Well, this comes as a pleasant surprise. I thought that the Bush administration would find a way to sidestep the court order requiring them to release the identies of Guantanamo detainees.
But, lo and behold, they complied! [Read story.]
Now some families will finally learn why their loved one never returned home from that trip to the convenience store.
And maybe this is the beginning of a new era of accountability (although I won't hold my breath).
06 March 2006
05 March 2006
Spike Lee to Condoleezza Rice: "Condi, stop smoking that crack."
On this Academy Awards Sunday, the New York Daily News offers an interesting little piece in which filmmaker Spike Lee lets loose on Condi Rice. [Read it.]
Oscar gets political
This year's Academy Awards extravaganza will happen this evening. [Check out the buzz.]
Right-wing pundits are grumbling about the fact that all five nominees in the "Best Picture" category have social messages that they don't like.
What are they afraid of? Do they fear that America will go to the cineplex to be entertained and instead end up really thinking about the issues and coming to the conclusion that perhaps racism, homophobia, and greed are not really so good for our society?
For the record, I've seen all five of the "Best Picture" nominees. Everyone should see all of them. Then maybe the world would be smarter, kinder, and more peaceful.
Would that really be so bad?
Right-wing pundits are grumbling about the fact that all five nominees in the "Best Picture" category have social messages that they don't like.
What are they afraid of? Do they fear that America will go to the cineplex to be entertained and instead end up really thinking about the issues and coming to the conclusion that perhaps racism, homophobia, and greed are not really so good for our society?
For the record, I've seen all five of the "Best Picture" nominees. Everyone should see all of them. Then maybe the world would be smarter, kinder, and more peaceful.
Would that really be so bad?
03 March 2006
Gonzales's goons claim exceptions to torture ban
They keep moving the goalposts and changing the rules as it suits them.
After Bush threatened to veto the McCain amendment outlawing torture, he eventually caved in and signed it. But that doesn't matter. Gonzales can simply decide that the law doesn't apply in cases that might be inconvenient or contrary to their torturous agenda.
Think about it: They're going out of their way to torture people.
This is how our tax dollars are being spent.
From today's Washington Post via truthout:
-----
Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in US custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.
In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."
[...]
US District Judge Gladys Kessler said in a hearing yesterday that she found allegations of aggressive US military tactics used to break the detainee hunger strike "extremely disturbing" and possibly against US and international law. But Justice Department lawyers argued that even if the tactics were considered in violation of McCain's language, detainees at Guantánamo would have no recourse to challenge them in court.
-----
[Read more.]
After Bush threatened to veto the McCain amendment outlawing torture, he eventually caved in and signed it. But that doesn't matter. Gonzales can simply decide that the law doesn't apply in cases that might be inconvenient or contrary to their torturous agenda.
Think about it: They're going out of their way to torture people.
This is how our tax dollars are being spent.
From today's Washington Post via truthout:
-----
Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in US custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.
In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."
[...]
US District Judge Gladys Kessler said in a hearing yesterday that she found allegations of aggressive US military tactics used to break the detainee hunger strike "extremely disturbing" and possibly against US and international law. But Justice Department lawyers argued that even if the tactics were considered in violation of McCain's language, detainees at Guantánamo would have no recourse to challenge them in court.
-----
[Read more.]
Iraq war vet: "I trusted my country"
The Iraq war is taking a toll on our troops in more than just the obvious ways.
Below, courtesy of truthout, is an excerpt from the written testimony of Garret Reppenhagen, returned Iraq War Veteran, submitted to the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs:
-----
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on issues concerning Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs. I joined the Army in August of 2001 and became a Cavalry/Scout at Ft. Knox, Kentucky. I was indoctrinated into a military that I was proud of and had the courage to serve because I trusted that the government of the United States would use me in a responsible and necessary manner.
I was on leave from a deployment in Kosovo when the Iraq War began. I watched in dread, waiting for a layover flight at Dallas/Ft. Worth airport, when the ultimatum for Saddam and his sons to surrender ran out. Bradleys crossed the line into Iraq, and Baghdad was exploding on the televisions. Surrounding me were a crowd of people cheering like the Cowboys just won the Super Bowl. I started to feel like the reality of war and the policies of the administration were not as honest as they appeared.
In February of 2004, it was my turn to go to war. I was with 2-63 AR 1st Infantry Division stationed in Baquba, Iraq, as a Sniper in a six-man team. During my year there, I saw a lack of effort by our government to provide the US Soldier with the ability to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. As events unfolded, like Abu Ghraib and the battles in Fallujah, a growing resentment of the Iraqi people swelled the support for the insurgency. Our mission there became impossible.
We turned all our missions into surviving Iraq for a year. Missions like counter ambush, counter mortar, road clearing and house raids. No longer were we able to attempt reconstruction operations. The alienation of the people we were supposed to be trying to hand democracy to increased and the Improvised Explosive Devices, Rocket Propelled Grenade Ambushes and mortar attacks increased.
I left Iraq, eventually was honorably discharged after a ten month involuntary extension, and returned home to begin working for veteran advocacy. I have a growing network of friends who are veterans and deal with all the major veteran organizations. I frequently visit Walter Reed and speak to a dozen veterans struggling with PTSD and other forms of mental illness. It is a constant frustration to see these men and women treated without proper care and respect. And the problem is only growing.
These soldiers are returning and overcoming the most unimaginable physical and mental disabilities. But the question they all eventually begin to ask is "Why?" With the growing public opinion being that war was not only wrong, but also based on lies, the soldier who was sent to fight has a conflict with the fact that his sacrifice had no meaning. The lack of meaning ultimately creates a breakdown of character that is fundamental in a soldier's degradation of mental health. Because the war is so "wrong," it can create not just a guilt of the traumatic experience in Iraq, it also makes the soldiers shameful of the people they have become.
-----
[Read more.]
Below, courtesy of truthout, is an excerpt from the written testimony of Garret Reppenhagen, returned Iraq War Veteran, submitted to the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs:
-----
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on issues concerning Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs. I joined the Army in August of 2001 and became a Cavalry/Scout at Ft. Knox, Kentucky. I was indoctrinated into a military that I was proud of and had the courage to serve because I trusted that the government of the United States would use me in a responsible and necessary manner.
I was on leave from a deployment in Kosovo when the Iraq War began. I watched in dread, waiting for a layover flight at Dallas/Ft. Worth airport, when the ultimatum for Saddam and his sons to surrender ran out. Bradleys crossed the line into Iraq, and Baghdad was exploding on the televisions. Surrounding me were a crowd of people cheering like the Cowboys just won the Super Bowl. I started to feel like the reality of war and the policies of the administration were not as honest as they appeared.
In February of 2004, it was my turn to go to war. I was with 2-63 AR 1st Infantry Division stationed in Baquba, Iraq, as a Sniper in a six-man team. During my year there, I saw a lack of effort by our government to provide the US Soldier with the ability to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. As events unfolded, like Abu Ghraib and the battles in Fallujah, a growing resentment of the Iraqi people swelled the support for the insurgency. Our mission there became impossible.
We turned all our missions into surviving Iraq for a year. Missions like counter ambush, counter mortar, road clearing and house raids. No longer were we able to attempt reconstruction operations. The alienation of the people we were supposed to be trying to hand democracy to increased and the Improvised Explosive Devices, Rocket Propelled Grenade Ambushes and mortar attacks increased.
I left Iraq, eventually was honorably discharged after a ten month involuntary extension, and returned home to begin working for veteran advocacy. I have a growing network of friends who are veterans and deal with all the major veteran organizations. I frequently visit Walter Reed and speak to a dozen veterans struggling with PTSD and other forms of mental illness. It is a constant frustration to see these men and women treated without proper care and respect. And the problem is only growing.
These soldiers are returning and overcoming the most unimaginable physical and mental disabilities. But the question they all eventually begin to ask is "Why?" With the growing public opinion being that war was not only wrong, but also based on lies, the soldier who was sent to fight has a conflict with the fact that his sacrifice had no meaning. The lack of meaning ultimately creates a breakdown of character that is fundamental in a soldier's degradation of mental health. Because the war is so "wrong," it can create not just a guilt of the traumatic experience in Iraq, it also makes the soldiers shameful of the people they have become.
-----
[Read more.]
02 March 2006
Bush further endangers mine workers
Remember George W. Bush's speeches after the recent mining disasters, in which he pretended to care?
Well, actions speak louder than words. The Bush administration has actually been decreasing fines for mine safety violations, again siding with the corporations at the expense of worker safety.
[Read story.]
Don't expect to see Jenna and Barb applying for jobs as mine workers.
Well, actions speak louder than words. The Bush administration has actually been decreasing fines for mine safety violations, again siding with the corporations at the expense of worker safety.
[Read story.]
Don't expect to see Jenna and Barb applying for jobs as mine workers.
Ray McGovern: "I do not wish to be associated with torture"
Bravo!
Today, Ray McGovern, who worked for 27 years as a CIA analyst, returned an award medallion to the CIA in protest of torture.
Below, courtesy of truthout, is an excerpt from his letter that accompanied the returned medal:
-----
As a matter of conscience, I am returning the Intelligence Commendation Award medallion given me for "especially commendable service" during my 27-year career in CIA. The issue is torture, which inhabits the same category as rape and slavery - intrinsically evil. I do not wish to be associated, however remotely, with an agency engaged in torture.
Reports in recent years that CIA personnel were torturing detainees were highly disturbing. Confirmation of a sort came last fall, when CIA Director Porter Goss and Dick Cheney - dubbed by the Washington Post "Vice President for Torture" - descended on Sen. John McCain to demand that the CIA be exempted from his amendment's ban on torture. Subsequent reports implicated agency personnel in several cases of prisoner abuse in Iraq, including a few in which detainees died during interrogation.
The obeisance of CIA directors George Tenet and Porter Goss in heeding illegal White House directives has done irreparable harm to the CIA and the country - not to mention those tortured and killed. That you, as Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, show more deference to the White House than dedication to your oversight responsibilities under the Constitution is another profound disappointment. How can you and your counterpart, Sen. Pat Roberts, turn a blind eye to torture - letting some people get away, literally, with murder - and square that with your conscience?
-----
[Read more.]
Today, Ray McGovern, who worked for 27 years as a CIA analyst, returned an award medallion to the CIA in protest of torture.
Below, courtesy of truthout, is an excerpt from his letter that accompanied the returned medal:
-----
As a matter of conscience, I am returning the Intelligence Commendation Award medallion given me for "especially commendable service" during my 27-year career in CIA. The issue is torture, which inhabits the same category as rape and slavery - intrinsically evil. I do not wish to be associated, however remotely, with an agency engaged in torture.
Reports in recent years that CIA personnel were torturing detainees were highly disturbing. Confirmation of a sort came last fall, when CIA Director Porter Goss and Dick Cheney - dubbed by the Washington Post "Vice President for Torture" - descended on Sen. John McCain to demand that the CIA be exempted from his amendment's ban on torture. Subsequent reports implicated agency personnel in several cases of prisoner abuse in Iraq, including a few in which detainees died during interrogation.
The obeisance of CIA directors George Tenet and Porter Goss in heeding illegal White House directives has done irreparable harm to the CIA and the country - not to mention those tortured and killed. That you, as Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, show more deference to the White House than dedication to your oversight responsibilities under the Constitution is another profound disappointment. How can you and your counterpart, Sen. Pat Roberts, turn a blind eye to torture - letting some people get away, literally, with murder - and square that with your conscience?
-----
[Read more.]
The new Katrina scandal: What does it prove?
On 01 September 2005 (three days after Hurricane Katrina made landfall along the Gulf Coast), George W. Bush said "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."
And, of course, the big news today is that the Bush administration really did know in advance that Hurricane Katrina could have a devastating effect on the Gulf Coast, and could possibly breach the levees. [Read story.]
Bush spokesperson Trent Duffy is scrambling to do damange control. He said, "I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing. He received multiple briefings from multiple officials, and he was completely engaged at all times."
So Bush was completely engaged at all times. Yeah, he was fully engaged in a few rounds of golf while New Orleans drowned.
So what this proves is that they:
a) are totally inept; or
b) just didn't care; or
c) all of the above.
And, of course, the big news today is that the Bush administration really did know in advance that Hurricane Katrina could have a devastating effect on the Gulf Coast, and could possibly breach the levees. [Read story.]
Bush spokesperson Trent Duffy is scrambling to do damange control. He said, "I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing. He received multiple briefings from multiple officials, and he was completely engaged at all times."
So Bush was completely engaged at all times. Yeah, he was fully engaged in a few rounds of golf while New Orleans drowned.
So what this proves is that they:
a) are totally inept; or
b) just didn't care; or
c) all of the above.
01 March 2006
Execution irony
Today, March 1, is Death Penalty Abolition Day, marking the anniversary of the date in 1847 in which the state of Michigan became the first English speaking territory to abolish capital punishment.
In honor of this occasion, I offer the following tidbits of irony:
• From The Times (UK): "A meticulous paper trail alleged to link Saddam Hussein to the execution by hanging of 148 Iraqis was shown to a Baghdad court today as his trial resumed for a brief but unusually well-mannered session."
• From the New York Review of Books: "George W. Bush during his six years as governor of Texas presided over 152 executions, more than any other governor in the recent history of the United States."
In honor of this occasion, I offer the following tidbits of irony:
• From The Times (UK): "A meticulous paper trail alleged to link Saddam Hussein to the execution by hanging of 148 Iraqis was shown to a Baghdad court today as his trial resumed for a brief but unusually well-mannered session."
• From the New York Review of Books: "George W. Bush during his six years as governor of Texas presided over 152 executions, more than any other governor in the recent history of the United States."
Supreme Court makes it legal to threaten and harrass medical workers and desperate pregnant women
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal extortion and racketerring laws cannot be used to ban protests by violent anti-choice wackos.
[Read story.]
NOW's Reaction
Here is the text of a very good press release by the National Organization for Women (NOW) regarding this ruling:
-----
February 28, 2006
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that could add to the increasing difficulty women face in obtaining reproductive health services. If the Court's 8-0 decision in Scheidler, et al., v. National Organization for Women (NOW), et al. and Operation Rescue v. NOW, et al. ushers in a return to clinic violence in the United States, NOW stands ready to fight in every jurisdiction.
For two decades, NOW has pursued every legal strategy, including three Supreme Court cases, to stave off the violent attacks that gripped this country from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. This case, brought under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, was one of the most successful long-term strategies. The federal jury found unanimously that these defendants had engaged in a nationwide criminal enterprise to close women's health clinics through extortion, violence and threats of violence, and specified over a hundred acts in furtherance of their efforts.
The filing of this case and the resulting injunction, which protected clinics nationwide, contributed to the dramatic reduction in clinic violence that we have witnessed in recent years, and we will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to protect women's right to obtain abortion services.
This case was never about protests or pickets—it was about violence and extortion. But without strong protections against clinic assaults, the legal right to abortion could become meaningless. If women are too terrified to walk into clinics and healthcare providers are too terrified to keep their doors open, then we will have lost the fight for reproductive freedom even with Roe v. Wade still on the books.
We will not let that happen. NOW helped to draft and enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act in 1994, and we will use that law to its fullest extent in pursuing those who would use violent means to prevent women from making their own reproductive decisions. As Susan Hill (president of the National Women's Health Organization and owner of the two clinics that joined NOW in the lawsuit) said, "[w]e cannot allow anti-abortion extremists to take this decision as a signal to once again increase violent activity aimed at clinics and clinic staff."
In the coming weeks, our attorneys will make available a FACE kit that local clinics and lawyers can use to enforce the FACE act in their communities. We must do whatever is necessary to protect doctors and patients, or our legal right to abortion will be a hollow shell.
Joseph Scheidler, Randall Terry and other leaders of the self-described "pro-life mafia" had vowed to stop abortion "by any means necessary," and the ensuing attacks included arson, bombings, violent blockades, death threats and even murder. By vacating the injunction on narrow, technical grounds, the Supreme Court sided today with thugs and bullies, not peaceful protesters.
-----
[View it on the NOW site.]
[Read story.]
NOW's Reaction
Here is the text of a very good press release by the National Organization for Women (NOW) regarding this ruling:
-----
February 28, 2006
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that could add to the increasing difficulty women face in obtaining reproductive health services. If the Court's 8-0 decision in Scheidler, et al., v. National Organization for Women (NOW), et al. and Operation Rescue v. NOW, et al. ushers in a return to clinic violence in the United States, NOW stands ready to fight in every jurisdiction.
For two decades, NOW has pursued every legal strategy, including three Supreme Court cases, to stave off the violent attacks that gripped this country from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. This case, brought under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, was one of the most successful long-term strategies. The federal jury found unanimously that these defendants had engaged in a nationwide criminal enterprise to close women's health clinics through extortion, violence and threats of violence, and specified over a hundred acts in furtherance of their efforts.
The filing of this case and the resulting injunction, which protected clinics nationwide, contributed to the dramatic reduction in clinic violence that we have witnessed in recent years, and we will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to protect women's right to obtain abortion services.
This case was never about protests or pickets—it was about violence and extortion. But without strong protections against clinic assaults, the legal right to abortion could become meaningless. If women are too terrified to walk into clinics and healthcare providers are too terrified to keep their doors open, then we will have lost the fight for reproductive freedom even with Roe v. Wade still on the books.
We will not let that happen. NOW helped to draft and enact the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act in 1994, and we will use that law to its fullest extent in pursuing those who would use violent means to prevent women from making their own reproductive decisions. As Susan Hill (president of the National Women's Health Organization and owner of the two clinics that joined NOW in the lawsuit) said, "[w]e cannot allow anti-abortion extremists to take this decision as a signal to once again increase violent activity aimed at clinics and clinic staff."
In the coming weeks, our attorneys will make available a FACE kit that local clinics and lawyers can use to enforce the FACE act in their communities. We must do whatever is necessary to protect doctors and patients, or our legal right to abortion will be a hollow shell.
Joseph Scheidler, Randall Terry and other leaders of the self-described "pro-life mafia" had vowed to stop abortion "by any means necessary," and the ensuing attacks included arson, bombings, violent blockades, death threats and even murder. By vacating the injunction on narrow, technical grounds, the Supreme Court sided today with thugs and bullies, not peaceful protesters.
-----
[View it on the NOW site.]
28 February 2006
Marjorie Cohn: Human rights hypocrisy
In a recent column in truthout, Marjorie Cohn does a brilliant job of exposing the Bush administration's most recent display of hypocrisy with regard to human rights -- its attitudes towards the UN Human Rights Council.
An excerpt:
-----
Last week, the President of the United Nations General Assembly announced a new proposal to revamp the UN Human Rights Commission and rename it the UN Human Rights Council. The product of months of negotiations between the 53 member nations of the Commission, the proposal will be voted on by the General Assembly next month. The United States, however, immediately denounced the compromise. John Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations, said it has too many "deficiencies" and should be renegotiated.
Bolton stated last month, "Membership on the Commission by some of the world's most notorious human rights abusers mocks the legitimacy of the Commission and the United Nations itself." But Bolton was not referring to the United States, which invaded Iraq in violation of the UN Charter, killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, and tortured and abused prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
The United States and Western European countries have criticized the Human Rights Commission because it has elected countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, Libya and Cuba, whom the Western nations have accused of human rights violations.
In a press release issued last week, the Permanent Mission of Cuba to the United Nations said, "If any government does not deserve to be part of the Council, it is the one who represents a State that benefited from the slavery and the transatlantic slave trade, that kept a 'constructive commitment' to extend the existence of the apartheid regime, that protects and bestows impunity to the human rights violations perpetrated by the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other Arab territories, that supported the bloody military dictatorships of Latin America, that today tortures and murders in the name of liberty which the majority of its own citizens do not benefit from, that fails to meet its commitments and obligations of official development assistance to the Third World, and that threatens and attacks the Southern countries."
The United States objects to the new proposal's commitment to the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. The refusal to enshrine rights such as employment, education, food, housing, and health care in US law is the reason the United States has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Since the Reagan administration, there has been a policy to define human rights in terms of civil and political rights, but to dismiss economic, social and cultural rights as akin to social welfare, or socialism.
Indeed, the United States' inhumane policy toward Cuba exemplifies this dichotomy. The US government criticizes civil and political rights in Cuba while disregarding Cubans' superior access to universal housing, health care, education and public accommodations and its guarantee of paid maternity leave and equal pay rates.
The US also opposes the new proposal's affirmation that the right to development is on par with the rights to peace and security, and human rights, as the three pillars of the United Nations system. Last year, the United States and Australia were the only nations to vote against a General Assembly resolution on the Right to Development, which was passed by a vote of 48 to 2, with 2 abstentions. It reaffirmed the principle that the right to development is an "inalienable human right."
A member of the Commission since it was formed in 1947, the US was furious when it was voted off the Commission in 2001. Many countries were angry with the United States for its policies in the Middle East, and its opposition to the International Criminal Court, the treaty to ban land mines, the Kyoto Protocol, and making AIDS drugs available to everyone.
It was only after behind the scenes negotiations among Western nations that the US was able to manipulate its way back onto the Commission one year later.
The new proposal provides that members of the Council will serve for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms. This is objectionable to the United States, which wants to guarantee a spot on the Council for the five permanent members of the Security Council - France, Britain, Russia, China and the US.
The United States also wants open voting on Council membership instead of the secret ballot elections that the proposal calls for. The US would like to make it easier to blackmail smaller nations for their votes.
In his statement last week, Bolton also said, "We consider the United States a champion of human rights. It is a fundamental and bedrock tenet upon which our country was founded. Thus, when the United States falls short of the high standards we set for ourselves, we move swiftly and decisively to vigorously prosecute offenders who are US citizens in our courts." Yet only a few low-ranking soldiers and a chief warrant officer have been prosecuted for the widespread and systematic torture and abuse of prisoners in US custody.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
Last week, the President of the United Nations General Assembly announced a new proposal to revamp the UN Human Rights Commission and rename it the UN Human Rights Council. The product of months of negotiations between the 53 member nations of the Commission, the proposal will be voted on by the General Assembly next month. The United States, however, immediately denounced the compromise. John Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations, said it has too many "deficiencies" and should be renegotiated.
Bolton stated last month, "Membership on the Commission by some of the world's most notorious human rights abusers mocks the legitimacy of the Commission and the United Nations itself." But Bolton was not referring to the United States, which invaded Iraq in violation of the UN Charter, killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, and tortured and abused prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
The United States and Western European countries have criticized the Human Rights Commission because it has elected countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, Libya and Cuba, whom the Western nations have accused of human rights violations.
In a press release issued last week, the Permanent Mission of Cuba to the United Nations said, "If any government does not deserve to be part of the Council, it is the one who represents a State that benefited from the slavery and the transatlantic slave trade, that kept a 'constructive commitment' to extend the existence of the apartheid regime, that protects and bestows impunity to the human rights violations perpetrated by the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other Arab territories, that supported the bloody military dictatorships of Latin America, that today tortures and murders in the name of liberty which the majority of its own citizens do not benefit from, that fails to meet its commitments and obligations of official development assistance to the Third World, and that threatens and attacks the Southern countries."
The United States objects to the new proposal's commitment to the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. The refusal to enshrine rights such as employment, education, food, housing, and health care in US law is the reason the United States has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Since the Reagan administration, there has been a policy to define human rights in terms of civil and political rights, but to dismiss economic, social and cultural rights as akin to social welfare, or socialism.
Indeed, the United States' inhumane policy toward Cuba exemplifies this dichotomy. The US government criticizes civil and political rights in Cuba while disregarding Cubans' superior access to universal housing, health care, education and public accommodations and its guarantee of paid maternity leave and equal pay rates.
The US also opposes the new proposal's affirmation that the right to development is on par with the rights to peace and security, and human rights, as the three pillars of the United Nations system. Last year, the United States and Australia were the only nations to vote against a General Assembly resolution on the Right to Development, which was passed by a vote of 48 to 2, with 2 abstentions. It reaffirmed the principle that the right to development is an "inalienable human right."
A member of the Commission since it was formed in 1947, the US was furious when it was voted off the Commission in 2001. Many countries were angry with the United States for its policies in the Middle East, and its opposition to the International Criminal Court, the treaty to ban land mines, the Kyoto Protocol, and making AIDS drugs available to everyone.
It was only after behind the scenes negotiations among Western nations that the US was able to manipulate its way back onto the Commission one year later.
The new proposal provides that members of the Council will serve for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms. This is objectionable to the United States, which wants to guarantee a spot on the Council for the five permanent members of the Security Council - France, Britain, Russia, China and the US.
The United States also wants open voting on Council membership instead of the secret ballot elections that the proposal calls for. The US would like to make it easier to blackmail smaller nations for their votes.
In his statement last week, Bolton also said, "We consider the United States a champion of human rights. It is a fundamental and bedrock tenet upon which our country was founded. Thus, when the United States falls short of the high standards we set for ourselves, we move swiftly and decisively to vigorously prosecute offenders who are US citizens in our courts." Yet only a few low-ranking soldiers and a chief warrant officer have been prosecuted for the widespread and systematic torture and abuse of prisoners in US custody.
-----
[Read more.]
27 February 2006
Canadian waitress with secondhand lung cancer fights for life
I have written in the past about the benefits of smoking bans in the workplace. My main point on this issue is that one person's rights end where the next person's rights begin. Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. Your right to smoke cigarettes and pollute your own lungs ends where my own airspace begins.
Now, underscoring my arguments, is the case of Heather Crowe, a Canadian waitress with inoperable lung cancer from secondhand smoke.
Since her diagnosis some years ago, Heather has been campaigning against second-hand smoke. She says, "I want to be the last person to die from second-hand smoke at work." [Read an article about her.]
Now the smokefree grapevine tells me that Heather is "struggling" to keep her pain under control, and may be in her final days. I hope that her efforts to save others from her fate will not be wasted.
Now, underscoring my arguments, is the case of Heather Crowe, a Canadian waitress with inoperable lung cancer from secondhand smoke.
Since her diagnosis some years ago, Heather has been campaigning against second-hand smoke. She says, "I want to be the last person to die from second-hand smoke at work." [Read an article about her.]
Now the smokefree grapevine tells me that Heather is "struggling" to keep her pain under control, and may be in her final days. I hope that her efforts to save others from her fate will not be wasted.
26 February 2006
Judge orders U.S. to identify detainees
It could be that hundreds of prisoners that the Bush administration caused to "disappear" in the "war on terror" might see an end to their legal limbo. Or at least their families will finally know why they never returned from that trip to the convenience store.
From the Associated Press via Common Dreams:
-----
A U.S. federal judge ordered the Pentagon on Thursday to release the identities of hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to The Associated Press, a move which would force the government to break its secrecy and reveal the most comprehensive list yet of those who have been held at the U.S. navy base in Cuba.
Some of the hundreds of prisoners in the war on terror being held at Guantanamo have been imprisoned as long as four years. Only a handful have been officially identified.
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in New York City ordered the Defence Department to release uncensored transcripts of detainee hearings, which contain the names of prisoners in custody and those who have been held and later released. Previously released documents have had identities and other details blacked out.
The judge ordered the government to hand over the documents by March 3 after the Defence Department said Wednesday it would not appeal his earlier ruling in the lawsuit filed by the AP.
On Jan. 23, Rakoff ordered the military to turn over uncensored copies of transcripts and other documents from more than 550 military hearings for detainees at the prison camp.
U.S. authorities now hold about 490 prisoners at Guantanamo on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. Most have been held without charges since the camp opened four years ago, prompting complaints from human rights groups and others.
"AP has been fighting for this information since the fall of 2004," said Dave Tomlin, assistant general counsel for the news organization.
"We’re grateful to have a decision at last that keeping prisoner identities secret is against the public policy and the law of this country."
The military has never officially released the names of any prisoners, except the 10 who have been charged.
Most of those who are known emerged from the approximately 400 civil suits filed on behalf of prisoners by lawyers who obtained their names from family or other detainees, said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which represents about 200 detainees.
"They have been very resistant to releasing the names, Ratner said.
"There are still people there who don’t have a lawyer and we don’t know who they are. They have disappeared."
-----
[Read more.]
From the Associated Press via Common Dreams:
-----
A U.S. federal judge ordered the Pentagon on Thursday to release the identities of hundreds of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to The Associated Press, a move which would force the government to break its secrecy and reveal the most comprehensive list yet of those who have been held at the U.S. navy base in Cuba.
Some of the hundreds of prisoners in the war on terror being held at Guantanamo have been imprisoned as long as four years. Only a handful have been officially identified.
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in New York City ordered the Defence Department to release uncensored transcripts of detainee hearings, which contain the names of prisoners in custody and those who have been held and later released. Previously released documents have had identities and other details blacked out.
The judge ordered the government to hand over the documents by March 3 after the Defence Department said Wednesday it would not appeal his earlier ruling in the lawsuit filed by the AP.
On Jan. 23, Rakoff ordered the military to turn over uncensored copies of transcripts and other documents from more than 550 military hearings for detainees at the prison camp.
U.S. authorities now hold about 490 prisoners at Guantanamo on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. Most have been held without charges since the camp opened four years ago, prompting complaints from human rights groups and others.
"AP has been fighting for this information since the fall of 2004," said Dave Tomlin, assistant general counsel for the news organization.
"We’re grateful to have a decision at last that keeping prisoner identities secret is against the public policy and the law of this country."
The military has never officially released the names of any prisoners, except the 10 who have been charged.
Most of those who are known emerged from the approximately 400 civil suits filed on behalf of prisoners by lawyers who obtained their names from family or other detainees, said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which represents about 200 detainees.
"They have been very resistant to releasing the names, Ratner said.
"There are still people there who don’t have a lawyer and we don’t know who they are. They have disappeared."
-----
[Read more.]
Abu Ghraib in our own backyard
News from abroad in the "war on terror" has prompted many to ponder the deplorable prison conditions at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other locations far from home. However, many Americans might not realize that prison conditions are often just as harsh right here in the U.S.
Human rights and criminal justice groups have compiled numerous accounts of prisoner abuse in correctional facilities across the country.
Prison overcrowding is an enormous issue. Overcrowding is not only a problem in itself, but it triggers more problems that are bound to occur when too many human beings are forced to occupy close spaces.
The prison overcrowding problem is the inevitable result of mandatory prison sentencing for perpetrators of non-violent crimes, such as drug offenses and immigration violations, as well as mentally ill persons who would be better served in a psychiatric facility.
Inmates are routinely being denied medication and medical care, and this sometimes results in death or permanent injury.
They are often deprived of soap, toothpaste, razors, and other basic grooming necessities, even prior to court appearances.
They are underfed. They are often forced to buy or bargain for treats from the commissary because the regular prison meals offer inadequate portions if they are delivered at all.
Guards routinely discriminate against certain prisoners, address them using racial slurs, and arbitrarily keep them from attending religious services.
Physical violence against prisoners by guards, including gratuitous and malicious beatings and shocks from electric stun devices, is rampant, as is prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse.
Female prisoners have it even worse. According to a recent report by Amnesty International, correctional officials have subjected female inmates to rape, other sexual assault, sexual extortion, and groping during body searches. Male correctional officials watch women undressing, in the shower, or on the toilet. And male correctional officials retaliate, often brutally, against female inmates who complain about sexual assault and harassment.
Pregnant inmates are denied proper care, even during childbirth. Shackling of all prisoners, including pregnant prisoners, is policy in federal prisons and almost all state prisons. Shackling during labor may cause complications during delivery, such as hemorrhage or decreased fetal heart rate. If a caesarian section is needed, a delay of even five minutes may result in permanent brain damage to the baby.
Some people point out that prison isn't supposed to be a country club, and that prisoners deserve harsh treatment in return for the crimes that they have committed. This is a naive view, because even the lower-security prison systems are a far cry from Club Med, as Martha Stewart can attest. Prisoners are there to serve their time in accordance with their sentences. Torture and ill-treatment are not part of the sentence. Furthermore, they are unconstitutional.
We need to fix the problems in our prisons. Prison guards must be trained in proper procedures for the management and treatment of prisoners, and they must be held accountable for their behavior. Our elected officials must enact legislation to ensure that prisoners receive adequate medical care and that prison conditions in general are effectively monitored for adherence to basic standards of humane treatment.
The way we treat the lowliest among us is a testament to the nature of our society. The world looked in horror at the photos from Abu Ghraib. How then should we view the same abusive treatment when it's directed at our very own citizens?
Our tax dollars must not be used to support cruel and inhumane treatment of any human being.
Human rights and criminal justice groups have compiled numerous accounts of prisoner abuse in correctional facilities across the country.
Prison overcrowding is an enormous issue. Overcrowding is not only a problem in itself, but it triggers more problems that are bound to occur when too many human beings are forced to occupy close spaces.
The prison overcrowding problem is the inevitable result of mandatory prison sentencing for perpetrators of non-violent crimes, such as drug offenses and immigration violations, as well as mentally ill persons who would be better served in a psychiatric facility.
Inmates are routinely being denied medication and medical care, and this sometimes results in death or permanent injury.
They are often deprived of soap, toothpaste, razors, and other basic grooming necessities, even prior to court appearances.
They are underfed. They are often forced to buy or bargain for treats from the commissary because the regular prison meals offer inadequate portions if they are delivered at all.
Guards routinely discriminate against certain prisoners, address them using racial slurs, and arbitrarily keep them from attending religious services.
Physical violence against prisoners by guards, including gratuitous and malicious beatings and shocks from electric stun devices, is rampant, as is prisoner-on-prisoner sexual abuse.
Female prisoners have it even worse. According to a recent report by Amnesty International, correctional officials have subjected female inmates to rape, other sexual assault, sexual extortion, and groping during body searches. Male correctional officials watch women undressing, in the shower, or on the toilet. And male correctional officials retaliate, often brutally, against female inmates who complain about sexual assault and harassment.
Pregnant inmates are denied proper care, even during childbirth. Shackling of all prisoners, including pregnant prisoners, is policy in federal prisons and almost all state prisons. Shackling during labor may cause complications during delivery, such as hemorrhage or decreased fetal heart rate. If a caesarian section is needed, a delay of even five minutes may result in permanent brain damage to the baby.
Some people point out that prison isn't supposed to be a country club, and that prisoners deserve harsh treatment in return for the crimes that they have committed. This is a naive view, because even the lower-security prison systems are a far cry from Club Med, as Martha Stewart can attest. Prisoners are there to serve their time in accordance with their sentences. Torture and ill-treatment are not part of the sentence. Furthermore, they are unconstitutional.
We need to fix the problems in our prisons. Prison guards must be trained in proper procedures for the management and treatment of prisoners, and they must be held accountable for their behavior. Our elected officials must enact legislation to ensure that prisoners receive adequate medical care and that prison conditions in general are effectively monitored for adherence to basic standards of humane treatment.
The way we treat the lowliest among us is a testament to the nature of our society. The world looked in horror at the photos from Abu Ghraib. How then should we view the same abusive treatment when it's directed at our very own citizens?
Our tax dollars must not be used to support cruel and inhumane treatment of any human being.
FBI 'warned military on Guantanamo techniques'
They still keep telling us that the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and elsewhere was the work of merely "a few bad apples".
That batch of bad apples keeps growing. Now, according to the FBI, it includes a big orchard called the Defense Intelligence Agency. And they knew that they were acting illegally, because the FBI had told them so.
From the Financial Times via truthout:
-----
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents at Guantánamo Bay warned military interrogators that some aggressive interrogation techniques were illegal, according to documents released on Thursday.
The American Civil Liberties Organisation released internal FBI memos that outline agents' concerns about the interrogation tactics being used by Defense Intelligence Agency interrogators at the prison.
According to a May 2003 memo, FBI agents in late 2002 believed DIA interrogators were using tactics that were of "questionable effectiveness."
"Not only are these tactics at odds with legally permissible interviewing techniques used by US law enforcement agencies in the US, but they are being employed by personnel in GTMO [Guantánamo] who appear to have little, if any, experience eliciting information for judicial purposes," the memo said.
Another memo documents how DIA interrogators used techniques such as showing pornographic videos and wrapping prisoners in the Israeli flag. It also alleges that the interrogators sometimes posed as FBI agents.
According to the May 2003 memo, FBI agents complained that the US military officer overseeing interrogations at Guantánamo "blatantly misled" the Pentagon into believing that the FBI had endorsed some of the more aggressive techniques.
The report said Major General Geoffrey Miller, overall commander of the prison from late 2002, who was later sent to Abu Ghraib to improve the flow of intelligence from interrogations, "favoured" the more aggressive techniques "despite FBI assertions that such methods could easily result in the elicitation of unreliable and legally inadmissible information."
"We now possess overwhelming evidence that political and military leaders endorsed interrogation methods that violate both domestic and international law," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU lawyer.
-----
[Read more.]
That batch of bad apples keeps growing. Now, according to the FBI, it includes a big orchard called the Defense Intelligence Agency. And they knew that they were acting illegally, because the FBI had told them so.
From the Financial Times via truthout:
-----
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents at Guantánamo Bay warned military interrogators that some aggressive interrogation techniques were illegal, according to documents released on Thursday.
The American Civil Liberties Organisation released internal FBI memos that outline agents' concerns about the interrogation tactics being used by Defense Intelligence Agency interrogators at the prison.
According to a May 2003 memo, FBI agents in late 2002 believed DIA interrogators were using tactics that were of "questionable effectiveness."
"Not only are these tactics at odds with legally permissible interviewing techniques used by US law enforcement agencies in the US, but they are being employed by personnel in GTMO [Guantánamo] who appear to have little, if any, experience eliciting information for judicial purposes," the memo said.
Another memo documents how DIA interrogators used techniques such as showing pornographic videos and wrapping prisoners in the Israeli flag. It also alleges that the interrogators sometimes posed as FBI agents.
According to the May 2003 memo, FBI agents complained that the US military officer overseeing interrogations at Guantánamo "blatantly misled" the Pentagon into believing that the FBI had endorsed some of the more aggressive techniques.
The report said Major General Geoffrey Miller, overall commander of the prison from late 2002, who was later sent to Abu Ghraib to improve the flow of intelligence from interrogations, "favoured" the more aggressive techniques "despite FBI assertions that such methods could easily result in the elicitation of unreliable and legally inadmissible information."
"We now possess overwhelming evidence that political and military leaders endorsed interrogation methods that violate both domestic and international law," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU lawyer.
-----
[Read more.]
25 February 2006
UAE gave $1 million to Bush Library Foundation
Why does Dubya keep defending the sale of our ports to a a terrorist-friendly company controlled by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) despite the bipartisan backlash and despite the UAE's known ties to anti-American terrorism?
Could it have anything to do with the fact that the UAE gave $1 million to the Bush Library?
From the Associated Press via Chron.com:
-----
A sheik from the United Arab Emirates contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station.
The UAE owns Dubai Port Co., which is taking operations from London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates six U.S. ports. A political uproar has ensued over the deal, which the White House approved without congressional oversight.
The donations were made in the early 1990s for the library, which houses the papers of former President George Bush, the current president's father.
The list of donors names Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan al Nahyan and the people of the United Arab Emirates as one donor in the $1 million or more category.
The amount of the gift grants them recognition on the engraved donor wall in the library entrance or on the paving bricks that line the library's walkways, according to library documents.
Roman Popaduik, chairman of the Bush Library Foundation that collects donations, said he could not discuss details of the gifts except to say the amount category and whether it was before or after 1997.
-----
[Read more.]
Could it have anything to do with the fact that the UAE gave $1 million to the Bush Library?
From the Associated Press via Chron.com:
-----
A sheik from the United Arab Emirates contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station.
The UAE owns Dubai Port Co., which is taking operations from London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates six U.S. ports. A political uproar has ensued over the deal, which the White House approved without congressional oversight.
The donations were made in the early 1990s for the library, which houses the papers of former President George Bush, the current president's father.
The list of donors names Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan al Nahyan and the people of the United Arab Emirates as one donor in the $1 million or more category.
The amount of the gift grants them recognition on the engraved donor wall in the library entrance or on the paving bricks that line the library's walkways, according to library documents.
Roman Popaduik, chairman of the Bush Library Foundation that collects donations, said he could not discuss details of the gifts except to say the amount category and whether it was before or after 1997.
-----
[Read more.]
South Dakota vs. women
It has begun.
Yesterday, South Dakota passed a law that makes it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion except where necessary to save a woman's life (and that latter caveat could open up a big can of subjective worms).
The law makes no exceptions for rape or incest.
Now think about this: Under this new law, if a young girl in South Dakota is raped by her drunken uncle and becomes pregnant as a result, she will be forced to carry that pregnancy to term.
Furthermore, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother.
And they call this "pro-life"?
[Read MSNBC's coverage of this story.]
Yesterday, South Dakota passed a law that makes it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion except where necessary to save a woman's life (and that latter caveat could open up a big can of subjective worms).
The law makes no exceptions for rape or incest.
Now think about this: Under this new law, if a young girl in South Dakota is raped by her drunken uncle and becomes pregnant as a result, she will be forced to carry that pregnancy to term.
Furthermore, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother.
And they call this "pro-life"?
[Read MSNBC's coverage of this story.]
24 February 2006
Doctors and executions
A California death row case has opened a can of worms regarding whether lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and the state can't find physicians willing to participate to ensure that the process is humane.
An article in today's Christian Science Monitor summarizes the issue (and related medical ethics issues) quite well.
An excerpt:
-----
In California this week, two anesthesiologists refused to monitor the administering of a barbiturate designed to render unconscious convicted killer Michael Morales before he was to be killed with two other drugs.
The execution was called off - or, at least, postponed. Death-penalty opponents cheered. And the roiling debate over the ethics of medical professionals' involvement in the officially sanctioned ending of human life got a little hotter.
At issue: Should a healer help the executioner?
Beyond abortion (where the question of when life begins remains the major debating point), this includes executions carried out by the state and physician-assisted suicide now legal in Oregon and being considered in other states.
Similarly, medical ethics are involved in growing questions about military doctors taking part in the interrogation of prisoners and the force-feeding of those on a hunger strike.
In the eyes of most professional medical organizations, physicians have the ethical and professional obligation to do what they can to make people well, not to help kill them. The American Medical Association (AMA) code of ethics states, "A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution."
While most states now favor lethal drugs in capital punishment, courts increasingly are taking a skeptical view of a procedure that critics say violates the Constitution.
"The issue is whether the method the government has chosen to employ in our case constitutes cruel and unusual punishment," says Steve Northup, a Richmond, Va., attorney with a client on death row for gang murders. "There's a lot of scientific opinion out there to the effect that it causes a great deal of pain."
In the California case, a federal district judge ordered - for the first time - that licensed medical personnel administer the sedative.
In recent weeks, stays of execution have been granted in four cases, and the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Florida case involving lethal injection.
-----
[Read more.]
An article in today's Christian Science Monitor summarizes the issue (and related medical ethics issues) quite well.
An excerpt:
-----
In California this week, two anesthesiologists refused to monitor the administering of a barbiturate designed to render unconscious convicted killer Michael Morales before he was to be killed with two other drugs.
The execution was called off - or, at least, postponed. Death-penalty opponents cheered. And the roiling debate over the ethics of medical professionals' involvement in the officially sanctioned ending of human life got a little hotter.
At issue: Should a healer help the executioner?
Beyond abortion (where the question of when life begins remains the major debating point), this includes executions carried out by the state and physician-assisted suicide now legal in Oregon and being considered in other states.
Similarly, medical ethics are involved in growing questions about military doctors taking part in the interrogation of prisoners and the force-feeding of those on a hunger strike.
In the eyes of most professional medical organizations, physicians have the ethical and professional obligation to do what they can to make people well, not to help kill them. The American Medical Association (AMA) code of ethics states, "A physician, as a member of a profession dedicated to preserving life when there is hope of doing so, should not be a participant in a legally authorized execution."
While most states now favor lethal drugs in capital punishment, courts increasingly are taking a skeptical view of a procedure that critics say violates the Constitution.
"The issue is whether the method the government has chosen to employ in our case constitutes cruel and unusual punishment," says Steve Northup, a Richmond, Va., attorney with a client on death row for gang murders. "There's a lot of scientific opinion out there to the effect that it causes a great deal of pain."
In the California case, a federal district judge ordered - for the first time - that licensed medical personnel administer the sedative.
In recent weeks, stays of execution have been granted in four cases, and the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Florida case involving lethal injection.
-----
[Read more.]
Supreme Court rules that you are not necessarily entitled to introduce that evidence that could overturn your death sentence
You're innocent. You have an alibi. But you get convicted of murder anyway and you are sentenced to death.
In a last-ditch effort to prove your innocence, you ask the state to allow your mother to take the stand and present alibi-related testimony that could clear your name.
But, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States just said that you don't necessarily have the right to present that kind of evidence.
The case was Oregon v. Guzek, and the Supremes held that states are free to put limits on the innocence-related evidence that may be offered at sentencing. [Read story.]
To download a PDF of the Supreme Court's opinion in this case, click here.
This is some sad and scary news for the wrongfully convicted and those who care about them.
In a last-ditch effort to prove your innocence, you ask the state to allow your mother to take the stand and present alibi-related testimony that could clear your name.
But, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States just said that you don't necessarily have the right to present that kind of evidence.
The case was Oregon v. Guzek, and the Supremes held that states are free to put limits on the innocence-related evidence that may be offered at sentencing. [Read story.]
To download a PDF of the Supreme Court's opinion in this case, click here.
This is some sad and scary news for the wrongfully convicted and those who care about them.
23 February 2006
Port insecurity and the UAE-Osama link: The plot thickens
According to a post on the Daily Kos, the Emir of Dubai, and the head of the family that owns Dubai Ports, is an associate and hunting companion of Osama bin Laden. [Read more.]
New report from Human Rights First on detainee deaths
Human Rights First has independently investigated the deaths of detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yesterday they released their report, which describes more than 20 detainee deaths in detail.
To download the report in PDF format, click here.
While you're at it, to view more of the latest photos from Abu Ghraib, click here.
To download the report in PDF format, click here.
While you're at it, to view more of the latest photos from Abu Ghraib, click here.
More fun with port insecurity
They "re-elected" George W. Bush in 2004 because Bush managed to convince them that he could keep them safe from "the evil-doers".
Then he turns around and defends the hiring of a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to manage our port security. Another fox guarding the American henhouse -- except this fox has known ties to al-Qaeda and 9/11 (which would present an easy opportunity for terrorists to infiltrate the operation).
Bush is so adamant about allowing al-Qaeda's pals to guard our ports that he is threatening to veto any efforts to stop the deal from going through. Gotta wonder what's really behind it all, especially considering that Bush is under strong bipartisan pressure on this issue. But rather than pay serious credence to his critics, Bush responds with another "bring 'em on".
But don't worry. George will keep us safe. After all, he's wiretapping peace activists.
From yesterday's Washington Post:
-----
President Bush yesterday strongly defended an Arab company's attempt to take over the operation of seaports in Baltimore and five other cities, threatening a veto if Congress tries to kill a deal his administration has blessed.
Facing a sharp bipartisan backlash, Bush took the unusual step of summoning reporters to the front of Air Force One to condemn efforts to block a firm from the United Arab Emirates from purchasing the rights to manage ports that include those in New York and New Orleans.
The Bush administration recently approved the sale of a London-based company that currently manages the ports to state-run Dubai Ports World. The deal has raised alarms on Capitol Hill and with the Republican governors of Maryland and New York. Critics note that the United Arab Emirates has been a home base for terrorists.
The federal government has approval rights over business transactions with national security implications. In this case, Dubai Ports World would handle shipping arrivals, departures, unloading at the docks and many security-related functions. The federal government would oversee those security operations.
"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company," Bush told reporters.
He said the transaction was thoroughly scrutinized by administration officials, who concluded that it poses no threat to national security. He praised the United Arab Emirates as a close ally against terrorism and warned of sending the wrong message to the world by condemning a business just because it is Arab-owned.
But many Republicans and Democrats who represent the seaport regions remain deeply skeptical of a UAE-owned company playing such a central role at some of the most sensitive entry points in the country. They noted that some of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial hub.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called on Bush to delay the takeover and reevaluate the security risk. Frist threatened to introduce legislation to delay the takeover if Bush does not act quickly.
Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) called Bush politically tone-deaf. "Of all the bills to veto, if he lays down this gauntlet, he'll probably have 350 members of the House ready to accept that challenge," Foley said.
Bush welcomed the fight. "They ought to look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do," Bush said. "But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it, with a veto."
-----
[Read more.]
By the way, this is not any kind of phobia regarding Arabs. It's about the old adage that you are the company you keep. And when the company you keep (and finance) is al-Qaeda, you can't expect a warm welcome when you're hired to guard us against your friends.
Then he turns around and defends the hiring of a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to manage our port security. Another fox guarding the American henhouse -- except this fox has known ties to al-Qaeda and 9/11 (which would present an easy opportunity for terrorists to infiltrate the operation).
Bush is so adamant about allowing al-Qaeda's pals to guard our ports that he is threatening to veto any efforts to stop the deal from going through. Gotta wonder what's really behind it all, especially considering that Bush is under strong bipartisan pressure on this issue. But rather than pay serious credence to his critics, Bush responds with another "bring 'em on".
But don't worry. George will keep us safe. After all, he's wiretapping peace activists.
From yesterday's Washington Post:
-----
President Bush yesterday strongly defended an Arab company's attempt to take over the operation of seaports in Baltimore and five other cities, threatening a veto if Congress tries to kill a deal his administration has blessed.
Facing a sharp bipartisan backlash, Bush took the unusual step of summoning reporters to the front of Air Force One to condemn efforts to block a firm from the United Arab Emirates from purchasing the rights to manage ports that include those in New York and New Orleans.
The Bush administration recently approved the sale of a London-based company that currently manages the ports to state-run Dubai Ports World. The deal has raised alarms on Capitol Hill and with the Republican governors of Maryland and New York. Critics note that the United Arab Emirates has been a home base for terrorists.
The federal government has approval rights over business transactions with national security implications. In this case, Dubai Ports World would handle shipping arrivals, departures, unloading at the docks and many security-related functions. The federal government would oversee those security operations.
"I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a [British] company," Bush told reporters.
He said the transaction was thoroughly scrutinized by administration officials, who concluded that it poses no threat to national security. He praised the United Arab Emirates as a close ally against terrorism and warned of sending the wrong message to the world by condemning a business just because it is Arab-owned.
But many Republicans and Democrats who represent the seaport regions remain deeply skeptical of a UAE-owned company playing such a central role at some of the most sensitive entry points in the country. They noted that some of the hijackers involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial hub.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called on Bush to delay the takeover and reevaluate the security risk. Frist threatened to introduce legislation to delay the takeover if Bush does not act quickly.
Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) called Bush politically tone-deaf. "Of all the bills to veto, if he lays down this gauntlet, he'll probably have 350 members of the House ready to accept that challenge," Foley said.
Bush welcomed the fight. "They ought to look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do," Bush said. "But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it, with a veto."
-----
[Read more.]
By the way, this is not any kind of phobia regarding Arabs. It's about the old adage that you are the company you keep. And when the company you keep (and finance) is al-Qaeda, you can't expect a warm welcome when you're hired to guard us against your friends.
22 February 2006
Economic reality check -- 24/7
George W. Bush keeps telling us how well our economy is doing.
Rather than take his word for it, do your homework.
For the real economic truth, check out this site: EconomyInCrisis.org
Rather than take his word for it, do your homework.
For the real economic truth, check out this site: EconomyInCrisis.org
21 February 2006
37 million poor hidden in the land of plenty
Ronald Reagan won reelection by asking us if we were better off than we were 4 years ago. Interestingly, a similar approach worked for George W. Bush, too.
So, for a change of pace, let's take a look at the facts.
From The Observer (UK):
-----
The flickering television in Candy Lumpkins's trailer blared out The Bold and the Beautiful. It was a fantasy daytime soap vision of American life with little relevance to the reality of this impoverished corner of Kentucky.
The Lumpkins live at the definition of the back of beyond, in a hollow at the top of a valley at the end of a long and muddy dirt road. It is strewn with litter. Packs of stray dogs prowl around, barking at strangers. There is no telephone and since their pump broke two weeks ago Candy has collected water from nearby springs. Oblivious to it all, her five-year-old daughter Amy runs barefoot on a wooden porch frozen by a midwinter chill.
It is a vision of deep and abiding poverty. Yet the Lumpkins are not alone in their plight. They are just the negative side of the American equation. America does have vast, wealthy suburbs, huge shopping malls and a busy middle class, but it also has vast numbers of poor, struggling to make it in a low-wage economy with minimal government help.
A shocking 37 million Americans live in poverty. That is 12.7 per cent of the population - the highest percentage in the developed world. They are found from the hills of Kentucky to Detroit's streets, from the Deep South of Louisiana to the heartland of Oklahoma. Each year since 2001 their number has grown.
Under President George W Bush an extra 5.4 million have slipped below the poverty line. Yet they are not a story of the unemployed or the destitute. Most have jobs. Many have two. Amos Lumpkins has work and his children go to school. But the economy, stripped of worker benefits like healthcare, is having trouble providing good wages.
Even families with two working parents are often one slice of bad luck - a medical bill or factory closure - away from disaster. The minimum wage of $5.15 (£2.95) an hour has not risen since 1997 and, adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest since 1956. The gap between the haves and the have-nots looms wider than ever. Faced with rising poverty rates, Bush's trillion-dollar federal budget recently raised massive amounts of defence spending for the war in Iraq and slashed billions from welfare programmes.
For a brief moment last year in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina brought America's poor into the spotlight. Poverty seemed on the government's agenda. That spotlight has now been turned off. 'I had hoped Katrina would have changed things more. It hasn't,' says Cynthia Duncan, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire.
-----
[Read more.]
So, for a change of pace, let's take a look at the facts.
From The Observer (UK):
-----
The flickering television in Candy Lumpkins's trailer blared out The Bold and the Beautiful. It was a fantasy daytime soap vision of American life with little relevance to the reality of this impoverished corner of Kentucky.
The Lumpkins live at the definition of the back of beyond, in a hollow at the top of a valley at the end of a long and muddy dirt road. It is strewn with litter. Packs of stray dogs prowl around, barking at strangers. There is no telephone and since their pump broke two weeks ago Candy has collected water from nearby springs. Oblivious to it all, her five-year-old daughter Amy runs barefoot on a wooden porch frozen by a midwinter chill.
It is a vision of deep and abiding poverty. Yet the Lumpkins are not alone in their plight. They are just the negative side of the American equation. America does have vast, wealthy suburbs, huge shopping malls and a busy middle class, but it also has vast numbers of poor, struggling to make it in a low-wage economy with minimal government help.
A shocking 37 million Americans live in poverty. That is 12.7 per cent of the population - the highest percentage in the developed world. They are found from the hills of Kentucky to Detroit's streets, from the Deep South of Louisiana to the heartland of Oklahoma. Each year since 2001 their number has grown.
Under President George W Bush an extra 5.4 million have slipped below the poverty line. Yet they are not a story of the unemployed or the destitute. Most have jobs. Many have two. Amos Lumpkins has work and his children go to school. But the economy, stripped of worker benefits like healthcare, is having trouble providing good wages.
Even families with two working parents are often one slice of bad luck - a medical bill or factory closure - away from disaster. The minimum wage of $5.15 (£2.95) an hour has not risen since 1997 and, adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest since 1956. The gap between the haves and the have-nots looms wider than ever. Faced with rising poverty rates, Bush's trillion-dollar federal budget recently raised massive amounts of defence spending for the war in Iraq and slashed billions from welfare programmes.
For a brief moment last year in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina brought America's poor into the spotlight. Poverty seemed on the government's agenda. That spotlight has now been turned off. 'I had hoped Katrina would have changed things more. It hasn't,' says Cynthia Duncan, a sociology professor at the University of New Hampshire.
-----
[Read more.]
20 February 2006
Churches stand up to Bush
Bush has his cozy relationship with the radical religious "right". But some churches have decided to take a formal stand against the hypocrisy.
From the Associated Press via Yahoo! News:
-----
A coalition of American churches sharply denounced the U.S.-led war in Iraq on Saturday, accusing Washington of "raining down terror" and apologizing to other nations for "the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."
The statement, issued at the largest gathering of Christian churches in nearly a decade, also warned the United States was pushing the world toward environmental catastrophe with a "culture of consumption" and its refusal to back international accords seeking to battle global warming.
"We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights," said the statement from representatives of the 34 U.S. members of World Council of Churches. "We mourn all who have died or been injured in this war. We acknowledge with shame abuses carried out in our name."
The World Council of Churches includes more than 350 mainstream Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox churches; the Roman Catholic Church is not a member. The U.S. groups in the WCC include the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, several Orthodox churches and Baptist denominations, among others.
The statement is part of widening religious pressure on the Bush administration, which still counts on the support of evangelical churches and other conservative denominations but is widely unpopular with liberal-minded Protestant congregations.
[...]
On Friday, the U.S. National Council of Churches — which includes many WCC members — released a letter appealing to Washington to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and saying reports of alleged torture violated "the fundamental Christian belief in the dignity of the human person."
[...]
The churches said they had "grown heavy with guilt" for not doing enough to speak out against the Iraq war and other issues. The statement asked forgiveness for a world that's "grown weary from the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."
-----
[Read more.]
From the Associated Press via Yahoo! News:
-----
A coalition of American churches sharply denounced the U.S.-led war in Iraq on Saturday, accusing Washington of "raining down terror" and apologizing to other nations for "the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."
The statement, issued at the largest gathering of Christian churches in nearly a decade, also warned the United States was pushing the world toward environmental catastrophe with a "culture of consumption" and its refusal to back international accords seeking to battle global warming.
"We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights," said the statement from representatives of the 34 U.S. members of World Council of Churches. "We mourn all who have died or been injured in this war. We acknowledge with shame abuses carried out in our name."
The World Council of Churches includes more than 350 mainstream Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox churches; the Roman Catholic Church is not a member. The U.S. groups in the WCC include the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, several Orthodox churches and Baptist denominations, among others.
The statement is part of widening religious pressure on the Bush administration, which still counts on the support of evangelical churches and other conservative denominations but is widely unpopular with liberal-minded Protestant congregations.
[...]
On Friday, the U.S. National Council of Churches — which includes many WCC members — released a letter appealing to Washington to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and saying reports of alleged torture violated "the fundamental Christian belief in the dignity of the human person."
[...]
The churches said they had "grown heavy with guilt" for not doing enough to speak out against the Iraq war and other issues. The statement asked forgiveness for a world that's "grown weary from the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."
-----
[Read more.]
19 February 2006
"Cyber Storm": Government gears up against political dissenters
It appears that the Bush administration is so afraid of bloggers who challenge the administration's actions that they are holding "war game" exercises in dealing with us.
From a piece by Will Pitt for truthout:
-----
They called it "Cyber Storm," and it was a war-game exercise run last week by the Department of Homeland Security. The war game had nothing to do with testing the security of our shipping ports, borders, infrastructure or airports. "Cyber Storm" was testing the government's ability to withstand an onslaught of information and protest from bloggers and online activists.
"Participants confirmed," wrote the Associated Press, that "parts of the worldwide simulation challenged government officials and industry executives to respond to deliberate misinformation campaigns and activist calls by Internet bloggers, online diarists whose "Web logs" include political rantings and musings about current events."
Say what? Online expressions of political opinion are so dangerous that the Department of Homeland Security must war-game scenarios to deal with them? Bloggers are potential terrorists now? Bloggers are the enemy? Last week, as far as DHS was concerned, they were.
We hear a great deal about enemies these days. Don't criticize the war, or you'll embolden the enemy. The enemy is clever and cruel. Stick with the White House and we'll defeat the enemy. Since the Bush administration no longer likes to mention the name Osama bin "Stayin' Alive" Laden in public, lest everyone remember a dramatic promise long broken, any specific definition of an enemy changes with the moment.
Sometimes, the enemy is in Iraq, and we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Sometimes, the enemy is in Iran, allegedly toiling with all its collective might to manufacture nuclear weapons. Sometimes, the enemy is in Palestine, where Hamas used George W. Bush's exported democracy to take over the government. Sometimes, the enemy is an American face on a television offering criticism of the White House. Last week, the enemy was a blogger making a political expression.
The enemy is never in Saudi Arabia, though that nation is the very birthing bed of international terrorism. The enemy is never in Israel, though that nation's far-right leadership has been a good deal of the impetus behind the Bush administration's calamitous push into Iraq. The enemy is never in China, even when they smack our planes out of the sky, because they own a substantial portion of our debt. The enemy is never in Pakistan, though that nation's fundamentalist wing allies itself with the Taliban, and though they actually do possess nuclear weapons. The enemy is occasionally mentioned as being in North Korea, but not often, because we want no part of that fight.
For a time, the enemy was in the United Arab Emirates. Two of the hijackers of the September 11 aircraft were citizens of the United Arab Emirates, and the funding behind those attacks was wired through the UAE's banking system. Republican and Democratic Senators believe the UAE has been used as a conduit for the proliferation of nuclear technology.
That was then, however. A company named Dubai Ports World intends to spend $6.8 billion to gain control of the management of shipping ports in New York and New Jersey, as well as in Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami. Dubai Ports World is foreign-owned, but is backed financially by the government of the United Arab Emirates. In other words, a nation suspected of being a significant player in the September 11 attacks is being allowed to take control of our borders. For the record, US ports handle an estimated two billion tons of cargo annually, with only 5% of that cargo undergoing inspection. The deal has already been granted regulatory clearance by the White House.
-----
[Read more.]
From a piece by Will Pitt for truthout:
-----
They called it "Cyber Storm," and it was a war-game exercise run last week by the Department of Homeland Security. The war game had nothing to do with testing the security of our shipping ports, borders, infrastructure or airports. "Cyber Storm" was testing the government's ability to withstand an onslaught of information and protest from bloggers and online activists.
"Participants confirmed," wrote the Associated Press, that "parts of the worldwide simulation challenged government officials and industry executives to respond to deliberate misinformation campaigns and activist calls by Internet bloggers, online diarists whose "Web logs" include political rantings and musings about current events."
Say what? Online expressions of political opinion are so dangerous that the Department of Homeland Security must war-game scenarios to deal with them? Bloggers are potential terrorists now? Bloggers are the enemy? Last week, as far as DHS was concerned, they were.
We hear a great deal about enemies these days. Don't criticize the war, or you'll embolden the enemy. The enemy is clever and cruel. Stick with the White House and we'll defeat the enemy. Since the Bush administration no longer likes to mention the name Osama bin "Stayin' Alive" Laden in public, lest everyone remember a dramatic promise long broken, any specific definition of an enemy changes with the moment.
Sometimes, the enemy is in Iraq, and we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Sometimes, the enemy is in Iran, allegedly toiling with all its collective might to manufacture nuclear weapons. Sometimes, the enemy is in Palestine, where Hamas used George W. Bush's exported democracy to take over the government. Sometimes, the enemy is an American face on a television offering criticism of the White House. Last week, the enemy was a blogger making a political expression.
The enemy is never in Saudi Arabia, though that nation is the very birthing bed of international terrorism. The enemy is never in Israel, though that nation's far-right leadership has been a good deal of the impetus behind the Bush administration's calamitous push into Iraq. The enemy is never in China, even when they smack our planes out of the sky, because they own a substantial portion of our debt. The enemy is never in Pakistan, though that nation's fundamentalist wing allies itself with the Taliban, and though they actually do possess nuclear weapons. The enemy is occasionally mentioned as being in North Korea, but not often, because we want no part of that fight.
For a time, the enemy was in the United Arab Emirates. Two of the hijackers of the September 11 aircraft were citizens of the United Arab Emirates, and the funding behind those attacks was wired through the UAE's banking system. Republican and Democratic Senators believe the UAE has been used as a conduit for the proliferation of nuclear technology.
That was then, however. A company named Dubai Ports World intends to spend $6.8 billion to gain control of the management of shipping ports in New York and New Jersey, as well as in Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami. Dubai Ports World is foreign-owned, but is backed financially by the government of the United Arab Emirates. In other words, a nation suspected of being a significant player in the September 11 attacks is being allowed to take control of our borders. For the record, US ports handle an estimated two billion tons of cargo annually, with only 5% of that cargo undergoing inspection. The deal has already been granted regulatory clearance by the White House.
-----
[Read more.]
Why can't we see this video?
As of this posting, this video is censored from U.S. view.
If you're in another country and able to view it, I'd love to hear about it.
If you're in another country and able to view it, I'd love to hear about it.
18 February 2006
Bush hires Arabs with terrorist ties to manage U.S. port security
Yes, you read that headline right. While Bush is spying on Americans suspected of having possible ties to terrorism, he turns over our port security operations to the United Arab Emirates, which certainly does have a history of supporting anti-U.S. terrorists.
From the Associated Press via The Washington Post:
-----
The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.
Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider its earlier approval of the deal.
The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a US committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from US intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said.
"We wanted to look at this one quite closely because it relates to ports," Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security Department, told The Associated Press. "It is important to focus on this partner as opposed to just what part of the world they come from. We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted."
The unusual defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Four senators and three House members asked the administration Thursday to reconsider its approval. The lawmakers contended the UAE is not consistent in its support of US terrorism-fighting efforts.
"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said in a House speech.
The Homeland Security Department said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence DP World gave false information or withheld vital details from US officials. The 30-day window for the committee to voice objections has ended.
[...]
US lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.
[...]
Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
-----
[Read more.]
From the Associated Press via The Washington Post:
-----
The Bush administration on Thursday rebuffed criticism about potential security risks of a $6.8 billion sale that gives a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.
Lawmakers asked the White House to reconsider its earlier approval of the deal.
The sale to state-owned Dubai Ports World was "rigorously reviewed" by a US committee that considers security threats when foreign companies seek to buy or invest in American industry, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from US intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said.
"We wanted to look at this one quite closely because it relates to ports," Stewart Baker, an assistant secretary in the Homeland Security Department, told The Associated Press. "It is important to focus on this partner as opposed to just what part of the world they come from. We came to the conclusion that the transaction should not be halted."
The unusual defense of the secretive committee, which reviews hundreds of such deals each year, came in response to criticism about the purchase of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
The world's fourth-largest ports company runs commercial operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Four senators and three House members asked the administration Thursday to reconsider its approval. The lawmakers contended the UAE is not consistent in its support of US terrorism-fighting efforts.
"The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real," Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said in a House speech.
The Homeland Security Department said it was legally impossible under the committee's rules to reconsider its approval without evidence DP World gave false information or withheld vital details from US officials. The 30-day window for the committee to voice objections has ended.
[...]
US lawmakers said the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan. They also said the UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the now-toppled Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.
[...]
Critics also have cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
-----
[Read more.]
No Child Left Behind: Let's get it right
The American Federation of Teachers has created a cute little musical animation outlining the problems with the so-called No Child Left Behind Act.
[Check it out.]
After watching the animation, you can click to take action.
[Check it out.]
After watching the animation, you can click to take action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)