, and not just for muslim women. And I challenge the language that Sharia is "installed" just because people are allowed to voluntarily submit disputes to a religious court.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Jewish Beit Din only has jurisdiction over religious matters, including religious marriage and divorce, but even then is subject to US/Canadian civil and criminal law (eg. Jewish law required a childless widow be married to her husband's brother, that the bloodline not be lost, but civil law forbids polygamy, that kind of thing). There is no reason a Sharia court couldn't similarly be set up subject to the laws and courts of Canada. Unlike the Indians, the Muslims are not a native community on reservation land.
#13
RC - what routine in the US is to allow someone to write into a contract that any disputes under it must be settled by a designated private entity, like the American Arbitration Association.
Does the AAA treat the testimony of men and women differently?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/27/2004 10:49 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I haven't had time to read all the comments - but I do want to make one point about this idea of arbitration.
Ask yourself this: If a woman is willing to voluntarily sign an agreement, allowing her to be stoned to death, if - in the future unknown to her - she commits adultery...would that be ok?
I'm sickened by the left these days. There is no level to which they will not stoop in order to pretend they are "sensitive". Next they will be defending genital mutilation as "cultural diversity".
Posted by: B ||
08/27/2004 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Then I guess, LH, for you it comes down to "it will be up to the Muslim women to either form a union of some kind to challenge Sharia law decisions arrived at by the courts or else change their religious community/sharia law decisions themselves"?
LH-You may be right-maybe it is up to the women that willingly subject themselves to sharia law decisions to change their lives for the better. I am sad to note, though, that I have never read anything by you that indicates you recognize something fundamentally wrong in the human condition of Muslim women, certainly nothing that should spoken out against or be worth your time or concern. What is the old saying, "First they came for the Jews and I said nothing..."
#16
women are dogs under Sharia law. They are property. They have no rights. LH, you are basically saying that women can sign themselves into slavery. That's nice.
Posted by: B ||
08/27/2004 11:04 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Sharia will not work in the US because frankly remedies under Shaira law are commonly known as torts and felonies, and by common law cannot be introduced or applied to the legal system of America. There is too much presumption of women's rights for sharia to even be in the US.
The left has some soul-searching to do: They can't embrace Mohammed, sharia and all that that entails without alientating their female constituency. Their ideology is at clear loggerheads with all that sharia entails.
#18
Let me be explicit about why I object to establishing ANY type of shariah courts in a Western country: Islamists maintain that the ONLY law a Muslim should obey is Shariah. They explicitly say that Western laws -- the "laws of man" as opposed to the "laws of God" -- are null and void as far as they're concerned. Giving them even the smallest recognition is a concession, and I do not believe we should concede ANY point.
I have no problem with Beth Din, because there doesn't seem to be a large movement among Jews that maintains Jews shouldn't be subject to secular laws. There certainly doesn't appear to be a violent movement along those lines.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/27/2004 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I dunno, this idea of introducing Sharia to Canada seems to me to be ill-advised. If these types like it so much, why aren't they residing in a place where Sharia is already being practiced?
#20
Are Native Americans in Canada entitled to their own legal codes?
Funny, I seem to recall here in the Northwest a couple of native americans beat the shait out of an (american) Pizza delivery man. And were able to be tried in tribal 'courts'. They were sentenced to 'exile' to a remote island in Alaska where they were (supposed) to be isolated.
I guess they were allowed to have friends visit. Their family would bring food and such. And they would often 'sneak' back onto the mainland for weeks at a time.
You won't be the only one. There's already a brain drain to the US from Canada. This is something the folks at Immigration and the Liberals are not taking into account.
This whole thing boils down to two problematic issues: a) women's rights, and more generally the rights of Muslims who do not want to follow Sharia b) the willingness of the Canadian governments to step in if Sharia law encroaches on, or supersedes Canadian law.
We all know the answer to a). I am more worried by part b). Given the state of things in Canada right now, it is not at all certain that anyone would rein in an out of control Sharia court.
Posted by: Rafael ||
08/27/2004 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Sorry Raf and Zara,
Would love to have you guys in the US because you want to become Americans. But I am opposed to granting asylum to those who have lost or fled their countries. Fight for your country or die. To do otherwise is to tell the world they can let the barbarians take over and Uncle Sam will take care of you. I will be more than happy to send weapons, provide sanctuary while rearming, and even soldiers for those who will fight for democracy, freedom, and their country. For those who flee, nothing.
Posted by: ed ||
08/27/2004 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#23
But I am opposed to granting asylum to those who have lost or fled their countries
How about for economic reasons? Sounds like you want to shut down immigration altogether. In that case, Pat Buchanan is your man :)
Posted by: Rafael ||
08/27/2004 12:50 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Given the state of things in Canada right now, it is not at all certain that anyone would rein in an out of control Sharia court.
the rights of Muslims who do not want to follow Sharia
Look at these two statements, and consider the state of gun control in Canada. It might be useful to settle things down if a couple of Totalitarian Wahabist Imams ended up ventilated with a couple of well placed bullets in the name of self-defense (honor Killing Attempts, etc.).
The Wahabi Imams there are probably the same as elsewhere. They preach a good game about 72 virgins, but they, themselves prefer a terrestrial lifestyle.
#25
I realize most people who immigrate to the US (legal and illegal) come first for the economic benefits. I accept that as long they work and contribute to the wealth and strength of the US. I don't support those who go on government assistance and sap the health of America.
I consider those who would rather flee tyranny than fight it as freeloaders. They give an easy victory to tyrants for a life of comfort in the west. But eventually the US will have to fight the countries they fled, sapping the wealth and lives of Americans.
Posted by: ed ||
08/27/2004 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Hmmmâ¦I agree â but only if they have no desire to become Muslim Americans - rather than just Muslims in America. They come here because our country provides them Western freedoms. If you want Sharia, go back and fight for your own country
Posted by: B ||
08/27/2004 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#27
That is because women's outgoings are less than men's as the man must always support every woman in his family, so it is fair he gets more," I was told by a chorus of female voices.
In Islam whatever money the husband has it is for the family. He has no right to deny it to his wife or children, even if he was a pauper and his wife a millionaire. On the other hand a wife may keep her money. Her husband has no right to touch, or to demand that she spend it on herself.
#28
I consider those who would rather flee tyranny than fight it as freeloaders.
Then I am one of those freeloaders, given your description. Problem is, I don't see any way in which for the past 20+ years I have taken more than I have contributed to my adopted country.
You have not considered something: why should I sacrifice my life if no one around me is willing to do the same? Maybe you do not place much value on your own life, but I certainly wish to live a long life, have a family, etc.
Secondly, you have no idea how much influence immigrants can have over their old country. Just because someone has fled does not mean that they stopped their battle against tyranny. For one, these people are an important source of information for their families still living in the old country. This is one fundamental method of fighting and debunking propaganda.
Granted, this doesn't happen in every case, and immigration policies need to be well thought out.
Posted by: Rafael ||
08/27/2004 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Relax Raphaelâ¦we are happy you are here. Legal immigrants are welcome here. What we donât want is people who come here and then refuse to pledge their allegiance to our laws. Weâd be pretty stupid to want that.
Posted by: B ||
08/27/2004 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#31
agreed, Raphael: make a difference where you're at and if you can improve things in the "old country", even better. Allegiance to your new chosen home is the important thing, otherwise you are an agent, not a citizen. From your comments, I'd welcome you as an American
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/27/2004 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#32
That is because women's outgoings are less than men's as the man must always support every woman in his family, so it is fair he gets more ," I was told by a chorus of female voices. In Islam whatever money the husband has it is for the family. He has no right to deny it to his wife or children, even if he was a pauper and his wife a millionaire. On the other hand a wife may keep her money. Her husband has no right to touch, or to demand that she spend it on herself.
Sounds like a good old fashioned Oklahoma divorce. :oD
#33
Immigration is a complex and touchy subject. People here bring up some good points and their concerns for the most part are valid:
make a difference where you're at
The good news is that immigration is a vetting process in itself. Some people expect to live like kings, become disillusioned rather quickly and return to whence they came. The ones that stay are usually hard working, skilled, and become prosperous.
I said usually because some new arrivals get hooked on various welfare programs and stay there for the rest of their lives.
But there is a worse form of immigrant yet: they stay, become relatively prosperous, but for various reasons they despise their adopted home and long for the old country and the tyrannical regime. This is the one that gets my blood boiling when I meet them personally.
if you can improve things in the "old country", even better
Depends on what you mean by improve. If this means being a source of information, humanitarian support, and an advocate of democracy, peace and freedom, then that's fine. If by improve you mean that uncle Zbigniew can drive a new BMW thanks to the donations he receives from his brother who lives in the west, then that's a whole different story. You have no idea how much money flows east from people who support their families in the old country. Money that could have been spent here. I have nothing against supporting an ailing grandma living on her own, but I know of cases where entire families are supported from money earned here. Again, this is a far more complex issue, but consider whether someone here should support an uncle that lost his arm fighting a holy war for a black turbaned holy cleric somewhere. This is not the sort of improvement that should be encouraged :)
Allegiance to your new chosen home is the important thing
Agreed. Speaking to a lot of recent arrivals here, and to some that have been here a long time....I sometimes wonder. People will say and agree to anything to get the passport, but in the same instance will crap on their new home without hesitation. Unbelievable.
OK, enough of this ranting...
Posted by: Rafael ||
08/27/2004 14:47 Comments ||
Top||
#34
Jules:
Moslem women are allowed the change from the male shaheeds pockets of death. The takings from the infidel washer and dryer are also allowable.
Posted by: Abu Soros ||
08/27/2004 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Who gets to look under the seat cushions of the couch, huh, Abu? Everybody knows this is the entrance to the parallel universe for valuables. Only socks go there via the dryer, pfeh.
#38
#s34-37-Thanks. I'm getting a whole new take on why Muslim women really support suicide bombings-no husband, no brothers, no uncles, no sons....hmmmm!
Knowing you are from Poland, I almost wrote you a follow up before your response. But I had to leave the office. Eastern Europe's subjugation was partly US fault. Though the western allies might have reached Berlin before the Russians, the dividing line was decided at Tehran and Potsdam. As I stated, it is imperative for the citizens to fight, and it imperative for the US to provide them the means. They are linked. It is stupid to expect men to fight tanks and airplanes with nothing. The Poles fought with what they had and were instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Empire. By agreeing to the division of Europe, the US sold out Eastern Europe. And yeah, Poland is one of the few countries in Europe whose bravery I respect.
I am directing my anger at those who easily gave up their counties and flee to the sheltering arms of the west. The US and other western countries makes it easier for these people since they know we will take them in. But in the long run, it is a losing propostion for the US since we take on the burden and costs of containing or fighting them.
Iran's regime gave up (Carter also did nothing to back the Shah) in the wake of religious protest and now 1 million Iranians have fled and live the the US. How many others live in Canada and Europe? That's bullshit. They had the weapons and soldiers, and upper and middle classes who knew what Khomemei was up to. They listened to his sermons. Instead they let a tyrant take over, oppress, pillage and ruin the country, and waste a million lives stupidly trusting in Allah instead of sound generalship. When they found their lives inconvenienced, instead of fighting to prevent or later overthrow the tyranny, they fled to the west. This has left the field wide open for the mullahs to attack the US and the west, now forcing the US to overthrow them. The butcher's bill to do this may require under a few hundred thousand dead, or it may require millions dead. Thanks a lot you cowardly fleeing Persian aholes.
Cuba's corrupt government was overthrown by a band of guerillas. The Now 20-30% of the Cuban population has fled to the US. Bullshit. If that many can risk their lives to flee, then they can risk their lives to fight for democracy in Cuba. If they don't want to, then they can go live in Haiti. Round them up, train them, and counter invade. There's no way a thug regime can survive if 10% of the population rises up and is supplied with weapons. But hey the Americans just to the north live a lot better and don't do that oppression thing man (Tommy Chong voice).
In the near future, refugees will be streaming out of Venezuela. Don't let them settle in the US. Organize and arm them to take back their country from Chavez and his Cuban and Muslim thugs. Same for the Philipines in 2 or 3 decades. Any people who allow (or desire) their country fall under fundamentalist Islam can either rot or fight to overthrow it. Just don't expect to come to the US and preach that crap.
So back to the original topic. If Canada falls, whose fault is it? What obligation do other countries have to take those who no longer want to live there? What will happen if America decides it is no longer worth fighting and falls. Who will be left to take us in? Looks like Americans don't have the option of quitting and fleeing.
Posted by: ed ||
08/27/2004 19:03 Comments ||
Top||
#41
TW - Jewish law of course does cover the entire range of civil law. AFAIK only a few Ultraorthodox jews will actually use a bet din in a normal business conflict.
B - Suicide is of course illegal in the US and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid. giving up your share of an inheritance is NOT illegal.
RC - there is a violent movement to establish full Jewish law in place of secular law (IE not JUST family law) - its called the Kahanists. However AFAIK they are only interested in doing this in Israel, they are a tiny minority compared to larger movements in the Islamic world, and most of their violence has been focused on other issues. So broadly you are correct, though a quibble could be made.
Certainly the general rule in the diaspora is "dina de malchuta dina" the law of the (gentile) state IS law - thus you cant as a general rule use a jewish law as the basis for violating a secular one. Ergo if I have a Jewish divorce, but NOT a civil one, and civil law REQUIRES a civil divorce, it would be improper to remarry. However this does NOT mean it would be wrong to lobby for civil law to be changed to acknowledge a Jewish divorce (as in the middle ages, when most jewish communities were legally autonomous - of course most jews DONT want to go back to the Jewish status of the middle ages)
#42
TW - Jewish law of course does cover the entire range of civil law. AFAIK only a few Ultraorthodox jews will actually use a bet din in a normal business conflict.
B - Suicide is of course illegal in the US and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid. giving up your share of an inheritance is NOT illegal.
RC - there is a violent movement to establish full Jewish law in place of secular law (IE not JUST family law) - its called the Kahanists. However AFAIK they are only interested in doing this in Israel, they are a tiny minority compared to larger movements in the Islamic world, and most of their violence has been focused on other issues. So broadly you are correct, though a quibble could be made.
Certainly the general rule in the diaspora is "dina de malchuta dina" the law of the (gentile) state IS law - thus you cant as a general rule use a jewish law as the basis for violating a secular one. Ergo if I have a Jewish divorce, but NOT a civil one, and civil law REQUIRES a civil divorce, it would be improper to remarry. However this does NOT mean it would be wrong to lobby for civil law to be changed to acknowledge a Jewish divorce (as in the middle ages, when most jewish communities were legally autonomous - of course most jews DONT want to go back to the Jewish status of the middle ages)
#43
TW - Jewish law of course does cover the entire range of civil law. AFAIK only a few Ultraorthodox jews will actually use a bet din in a normal business conflict.
B - Suicide is of course illegal in the US and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid. giving up your share of an inheritance is NOT illegal.
RC - there is a violent movement to establish full Jewish law in place of secular law (IE not JUST family law) - its called the Kahanists. However AFAIK they are only interested in doing this in Israel, they are a tiny minority compared to larger movements in the Islamic world, and most of their violence has been focused on other issues. So broadly you are correct, though a quibble could be made.
Certainly the general rule in the diaspora is "dina de malchuta dina" the law of the (gentile) state IS law - thus you cant as a general rule use a jewish law as the basis for violating a secular one. Ergo if I have a Jewish divorce, but NOT a civil one, and civil law REQUIRES a civil divorce, it would be improper to remarry. However this does NOT mean it would be wrong to lobby for civil law to be changed to acknowledge a Jewish divorce (as in the middle ages, when most jewish communities were legally autonomous - of course most jews DONT want to go back to the Jewish status of the middle ages)
#44
TW - Jewish law of course does cover the entire range of civil law. AFAIK only a few Ultraorthodox jews will actually use a bet din in a normal business conflict.
B - Suicide is of course illegal in the US and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid. giving up your share of an inheritance is NOT illegal.
RC - there is a violent movement to establish full Jewish law in place of secular law (IE not JUST family law) - its called the Kahanists. However AFAIK they are only interested in doing this in Israel, they are a tiny minority compared to larger movements in the Islamic world, and most of their violence has been focused on other issues. So broadly you are correct, though a quibble could be made.
Certainly the general rule in the diaspora is "dina de malchuta dina" the law of the (gentile) state IS law - thus you cant as a general rule use a jewish law as the basis for violating a secular one. Ergo if I have a Jewish divorce, but NOT a civil one, and civil law REQUIRES a civil divorce, it would be improper to remarry. However this does NOT mean it would be wrong to lobby for civil law to be changed to acknowledge a Jewish divorce (as in the middle ages, when most jewish communities were legally autonomous - of course most jews DONT want to go back to the Jewish status of the middle ages)
#45
TW - Jewish law of course does cover the entire range of civil law. AFAIK only a few Ultraorthodox jews will actually use a bet din in a normal business conflict.
B - Suicide is of course illegal in the US and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid. giving up your share of an inheritance is NOT illegal.
RC - there is a violent movement to establish full Jewish law in place of secular law (IE not JUST family law) - its called the Kahanists. However AFAIK they are only interested in doing this in Israel, they are a tiny minority compared to larger movements in the Islamic world, and most of their violence has been focused on other issues. So broadly you are correct, though a quibble could be made.
Certainly the general rule in the diaspora is "dina de malchuta dina" the law of the (gentile) state IS law - thus you cant as a general rule use a jewish law as the basis for violating a secular one. Ergo if I have a Jewish divorce, but NOT a civil one, and civil law REQUIRES a civil divorce, it would be improper to remarry. However this does NOT mean it would be wrong to lobby for civil law to be changed to acknowledge a Jewish divorce (as in the middle ages, when most jewish communities were legally autonomous - of course most jews DONT want to go back to the Jewish status of the middle ages)
#46
TW - Jewish law of course does cover the entire range of civil law. AFAIK only a few Ultraorthodox jews will actually use a bet din in a normal business conflict.
B - Suicide is of course illegal in the US and a contract to perform an illegal act is invalid. giving up your share of an inheritance is NOT illegal.
RC - there is a violent movement to establish full Jewish law in place of secular law (IE not JUST family law) - its called the Kahanists. However AFAIK they are only interested in doing this in Israel, they are a tiny minority compared to larger movements in the Islamic world, and most of their violence has been focused on other issues. So broadly you are correct, though a quibble could be made.
Certainly the general rule in the diaspora is "dina de malchuta dina" the law of the (gentile) state IS law - thus you cant as a general rule use a jewish law as the basis for violating a secular one. Ergo if I have a Jewish divorce, but NOT a civil one, and civil law REQUIRES a civil divorce, it would be improper to remarry. However this does NOT mean it would be wrong to lobby for civil law to be changed to acknowledge a Jewish divorce (as in the middle ages, when most jewish communities were legally autonomous - of course most jews DONT want to go back to the Jewish status of the middle ages)
#47
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Jewish Beit Din only has jurisdiction over religious matters, including religious marriage and divorce, but even then is subject to US/Canadian civil and criminal law
A jewish beit din, IIUC, has jurisdiction over any disputed matters covered by halacha (jewish law). Halacha covers the full range of civil matters, including torts, commercial transactions, etc. If two halacha observant jews have a dispute over a civil matter, it would be appropriate for them to go to a bet din to resolve it. I have only heard of this being done by Ultra orthodox Jews, and then im not sure how consistently. Of course you could do this without a formal arbitration agreement - you could just agree orally to follow the bet dins ruling, although in that case youd have problems if the other guy proved faithless and went to civil court after losing in the bet din.
You ARE correct that in general halacha requires acknowledgement of the authority of civil law. This is called "dina de malchuta dina" IE the law of the state IS law - the rabbis wanted Jews to live in peace with their gentile neighbors and didnt want them to violate civil law. Ergo lets say a jewish man enters a civil marriage with a gentile woman, and then without getting a civil divorce, wants to marry a jewish woman - he cant, even though halacha alone would allow it. On the other hand the principle is used only restrict someone, NOT to grant them rights they otherwise wouldnt have - eg just cause a jew has a civil divorce from the jewish spouse, doesnt allow them to remarry without a halachic divorce (though some REFORM rabbis said precisely that it did - one of the less learned things that even Reform rabbis have ever said :) )
Polygamy is forbidden to all ashkenazic jews since 1000 CE, per the decree of R. Gerson. Theres a ritual that allows one to forego the levirate marriage you describe.
#48
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Jewish Beit Din only has jurisdiction over religious matters, including religious marriage and divorce, but even then is subject to US/Canadian civil and criminal law
A jewish beit din, IIUC, has jurisdiction over any disputed matters covered by halacha (jewish law). Halacha covers the full range of civil matters, including torts, commercial transactions, etc. If two halacha observant jews have a dispute over a civil matter, it would be appropriate for them to go to a bet din to resolve it. I have only heard of this being done by Ultra orthodox Jews, and then im not sure how consistently. Of course you could do this without a formal arbitration agreement - you could just agree orally to follow the bet dins ruling, although in that case youd have problems if the other guy proved faithless and went to civil court after losing in the bet din.
You ARE correct that in general halacha requires acknowledgement of the authority of civil law. This is called "dina de malchuta dina" IE the law of the state IS law - the rabbis wanted Jews to live in peace with their gentile neighbors and didnt want them to violate civil law. Ergo lets say a jewish man enters a civil marriage with a gentile woman, and then without getting a civil divorce, wants to marry a jewish woman - he cant, even though halacha alone would allow it. On the other hand the principle is used only restrict someone, NOT to grant them rights they otherwise wouldnt have - eg just cause a jew has a civil divorce from the jewish spouse, doesnt allow them to remarry without a halachic divorce (though some REFORM rabbis said precisely that it did - one of the less learned things that even Reform rabbis have ever said :) )
Polygamy is forbidden to all ashkenazic jews since 1000 CE, per the decree of R. Gerson. Theres a ritual that allows one to forego the levirate marriage you describe.
(CNSNews.com) - Columnist Robert Novak has just interviewed a retired rear admiral who says he was in the same boat as John Kerry the morning of Dec. 2, 1968, when Kerry "nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher], then asked for a Purple Heart. According to Novak's column, retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr. "until now has refused to speak out publicly on this question." Schachte is quoted as saying he "didn't want to get involved" with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but he changed his mind after seeing his "credibility challenged" in the media. Democrats have said that Schachte was not on Kerry's boat that morning.
Kerry's folks shouldn't be attacking old admirals. They know where the skeletons are buried.
Posted by: ed ||
08/27/2004 9:39:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: ed ||
08/27/2004 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Kerry and Sadr seem to be under the same fading star. Only the frothing lunatics are willing to stand with them now
Posted by: B ||
08/27/2004 12:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Washington lawyer Lanny Davis has contended that Schachte was not aboard the Boston whaler, and the statement in "Unfit for Command" that he was aboard undermines that critical book's credibility.
Lanny Davis SHOULD know. In his past life, he was VC the flying dog!
#5
âWeâre going through!â The Commanderâs voice was like thin ice breaking. He wore his full-dress uniform, with the heavily braided white cap pulled down rakishly over one cold gray eye. âWe canât make it, sir. Itâs spoiling for a hurricane, if you ask me.â âIâm not asking you, Lieutenant Berg,â said the Commander. âThrow on the power lights! Rev her up to 8,500! Weâre going through!â The pounding of the cylinders increased: ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa. The Commander stared at the ice forming on the pilot window. He walked over and twisted a row of complicated dials. âSwitch on No. 8 auxiliary!â he shouted. âSwitch on No. 8 auxiliary!â repeated Lieutenant Berg. âFull strength in No. 3 turret!â shouted the Commander. âFull strength in No. 3 turret!â The crew, bending to their various tasks in the huge, hurtling eight-engined Navy hydroplane, looked at each other and grinned. âThe old man will get us through,â they said to one another. âThe Old Man ainât afraid of Hell!â...
Excerpt The Secret Life of Walter Mitty by James Thurber
From The New York Times, an opinion article by Richard Posner, judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School and the author of the forthcoming book Catastrophe: Risk and Response.
.... the 9/11 commission report is an uncommonly lucid, even riveting, narrative of the attacks, their background and the response to them. .... The prose is free from bureaucratese and, for a consensus statement, the report is remarkably forthright. Though there could not have been a single author, the style is uniform. The document is an improbable literary triumph. However, the commission's analysis and recommendations are unimpressive. ....
The participation of the relatives of the terrorists' victims (described in the report as the commission's ''partners'') lends an unserious note to the project (as does the relentless self-promotion of several of the members). One can feel for the families' loss, but being a victim's relative doesn't qualify a person to advise on how the disaster might have been prevented. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
08/27/2004 10:25:18 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mike, the judge knows what he is talking about. While the 9/11 Commission is overly political and the report is a nauseating exercise in 2nd guessing, the 9/11 event serves as a whetstone to hone our capabilities on. The exercise needed to happen but the country would have been better served is the grandstanding had been jettisoned.
One qualification, if it turns out later that TWA-800 was downed in a terrorist attack, as has been alleged, then the US needs to review the grandstanding that has gone on in the last several years against who knew that we had been attacked and yet still allowed us to get attacked again. The Gore Commission was set up after TWA- 800 to make recommendations to improve airline security. The recommendations were then watered down and implementation dates were removed for items that we have implemented since 9/11.
If TWA-800 was known to be a terrorist attack, then those that knew in Congress and the White House let us down.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/27/2004 22:59 Comments ||
Top||
Amid a heated election-year debate on intelligence reform, President Bush prepared to sign executive orders Friday strengthening the powers of the CIA director and establishing a new national counterterrorism center. The moves will "improve our ability to find, track and stop terrorists," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. One executive order will give the CIA director additional authority on an interim basis to perform many of the functions of a proposed national intelligence director who would oversee all 15 of the nation's intelligence agencies. Bush also will work with Congress to create the position of national intelligence director, McClellan said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/27/2004 12:17:35 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The 9/11 Commission made the reccomendation that the Gov set up some type of overseer for terror and to have one body control all terror intel. Am I right?
Well, somebody tell me what the Dept of Homeland Security's job is then. Bush ALREADY acted on the 9/11 Commish's reccommendations, and he did it within weeks of 9/11 and long before their 2004 findings. Or am I nuts?
Posted by: Chris W. ||
08/27/2004 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Chris. Homeland Security is more the 'enforcement' and/or 'defense' arm (you know, like the INS'es catch and release policy which defense us badly....).
This is Intelligence gathering analysis and SHARING.
#3
I agree with you, Chris. We have a CIA director's position. We have a chief of Homeland Security. The idea of appointing yet another highly paid bureaucrat suit to oversee both the afore-mentioned departments sounds suspiciously like GBW is "taking the path of least resistence" at the taxpayer's expense. If I am not mistaken, Rumsfeld himself was against the creation of a Terrorism Czar to oversee the CIA. The CIA's budget comes under Rumsfeld's wing, I believe, and I suspect Rumsfeld is seeing the Terrorism Czar and accompanying staff of pencil pushers as wasting funds that he could better use either at Defense or CIA. We know how great the Drug Czar worked in the past.
Also, to add another layer of reporting to a gov't bureaucracy that's already inefficient and too heavy is stupid. Consolidating gov't departments under Homeland Security did not make things more streamlined as far as I can see. It just created a new head honcho position.
Posted by: rex ||
08/27/2004 14:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm not saying that Bush was clairvoyant in creating Homeland Security and that it is necessarily serving all the needs as later addressed by the 9/11 commish, but it was certainly a proactive (ahem) move on his part to do what the commish ultimately decided was needed.
As far as intel sharing, CrazyFool, again I have to admit to being confused because HS dept is supposed to be the dept that gets contacted with terror intel coming in from all corners of the country. "Enforcement" already belongs to the courts, "defense" already belongs to the military, the cops, and the intelligence services, so the only thing left is an overseer, which is what I understood Ridge and co. to be.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
08/27/2004 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
A 36-year-old Yemeni on trial here for conspiracy to commit terrorism threw the military commission proceedings into confusion on Thursday by saying that he was a member of Al Qaeda and declaring that if he was not allowed to represent himself he would boycott the trial and, if forced to attend, would only sit silently in the courtroom.
"I done it, see! I done it and I'm proud of it!"
The defendant, Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al-Bahlul, who has been charged with being a top aide to Osama bin Laden, engaged, through translators, in a polite but aggressive 30-minute colloquy with the presiding officer in which he attacked the fairness of the process and demanded to serve as his own lawyer.
Col. Peter E. Brownback III, the presiding officer on the five-member commission panel, who seemed taken by surprise when told of Mr. Bahlul's request, first read aloud the rules drafted for the military commissions, which explicitly require a defendant to have a military lawyer. He then said: "So, the answer is that you may not represent yourself." A few minutes later, after Mr. Bahlul said, "You have ruled I cannot serve as my own lawyer," Colonel Brownback replied that he did not recall saying that. He then ruled that Mr. Bahlul's request would be forwarded to authorities in Washington.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
08/27/2004 12:34:58 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Unlike jurors in civilian court, military jurors follow the judges instructions and can be expected to follow the logic of the arguments not emotional appeals by counsel.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/27/2004 0:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Admitting to be a member of AQ should be life in prison or death by hanging. No trial required.
In an apparent reference to Syrian influence, the United States on Friday said Lebanon should be free of all foreign forces and stand by a constitutional provision that prevents a president from seeking a second term. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in a statement the United States "believes strongly that the best interests of Lebanon and Syria are served by a positive and constructive relationship based upon principles of mutual respect and non-intervention" between the two neighboring states. Syria has an estimated 20,000 troops in Lebanon and is the main political power broker in the country with many Lebanese recognizing that Syria determines who will be the country's president. McClellan said the Lebanese people should be free to decide the fate of their nation and its leadership "without pressure or interference from any outside party." McClellan said the United States noted recent statements by senior Lebanese religious, political and civil society leaders calling for respect of the Lebanese constitution. "The United States looks forward to elections in Lebanon that respect Lebanese institutions including Lebanon's existing constitution and that are free of any Syrian foreign interference," he said.
His statement seemed to be a response to reports earlier this week that Lebanese President Emile Lahoud is saying he wants another six-year term in office, provided parliament approves. He has three months remaining in his current term. The constitution bans consecutive terms in office. In addition, many Lebanese politicians, including Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and others allied with Syria, Lahoud's backer, oppose extending his mandate. In recent weeks Lebanese politicians have been streaming into the Syrian capital of Damascus for meetings with Syrian President Bashar Assad, who apparently was sounding out their views on the next president. Under the constitution, the 128-member parliament must hold a secret ballot to elect a new head of state. A precedent was set in 1995 when Lahoud's predecessor, Elias Hrawi, got an extra three years in office under a constitutional amendment — backed by Syria — that specified a one-time extension for Hrawi alone.
Washington has imposed sanctions on Damascus under the so-called Syria Accountability Act, which accuses Damascus of playing host to militant Palestinian groups and seeking biological and chemical weapons. The act calls on Syria to stop militants and weapons from crossing its border into Iraq and withdraw its estimated 20,000 troops from Lebanon. Syria denies pursuing weapons of mass destruction and says the long, porous border with Iraq makes it hard to stop infiltrators.
#1
Lebanon? what Lebanon? Greater Syria, methinks! U.S. State Dept. ne'er seen "official" Syrian maps?
_____Kinda like the '42 German maps that extended all the way to Stalingrad...
#2
At the same time âthere is a widespread perception that terrorism is equated with Islam,â he said at the formal opening of the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Counter-Terrorism.
hokay, prove that wrong, without resorting to ad-hominem attacks or victimhood rhetoric...
*crickets chirping*
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/27/2004 22:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Maybe Albar needs a Venn Diagram to assist him in his comprehension of which religions, ethnic groups and creeds are contributing to the set of all terrorists.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/27/2004 23:04 Comments ||
Top||
From The Los Angeles Times
Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan .... was placed in charge of the interrogation task force at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison .... By some accounts, he worked to exhaustion to keep up with the demands of the job. Inexperienced, untrained and overwhelmed, he eventually became part of the compound's problems, failing to read notices — posted on prison walls — on the legal rights of detainees, allegedly witnessing but not reporting abuses, and giving false statements to superiors. Now facing disciplinary action or possible criminal charges, Jordan has come to exemplify the situation at the prison where he worked — a place that investigative panels have since described as poorly run, understaffed and neglected, giving rise to conditions in which grotesque abuses of detainees took place. Much like Abu Ghraib, Jordan was not prepared for the job U.S. commanders in Iraq gave him, and would later come under fire for doing the wrong thing under difficult conditions. ....
He arrived at the overcrowded and understaffed prison outside Baghdad in September with what he later acknowledged was only a "passing familiarity" with his assigned tasks. .... Jordan turned to CIA agents working in the prison and became "fascinated" with them and their activities .... His direct supervisor acknowledged that it was a mistake that Jordan was ever placed in such a demanding position, according to a classified transcript. Army generals who have interviewed Jordan several times have recommended that he be reprimanded for poorly training his soldiers, failing to take full responsibility for his actions and not always telling the truth about what happened at Abu Ghraib.
Jordan has never spoken publicly about his work at Abu Ghraib. He has pleaded the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination when called to testify against other soldiers in pretrial hearings. He has not appeared in any of the prison abuse photographs made public. But he was there on the tiers where much of the abuse took place, records state. .... Many times, Jordan allegedly "lost his composure" and had guards strip the inmates, frighten them with dogs and, in the words of one of the investigative reports issued this week, created a more "chaotic situation." ....
Jordan's direct boss at Abu Ghraib, Col. Thomas M. Pappas, who also is recommended for administrative discipline, told investigators that Jordan was foisted upon him, at a time when the prison was growing crowded and pressure for more information was intense. "Lt. Col. Jordan was a loner who freelances between MP and MI, and I must admit that I failed in not reining him in," Pappas said in one of the sworn statements, suggesting that Jordan never understood the delineation of duties between military police and military intelligence soldiers. Sometimes, Pappas said, Jordan failed to report back to him when there were major disturbances in the prison. Jordan, in his sworn comments to investigators, countered that Pappas gave him too much authority and let him operate on his own without teaching him intelligence gathering. ....
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who ran the military police side of the detention operations, said she was surprised that Jordan was spending so much time in the lockup and not enough in the task force office making sure reports were processed, according to documents. .... [Capt. Donald J.] Reese [who ran the military police company] and others said Jordan's constant presence on the prison tiers signaled to them that their treatment of detainees was all right. Once, Reese said, he pointed out to Jordan that some of the detainees were being held naked for long periods. "That's an interrogation method that we use," Reese quoted Jordan as saying.
It was not, officials have since declared, except in the most severe circumstances when it was approved by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the commander of ground forces in Iraq. And yet, Reese said, guards had the understanding that "everything was approved by Lt. Col. Jordan." When questioned by investigators, Jordan insisted that he never saw any abuse at Abu Ghraib and would never have condoned it. He made those assertions in a number of interviews, sometimes after being told that others recalled things differently and being reminded that he was under oath. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
08/27/2004 11:43:06 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just as long as it wasn't one of our Steves . . .
Posted by: tibor ||
08/28/2004 1:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This is a story that would never seen the light of day in WWII but continues to have legs because of our "progressive" navel gazing post modern society.
If this is a WOT, wherein our survival hangs in the balance, who gives a flying leap what methods are used re: enemy POW's to save us from disaster?
Oh yes...tsk, tsk...I see the shaking of the judgemental heads...we are above this "primitive" sort of thing...or, if we do this to the enemy, then it puts our troops at risk if they are captured...tsk, tsk...cleaning of the monacyle ensues...
I wish the whistle blower had never done his good Christian thiny. I did not want to hear about the abuses of the Geneva Convention Act. Quite frankly, I could care less.
Here's the ultimate big loser in the WOT picture from my point of view. It's not Lt. Col. Steven Jordan who is trying to his best under the circumstances to save his fellow GI's. It's that sanctimonious affirmative action walrus, Janis Karpinski who is looking out for herself and not for you or me or soldiers in Iraq.
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who ran the military police side of the detention operations, said she was surprised that Jordan was spending so much time in the lockup and not enough in the task force office making sure reports were processed, according to documents
Karpinski is looking out for #1. Jordan has good intentions to fight the WOT.
Why engage in asymmetrial warfare if we are not ready for the challenge? If we are worried about what other thug-run UN hellholes think, I think we should stay isolationist.
Posted by: rex ||
08/28/2004 2:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Here's the ultimate big loser in the WOT picture from my point of view. It's not Lt. Col. Steven Jordan who is trying to his best under the circumstances to save his fellow GI's. It's that sanctimonious affirmative action walrus, Janis Karpinski who is looking out for herself and not for you or me or soldiers in Iraq.
I knew this article would get a comment like this. Badanov, your turn.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
08/28/2004 9:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I knew it was your post before I saw the byline, Mikey
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/28/2004 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
#5
We knew the blame would get lost along the looong "chain of command", but to use "loss of composure" as an excuse is too much.
#6
I saw the article and as soon as I did I just knew Sylwester posted the thing.
Here's the ultimate big loser in the WOT picture from my point of view. It's not Lt. Col. Steven Jordan who is trying to his best under the circumstances to save his fellow GI's. It's that sanctimonious affirmative action walrus, Janis Karpinski who is looking out for herself and not for you or me or soldiers in Iraq. I knew this article would get a comment like this. Badanov, your turn.
This is a lot more than just three or four times, but I will try to explain myself without using baby talk, Mikey. Maybe this time you'll get it.
In all the posts I have ever made about Gen. Karkinski, I have never, ever referred to her in any disparaging way. This officer is serving in a warzone and is a helluva lot more than I ever did in military service. I have never used any epithets, insults, or any term that could remotely be construed as disparaging or disrespectful to her either as an officer in the US Army or as a female. Ever. You got that this time, Mikey?
The only thing I have ever said was this officer lost control of her prison, lost control of her command in a war zone and for that she should have been relieved of command and there the matter should rest.
And I believe that to this point as well. Gen. Karpinski has shown herself in subsequent media references to be a disloyal officer and a loose cannon. Consider those disparaging terms for a female? They're not, but they are career enders for a military officer.
Gen. Karpinski, for the good of the service, should resign her commission or shut up until these matters are resolved.
A group of 78 Eritreans being deported home from Libya hijacked their plane yesterday and diverted it to Khartoum in Sudan, where they surrendered, UN and Sudanese officials said. A senior Sudanese official said the specially chartered plane had taken off from the Libyan town of Khufrah and was heading for the Eritrean capital Asmara when the deportees seized control. Libya had denied them refugee status and they wanted to seek asylum in Sudan rather than returning home, the official said, adding: "The United Nations is dealing with this."
Bet that causes all concerned to ooze confidence...
A UN official in Khartoum said representatives of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees were at a meeting on the case.
"More patè, Gaston?"
Jean-Marie Fakhouri, regional operations director of the UN refugee agency UNHCR, told reporters in Geneva that UN officials had been called to Khartoum airport. "At one o'clock Geneva time (1100 GMT), the Eritreans actually surrendered to the authorities," he said. The plane, which had no other passengers apart from the Eritreans, was surrounded by police on landing, he added. The Eritrean government could not be reached for comment. UNHCR recommends that even failed asylum seekers are not forcibly returned to the country on the Horn of Africa. Human rights groups say hundreds of Eritrean refugees and asylum seekers have been forcibly sent home, where many face torture and detention without charge or trial. In its latest report on Eritrea, Amnesty International said Malta had sent home about 230 Eritreans in 2002 who were detained on arrival. It said women, children and the elderly were reportedly released but the remaining deportees had been tortured and held without charge in secret military detention centers. Government regulations forbid young Eritreans from leaving the country.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/27/2004 9:44:12 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
AL-FASHER, Sudan (AP) - American civil rights activist the Rev. Jesse Jackson visited the conflict-torn region of Darfur on Friday, urging the Sudanese government and African rebels to end the crisis that has killed thousands of villagers and driven more than a million from their homes.Arriving in the provincial capital of North Darfur in an aircraft lent by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, Jackson said he wanted to "observe first hand what we have heard through testimony and what we have read."
"It is obvious there is a great humanitarian crisis," Jackson told The Associated Press after landing at an airport in the North Darfur capital of Al-Fasher, where he was met by a delegation of tribal leaders and officials."We call for collective action soon to stop the violence and open up the roads for relief and that requires a worldwide effort," said Jackson, who wore a black baseball cap bearing the logo "Unite.""Timing is of the essence as people are dying every day."
Meanwhile...
Jackson, who has appealed to Gadhafi to help solve the Darfur problem, was later briefed on the crisis by North Darfur governor Othman Mohammed Youssef at his Al-Fasher residence. "We agree that we have a problem in Darfur. There is suffering, there is displacement, it is all happening, but not at the levels which is reflected in international media," Youssef told Jackson during the briefing attended by senior local and military officials.
Translation: Mind your own business. Even here in Sudan we know how irrelevant YOU are, Shakedown. Now make like a banana and get the hell out of here!
Posted by: Chris W. ||
08/27/2004 4:16:29 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Don't these rebels know who I am?
YES THEY DO JESSE!
NOW GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE BEFORE YOU MAKE THINGS WORSE!
On 17 August, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan reported to the Security Council that the high rate of voter registration - more than 9.9m already enrolled - showed the political isolation of groups responsible for violence. What he did not mention was that the number registered already exceeds the estimated total of eligible voters for the whole country. Originally UN officials estimated there were 9.8m eligible adults, and as the percentage registered climbed ever higher, the Afghan government and US leaders loudly praised this as an achievement for democracy. When the total reached 9.9m UN officials in Kabul hastily upped the estimated total of voters to 10.5 million, arguing that, with no accurate census, the original figure could be up to a million out - due to the effects of war, civil strife and mass migration. But the figure is still increasing. UN Kabul spokesman Manoel de Almeida e Silva, said on 23 August that the total after registration was more than 10.35m, and data was expected to continue arriving for at least a couple of weeks.
Only a little arithmetic shows the figures are dubious. Only 42% of those registered are women. That means some 750,000 women are not registered. The shortfall of women means the only way the 10m-plus figure for registered voters can be accurate is if every single male in the country has registered - at least once. And that ignores an estimated one third of a million unregistered people in conflict-ridden parts of the south and south-east of Afghanistan. So it is painfully evident that the registration process has been seriously flawed. There are constant reports of individuals brandishing two or more voting cards, usually announcing they have acquired extra ones as an investment. One tale - unconfirmed - even has a woman claiming to have gained 40 voting cards by turning up repeatedly for registration with her identity concealed under an all-enveloping burqa. In the mujahideen-dominated Panjshir Valley, the number of cards issued is two and a half times the estimated number of voters. Mr de Almeida de Silva admitted there had been multiple registering, but argued that many countries had problems with first-time elections. The pity is that there obviously is much enthusiasm for elections among the population at large. But there needs to be rigorous examination of voter registration plus stringent controls at the 5,000 polling centres - otherwise an election which probably will be a genuine achievement for democracy could be marred by serious fraud.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
08/27/2004 6:10:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Thats why you use indeleble ink on their fingers once they vote. God some people get all excited about nothing. I gave up along time ago expecting muslims to be honest.
#2
This guy is ignorant of an important demographic reality in Pakistan & Afghanistan; the fact that there is a disproportionate number of males compared to females. I read about this phenomenom pre-911. I do not remember why it is, but there is like a 60-40 ratio of men to women in Pakistan & Afghanistan. Can anyone shed any light on why this is?
#4
From the CIA World FActbook:
Population: 28,513,677 (July 2004 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 44.7% (male 6,525,929; female 6,222,497)
15-64 years: 52.9% (male 7,733,707; female 7,346,226)
65 years and over: 2.4% (male 334,427; female 350,891) (2004 est.)
Median age: 17.5 years
Population growth rate: 4.92%
Males are 51.3% of the population in the 15-64 age group. I would have thought there would be fewer men since the wars the last 30 years have probably killed near 2 million (my guess). What is surprising is just how young and fast growing the population is.
Infanticide has always been prevalent in Asia, but now ultrasound and abortions have made getting rid of girls much easier. India and China both have a deficit of 50 million girls and a lot of frustrated men with no chance of marriage and families.
Posted by: ed ||
08/27/2004 10:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Vote early and vote often. Democracy at it's finest. These folks learn fast.
Posted by: Richard Daley ||
08/27/2004 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#6
India and China both have a deficit of 50 million girls and a lot of frustrated men with no chance of marriage and families.
#7
From Ed's figures, if we take 90% of the 15-64 group (to exclude the 15 - 17 year olds), and all of the over 64 group, we have approximately 14.2 million eligible voters. If 10.5 million register, that's excellent, that's ~75% of all potential voters.
I'm sorry, what was the UN's problem again?
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/27/2004 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Wow! De, you blew me out of the water! I admit defeat. I was wrong apparently. I could've swore I remember hearing about a high disproportionality of men to women in Afghanistan & Pakistan, though. The C.I.A. has been wrong before though (bombing of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, etc.)
#9
I also suspect that the number of refugees *returning* to Afghanistan is grossly underestimated. What count will you get from Iran? Tajikistan? Turkmenistan? Even China? The massive exodus during the Russian invasion and the Taliban murderocracy must have been huge. On a final note, I bet the only refugees noted were Pushtuns returning from Pakistan to the south.
Four people including a boy were killed in armed clashes between the Mahar and Almani tribes on Thursday. The two tribes are in bad blood since Shaista Almani and Balkh Sher Mahar married of their own free will. The dead were identified as Jaffer Mahar, Bux Mahar, the cousin of former chief minister Ali Muhammad Khan Mahar and Muhammad Murad Mahar. The clashes also claimed an eight-year-old boy's life.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
08/27/2004 1:52:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
These stupid clowns will not allow themselves to brought into the 21st century regardless of what anyone does. The government had to hide these two. Speaks tons for them.
#2
These stupid clowns will not allow themselves to brought into the 21st century regardless of what anyone does
And Pakistan is more "Westernized" than Afghanistan and Iraq.
But, hey, no worries. I'm told that once there are free elections throughout the world, democracy will work its magic spell and tribal loyalties will vanish. I can hardly wait for the magic happen.
Posted by: rex ||
08/27/2004 3:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Rex,the Hatfield/McCoy fued lasted generations.That didn't stop American democracy.
EFL
"Pakistan is in fact a country for the Muslims of the subcontinent. Therefore, it is incomplete without Kashmir. Pakistan is also incomplete without Hyderabad, Junagar and Munabao because these states had announced accession with Pakistan but the Hindus subjugated them. That is why, it is our duty to free these states from the Hindus' subjugation and assure their Muslim population that they will become part of Pakistan. This is our agenda of Pakistan's completion. We will continue to propagate it in India through speech and writing and take theses states back through jihad," says Hafiz Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba in an interview with the weekly magazine Nida-e-Millat [the voice of the nation; Aug 18, 2004].
When the former primer minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited Lahore in 1999, he made a special trip to Minar-e-Pakistan and acknowledged Pakistan as an independent and sovereign state. But Saeed is hell-bent to challenge that. "India has not reconciled with Pakistan's sovereignty. We cannot change the Hindu mindset by changing our policies, however, we are alienating Kashmiris and adding insult to their injury. We should be committed to our Kashmir cause. There is no need of friendship with India. First of all, the issue of Kashmir and water should be resolved. India is trying to make Pakistan infertile by blocking its water. If India is sincere with Pakistan, it should stop constructing dam on Pakistan's water and give Kashmiris freedom." The veteran jihadi Gulbadin Hekmatyar told this correspondent in an interview that Kashmir was a political issue that could not have been resolved through jihad. But Saeed challenges him too. "I am very much satisfied with the pace of Kashmir jihad. Kashmiris will win their freedom struggle. They will never live with India. The policies of Pakistan are causing them a great damage. If Pakistan ignores the US pressures and fully supports the Kashmiris, India will not be able to keep its forces in Kashmir for a longer period. It will be condemned to withdraw."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
08/27/2004 1:50:11 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Captured Al Qaeda suspects have consistently named a Libyan, Abu Faraj Farj, as the man who gave them instructions for attacks, including two attempts to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf late last year, two senior intelligence officials said Thursday. The suspects also say they believe the Libyan is in direct contact with Bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman Zawahiri, said the intelligence sources, who spoke on condition that they not be named.
Farj, also known as Abu Faraj Libbi and Dr. Taufeeq, also has been based in the Pushtun tribal areas of South Waziristan, on Pakistan's northwestern border with Afghanistan, the intelligence sources said. "According to our information, he's the Mr. Big person in charge of operations in the tribal areas," one of the intelligence officials said.
"We feel he has been a mastermind, and a direct link between Al Qaeda and Pakistani elements, which are an extension of Al Qaeda, and which are responsible for the assassination attempts on President Musharraf," he said. It is possible that Farj "may have slipped out of this region altogether, or he may have gone deep underground," one of the officials added.
"Dunno what happened, Mahmoud, we had 'em surrounded, and then poof! they wuz gone!"
With a UN sanctions deadline looming, an international human rights group on Thursday charged that the Sudanese government army was sharing at least five camps with Janjaweed militia blamed for massive ethnic cleansing in western Sudan.
Boy howdy, these HRW guys are really good, they're only six months behind Rantburg.
Not much gets by those guys, by Gum!
The New York-based Human Rights Watch said the five camps were among 16 Janjaweed militia camps identified through its investigators in West and North Darfur. The United Nations has set a deadline of Monday for Khartoum to comply with its promises to disarm the militia.
Or else they'll get another deadline, and what will they do then, hah? Hah? Riddle me that!
The conflict has left at least 30,000 people dead and displaced about 1 million people. Human Rights Watch called for the UN to impose sanctions on the Sudanese government for its "failure to disarm and neutralize the Janjaweed militia" as it has promised. "The existence of these Janjaweed camps shows clearly tha Khartoum is not at all serious about ending atrocities and providing security," said Peter Takirambudde, executive director of the Africa division of Human Rights Watch. "The fact that there are still armed camps filled with killers terrorizing civilians in Darfur makes it impossible for people to go home."
#2
Human Rights Watch called for the UN to impose sanctions on the Sudanese government for its âfailure to disarm and neutralize the Janjaweed militiaâ as it has promised.
Kongo's thin, wiry body is an emblem of his rebel cause. His left eye, hidden behind fake Ray-Bans, is a dark, puffy recess - the entry point of a bullet during a battle against Sudanese troops. The bullet came out his now-disfigured jaw. His neck is weighed down by strings of amulets in leather boxes that hold pieces of the Quran, Islam's holy book. They divert bullets, he said confidently - despite the evidence to the contrary. His black boots and camouflage fatigues were stolen from a dead government soldier. "The only language they understand is the gun," he said of his Arab enemy.
SOUTH African officials have had "very limited access" to two South African men being held in Pakistan on suspicion of being al-Qaeda operatives, but it has been confirmed that they were in the company of the terrorist organisation at the time of their arrest, Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils said yesterday. Earlier this month government struck out at the media for the way in which the arrest of Feroz Abu Bakar Ganchi, a doctor, and Zubair Ismail, a student, was reported in the domestic press. It was described as being dangerous and irresponsible to report that South African sites could be targets for attack.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
08/27/2004 12:30:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Nqakula stressed that SA could not be immune from global terrorism, but said that government was geared towards creating the necessary conditions that would reduce the threat of terrorism and other crimes in SA."
They imagine they can reduce the threat of terrorism by slowly but surely nurturing and encouraging a climate of rabid anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment.
Nelson Mandela was on the guest list when left-wing Israeli Labour politician Shimon Peres recently celebrated his eightieth birthday. Mandela inexplicably failed to make an appearance. The reason, however, is evident: his advisers must have told him that it wouldn't do to be seen siding with the Israelis - even those on the left of the political spectrum.
#2
The recent revelations that South Africans have been involved in international Islamic terrorism come as no shock to me. South Africa is the most lawless country in the world. They have the highest crime rate in the world. South Africa's black community is also amongst the most anti-Semitic, anti-American & anti-capitalist communities in the world. Since the end of Apartheid criminals representing organized crime from all over the world have moved to South Africa. South African "mules" regularly swallow drugs before commercial flights out of Colombia. Al-Qaida could really prey on such a situation. I can see them recruiting poor blacks as well as buying arms & laundering money in South Africa. And of course we all heard about the recent situation with the South African passports. Another enterprise that could benefit Al-Qaida in South Africa could be counterfeit U.S. currency. I would imagine with their crime problems there is a domestic counterfeit industry which counterfeits U.S. currency. Also, the South African criminals that are involved with drug trafficking from Colombia probably also bring back counterfeit U.S. currency, which is another criminal enterprise that Colombians have perfected, but which isn't known to many outside Colombian organized crime. These are all great ways that Al-Qaida could use to further its Jihad.
Surprise meter: don't bother.
Sudan is ignoring a looming UN deadline to rein in Arab militia accused of months of atrocities in the bloodied Darfur region, a top Sudanese official asserted Thursday, saying his country will work in the interest of its people unswayed by international pressure. "We aren't bothered by the UN deadline at all. It never crossed our mind. We are working towards our duties for our Master Race people," said Sudan's Agriculture Minister Majzoub al-Khalifa Ahmad, lead government negotiator at peace talks with Darfur rebels in the Nigerian capital, Abuja. The mostly-Arab Janjaweed are accused of attacking ethnic African villagers in what the US Congress and some aid groups call genocide. The government, accused of supporting the Janjaweed, only admit to having some "control" over them.
No source, Em!
Yikes! It was Aftenposten, I swear...now not there. Found a Xinhua article that is essentially the same. Bottom line, still sucks to be in Darfur.
#5
Does anyone know anything more about the S.L.A.? Do they have any Western educated leaders? Are they anti-American? I'm sure they support us now, but what about after the Janjaweed are gone? Are they Christians? Are they corrupt? Should we support them covertly with arms, money, equipment, more of those inspirational tapes of girls singing? I wanna get my hands on one of those tapes...We need tapes like that for our Marines in Fallujah & Najaf. We should have some hot porno stars make tapes telling our soldiers how they'll get laid (in explicit detail) when they get home if they just kill all their enemies real fast. But really, we should look into helping the S.L.A. I'm sure they already thought about that and apparently they're too rag-tag to support. We oughtta train them then...
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.
