KHARTOUM - Sudan said on Monday it was ready to withdraw its bid to head the African Union and avoid a division over its appointment that could sink Darfur peace talks and which critics say could damage Africa's credibility.
"We do not want to make any division in order to achieve an objective, so if that means that Sudan should withdraw, we will withdraw," Sudan's presidential adviser on foreign affairs, Mustafa Osman Ismail, told Reuters.
Stench was too much even for you, eh?
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/24/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
The African Union on Tuesday chose Congo Republic as a compromise to chair the organization after opposition to Sudan because of fears its human rights record could hurt the continent's credibility.
Good idea. You can much better preserve Africa's credibility by dumping the guys committing genocide in Darfur and replacing them with the guys that ate the pygmies.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/24/2006 12:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You can much better preserve Africa's credibility by dumping the guys committing genocide in Darfur and replacing them with the guys that ate the pygmies.
Fred, that was harsh. True, and very pertinent to understanding the character of the entire Sub-Sahara, but really harsh. You must be a Mars, not a Venus. ;-)
#3
wait a minute. Congo Republic, not Democratic Rep of Congo of the Congo. IOW NOT the guys who ate the pygmies, I think. Congo Brazzaville, not Congo Leopoldville, as we used to say when it was still PC to honor imperialists.
Kuwait's cabinet on Tuesday unanimously nominated Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah as new emir of the Gulf Arab oil producer, Justice Minister Ahmad Baqer said. Baqer told Reuters an official letter with the nomination will be sent to parliament on Wednesday. If confirmed by parliament, Sheikh Sabah, who has been de facto ruler of Kuwait for the past four years, will officially replace ailing emir Sheikh Saad al-Abdulla al-Sabah who was voted out unanimously by parliament on health grounds earlier in the day.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/24/2006 11:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh, goody -- a ruler actually capable of mental function. That will be helpful.
Kuwait's ailing amir, Shaikh Saad al-Abdullah al-Sabah, has agreed to abdicate following an understanding within the ruling family. The abdication paves the way for the prime minister and longtime de facto ruler, Shaikh Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah, to become the country's new amir, and ends an unprecedented public quarrel inside the ruling family. "An agreement has been reached in the family and he will sign the abdication papers tomorrow," parliamentarian Nasser al-Saneh told The Associated Press.
He said the two struggling camps of the family met on Monday evening in order to reach a compromise before a parliament session on Tuesday that was to debate cabinet demands that the ailing new amir be ousted in favour of Shaikh Sabah. "The emir, Shaikh Saad, will step down tomorrow," one source in the ruling family circle told Reuters. "There is a settlement, 100 percent." A swearing-in ceremony for Shaikh Saad had been planned for Tuesday evening. It was not yet known when Shaikh Sabah would take the oath as amir.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/24/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
--unprecedented public quarrel inside the ruling family--
A little sunlight and disinfectant never hurt anyone.
EFL
Fidel Castro accused the United States of seeking to rupture the minimum remaining diplomatic ties with his country, addressing tens of thousands of Cubans before starting a march outside the American mission here on Tuesday. from his walker....
"The rude provocations that have been undertaken from its Interests Office in Havana does not, and could not, have any other goal," Castro said from a podium before the sea of cheering people stretching out along Havana's Malecon coastal highway ahead of the government-organized march. provocations= human rights messages
"Bush: fascist! Condemn the terrorist!" the marchers chanted, most of them waving little red, white and blue Cuban flags and signs equating U.S. President George W. Bush with Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles, whom Castro accuses of a series of violent actions against the island. "Cuba will triumph!" they shouted. Among those Castro greeted before his speech was former Nicaraguan president and Sandinista Party leader Daniel Ortega. "Viva Sandinistas! Like my glasses? Bianca Jagger does!"
Castro called the march to protest recent U.S. actions aimed at Cuba, including new electronic signs activated a week ago along the mission's facade to broadcast human rights messages. The U.S. Interests Section in Havana handles consular affairs in the absence of full diplomatic relations. Bwahahaha Condi/Bolton message sent and received
The Cuban leader also accused the Bush administration of working with Cuban exiles in Miami to violate migration accords between the two countries, to block the legally permitted sales of American food to the island and of violating Cuba's independence with a post-Castro transition plan authorities here say is a thinly veiled attempt at regime change. Hokay
"The government of President Bush knows very well that no government in the world can accept such a perverse insult to its dignity and sovereignty," Castro said. dignity? Get that mole taken off your forehead - it looks like a fly....
The mission a week ago turned on signs with streaming text of news and sayings from Martin Luther King Jr. and excerpts from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Cuba is a signatory. The signs were activated as Castro began speaking Tuesday morning. I can see why he feels provoked. Good thing it didn't quote the bible, magna carta, U.S. Declaration of Independence, or anything by Lincoln
"It's nonsense!" Carla Smith, a 61-year-old lawyer among those marching, said of the signs. "Within a few days, we'll have forgotten all about them."
The signs on the oceanfront building are the latest salvo in an ongoing billboard war between the two countries.
Cuba more than a year ago erected signs outside the mission with photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners and a huge swastika with a "Made in the U.S.A." stamp.
The signs were switched out on Monday for new ones equating Bush with Posada and Adolf Hitler.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/24/2006 16:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Raising Castro's blood pressure -- worth every penny.
The Bush administration is preparing to reverse course on cooperating with China in the area of space technology. Pentagon officials tell us the new policy is being readied for the upcoming visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao. President Bush, through the White House National Security Council, wants to adopt a Chinese proposal that calls for joint U.S.-China space rescue operations, in case something goes wrong during a U.S. or Chinese manned spaceflight. Seems fine as long as it is not a tech transfer or even capabilities disclosure
The idea appears harmless on the surface, but some in the Pentagon fear the Chinese, as they have done in the past, will use the cooperation to boost their military space and missile programs. For more than a decade, the U.S. government has banned cooperation with China in space matters because of concerns about China's human rights abuses and its growing missile and anti-satellite weapons capabilities.
During the 1990s, lax controls by the administration of President Clinton led to the loss of extremely sensitive rocket technology from two U.S. companies, Loral and Hughes. As a result, China used the rocket technology to improve its long-range missiles. that money from the monks or millions sent to the "library" had nothing to do with it
Both companies were fined for the improper control of technology. not enough should have fined them 2X's what they were paid yeah gross, greed only works when their is a profit margin
Mr. Bush is said to support the idea, but also may not know about the concerns of national security officials and others who do not want the program to boost China's missiles or space arms. What Rumsfield, Rice, Cheney quit? He knows you can garantee that
The latest space proposal calls for standardizing the size of docking modules and is said to have the backing of acting National Security Council director for Asia Dennis Wilder, a target of conservatives who say he ignored Pentagon concerns about China's potential use of U.S. space technology for weapons. Standardization is good never know when those aliens or space rocks may show up
Mr. Hu will visit the United States in the next few months. He postponed a visit in September because of Hurricane Katrina.
A Pentagon report on China's military published last year stated that "China is working on, and plans to field, [anti-satellite] systems." "China is also conducting research to develop ground-based laser ASAT weapons," the report said. The good part is if it works its cheaper than Tiawan, well assuming this is not the down payment
#3
a5089, not everyone remembers to take into account issues accruing from differences between the Julian and Gregorian calendars, not to mention the Hebrew and Mayan systems and the occasional lost counts during the various Chinese interregna. Under the circumstances, getting calculations to agree within the same half century is pretty impressive. ;-)
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
01/24/2006 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The only bone we throw China's way should be a cruise missile wrench into the gears at Kargh Island when Iran finishes begging for an @ss-whupping.
If compatible space docking mechanisms include sharing ultra-high vacuum seal technology, there is no way this should be handed off to the communists. China in space is a military nightmare.
A group of 14 suspected Islamist militants charged with planning attacks were inspired by radical political Islam and the words of al Qaeda, Dutch prosecutors said today, as they summed up their case.
The trial is a test of a new Dutch law, which introduced the charge of ''membership of a criminal organisation with terrorist intent'' carrying a maximum sentence of 15 years in 2004 after acquittals in several other high profile cases.
The men, mostly of Moroccan origin, were arrested after the November 2 2004 murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh which stoked tensions with the 1 million Muslims living in the Netherlands.
''The men were part of an organisation which planned criminal acts,'' prosecutor Koos Plooy told a packed high-security court on the outskirts of Amsterdam.
Prosecutors said Mohammed Bouyeri, who is serving a life sentence for shooting and stabbing Van Gogh, was the ringleader of what was dubbed the ''Hofstad group'' by Dutch media.
They were inspired by ''radical political Islam'', and a ''belief driving them to instil fear of concrete attacks or to threaten with attacks,'' Plooy said.
''(It was) a belief driving them to spread hatred ... A belief inspired by al Qaeda writers and theorists, pushing them to do whatever they could,'' he said.
Nine of the suspects sat in court, including Bouyeri with a red and white headscarf covering his head, some of them listening to proceedings through interpreters.
The trial has been underway for several months, during which prosecutors brought in witnesses and presented other evidence to back up their allegations against the Hofstad group.
However, defence lawyers have said there is no concrete evidence against their clients. Prosecutors are due to state what sentences they want and to sum up evidence on Wednesday.
WITCH HUNT ''We have still not heard anything about proof,'' Britta Boehler, one of the defence lawyers said, adding she expected an acquittal.
In a recent interview with a Dutch daily, defence lawyer Victor Koppe said: ''The Hofstad trial is only being carried out in this way as it is about Muslims. This is a variation on the classical witch hunt.'' Five of the suspects have been released since the start of the trial on December 5 as it became clear there was not enough evidence against them to justify sentencing them for longer than the time they had already spent in temporary custody.
Two of the suspects, Ismael Akhnikh and Jason Walters, also seen as core Hofstad group members, face charges of attempting to kill police officers who were wounded when they hurled a hand grenade at them when they tried to arrest the men in a November 10, 2004 siege in The Hague.
They are also charged with threatening right-wing politician Geert Wilders and Somali-born parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali who worked with Van Gogh on his movie Submission about violence against women in Islamic societies.
Another, suspect Nouriddin El Fatmi was arrested carrying a loaded pistol, two cartridge holders and a box of ammunition while charges against another were dropped for lack of evidence.
The court is set to hand down its verdict on March 10.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
01/24/2006 00:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
One of the hardest decisions a president of the United States is obligated to make is that of going to war. It is a decision, however, that pales in comparison to the degree of difficulty in making peace when one's enemy remains unvanquished. With the release of Osama bin Laden's latest media communiqué offering a truce to the US, President Bush must decide whether to stick to the moribund old cliché "we don't negotiate with terrorists," or whether he should use this as a potential opportunity to redirect global politics along a path that serves US national interests.
It's a high bar to convince us that we should negotiate with Binny.
Truth be told, almost all nation-states, including our own, have negotiated with terrorists. Israel's tough old soldier Yitzhak Rabin buried the hatchet with Yasser Arafat, and thus engendered a peace process that, despite many fits and starts, has steadily moved toward the creation of an independent and democratic Palestinian state.
Not a good example to use. The 'roadmap' is roadkill, and it's been Sharon, not Rabin, that's moved to make peace even barely possible by giving the Paleos the responsibility of what they've asked for: a state. With really high walls. Now the Paleos are going to demand something from their leaders that heretofore has been utterly foreign: accountability.
A vocal minority called Rabin soft on terrorism, but most Israelis understood he was acting in the country's best interests. President Reagan was credited for negotiating the release of American hostages with Iran, the leading state-sponsor of terror in modern times.
As I recall, Reagan's negotiating line was along the lines of "you'd better make a deal with President Carter, because it's the best deal you'll get." If only Ronnie had remembered this instead of sending Ollie to Teheran with a cake.
Under Reagan and the first President Bush, Iraq was removed from the State Department's list of terror sponsors in order to enable diplomatic engagement. When diplomacy failed and Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Mr. Bush adroitly marshaled the finest international coalition ever to be assembled. He lost the next US presidential election, but not because of his policies toward Iraq. Recently, Indonesia and Britain have made peace with Aceh and IRA terrorists respectively, and the US has come to terms with Libya's terrorist-sponsoring leader Muammar Qaddafi. Despite the tired public rhetoric of denial, negotiating with terrorists is the norm in international affairs.
So is surrendering to them, as Europeans have demonstrated with their many deals. That doesn't make it a good idea for us.
Regrettably, even though we continue to eliminate Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and other locales, due in part to the collateral damage these strikes produce, there seems to be no shortage of enraged Muslims to take their place.
There's never a shortage of seethe in the world. I've always gone long in seethe futures which is why I have more money than Bill Gates.
Indeed, the US invasion of Iraq has been judged by many experts as the premier recruiting tool for the global jihadist movement. Simply put, there are more anti-US Muslims willing to use terror to strike at us today than there were on Sept. 11, 2001.
And fewer anti-US Muslims who have succeeded in killing Americans than on 9/11. They can be willing all they want as long as they're impotent. The real issue is how to demonstrate to them that the best way to get rid of the Great Satan is to put down their rifle and pick up a book on computer programming.
If our goal is to reverse this trend, the question is simple: Are we better off negotiating with Mr. bin Laden? If we can capture or kill him, certainly the US can rightfully claim justice has been served against the perpetrators of 9/11. Because revenge is the sweetest of our dark sweet dreams, bin Laden's demise will bring no small degree of personal satisfaction to many people. But if we kill him with a well-aimed smart bomb, or if he remains in hiding as a living symbol of a growing anti-US resistance in the Muslim world, will the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan lay down their arms?
Of course not, and we've never said otherwise.
Leading US government officials have said time and again that bin Laden's death or capture will not engender these results. Thus, if our wisest men have decided that our present policy toward bin Laden will not help reduce the threat of terrorism, what might help? Does our yearning for revenge outweigh the potential value we might gain by negotiating with bin Laden?
Let me think about that a moment. ... um ... hell yeah. Especially since you still haven't explained the value of 'negotiating' with a man who has killed over 3,000 of our citizens, and would like to up that by an order of magnitude or two. Frankly, pal, it's up to you to make the case, and all you've done to this point is berate the rest of us for not being as smart as you.
If our goal is to roll back terrorism and reduce its global appeal, sooner or later we are going to have to deal directly with terrorists. Even if such negotiations fail, history has shown that a silver lining is often found. In Colombia, the Pastrana administration pursued peace with FARC terrorists only to find that they were false partners. FARC's duplicity revealed to the Colombian people that a military response was necessary, and this energized the Colombian government to legitimately escalate the war.
In that case we're all set because most everyone with any common sense -- this excludes the Looney Left, of course -- understands that al-Qaeda is the most false of false partners. Anyone wonder how long we'd need to demonstrate Zarqawi to be a 'false partner' more interested in grotesque murder than peace? Anyone question the commitment of Zawahiri to killing crusaders and infidels (not himself, you understand, his chubby, lamb-grease stained fingers are busy at the moment, but he'll send someone)? Any doubts as to how long we'd have to 'negotiate' with Binny before he showed his true nature?
Of course not. Insight can take years or it can be gained in an instant. Mine came right about the moment the second plane hit the WTC. When are you going to get your brilliant flash?
The same might be true by now engaging with bin Laden. I very much doubt that his offer to negotiate is genuine, but if we cannot make a deal that is acceptable, President Bush can show the world that bin Laden is a bogus partner, thus undermining his undeniable legitimacy in parts of the Muslim world.
In the meantime, Binny and his boys will use the time -- they call it a 'hudna', a word you should learn with its true meaning -- to rebuild, regroup and rethink how they're going to kill infidels. It seems to me, a mere red-state stoop with nowhere near your insight, that such a hudna would make it tougher for us later on to find and kill al-Qaeda. Since Binny's call is a clear admission that al-Qaeda is losing, why not keep the pressure on?
In the all important battle for global public opinion, the US might be able to use this opportunity to reverse some of the decline we have suffered in Iraq.
The Iraqis have a constitution and very soon, a seated, representative, elected government. The Sunnis are ratting out the terrs, the Shi'a are putting a lid on their crazies, and the Kurds are making money and sipping sweet tea. The Afghans have a government and are back to their traditional ways. They understand what we've done, even if the 'elites' of Western Europe and blue-state America can't figure it out.
Ultimately, if negotiations fail, CIA Predator drones and elite military units can again be sent on search and destroy missions against Al Qaeda. By calling to the table bin Laden's truce offer, we do not give up the military option; however, if we play this right, even if negotiations fail, we may have more to gain than to lose by exploring peace.
And in the meantime, we look weak and lose face in the Arab world. We would no longer ride the 'strong horse', we'd be breaking our word to a good many families across our country, and we'd cause our true friends in the world to wonder if we've gone daft.
Douglas A. Borer, an associate professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., is the author of "Superpowers Defeated: Vietnam and Afghanistan Compared."
Don't quit your day job, Doug.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
01/24/2006 00:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
WTF is he talking about, Bin Laden will only begin to negotiate a permanent peace with the USA atfer all the citizens convert sharia islamic law...................................................... and I am not converting.
#3
First of all, the only "truce" Binny offered was in Muslim lands (if we left), not in the US. Seond, in many of the case he cites, the terrorists were the ones who caved (e.g., Libya) thus proving that keeping up the pressure works.
Third, this line of "thought": if we cannot make a deal that is acceptable, President Bush can show the world that bin Laden is a bogus partner, thus undermining his undeniable legitimacy in parts of the Muslim world is a complete load of crap since Muslims would always blame the US for any failure. This idiot should get out into the real world more often.
Putting aside the strategic and moral issues of a superpower treating with a band of terrorists, his advice is not practical. He does not explain how we will conduct the negotiations. What embassy? What's the agenda? Al Queda objects to our very existence. Few of us, besides the self hating Left, want to negotiate that away.
Historically, when others have negotiated with "terrorists" successfully, it is due the terrorists morphing into a political party like the ANC in South Africa.
#6
If our goal is to roll back terrorism and reduce its global appeal, sooner or later we are going to have to deal directly with terrorists. Even if such negotiations fail, history has shown that a silver lining is often found.
From my vantage point, it would appear that the vast majority of our successes that have stood the test of time, have come from demanding and then acheiving unconditional surrender...and then extending the olive branch...not the other way around.
#7
Israel's tough old soldier Yitzhak Rabin buried the hatchet with Yasser Arafat, and thus engendered a peace process that, despite many fits and starts, has steadily moved toward the creation of an independent and democratic Palestinian state.
Putting aside the idea of an "independent and democratic Palestinian state", what did all that negotiation between Rabin and Arafart do for Israel? Did it result in a permanent solution? Did terrorism stop?
Negotiating with terrorist thugs like bin Laden or Arafart is a fool's errand; their only interest is buying time for themselves and their allies. Negotiating with terrorism only asks for more of it.
The White House opened a weeklong media blitz Monday in defense of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping program, with President Bush saying he found it "amazing" to be accused of breaking the law by ordering a secret program to intercept international calls and e-mail messages.
As Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sat beside him, Mr. Bush asked a friendly audience of students here at Kansas State University and members of the military from Fort Riley, "If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?"
Mr. Bush's remarks came hours after Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the nation's second-ranking intelligence official, laid out new operational details about the program at a speech in Washington, including the destruction of "accidental" interceptions and the security agency's line of command in approving wiretaps without warrants.
But General Hayden, who led the security agency at the time of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and has been Mr. Bush's point man on the eavesdropping program, refused to say in the face of often sharp questioning exactly how the agency determined that an American's phone call or e-mail message might "involve Al Qaeda" before eavesdropping on it.
"Clearly not every lead pans out from this or any other source," the general said, "but this program has given us information that we would not otherwise have been able to get. It's impossible for me to talk about this any more in a public way without alerting our enemies to our tactics or what we have learned. I can't give details without increasing the danger to Americans. On one level, believe me, I wish that I could. But I can't."
General Hayden's presentation, at an hourlong speech and question-and-answer session at the National Press Club that drew a few heated hecklers, was remarkable in that it featured a former director of the supersecret National Security Agency discussing what administration officials say is probably the government's most classified program.
Taken together, Mr. Bush's speech in Kansas - part of the Landon Lecture Series that President Richard M. Nixon used 36 years ago to defend his policies in Vietnam - and General Hayden's comments were part of a vigorous White House effort to turn the issue to Mr. Bush's advantage.
Among other appearances this week, Dan Bartlett, the communications director, did a round of television interviews Monday morning in defense of the program, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales will give a speech on Tuesday on its legal justifications and Mr. Bush is scheduled to visit the security agency in Fort Meade, Md., on Wednesday to discuss the program.
Democrats and some Republicans have attacked the program as illegal and unconstitutional, and an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has strongly questioned its legal underpinnings and the limited briefings that Congressional leaders were given about it. Leading Democrats said Monday that they found the White House's latest line of defense to be unpersuasive, with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader, saying Mr. Bush's speech reflected a refusal to "come clean" with the public.
"I am eager for the Bush administration to level with the American people and participate fully and openly in upcoming Congressional hearings," scheduled for Feb. 6 in the Senate, Mr. Reid said. "We can be strong and operate under the rule of law."
But the White House, framing the controversy from the perspective of the country's will to fight terrorism, sought on Monday to recast the very language surrounding the debate.
Mr. Bush, for the first time, called his decision to authorize the interceptions part of a "terrorist surveillance program," a phrase meant to convey that only members of Al Qaeda and their associates were falling into the net of the security agency. General Hayden took issue with many news reports that have referred to a "domestic spying" program. Saying the program is not really domestic in nature, he emphasized that it was limited to calls and e-mail in which one end of the communication was outside the United States and which "we have a reasonable basis to believe involve Al Qaeda or one of its affiliates."
At the same time, General Hayden acknowledged that some purely domestic communications might be accidentally intercepted. The New York Times reported last month that this appeared to have happened in a small number of cases because of the difficulties posed by globalized communications in determining whether a phone call or e-mail message was truly "international."
"If there were ever an anomaly, and we discovered that there had been an inadvertent intercept of a domestic-to-domestic call, that intercept would be destroyed and not reported," General Hayden said.
He also acknowledged that, in a broadening of security agency operations after Sept. 11 that he said was separate from the eavesdropping program, the agency began sending the Federal Bureau of Investigation large volumes of leads from its operations. The agency "turned on the spigot of N.S.A. reporting to F.B.I. in, frankly, an unprecedented way," he said.
Some current and former F.B.I. officials have said the torrent of security agency terrorism information almost always led to dead ends and may have hindered antiterrorism efforts by distracting agents from other assignments.
General Hayden said that after starting to send the large volumes of leads after Sept. 11, "we found that we were giving them too much data in too raw form" and quickly made adjustments to the system. But he defended the value of the operation, saying that "it's the nature of intelligence that many tips lead nowhere, but you have to go down some blind alleys to find the tips that pay off."
Mr. Bush, meanwhile, appeared to expand his argument about the legal justification for his decision to avoid the 1978 law that governs domestic surveillance, saying that it was not only part of his constitutional authority but that the Supreme Court had also backed up his authority.
"Federal courts have consistently ruled that a president has authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance against our enemies," Mr. Bush said, making no reference to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, which sets out the "exclusive" rules for obtaining warrants from a court that operates in secret.
"Predecessors of mine have used that same constitutional authority," he said.
Mr. Bush cited a recent Supreme Court decision, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, to bolster his argument that bypassing the courts fell within presidential power during the struggle against terrorism.
In that case, the administration argued that a resolution passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks, authorizing the use of force in tracking down those responsible, gave the president the right to hold American citizens indefinitely without trial as enemy combatants. It never dealt with domestic spying, and the court rejected the administration's argument on enemy combatants.
But Mr. Bush said on Monday that in its ruling the court had recognized that the resolution gave the president "additional authority."
In front of the students and members of the Army, he described his interpretation of that authority.
"I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means," he said. "It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics. It said, 'Mr. President, you've got the power to protect us, but we're not going to tell you how.' "
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
01/24/2006 00:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
On a rainy night in August, a black-tie crowd gathered at the National Security Agency for a tribute to Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who had led the eavesdropping agency for six years. The corridor to the banquet room at agency headquarters in Fort Meade, Md., was lined with favorable press clippings, in part the results of his courting of writers who covered the secret world of intelligence.
But now General Hayden finds himself on the defensive. With the vocal backing of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, General Hayden, now the principal deputy director of national intelligence, has been speaking out on why the agency has conducted eavesdropping on American soil without court warrants.
On Monday, General Hayden, a 60-year-old Air Force general, addressed the National Press Club, trying to explain the highly classified program without revealing too many details. He even stuck around for a half-hour of questions, listening to a pastor who said that "the faith communities are outraged" by the N.S.A. program and an anti-Bush activist who demanded to know whether his group's telephone calls and e-mail messages were a target. (The general offered an indirect reply, saying the program was narrowly focused on terrorism suspects: "This is about Al Qaeda.")
Among those present at the press club was the author of two major books on the agency, James Bamford, whose shifting view of the speaker captured the difficulty of General Hayden's position.
Mr. Bamford faced only hostility from the agency when he researched his first N.S.A. book, "The Puzzle Palace," published in 1982. But for his second book, "Body of Secrets," General Hayden offered extensive assistance, granting multiple interviews and even arranging for a book signing on agency grounds.
When the book was published in early 2001, Mr. Bamford listed General Hayden first in his acknowledgments, thanking him for "having the courage to open the agency's door a crack." In public appearances, including 2001 testimony before the European Parliament, he defended General Hayden and the N.S.A. against those who believed it was a rogue agency operating outside the law.
But last week, Mr. Bamford joined a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging the program's legality and asking the courts to shut it down.
"I'm sort of mystified by Hayden at this point," Mr. Bamford said in an interview. "It was a big shock to me to find out that he was doing eavesdropping without warrants."
If Mr. Bamford takes the issue personally, General Hayden suggested in his remarks Monday, so do he and N.S.A. employees who feel accused of spying on their fellow citizens.
"I'm disappointed, I guess, that perhaps the default response for some is to assume the worst," General Hayden said. "I'm trying to communicate to you that the people who are doing this, O.K., go shopping in Glen Burnie and their kids play soccer in Laurel," he added, referring to suburbs near N.S.A. headquarters in Maryland.
"And they know the law," he continued. "They know American privacy better than the average American, and they're dedicated to it."
Charles G. Boyd, a retired Air Force general who has known him for years, said he thought General Hayden was speaking out on the N.S.A. program "because he believes what he did was right. He's under tremendous pressure, because he's being targeted for what he did to support his president, and with the assurances of the Justice Department that it was legal."
For a man who has devoted his career to secret work, General Hayden has always been strikingly unafraid of the limelight. Son of a blue-collar family in Pittsburgh - the Steelers' playoff triumphs are a bright spot in a bleak season for him - he has a knack for reducing the complexities of intelligence to straightforward English that has served him well on Capitol Hill and at the White House.
Appalled at the portrayal of the N.S.A. as a lawless, even murderous agency in the 1998 film "Enemy of the State," General Hayden set out after becoming director the next year to reshape that image. He granted a few television crews the rare opportunity to film behind the agency's barbed-wire fences, granted numerous interviews and even invited some reporters to dinners at his house.
The resulting coverage countered the notion that the N.S.A. was a shadowy menace to ordinary citizens. General Hayden's efforts to modernize the agency got generally sympathetic coverage, despite cost overruns and other setbacks. His message that the agency scrupulously avoided invading Americans' privacy won plaudits from members of Congress.
After The New York Times disclosed the eavesdropping program last month, General Hayden quickly took a prominent role in defending it. His previous success in persuading outsiders that the N.S.A. operated strictly in accordance with laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires warrants for eavesdropping in the United States, caused the revelations to resound with particular force in Washington.
Polls on the program show mixed views among Americans. But if General Hayden is concerned that coverage of the N.S.A. eavesdropping has eroded his image-building efforts, he can take no comfort from last Saturday's television schedule: ABC showed "Enemy of the State" in prime time.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
01/24/2006 00:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I read the transcript yesterday and I really hope the press learned something but I doubt it. The most glaring fact that the press will miss is that Gen Hayden pointed out that "not a single NSA employed complained to the IG about this activity." So that should tell you that ALL or most of this innuendo is coming from outside the intelligence community or someone inside broke a lot of protocols in place to safeguard intelligence. If the latter is true I hope they find a nice cell for the whistleblower/patriot to stay in for a long time. Also it was not a far fight putting General Hayden against the puny minded and DNC talking points loaded press, he shredded all their charges with FACTS. Kudos General!
#2
I didn't read the entire transcript, but in what I did read the questions from the press indicated to me that they are stuck on 9/10 and clueless about intelligence.
MANHATTAN, Kan. (AP) - President Bush pushed back Monday at critics of his once-secret domestic spying effort, saying it should be termed a ``terrorist surveillance program'' and contending it has the backing of legal experts, key lawmakers and the Supreme Court.
Several members of Congress from both parties have questioned whether the warrantless snooping is legal. That is because it bypasses a special federal court that, by law, must authorize eavesdropping on Americans and because the president provided limited notification to only a few lawmakers.
``It's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he's just breaking the law.' If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?'' asked Bush. One of those who had been informed, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., was sitting behind Bush during his appearance at Kansas State University.
There's a point the moonbats can't seem to answer.
Bush's remarks were part of an aggressive administration campaign to defend the four-year-old program as a crucial and legal terror-fighting tool. The White House is trying to sell its side of the story before the Senate Judiciary Committee opens hearings on it in two weeks.
Back in Washington, Gen. Michael Hayden, the former National Security Agency director who is now the government's No. 2 intelligence official, contended the surveillance was narrowly targeted. He acknowledged that the program established a lower legal standard to eavesdrop on terror-related communications than a surveillance law implemented in 1978.
Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, government officials had to prove to a secretive intelligence court that there was ``probable cause'' to believe that a person was tied to terrorism. Bush's program allows senior NSA officials to approve surveillance when there was ``reason to believe'' the call may involve al-Qaida and its affiliates. Hayden maintained that the work was within the law. ``The constitutional standard is reasonable. ... I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we are doing is reasonable,'' he said at the National Press Club.
'Probable cause' is appropriate if you're using the information to build a case for a court. 'reason to believe' is appropriate if you're using the information for military intel purposes.
Hayden also rejected suggestions that the NSA rank-and-file had problems with the electronic monitoring, saying that the agency's independent watchdog told him Friday that ``not a single employee'' had registered a concern with that office about the program.
In his remarks, Bush said that allowing the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and e-mails of Americans with suspected ties to terrorists can hardly be considered ``domestic spying.'' . ``It's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program,'' Bush said at Kansas State. ``If they're making a phone call in the United States, it seems like to me we want to know why.''
Unless we have a death wish, of course.
He said he ``had all kinds of lawyers review the process'' to ensure it didn't violate civil liberties or the law. And he insisted that a recent Supreme Court decision backs his contention that he had the authority to order the program through a resolution Congress passed after the 2001 terrorist attacks that lets him use force in the anti-terror fight.
``I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you what it means: It means Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics,'' Bush said.
Bush and Hayden sought to paint the program as vital to national security. ``Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the al-Qaida operatives in the United States,'' Hayden said.
And Jaime Gorelick would have thrown herself in front of the bus to prevent us doing anything about it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/24/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, even on the run, is still capable of plotting a major terror attack on the United States, a senior aide to U.S. President George W. Bush warned Monday.
During an interview with CBS television, Bush's advisor Dan Bartlett said, "We have to assume that he (bin Laden) can (plan such an attack). We have to be very vigilant in what we do to protect our country."
He was referring to the threats against the United States made by bin Laden in an audiotape broadcast last week. The CIA has confirmed the voice in the tape is that of the terrorist leader,
Bartlett said U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials have studied the tape very closely and "take all threats very seriously."
He said it is the country's luck that it hasn't been attacked since Sept. 11 ,2001, but Americans can't take that for granted and can't become complacent.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
01/24/2006 00:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He said it is the country's luck that it hasn't been attacked since Sept. 11 ,2001,
Oh really?
If I go to the attackers house, put a gun to his head, and declare "Wanna attack me now?"
Is it luck that he doesn't?
The hell it's "Luck"
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/24/2006 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
A top-level Pentagon review of defense strategy calls for bolstering the U.S. military with thousands more elite troops skilled in fighting terrorists and insurgents and partnering with foreign forces -- as part of a decades-long plan to expand efforts to thwart terrorists worldwide, according to U.S. officials and military analysts familiar with the review.
The increase would bring the ranks of Special Operations Forces -- which include covert Delta Force operatives, Rangers, Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces -- to their highest levels since the Vietnam War while adding billions to the budget of the 52,000-strong U.S. Special Operations Command, based in Tampa, over the next five years, said the officials and analysts, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the final document has not been released.
One of the largest gains would be in Army Special Forces, or Green Berets, soldiers trained in languages and navigating foreign cultures who work with indigenous forces and operate in 12-man "A-teams." Special Forces would expand by one-third -- from 15 to 20 active-duty battalions -- creating about 90 more A-teams to deploy to regions considered vulnerable to terrorist or extremist influences, the officials and analysts said. Currently, the bulk of Special Forces teams are rotating into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Increasing Special Operations Forces is one of the most significant elements of the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which sets U.S. defense strategy, guides plans for forces and military hardware and has a major influence on defense spending. The QDR was timed for release along with the fiscal 2007 budget on Feb. 6, according to Pentagon and congressional officials as well as military analysts familiar with it through drafts and briefings. Implementing the strategy will occur primarily through the longer-range defense spending plan for the next five years, Pentagon officials said.
The 2005 QDR -- the first comprehensive look at military strategy and requirements since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- attempts to predict the major security challenges the United States will face in the next 20 years, Ryan Henry, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, said in an address last week.
The latest review sets four major goals: defeating terrorist extremism; defending the homeland; influencing nations such as China that are at a "strategic crossroads" in their world role; and preventing hostile states or actors from acquiring nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, Henry said. It emphasizes devoting greater resources to preparing for "irregular" "catastrophic" and "disruptive" attacks -- such as insurgencies, strikes by terrorist groups with biological weapons, or an attack on U.S. information systems by China -- as compared with traditional military threats.
One major question for the Pentagon's future strategy, military experts and officials say, is how to best fight and prevent the spread of terrorist and extremist groups over the long term in nations where the United States is not at war. The increase in Special Forces teams, trained specifically to work with foreign militaries, is one way to gain an ongoing presence and military influence in regions where it is lacking.
"This will be the largest increase in the number of SOF since the Vietnam War," said Michael Vickers, director of strategic studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, who has been involved in the QDR and was a member of a team of experts probing U.S. weaknesses.
The QDR also envisions a significant boost of several hundred civil affairs soldiers, who specialize in post-conflict rebuilding, along with smaller increases in soldiers who engage in psychological operations.
The ranks of Delta Force operatives, who work in covert "special mission units" tracking the most valued military targets such as terrorist leaders, will also grow by about one-third, officials and analysts say. Army Rangers, highly trained infantry troops, will gain three companies, or more than 400 troops. In an effort to keep an unblinking eye on potential terrorist activities in sensitive regions of the world, Air Force special operations will create a unit of unmanned aerial drones able to maintain watch for long periods.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/24/2006 00:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sniff. sniff - GO AIRBORNE, RANGERS, and DELTA.
For insightful reading of events which have meaning today may I recommend, Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian 1866-1891 by Robert M. Utley. The perspective of a small and overtaxed military establishment conducting operations in a demanding environment, physically and politically, while bringing civilization to the vastness of the west can be related to the contemporary operations on the world stage today. Of particular note would be chapters three: The Problem of Doctrine, four: The Army, Congress, and the People, and eighteen: Mexican Border Conflicts 1870-81.
Some excerpts: Chapter 3: The Problem of Doctrine. Three special conditions set this mission apart from more orthodox military assignments. First, it pitted the army against an enemy who usually could not be clearly identified and differentiated from kinsmen not disposed at the moment to be enemies. Indians could change with bewildering rapidity from friend to foe to neutral, and rarely could one be confidently distinguished from another...Second, Indian service placed the army in opposition to a people that aroused conflicting
emotions... And third, the Indians mission gave the army a foe unconventional both in the techniques and aims of warfare... He fought on his own terms and, except when cornered or when his family was endangered, declined to fight at all unless he enjoyed overwhelming odds...These special conditions of the Indian mission made the U.S. Army not so much a little army as a big police force...for a century the army tried to perform its unconventional mission with conventional organization and methods. The result was an Indian record that contained more failures than successes and a lack of preparedness for conventional war that became painfully evident in 1812, 1846, 1861, and 1898.
Remember there is a force level ceiling mandated by Congress. Someone has to be the personnel bill payer for this. Take too much out of the line for special ops means that conventional forces will be less prepared for the in your face action, ie China. There is no perfect answer.
#3
I thought the plan for fighting China was to sink their troop transports crossing the strait to Taiwan, and wipe out their missile capacity? Of course, I s'pose they might choose to start their war somewhere else...
The cost of war in Iraq is indelibly stamped on the hearts of Michael Lucero and Robert Zurheide. Each man carries the endless pain of having buried his eldest son as a result of the nearly 3-year-old conflict. But every Wednesday morning, they stand together in front of the Marine Corps recruiting office on East Speedway Boulevard to make certain others know they'd sacrifice even more for the country they love. And their children, committed already to the military life, stand by their side.
"We've been going out there now about six months," said Lucero, whose 19-year-old son, Joshua, died in Al Anbar province in November 2004. "The anti-war people get there between 9 and 10, and we get there before them and we don't leave until they're gone. We want to make sure we're the first thing people see and the last thing they see."
Lucero and Zurheide, a former Marine, arrive each Wednesday carrying American flags and handmade signs expressing their commitment to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lucero is accompanied by his wife, Tina, and sons Samuel, 16, and Robert, 15; Zurheide by his 17-year-old son, Courtney, and daughters Esther Moreno, 20, and Rachel Moreno, 22.
Samuel Lucero will soon attend the Marines' Devil Pup program, a boot camp for teens who plan to join the Corps. His sister, 18-year-old Antoinette, will graduate from Parris Island boot camp next month. Courtney Zurheide will enter the Marines following his high school graduation. I admire them. They have the guts that I didn't.
Robert Zurheide Jr., 20, died in April 2004 while fighting with fellow Marines near Fallujah. Rest in Peace. He was the first Tucsonan to die in combat in Iraq. Fewer than we lost on 9/11, BTW.
Lucero said he's "very proud" that his children are following the family's military tradition. "I think every American at one time in their life should support the military by enlisting in one of the branches, even if it's just for two years," he said.
Having more children in peril is part of the commitment, Lucero said. "I'm scared every single day of my life. But I'm scared that they could walk out onto the street and get hit by a stray bullet, or struck by a drunk driver," he said. "At least if they fall in military service, I know they've done it for their country."
Lucero is proud that supporters of the war have pretty much overtaken what began as a weekly protest of recruiting young men and women into the Marine Corps. "We cover their signs up with our flags," he said. "We don't think people should have to be subjected to their opinions."
Quashing free speech in defense of freedom seems a bit incongruous, but Lucero says he's worried about the goals of the anti-war effort. "We don't want this to become another Vietnam and they want it to become that," he said. "In my parents' generation, they sat on their hands and let happen what happened in response to the war."
Lucero fears the war protesters' goal is to impede recruitment of an all-volunteer military and bring back the draft, creating widespread opposition to the military. "I tell them that's never going to happen," he said.
Pat Birnie, who protests the war as a member of the Women's International League for the suppression of Peace and Freedom, said she'd like to understand. "I would welcome a chance to understand how they can continue to want to support a policy that has been voted on by elected, and re-elected public servants imposed on the people," said Birnie, a 76-year-old who also is a member of The Raging Grannies, an anti-war group. "Those who have lost members of their family in the war in particular, I would suspect would want to question this policy. To blindly support a policy that would lead to more deaths like the "terrorism is a law enforcement matter" policy of the 90s is counterproductive."
NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge ruled Monday that the Defense Department must release the identities of hundreds of Guantanamo Bay detainees to The Associated Press. U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff told the government to provide the information in the form of unredacted copies of transcripts and documents related to 558 military hearings in which detainees were permitted to challenge their incarcerations.
Most of the hundreds of prisoners at the U.S. prison in Cuba have been held since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks without being charged or publicly identified, which has troubled human rights groups who are in no danger today of being killed by an airplane ramming their office tower.
The AP filed its Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking the documents last year. The government then turned over the transcripts of 558 tribunals but redacted facts about each detainee's identity. The judge gave the government until Wednesday to decide whether to appeal to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and ask him to suspend his order.
Earlier this month, the judge rejected government arguments that the detainees' names should be kept secret to protect their privacy, but gave the government one last chance to change his mind. In response, the government argued that releasing the identities could subject the families, friends and associates of the detainees to embarrassment and retaliation. In a written ruling Monday, the judge said he found that argument unconvincing. He said family members and the others "never had any reasonable expectation" of anonymity.
"What? He's where? Cuba? He told me he was collecting alms for orphans in Peshawer! What? He was killing infidels instead? Oh, that's my boy!"
A spokeswoman for federal prosecutors, Heather Tasker, said the government had not seen the ruling and had no response. AP attorney David A. Schulz said he expected the government to appeal. "The judge has rejected the Defense Department's effort to use the privacy interests of detainees to prevent the public from learning information about the actions taken at Guantanamo Bay," he said.
Last year, the judge ordered the government to ask each detainee whether he or she wanted personal identifying information to be turned over to the AP as part of the lawsuit. Of 317 detainees who received the form, 63 said yes, 17 said no, 35 returned the form without answering and 202 declined to return the form. The judge said none of the detainees, not even the 17 who said they did not want their identities exposed, had a reasonable expectation of privacy during the tribunals.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/24/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...Okay - release the names.
And then state for the record that each and every one of them is now cooperating with us.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/24/2006 12:12 Comments ||
Top||
Karachi, 24 Jan. (AKI) - The recent US air strike targeting al-Qaeda operatives in Bajour, near the Pakistan-Afghan border, is more political than military, says Lt. General Hamid Gul, former chief of Pakistan's powerful intelligence services ISI. Gul told Adnkronos International (AKI) the raid was a message that the US would conduct the 'war on terror' on its own terms. But the real agenda, he argued, is that Washington desperately needs proof that Iran has acquired nuclear weapons technology and is upping pressure on Pakistan to hand over disgraced nuclear scientist Dr A.Q. Khan. for questioning.
I knew it couldn't be something as simple as trying to kill the bad guys
The 4 January raid was launched after intelligence reports suggested al-Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri, would be attending a banquet dinner in the village of Damadola. Eighteen people were killed in the attack, and Pakistan security services say at least four of them were al-Qaeda operatives. Pakistan has protested with the US ambassador but the government has come in for fierce criticism from the opposition over the air strike.
On one hand the message is that they [the US] will debunk and destroy their enemies even on Pakistani soil. The killing of Nek Mohammed in South Waziristan in 2004, when he was struck by US laser-guided missile, of Hamza Rabia in North Waziristan in an attack by a US remote-controlled Predator aircraft, and the recent incident of Bajour are examples However, there is another reverse swing in this game argued Gul, one of the most vocal critics inside Pakistan of president Pervez Musharraf, and director of the ISI from 1987 to 1989, at the height of the Afghan war with the Soviets.
So he's got no agenda of his own...
The Americans could not get any concrete evidence against Irans nuclear programme and without that evidence they would not go to the [UN] Security Council. They have been pressing hard on Pakistan to hand over Dr A.Q. Khan for interrogation because they understand this is the only way to get evidence. So apparently they are trying to fix Pakistan in a serious quagmire then give them a choice - either bear constant air strikes on Pakistani territory or hand over Dr A.Q. Khan for direct interrogation, Hamid Gul maintained.
OK, that works for me
Khan, considered a national hero and the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme, is under house arrest at a secret location. In January 2004, he confessed to having been involved in an international network of clandestine nuclear proliferation from Pakistan to Libya, Iran and North Korea. While saying it has dismantled the network, Pakistan has refused to allow the scientist to be questioned directly by the IAEA or US investigators. Critics suggest this is because they fear Khan may reveal the role that the military played in facilitating his network.
Before they let him talk to us, he'll have one last heart attack
Gul contended that the current visit by Pakistani prime minsiter Shaukat Aziz to Washington was part of a wider strategy to put Musharraf's back to the wall.
To further strangle Musharraf, they [the US] have once again been beating the drum of democracy. I remember when the late Pakistani premier Mohammed Khan Jonejo visited the US and when he returned, his attitude towards late General Zia ul-Haq was compèletely changed" he recalled. "To me Shaukat Azizs US visit, in the current situation, is of significance and it is to see that 'secret' message he brings with him, the elderly general concluded.
Posted by: Steve ||
01/24/2006 08:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is just ISI bullsh*t. While questioning Khan would be great, I don't know that he could add all that much about the current situation in Iran. We know they're developing weapons, but we may not know exactly where, and I doubt Khan does either (but I'd wager the ISI has a good idea). A decent chance to get Ayman easily justifies the missle strike.
#2
Getting Khan on record with respect to testifying that Iran has specific interest in developing nuclear weapons (and not just electrical power) would be very useful in persuading the UNSC to begin sanctions. Notwithstanding inaction by the UN (a redundancy, if ever there was one), Khan's testimony would still give American interests one more button on the coat for taking military action against Iran.
More than anything, Khan needs to be put through the wringer for his proliferation activities. Anything that can pry this "national hero" out of the ISI's hands is a good demonstration of power over that intensely corrupt organization.
#3
Zenster, puhlease! Is there anyone who doesn't believe Iran is seeking nuclear weapons? And would knowing it is so for a metaphysical fact change the Chinese or Russian vetoes of sanctions? If we take pre-emptive action, we'll be reviled by the same folks who did so in Iraq, regardless of the facts pre- or post-operation.
KATMANDU - Nepals government restored cellular mobile phone services and lifted night curfews in the nations capital on Monday, easing restrictions imposed last week in an apparent attempt to foil an anti-government rally.
The cellular phones were switched off by the government on Thursday along with land phone lines and Internet services. However, land lines and Internet services were resumed after only a few hours of disruption but cellular phones had remained cut off.
The resumption of cellular phone services came just hours after Home Minister Kamal Thapa announced that the government believed the security situation had improved enough for the government to start easing restrictions. We believe the security situation in Katmandu has improved enough for us to start lifting some of the restrictions that we were compelled to enforce, Thapa said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/24/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 23 -- An internal U.N. probe of the department that runs international peacekeeping operations has uncovered extensive evidence of mismanagement and possible fraud, and triggered the suspension of eight procurement officials pending an investigation, according to U.N. officials and documents.
U.N. investigators have uncovered rampant waste, price inflation and suspicion that employees colluded with vendors in awarding contracts for a variety of peacekeeping programs, said a confidential report presented to several governments Monday.
The only surprise is that the news became public.
Peacekeepers, for example, spent $10.4 million to lease a helicopter for use in East Timor that could have been secured for $1.6 million, and paid $2.4 million to buy seven aircraft hangars in Congo that were never used, the report said. An additional $65 million or more was spent for fuel that was not needed for missions in Sudan and Haiti, said the report, which called for an investigation into whether U.N. staff members improperly "colluded to award" one U.N. supplier an $85.9 million fuel contract for the Sudan mission.
Gee, what do you think?
The failure of U.N. managers to enforce basic standards has led to a "culture of impunity" in U.N. spending, according to the report. Together, it says that there are "strong" indications of fraud involving contracts whose value totaled about $193 million, nearly 20 percent of the $1 billion in U.N. business examined by the auditors.
Procurement runs about $2 billion a year, including the peacekeeping. I think the over/under for fraud and corruption is 50% of that.
"We have no idea yet as to the scope of this, but I believe that we have significant evidence of fraud and corruption," the U.N. undersecretary for management, Christopher Burnham, told reporters Monday.
Oh, do you really think so?
Burnham, a former Bush administration official, went further than other U.N. officials in characterizing the seriousness of the wrongdoing. Burnham, however, said that the decision to suspend the eight officials -- including Andrew Toh, who recently oversaw the U.N. procurement department, and Christian Saunders, the director of the U.N. procurement division -- did not represent a finding that they had done anything wrong. The two have both denied any wrongdoing.
The U.N. findings come as the organization is struggling to recover from a financial scandal involving abuse of the $64 billion oil-for-food program in prewar Iraq and reports of widespread sexual abuse by U.N. peacekeepers.
Who says they're recovering? The Oil-for-Palaces and Food-for-Nookie scandals are a terrible blot on the UN. It makes it nearly impossible for a reasonable person to want to have anything to do with the organization.
U.S. prosecutors, meanwhile, are conducting their own investigation into criminal wrongdoing in U.N. contracting. The U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of New York in August charged a former U.N. procurement officer, Alexander Yakovlev, with receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes on behalf of companies doing business with the United Nations. Yakovlev pleaded guilty to three counts of wire fraud and agreed to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
Monday's revelations came as U.N. peacekeeping operations are expanding rapidly, with more than 70,000 uniformed police and blue-helmeted troops posted in 18 missions around the world. The United Nations is gearing up for a new peacekeeping mission in Darfur, Sudan, and has asked the Security Council to authorize an increase of 4,000 peacekeepers in Ivory Coast.
Because the Ivory Coast is a French quagmire.
"We know that we have some areas of difficulty that have to be strengthened," said Jane Holl Lute, a senior peacekeeping official, noting that U.N. officials alerted the investigators to possible wrongdoing. "We are operating in a highly complex, highly volatile operating environment in places around the world that are difficult, austere and, as evidenced by the killing of eight Guatemalan peacekeepers today in the Congo, dangerous."
John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the procurement scandal would not prompt a retreat from U.N. peacekeeping. But he said it underscored the need for far-reaching administrative changes in the world body. "It is very disturbing. It shows the sad record of mismanagement that we are trying to deal with through the reform process," he said.
"I find their lack of management disturbing."
The U.N. Office of Internal Oversight, which conducted the inquiry, cited several cases in which they found "fraud indicators," or cause for suspicion. The helicopter deal in East Timor was one of them. U.N. procurement officers had been offered a $1.6 million lease for an Mi-26 helicopter, the report said, but the procurement documents did not reflect that offer. The U.N. report called for an investigation into why officials paid $8.8 million too much and into their dealings with vendors.
The report did not name individuals or companies suspected of breaking U.N. procurement rules. But an earlier draft, made available to The Washington Post, included some names of companies and U.N. staffers. For instance, it identified SkyLink Aviation Inc., a Canadian firm, as the company that supplied fuel to the U.N. mission in Sudan. A spokesman for SkyLink, Jan Ottens, confirmed that his company had that contract and he denied any wrongdoing. He said SkyLink actually lost "bundles" of money from the fuel contract. Ottens said the problem was that the United Nations overestimated the amount of oil it would need because it anticipated the deployment of tens of thousands of peacekeepers that never arrived.
Never arrived? Where were the mighty Uruguayans?
He also said auditors failed to note that his company billed the United Nations only for the oil that was used, representing about half the cost envisioned by the fuel contract. He said his company, meanwhile, had to absorb the costs of setting up the infrastructure for delivering far greater quantities of oil than the United Nations eventually bought. "We were misled" by the United Nations, he said. "We are very unhappy with that fuel contract."
Misled by the UN? Now there's a defense I can believe.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/24/2006 00:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
...Slightly O/T, but I'm curious - does anyone know if Ambassador Bolton is aware of the regard in which he's held here at the 'Burg?
(Or for that matter, has he seen the Darth Moustache pic?)
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/24/2006 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
U.N. investigators have uncovered rampant waste, said a confidential report presented to several governments Monday.
The only surprise is that the news became public.
Clearly the report wasn't intended to become public knowledge. I wonder who leaked it? The reporter, Colum Lynch, has been the U.N. correspondent for the Washington Post for a good many years now...
#5
Mike, I'm sure the various big Guys don't admit to knowing such things. But I do remember our much missed True German Ally revealing that he'd told Sec. Def. Rumsfeld about this site.
BAGHDAD - Less than 24 hours before the resumption of the trial of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on charges of crimes against humanity, the court on Monday appointed a new interim chief judge. Rauf Rashid Abdel Rahman, a member of the five-strong panel trying Saddam, will take over from Rizkar Mohammed Amin who resigned earlier this month, the courts investigating judge Raed Al-Juhi told AFP.
Rahman was born in Halabja, the Kurdish town which became a symbol of repression in 1988 when Saddams forces used chemical weapons against its inhabitants, killing several thousand people. He will remain as presiding judge until such a time as an official decision is taken on whether to accept judge Rizkars resignation, Juhi added.
From Halabja, eh? I like it.
The Iraqi government has yet to accept Amins resignation. If accepted the five-member court panel will vote on a permanent new chief judge.
Amin, also a Kurd, who stepped down following strong criticism of his running of the court, said he would not go back on his decision despite efforts by colleagues to change his mind. I have no intention of going back on my decision, a close associate quoted him as saying on Monday.
"I'm outta here!"
For the last seven sessions Amin has been the most public judicial face of the trial of Saddam and seven co-defendants over the massacre of Shias from the town of Dujail after the former Iraqi leader survived an assassination attempt there in 1982. Amin was criticised for being too lenient with the defendants and their repeated nationalist tirades condemning the court.
It was initially believed that the next most senior member of the panel, Said al-Hammashi, would take over as presiding judge. But Hammashi, a Shia, has himself been criticised by the commission set up to root out members of Saddams former ruling Baath party from official positions. The committee last week claimed Hammashi was former active member of the Baath party and should not preside over the trial.
He should be in the defense docket.
It was not the first time the committee had targeted the court. There was an effort made in July by the de-Baathification committee to remove members of the court, judges and prosecutors, who they were alleging were former members of the Baath party, said the Western official. They ultimately backed off and there was an understanding that the de-Baathification committee did not have jurisdiction to issue orders against judges and prosecutors on the court.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/24/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The people in the cities of Mahmudiyah, Lutufiyah and Yusufiyah south of Baghdad are finally getting something they have gone without for over eight years now, a working water system to provide them with clean drinking water.
The water distribution system for the outlying cities of Baghdad was suffering from lack of proper and continuous maintenance, officials said. During the era of the Sadaam regime, the system was allowed to decay, forcing 300,000 residents to get their water from nearby canals, a practice they have continued until now.
The Iraqi government has taken the lead in the planning and organization of the projects, and officials said this is another sign showing just how far they have come in terms of having the ability to guide their cities and ultimately, their nation. Local leaders in cooperation with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division engineer project office made water project completion a priority.
The south Baghdad area has recently experienced a drop in insurgent activity which allowed the projects to be completed ahead of schedule. This drop in enemy activity is attributed to the security efforts of the 4th Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division and the 2nd BCT, 101st Abn. Div. who are committed to ridding the area of insurgent activity.
One of the first steps in getting the water flowing was the repair of the Kaa Kaa Water Treatment plant. At a cost of nearly $300,000 the project began on August 31 of last year. The next step was the renovation of the SheShibar Booster Station, which pumps and routes the water to the various locales. This project cost roughly $ 104,000.
The final step in getting the water distribution system up and running for the people of South Baghdad was the repair of a broken feeder line, which was main pipe sending water into the cities. The line, which is 36 inches in diameter, was ruptured by insurgents when they detonated an improvised explosive device. The cost of this project is nearly $ 19,000.
Candidates have been making a final appeal to Palestinians for their support on the last day of official campaigning before the elections. In Gaza, parties held their final pre-election rallies, Islamist challenger Hamas in the central town of Dair al-Balah and ruling party Fatah in front of the late Yasser Arafat's home.
Fatah's campaign strategy during the past month has focused on highlighting the historical accomplishments of the group, such as launching and leading the decades-old struggle for Palestinian statehood. The group's armed wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which has been responsible for a spate of kidnappings in Gaza in recent weeks, held a military rally of its own, despite vows by Samir Mashharawi, Fatah's political leader, that there would be no armed demonstrations in the run-up to elections. Against a background of machine-gun fire, they called for unity in the ranks and the freedom of political prisoners, while making several verbal jabs at Hamas. Abu Thair, the group's spokesman, said the Brigades would never disarm and that they would continue their resistance against Israel, while Salah al-Hajjaj, Brigades leader, appeared to a standing ovation from the crowd of mainly young people.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/24/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Iran's supply of natural gas to Turkey was inexplicably slashed by 70% last Friday, in one of the coldest months of the year. On the same day, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul raised the tension between the two countries by calling for greater Iranian "transparency" over Tehran's nuclear program.
"There should not be an armament race in the region," he said. "We follow a policy to clean the entire Middle East [of] WMD [weapons of mass destruction]."
While ordinary Turks braced for shortages and chilly weeks ahead, analysts speculated that the cut was a calculated move by Tehran aimed at warning Ankara not to become involved in its escalating row with the West.
Until recently, Ankara had remained largely silent on the view it takes of Iranian efforts to develop a nuclear energy program. But despite publicly supporting Iran's quest for nuclear energy, Turkish officials have privately spoken of their fears at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Last month Turkey's ambassador to the US, Faruk Logoglu, broke his country's silence, telling the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies that "Iran's nuclear weapons would be a serious threat to security in the Middle East. The European Union's effort is unlikely to succeed. Direct US-Iran talks are needed."
When Iran broke the seals of some of its most sensitive nuclear processing equipment last week, it set itself on a collision course with the West. As a key US ally, a historical adversary of Iran and the most significant regional military partner for Israel (the country is seen as most likely to head an attack on Iran), Turkey appears increasingly concerned over how it will manage to continue the balancing role it has played so far in the region.
With an estimated 64 million and 70 million people respectively, Turkey and Iran are the two most populous countries in the region and natural rivals.
Now, news that the incoming Turkish ambassador to Tehran is none other than Gurcan Turkoglu, Gul's top foreign-policy adviser, is a strong indication of just how much importance Ankara is giving its Iran file.
In a sign of the increasing tension, Ankara issued a statement on Saturday calling on Tehran to enter "full and transparent cooperation with the EU and the IAEA" (International Atomic Energy Agency).
"We don't want a new nuclear power in the region," a Turkish diplomat in Tehran told Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, "and we don't want another crisis in the region either."
With tension between Iran and the West peaking, the question of how Iran's most influential neighbor, Turkey, will react to the unfolding crisis becomes increasingly prominent. A key US ally in the Middle East, Turkey has managed to steer a remarkably uncontroversial course in recent years, which has seen it maintain cordial relations with Tehran, even as it remained the only Muslim country with a high-profile military cooperation with Iran's arch-rival, Israel.
But analysts fear that the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran would almost inevitably prompt a nuclear escalation, as regional powers Turkey, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt move to develop a nuclear deterrent.
Turkey has sought to hammer home the point in two recent high-level meetings with Iranian politicians that the nuclear crisis should be defused in Vienna, within the context of the IAEA. In New York in October, on the sidelines of the United Nations meeting in which Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad delivered an inflammatory speech, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan advised the Iranian leader not to escalate the crisis.
A month later, Gul was telling Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki that his country must remain well within the red lines laid down by Iran's European negotiating partners. The advice was not heeded, as is clear by Iran's recent actions.
"The new regime does not care, they seem to be playing for isolation," the Turkish diplomat said. "We can't offer them anything because we're not a nuclear power," he added, alluding to ongoing talks between Moscow and Tehran. Russia is the primary sponsor of the Iranian nuclear program. An Iranian delegation was due in Moscow on Monday for talks on the issue.
But as a Muslim (albeit strictly secular), non-Arab country, Turkey can offer Tehran advice in a way that the EU-3 (Britain, France and Germany) can no longer lay claim to. In the event that talks fail, Turkey is the only country in Iran's vicinity on which the US has prepositioned tactical nuclear weapons (an estimated 90) that it could deploy against Iranian facilities.
The veritable who's who of US and Israeli officials who processed through Turkey in recent weeks for consultations may be a reflection of this.
First came US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, followed by Federal Bureau of Investigation chief Robert Mueller. Porter Goss, the new head of the Central Intelligence Agency, also visited, just days before the arrival of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization secretary general, Jaap De Hoop Scheffer.
Finally, Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff Dan Halutz held discussions with the head of the Turkish military, General Hilmi Ozkok, and Turkish President Ahmed Necdet Sezer. The leading left-nationalist daily, the Cumhuriyet, reported that talks centered on how to deal with Iran.
The Turkish Weekly journal claimed further revelations. In a December 27 article it said Halutz had asked permission for training Israeli commandos in Turkey's Bolu and Hakkari mountains. The magazine speculated that the Israeli request had to do with preparations for operations in northwestern Iran's mountainous territory.
In November, Israel's Yediot Aharonot newspaper revealed that private Israeli security firms had sent experts to Iraq's northern Kurdish region to give Kurdish security forces covert training. The newspaper said the teams had originally entered northern Iraq from Turkey, but had to abandon their mission after receiving a credible warning of an impending al-Qaeda attack on their camp.
The Turkish press was agog at such goings-on. The respected Milliyet daily argued that Goss and National Intelligence Agency Undersecretary Emre Taner discussed the role played by Turkey in Iraq, as well as the controversial issue of the Kurdish separatist movement PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party).
Goss reportedly asked for Turkey's support against Iran's nuclear program and warned Ankara that a US air operation against Iran might be in the offing. According to German news agency DDP, Goss assured his Turkish counterparts that they would have a few hours advance warning of an air strike against Iran. He is also said to have given the green light for the Turkish army to strike PKK camps in Iran on the day of the attack.
Additionally, it was reported that Goss sought to convince Turkish officials that Iran supported the PKK and al-Qaeda and would seek to export its revolution to its western neighbor. But in Tehran, EU diplomats scorned such arguments.
"The Americans use various arguments that are not necessarily rooted in fact," an EU diplomat based in Tehran said. "If they [the Iranians] want to export the Shi'ite revolution, they won't do it in Turkey, a totally Sunni Muslim country, and they'll employ Qom [Iran's religious capital] and religious proselytizing, rather than a nuclear bomb, in doing so."
But US attempts to intimidate Turkey into cooperating against Iran could yield results. Ankara may decide that it has learned from the punishment inflicted on it by Washington after its parliament's decision to ban US troops from opening a northern front against Iraq from Incirlik, during the 2003 invasion, and offer logistic support.
On the other hand, Turkey will not want to jeopardize its advantageous trade links with Iran. Bilateral trade jumped in 2005 to an estimated US$4 billion, up from $1 billion in 2000. Turkish intelligence has also established a good rapport with its Iranian counterparts on the Kurdish issue since 2003.
Now, a working group meets twice a year to discuss how to deal with Kurdish separatism, while border meetings are arranged on a monthly basis between the governors of Turkish and Iranian provinces that contain Kurdish populations. Turkey is painfully aware that a change of regime in Iran and ensuing Iraq-like instability would almost inevitably lead to the creation of an independent Kurdistan.
"The Turks know that long after the dust has cleared and the Americans have disappeared over the horizon again, they will be paying for this [collusion in action against Iran] for many years," an EU diplomat said. "Erdogan is a conservative politician and he will not endanger his country."
A former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia and regional specialist agreed that it is "unlikely that Turkey would give the Israelis clearance to overfly their territory in order to attach an Iranian target. And if they flew without clearance, their nice relationship with Turkey would end."
Should Turkey decide to veto support for any punitive strikes on its Persian neighbor, the best alternative might be Iraqi Kurdistan. No longer at the mercy of Saddam Hussein, Iraq's Kurdish leadership has been more open about its collaboration with Israel since the 2003 invasion.
Now, Iran-watchers are arguing that launching a US or Israeli strike from Iraqi Kurdistan would have several advantages. The aircraft would not need midair refueling, as would be the case if the raid were launched from Tel Aviv. Sulaymaniyyah and Irbil airports are in the process of receiving full international licensing, which implies nighttime instrument capability and the potential for receiving and servicing large transport aircraft. And the Kurdish leadership is far more sympathetic toward Israel than its Arab neighbors.
"Iraqi Kurdistan cannot be used by Israeli special forces because the Kurdistan region remains part of Iraq and the US continues to control Iraq airspace," Nijyar Shemdin, the representative of the Kurdistan region to the US, told Asia Times Online. "All flights into and out of Iraqi airspace obtain permission from the US military in Qatar. For Israeli operations against Iraq to occur, it would require the support of the Iraqi federal government, the US government and the Kurdish regional government. It is utterly impossible."
Analysts point out that Israel's 1981 strike against Iraq's nuclear reactor in Osirak could only have been carried out with US cooperation. Israeli aircraft crossed Jordanian and Saudi Arabian airspace without being detected by US-supplied Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) radars overflying Saudi airspace.
Wayne White, a former deputy director of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research Office of Analysis for the Near East and South Asia, pointed out that he doubted whether "the issue of violating a country's airspace would be a major consideration with respect to Jordan, Saudi Arabia or perhaps even Turkey if the Israelis decided to go forward with such a strike".
"If one is doing something that bold, controversial, outrageous, the issue of violating airspace would be very much secondary to other considerations," he said.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
01/24/2006 01:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How to NOT win friends and influence people. Iran's leadership seems hell-bent on making the world cheer when they're decapitated.
"Turkey is the only country in Iran's vicinity on which the US has prepositioned tactical nuclear weapons (an estimated 90) that it could deploy against Iranian facilities."
Perhaps true, but don't forget the subs and other means. And we won't forget how little Turkey helped us with Iraq.
#2
Why has no one else commented on this.
Am I reading too much into this by thinking this is huge? I don't know how much that 70% accounts for their energy imports, but they essentially put a crunch on Turkey.
Are they hoping to push someone into making a move?
Is this an "example" of what might happen if we bust out the sanctions?
Maybe I've played to much Civ3, but isn't breaking trade like that a prelude to war??
#4
This is a pretty raw deal for the average Turkish family, but I don't think calling Turkey "little" would endear too many of them to your point of view.
A unanimous UN Security Council put fresh pressure on Lebanon to disarm the Hizb Allah group, in line with a council resolution adopted 16 months ago. A council statement on Monday also urged Lebanon to conduct free and fair presidential elections without outside interference, and called on Syria to take measures to stem the flow of arms and people across its border into neighbouring Lebanon.
Syria last year withdrew its troops from Lebanon, after years of politically dominating it, as required by the council's Resolution 1559, adopted in September 2004. But Lebanon has not yet ordered the Hizb Allah group to disarm, as the resolution also required, even after the group - backed by Syria and Iran - joined the Lebanese government upon winning seats in parliament in 2005 elections. And arms are still flowing to militias in Lebanon from Syria, Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General said last October.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/24/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah they'll disarm. And Hamas will voice their support for gay rights too.
US President George W. Bush will not accept a nuclear Iran, John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said Monday. Bolton, speaking from New York via video hook-up to the Interdisciplinary Center's Herzliya Conference, said that Bush was determined to pursue the issue through peaceful and diplomatic means, "but has made clear that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable."
According to Bolton, Bush worries that a nuclear-equipped Iran under its current leadership could well engage in a nuclear holocaust, "and that is just not something he is going to accept."
Bolton said that if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) referred the Iranian nuclear issue to the UN Security Council in early February, it would still be unlikely for the UN to immediately slap sanctions on Teheran. "In the first instance I suspect that if it comes to the Security Council in a few weeks we would look for a statement that essentially calls on Iran to comply with the existing IAEA resolutions," Bolton said. "I think that would be a gut check for the Iranians, and if they don't heed that warning we would have to consider what to do next."
"We will find their lack of faith disturbing."
Bolton said that referring the issue to the Security Council was a form of pressure on Iran to convince them to make the same strategic decision Libya made in 2004 - that their national interests would be better served, and they would be safer in giving up the purist of nuclear weapons, than in continuing that pursuit.
Bolton, who was very critical during his comments of the UN's treatment of Israel, said - in an answer to a question - that the time had come to re-evaluate UNRWA, the UN body devoted to Palestinian refuges. When looking toward a two state solution, Bolton said, "you have to ask why one state, Palestine, has an entire UN agency devoted entirely to it."
Bolton asked why the UN Development Program, and other UN programs present in other countries around the world, would not be applicable to a Palestinian state as well. "Looking at the future of UNRWA is definitely something we should all be doing, thinking about how to transition to a new UN involvement in the region," Bolton said.
#3
The Israeli's said it last week, the US says it this week.
Hit them now. The sooner the better. Telegraphing our punch like we did in Iraq would be a very serious mistake.
#5
CU...definitely. Congressional Republicans may be spineless, but tey're not suicidal.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
01/24/2006 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#6
When looking toward a two state solution, Bolton said, "you have to ask why one state, Palestine, has an entire UN agency devoted entirely to it."
A question for the ages. This one simple fact and the absolutely stunning lack of success deriving therefrom is sufficient to d@mn the UN for eternity.
#2
Not likely, tw. That would require critical thinking abilities, a sense of responsibility for one's own actions, and a sense of shame. They are sorely lacking in anything other than extreme narcissism, I'm afraid.
I can't add anything - cleaning off my keyboard
Joel Stein:
Warriors and wusses
I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.
I'm sure I'd like the troops. They seem gutsy, young and up for anything. If you're wandering into a recruiter's office and signing up for eight years of unknown danger, I want to hang with you in Vegas.
And I've got no problem with other people the ones who were for the Iraq war supporting the troops. If you think invading Iraq was a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those patriotic magnets and bracelets and other trinkets the Chinese are making money off of.
But I'm not for the war. And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken and they're wussy by definition. It's as if the one lesson they took away from Vietnam wasn't to avoid foreign conflicts with no pressing national interest but to remember to throw a parade afterward.
Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there and who might one day want to send them somewhere else. Trust me, a guy who thought 50.7% was a mandate isn't going to pick up on the subtleties of a parade for just service in an unjust war. He's going to be looking for funnel cake.
Besides, those little yellow ribbons aren't really for the troops. They need body armor, shorter stays and a USO show by the cast of "Laguna Beach."
The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war and then making absolutely no sacrifices other than enduring two Wolf Blitzer shows a day. Though there should be a ribbon for that.
I understand the guilt. We know we're sending recruits to do our dirty work, and we want to seem grateful.
After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object to a war we barely understood.
But blaming the president is a little too easy. The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of people ignoring their morality, by the way, is also Jack Abramoff's pet name for the House of Representatives.
I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel.
But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam.
And sometimes, for reasons I don't understand, you get to just hang out in Germany.
I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up with money, did well in school and hasn't so much as served on jury duty for his country. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.
I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health and a safe, immediate return. But, please, no parades.
Seriously, the traffic is insufferable.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/24/2006 12:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
I'm sure this idiot speaks for entire LA Times editorial staff.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
01/24/2006 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
What a perfect example of the noncritical thinking that paralyzed more populous and technologically advanced civilizations such as Rome and Constantinople, to be chipped away and felled at the hands of barbarians. Let's face it, Joel Stein is just too much a pussy to spit in a soldier's face. He needs a long vacation to ShariaLand.
Posted by: ed ||
01/24/2006 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
ed, I think you nailed it. And I must admit, even first-level self-awareness is refreshing, compared to the blatant hypocrisy of those with whom he shares opionions in common.
#6
We should put it in perspective. Opinion writers are scum and have pretentions to greatness, so they despise those that are truly great. The public shows its support for them by not riding them out of town on a rail, nothing more.
However, for those of us who don't support the ink-stained wretches, we may feel free to show our lack of support by riding them out of town on a rail. With tar, feathers, dunce cap, backwards, and with a sign about their neck saying "traitor".
#8
Marine Corps morale is probably going to plummet now that they know Joel Stein doesn't support them.
Posted by: Matt ||
01/24/2006 14:38 Comments ||
Top||
#9
At last--an honest moonbat!
That being said, after wading thru his angry screed I come to a surprisingly optimistic conclusion. He is finaly starting to process reality. In a few years, after our victory in the GWOT sinks in, he may come to realize his errors. He may even wind up like Christopher Hitchens, someone who I disagree with yet profoundly respect.
But before any of this can happen, the moonbat must first be honest about himself, and be willing to express his honesty where it can be heard and commented on in public. Let The Healing Begin(tm).
In the mean time, if I run into this willfully ignorant, treasonous sh!t, I'm still going to kick the stuffings out of him. Repeatedly. After I inform him that he and those like him are the sole reason the Enemy haven't quit yet.
Posted by: N guard ||
01/24/2006 15:27 Comments ||
Top||
#10
In 1st para JS says, "... Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on."
#11
the Calvin cartoon pissing stickers...they're passe - have been for years...this Santa Monica puss thinks he's touching a nerve among the rustics with that reference
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/24/2006 16:33 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Calvin urinating is a sticker that you see on the cars/trucks of people wanting you to know that they are bad boys. calvin urinating
#14
Joel Stein? Meh, the entire staff, ownership and all stockholders are worthless. I hope he gets punched out. People who have his convictions and opinions don't count or even matter. They should be treated like that.
I dont support journalist. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes the concept of a free press. Supporting journalism is a position that even Calvin maybe is willing to urinate on.
Im sure Id like the writers. Theyre seem so full of themselves, young, arrogant, up to entertaining anyone. If youre wandering into the guidance counselors office and decide to spend 4 years of your life for easy courses in college, Id want to hang with you in the frat house.
And I've got no problem with other people the ones who were for the Iraq war supporting the concept of an unrestrained free press. If you think telling the enemy every aspect of operations, endangering lives and liberty is a good idea, then by all means, support away. Load up on those pieces coin and pick up some dead wood media, the lumber industry is making money off of.
But Im not for unrestrained reporting during a war. And being against such absolutes and saying you support it is one of the wussiest positions those who believe in preserving this country and its citizens against death and destruction have ever taken - and theyre wussy by definition. Its as if the one lesson they took away from successful wars wasnt to avoid conflicts without absolute clarity of purpose but to remember to insure that those who actively aided and supported the enemy were not punished to the fullest extent that could be brought against them.
Blindly lending support to the commercial media, I fear, will keep putting good men and women in danger longer by giving their killers the means to carry out their viscous intentions. Trust me, a writer whos never put himself before the people to have his political views adjudged doesnt have a mandate to decide what should the enemy know and what they shouldnt know. Hes going to be looking for another professional recognition award from his peers.
Besides, those award little statues arent really for the study. They need something big to compensate for their little peckers, to impress the boys at the office, and get invited on Oprah. .
The real purpose of those in house awards is to ease the guilt they feel for betraying their country and fellow citizens as reflected in the nose dive the circulation numbers have. The only sacrifices they have to enduring is putting up with stockholders who demand a return on investment. There should be a ribbon for that.
I dont understand the guilt. Its not like Al Qaeda is grateful. They just want to see someone else who seems grateful.
After we decide that we made a mistake, by allowing lies, distortions, and compromise of wartime operational practices, we dont want to hammer the main steam media who were used by their politicized editors and staff. Or even the shareholders, who were deceived by false claims. And certainly not ourselves, who failed to object as the main stream media went to work for the enemy.
But blaming the DNC is a little too easy. The truth is that people who create lies are ultimately responsible, whether theyre following their ideology or not. An gaggle of reporters making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but a gaggle of reporters ignoring their morality is horrifying. An army of reporters ignoring their morality, by the way, is also George Soros name for the New York Times.
I do sympathize with people who became journalist to just plain make money and hit on babes, especially after the movie All the Presidents Men. Robert Redford was such a role model in that movie. I get made when I get spam promising me babes and a do nothing job. A job that will be replaced in ten years by a generation getting their news from the damn internet. Hey, maybe thats the new employment for former dead tree media hacks, spammer. About the same level of trust and respect.
But when you volunteer for the dead tree media, you pretty much know youre not going to write the next Pulitzer. So, youre willing signing up to be a hack for neo-socialist anti-Americanism, for better or worse. Sometime you get lucky and get to report about massive brush fires near LA, but other times its another creative writing assignment on Katrina.
And sometimes, for reasons I dont understand, you get to hang out in Hyannisport with a drunken womanizing over the hill Senator. But there are babes!
I know this is all easy to say for a guy who grew up in the working middle class, did well in school and did his twenty. But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the neo-Marxist Young Che Cell of our local university could easily key my thirteen year old Nissen, and I'm listed in the phone book.
Im not advocating that we chase journalist out of the country like we did the traitorous Tories after the American War of Independence, but we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our journalists what they need, real productive skills that society needs. Like marking up the local Penny Saver for english. But, please, no awards.
Seriously, the small print is insufferable.
Posted by: Not Joel Stein ||
01/24/2006 18:02 Comments ||
Top||
#16
This guy ain't unique. He writes what many of the true leftists think but don't dare say. It is not like it is hard to detect that. Is it hard to detect insincerity when they say "I support the troops" and then go on to act as the propaganda wing of the Islamists. It may be a litle suprising that one of these jerks would come out and say he doesn't support the troops, but don't kid yourself, that is the majority leftist opinion - but most of them think it is a stealth opinion.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/24/2006 18:27 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Charles Johnson sez he thinks Stein was trying to be funny.
heh.
Now someone locate this dickweed. N Guard's idea rings like a bell. First guy to get to him just stomps his ass into the ground. Mebbe offer an RB Deputy Sheriff's badge to the lucky stiff who gets the honor.
#19
Hugh Hewitt interviewed Stein for his radio program.
Transcript can be accessed at
http://hughhewitt.com/
Posted by: Mark Z ||
01/24/2006 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#20
But it's really not that easy to say because anyone remotely affiliated with the military could easily beat me up, and I'm listed in the phone book.
98% of the military wouldn't bother, Stein. Partly because it isn't professional, partly because they know you'd simultaneously call the cops and crawl to your computer to get it all down for your next column.
But mostly because Stein, well, you ain't worth beating up.
#21
Wonder how long Joel Stein thinks he would be allowed to live in an Islamofascist state? This is the sort of parasite who is happy to let other people fight and die so that he is free to pose and condescend. In the same vein as his Calvin comment, Joel Stein is a putz
Posted by: Random Thoughts ||
01/24/2006 20:34 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Read the trasncript. Hewitt just kills him. Figuratively, that is.
Posted by: Matt ||
01/24/2006 20:43 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Stein is a privileged myopic wussie dipwad. Bitch-slapping him would be a waste of time.
Joel Stein is desperate for attention. He grew up in Edison, N.J., went to Stanford and then worked for Martha Stewart for a year. After two years of fact-checking at various publications, he got hired as a sports editor at Time Out New York. Two years later he lucked into a job as a staff writer for Time magazine, where over seven and a half years he wrote a dozen cover stories on subjects such as Michael Jordan, Las Vegas, the Internet bubble and it being Time and he being a warm body in the office low-carb diets.
Being desperate for attention, he has appeared on any TV show that asks him: VH1's "I Love the Decade You Tell Me I Love," HBO's "Phoning It In," Comedy Central's "Reel Comedy" and E! Entertainment's "101 Hottest Hot Hotties' Hotness."
After teaching a class in humor writing at Princeton, he moved to L.A. at the beginning of 2005 to write a column for the Los Angeles Times. He still contributes to Time and whatever magazines allow him to. But his heart belongs to you, L.A. Times reader. Only to you.
#27
We need more like him. Plainspeak on the left. Plainspeak on the right. So the unwashed masses can understand their honest choice. California is a lost cause, but everywhere else may save us.
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.
KHARTOUM - Sudan said on Monday it was ready to withdraw its bid to head the African Union and avoid a division over its appointment that could sink Darfur peace talks and which critics say could damage Africa's credibility.
Kuwait's cabinet on Tuesday unanimously nominated Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah as new emir of the Gulf Arab oil producer, Justice Minister Ahmad Baqer said. Baqer told Reuters an official letter with the nomination will be sent to parliament on Wednesday. If confirmed by parliament, Sheikh Sabah, who has been de facto ruler of Kuwait for the past four years, will officially replace ailing emir Sheikh Saad al-Abdulla al-Sabah who was voted out unanimously by parliament on health grounds earlier in the day.
Kuwait's ailing amir, Shaikh 
The Bush administration is preparing to reverse course on cooperating with China in the area of space technology. Pentagon officials tell us the new policy is being readied for the upcoming visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao. President Bush, through the White House National Security Council, wants to adopt a Chinese proposal that calls for joint U.S.-China space rescue operations, in case something goes wrong during a U.S. or Chinese manned spaceflight.
MANHATTAN, Kan. (AP) - President Bush pushed back Monday at critics of his once-secret domestic spying effort, saying it should be termed a ``terrorist surveillance program'' and contending it has the backing of legal experts, key lawmakers and the Supreme Court. 
NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge ruled Monday that the Defense Department must release the identities of hundreds of Guantanamo Bay detainees to The Associated Press. U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff told the government to provide the information in the form of unredacted copies of transcripts and documents related to 558 military hearings in which detainees were permitted to challenge their incarcerations.
UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 23 -- An internal U.N. probe of the department that runs international peacekeeping operations has uncovered extensive evidence of mismanagement and possible fraud, and triggered the suspension of eight procurement officials pending an investigation, according to U.N. officials and documents.
BAGHDAD - Less than 24 hours before the resumption of the trial of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on charges of crimes against humanity, the court on Monday appointed a new interim chief judge. 
Candidates have been making a final appeal to Palestinians for their support on the last day of official campaigning before the elections. In Gaza, parties held their final pre-election rallies, Islamist challenger Hamas in the central town of Dair al-Balah and ruling party Fatah in front of the late Yasser Arafat's home.
A unanimous UN Security Council put fresh pressure on Lebanon to disarm the Hizb Allah group, in line with a council resolution adopted 16 months ago. A council statement on Monday also urged Lebanon to conduct free and fair presidential elections without outside interference, and called on Syria to take measures to stem the flow of arms and people across its border into neighbouring Lebanon. 
US President George W. Bush will not accept a nuclear Iran, John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said Monday. Bolton, speaking from New York via video hook-up to the Interdisciplinary Center's Herzliya Conference, said that Bush was determined to pursue the issue through peaceful and diplomatic means, "but has made clear that a nuclear Iran is not acceptable."
